According to the Department of the Treasury, 41 cents of every dollar spent by the federal government of the United States was borrowed.
Think about that. Think about that long and hard. Can you imagine that any sane person can possibly think that this kind of reckless spending can be sustained? This is the equivalent of a private person making about $25,500 spending $50,000 dollars every year. That means that they had to put $20,500 on the credit card in a single year to hit the same ridiculous deficit spending percentage our government has.
The Bi-partisan Debt Commission report has come out. It's harsh. It's going to ask Americans to accept deep cuts in many of the entitlements that we hold dear. It holds nothing back. Deep cuts are found in health and human services, Social Security, the Department of Defense, all of which been "untouchable" and "third rail issues" until now.
So its surprise to me that the commission itself was only able to get 11 of 17 to support the conclusions of the commission.
Two examples:
Max Baucus of Montana refused to support it because of the proposed gasoline tax hike that would damage the agriculture industry. That's nothing. If it were me I would end farm subsidies and let farmers grow whatever the heck they want in quantities they want.
Andy Stern, the president of Service Employees International Union (SEIU) also refused to support it, because it would have deep consequences for federal government employee union pension plans.
As long as people continue to think "Think not what I can do for my country, think what my country can do for me" we are going to head down the road of national insolvency. When will We, the People, wake up and realize that we've allowed our politicians to walk us down a path paved with the false glitter of lies and promises right to the very trapdoor of financial hell? When will we stop demanding that our government take money from some and give it to others, when in fact there just isn't any more money to take? Yeah, the rich are rich, but there aren't enough of them nor do they make enough that by themselves they could pull us out of this mess we are in. We have to reduce spending. All across the board.
Because unlike you or I who have our mortgage company or credit card company to send us into bankrupty, the federal government instead gets to answer to China and Qatar and the United Kingdom. And they aren't likely to be any more understanding than your local debt collector. What kind of a debt collector would China use, anyway? Do we really want to find out?
Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
Friday, December 3, 2010
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
8 Stood in the Way
Eight GOP senators voted against the 2-year earmark moratorium. They are:
I hate earmarks. I hate them because they are a backdoor currency to buy votes. And they are hard to find because they are not in the budget package. They can be attached to anything the house or senate passes. I note that only one of these senators is actually up for re-election next year. That's Mr. Lugar of Indiana.
There are also 7 Democratic senators that voted for the moratorium. They are:
- James Inhofe (OK)
- Bob Bennet (UT)
- Susan Collins (ME)
- Thad Cochran (MS)
- Richard Shelby (AL)
- Lisa Murkowski (AK)
- George Voinovich (OH)
- Dick Lugar (IN)
I hate earmarks. I hate them because they are a backdoor currency to buy votes. And they are hard to find because they are not in the budget package. They can be attached to anything the house or senate passes. I note that only one of these senators is actually up for re-election next year. That's Mr. Lugar of Indiana.
There are also 7 Democratic senators that voted for the moratorium. They are:
- Evan Bayh (IN)
- Michael Bennet (WI)
- Russ Feingold (WI)
- Clair McCaskill (MO)
- Bill Nelson (CO)
- Mark Udall (CO)
- Mark Warner (VA)
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Earmarks are a symptom of the problem.
In 2005, the Congressional Research Service found that earmark projects accounted for 1.92% of all federal outlays (spending). Now... that doesn't sound like a lot of money. Well, OK, in the jaundiced and stratosphere-high world of federal spending, that doesn't sound like a lot of money. In fact, it would work out to about $47.7 billion dollars, which compared to the $1300 billion that we overspent in 2010, doesn't really seem like much.
However, earmarks are a symptom of a Washington problem that John McCain and a few others have been warning us against for years. Earmarks are used to buy votes in both houses of Congress. It's a form of political currency that is used to influence members of both the House and the Senate to vote in a manner that they might otherwise have done. Here's an example:
House Leader: This reform legislation is very important and we really need your vote in order to guarantee it's passage.
Representative: I realize that this is important to you, but you have to understand that my constituency isn't effected that much by the problem your legislation addresses. And they will object to its cost.
House Leader: Well, what is your constituency interested in?
Representative: We've been trying for years to build that new county library, but the economy has made it difficult to get it done.
House Leader: Well, what if we were to attach, let's say, $600,000 in earmarked funding for that library to the proposed legislation?
Representative. My constituency will be grateful. You have my support.
See the problem? So even though earmarks themselves only represent a small amount of the total federal funds spent, they contribute to a bloated federal budget by making it more palatable to some members of Congress by sending some funding back home where it will do some good.
In the above example, would a new public library be of benefit to the community? Almost assuredly so. But because it's earmarked legislation, it never gets debated as part of the budget. Therefore, this funding is hard to find and hard to track.
If you get rid of these "pork-barrel" projects and hidden earmarked funding riders, then bills tend to be voted on based only on their relative merit and not because votes have been bought and paid for. For example, without the sweetheart deals that were made to certain members of Congress in states like Kansas and Louisiana, the United States National Health Care legislation (aka "Obamacare") would probably never have gotten enough votes to pass.
And that's why the Tea Party wants earmarks eliminated.
However, earmarks are a symptom of a Washington problem that John McCain and a few others have been warning us against for years. Earmarks are used to buy votes in both houses of Congress. It's a form of political currency that is used to influence members of both the House and the Senate to vote in a manner that they might otherwise have done. Here's an example:
House Leader: This reform legislation is very important and we really need your vote in order to guarantee it's passage.
Representative: I realize that this is important to you, but you have to understand that my constituency isn't effected that much by the problem your legislation addresses. And they will object to its cost.
House Leader: Well, what is your constituency interested in?
Representative: We've been trying for years to build that new county library, but the economy has made it difficult to get it done.
House Leader: Well, what if we were to attach, let's say, $600,000 in earmarked funding for that library to the proposed legislation?
Representative. My constituency will be grateful. You have my support.
See the problem? So even though earmarks themselves only represent a small amount of the total federal funds spent, they contribute to a bloated federal budget by making it more palatable to some members of Congress by sending some funding back home where it will do some good.
In the above example, would a new public library be of benefit to the community? Almost assuredly so. But because it's earmarked legislation, it never gets debated as part of the budget. Therefore, this funding is hard to find and hard to track.
If you get rid of these "pork-barrel" projects and hidden earmarked funding riders, then bills tend to be voted on based only on their relative merit and not because votes have been bought and paid for. For example, without the sweetheart deals that were made to certain members of Congress in states like Kansas and Louisiana, the United States National Health Care legislation (aka "Obamacare") would probably never have gotten enough votes to pass.
And that's why the Tea Party wants earmarks eliminated.
Monday, November 8, 2010
Quantitative Easing and the 2010 G20 Summit.
From the FT.com (Financial Times): In an article by Ralph Atkins while in Frankfurt, Germany, he wrote about the "collision" course that Germany has plotted with regards to the United States.
Our policy makers are whining about our trade imbalance. Wolfgang Schäuble accused the United States government of undermining its own policymaking credibility. "It is not consistent when the Americans accuse the Chinese of exchange rate manipulation and then steer the dollar exchange rate artificially lower with the help of their printing press." He went on to say that American's have lived for "too long" on credit, overblown their financial sector and neglected their industrial base. There are lots of reasons for the US problems -- German export surpluses are not part of them.
He further pointed out that we don't have a liquidity problem. There's a LOT of money in the system right now. What he didn't say, but was definitely implied, is that borrowing is low because banks have increased standards for borrowing and therefore far fewer borrowers are found to be credit worthy.
I've harped on this for years. Part of our problem is that in the noble but misguided effort to make home ownership attainable to more people, the federal government put great pressure on banks to ease lending requirements, with the result that potential borrowers were not required to provide much proof that they could pay back the money they were borrowing. This risky behavior resulted in the mortgage bust of 2008, although signs could be seen as early as 2005-6. Federal policy makers tried to exert pressure to roll back these practices but were soundly rebuffed by a Democrat-controlled Congress.
If our government continues to "monetize our debt", soon the Federal Bank will be the only organization that will be willing to buy our debt, and at that point the "Weimar moment" as Glenn Beck puts it, will happen.
Call your congressman, call your Senators and inform them that printing money is no solution to our problem. Demand that they reign in federal spending, but be aware that in so doing you will be asking the government to reduce services, some of which you or someone you love and know are depending on. How tight are you willing to pull your belt in order to gain federal fiscal responsibility? Because until you are willing to live with less entitlements from our government, our government will continue to spend its way into debtor's prison.
Our policy makers are whining about our trade imbalance. Wolfgang Schäuble accused the United States government of undermining its own policymaking credibility. "It is not consistent when the Americans accuse the Chinese of exchange rate manipulation and then steer the dollar exchange rate artificially lower with the help of their printing press." He went on to say that American's have lived for "too long" on credit, overblown their financial sector and neglected their industrial base. There are lots of reasons for the US problems -- German export surpluses are not part of them.
He further pointed out that we don't have a liquidity problem. There's a LOT of money in the system right now. What he didn't say, but was definitely implied, is that borrowing is low because banks have increased standards for borrowing and therefore far fewer borrowers are found to be credit worthy.
I've harped on this for years. Part of our problem is that in the noble but misguided effort to make home ownership attainable to more people, the federal government put great pressure on banks to ease lending requirements, with the result that potential borrowers were not required to provide much proof that they could pay back the money they were borrowing. This risky behavior resulted in the mortgage bust of 2008, although signs could be seen as early as 2005-6. Federal policy makers tried to exert pressure to roll back these practices but were soundly rebuffed by a Democrat-controlled Congress.
If our government continues to "monetize our debt", soon the Federal Bank will be the only organization that will be willing to buy our debt, and at that point the "Weimar moment" as Glenn Beck puts it, will happen.
Call your congressman, call your Senators and inform them that printing money is no solution to our problem. Demand that they reign in federal spending, but be aware that in so doing you will be asking the government to reduce services, some of which you or someone you love and know are depending on. How tight are you willing to pull your belt in order to gain federal fiscal responsibility? Because until you are willing to live with less entitlements from our government, our government will continue to spend its way into debtor's prison.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Maybe the GOP gets it. Day 2.
Representative Eric Cantor (R-VA), who will likely become the House Majority Leader in January, distributed a document called "Delivering on Our Commitment" that will be given to new the new class of Representatives. In it, Mr. Cantor reveals some detail on his proposed congressional agenda.
1) He opposes a VAT.
2) Create a forum with the nation to seriously discuss entitlement changes necessary to maintain our obligation to retirees while still reducing overall entitlement expenditures. Outreach to the "minority" party is stressed.
3) Continue the GOP moratorium on earmarked appropriations and based on an outcome of the Organizational Conference, extend it to both parties. In short, no House legislation including earmarks will be allowed to the floor for discussion or balloting.
4) A systematic, piece by piece approach to repealing or defund the United States National Health Care act and replace it with "common sense" legislation. I have no ideal what "common sense" legislation means.
5) Implementation of rules for articulating clear standards for bringing legislation to the floor of the House. In summary, an argument must show that the legislation is not more appropriately a state or local government issue and that Congress is within Constitutional limits to pass such legislation. Further, the legislation must include a plan for paying for its implementation. Shrinking the size of the Federal Government is a primary goal of these rules.
6) Changes to the Legislative Schedule and House Calendar, with focus on committee hearings and oversight uninterrupted by floor activities such as House votes. Oversight committee reports can be brought to the floor for debate or even adoption.
7) Eliminate expressions of appreciation and recognition for individuals, groups, events and institutions in order to focus on the critical work ahead of us. Also, consider designations and namings of post offices or other federal buildngs only once day a month.
8) A renewed focus on standardized goals, objectives and formats of oversight reporting in connection with a greater emphasis on individual member oversight initiative.
I have only one relevant piece of advice for Mr. Cantor. Every single category of federal spending needs to be critically scrutinized and that there are no sacred cows. Defense, Health and Human Services, the Federal bureaus and agencies, and yes, even Social Security all need to be looked at with an eye towards the reduction of spending.
1) He opposes a VAT.
2) Create a forum with the nation to seriously discuss entitlement changes necessary to maintain our obligation to retirees while still reducing overall entitlement expenditures. Outreach to the "minority" party is stressed.
3) Continue the GOP moratorium on earmarked appropriations and based on an outcome of the Organizational Conference, extend it to both parties. In short, no House legislation including earmarks will be allowed to the floor for discussion or balloting.
4) A systematic, piece by piece approach to repealing or defund the United States National Health Care act and replace it with "common sense" legislation. I have no ideal what "common sense" legislation means.
5) Implementation of rules for articulating clear standards for bringing legislation to the floor of the House. In summary, an argument must show that the legislation is not more appropriately a state or local government issue and that Congress is within Constitutional limits to pass such legislation. Further, the legislation must include a plan for paying for its implementation. Shrinking the size of the Federal Government is a primary goal of these rules.
6) Changes to the Legislative Schedule and House Calendar, with focus on committee hearings and oversight uninterrupted by floor activities such as House votes. Oversight committee reports can be brought to the floor for debate or even adoption.
7) Eliminate expressions of appreciation and recognition for individuals, groups, events and institutions in order to focus on the critical work ahead of us. Also, consider designations and namings of post offices or other federal buildngs only once day a month.
8) A renewed focus on standardized goals, objectives and formats of oversight reporting in connection with a greater emphasis on individual member oversight initiative.
I have only one relevant piece of advice for Mr. Cantor. Every single category of federal spending needs to be critically scrutinized and that there are no sacred cows. Defense, Health and Human Services, the Federal bureaus and agencies, and yes, even Social Security all need to be looked at with an eye towards the reduction of spending.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Grumpy Conservative, The 2010 Midterm Results Prove Nothing.
As of 5:00 PM on November 3, 2010, I've heard a President admit he made mistakes and I've heard a resurgent GOP and their pundits talking about a "mandate".
Florida Senator-elect Marco Rubio said it best. This election result is not an embrace by the people of the GOP, it is a second chance to get it right.
I'm already betting they don't. Because in order for the GOP to get it right, they are going to have to finally convince the American people that we no longer can afford all the programs, services and entitlements that we have come to expect from our federal government. They are going to have to convince the American people that they are going to have to cut over $600 billion dollars from the 2011 federal budget. They are going to have to repeal parts of the health care reform. But that's only the start.
They are going to have to convince the people that every category of the budget will need to be cut. They are going to have cut over $150 billion from health and human services. They are going to have to cut over $150 billion from the federal defense budget. They are going to have to dramatically change the way social security payments will be made to people who retire five or more years from now. They are going to have to cut and I mean DRAMATICALLY cut the budgets of federal agencies like the Dept of Education, the Dept of Energy, the Dept of Agriculture, the National Endowment for the Arts, the FBI, CIA. Across board. Nothing is sacred.
Oh yeah, they are going to have to RAISE taxes too. On everybody. Even those who currently don't pay.
And if you the American people don't buy it, then the GOP and the Democratic party are both screwed and the United States defaults on it's debt in 2012.
But the American people won't buy it so why in the hell am I even bothering? I'll see you in the bread line.
Florida Senator-elect Marco Rubio said it best. This election result is not an embrace by the people of the GOP, it is a second chance to get it right.
I'm already betting they don't. Because in order for the GOP to get it right, they are going to have to finally convince the American people that we no longer can afford all the programs, services and entitlements that we have come to expect from our federal government. They are going to have to convince the American people that they are going to have to cut over $600 billion dollars from the 2011 federal budget. They are going to have to repeal parts of the health care reform. But that's only the start.
They are going to have to convince the people that every category of the budget will need to be cut. They are going to have cut over $150 billion from health and human services. They are going to have to cut over $150 billion from the federal defense budget. They are going to have to dramatically change the way social security payments will be made to people who retire five or more years from now. They are going to have to cut and I mean DRAMATICALLY cut the budgets of federal agencies like the Dept of Education, the Dept of Energy, the Dept of Agriculture, the National Endowment for the Arts, the FBI, CIA. Across board. Nothing is sacred.
Oh yeah, they are going to have to RAISE taxes too. On everybody. Even those who currently don't pay.
And if you the American people don't buy it, then the GOP and the Democratic party are both screwed and the United States defaults on it's debt in 2012.
But the American people won't buy it so why in the hell am I even bothering? I'll see you in the bread line.
Quantitative Easing, Round Two.
Read this CNNMoney article.
Back in March of 2009, the Federal Reserve Bank printed $2 trillion dollars ex nihilo, which means that this money was being added to the money supply but was backed by no additional value in our actual treasury. In April of 2009, every dollar owned by everyone everywhere was worth 17% less than it was just before they printed the money.
Why would they do such a thing? Well, as the article explains, they are doing this because the federal government is finding it harder and harder to get anybody to buy our deficits. You know... those deficits where our beloved federal government, at the behest of the American people is spending more money than they are willing to pay it for the services they demand their government provide. So, if China or Bahrain or Qatar or the UAE or the UK are no longer willing to buy our bonds, then the Federal Bank is willing to step in.
Yup, they are going to electronically credit the Federal Reserve with an addition $600 billion dollars in order to be able to purchase our own debt. This is also called "quantitative easing", a desperation move that is taken by a government when an economy is stalled but interest rates for lending are already close to zero. This is also known as "monetizing the debt", something that has been tried before. I document this in a previous blog posting you can read here.
The Weimar Republic, the German government after World War I did this in order to pay off the massive reparations that they were obligated to pay per the Versailles Treaty. Look it up. It was not a happy time to be a German.
If you are OK with your government reducing the value of every dollar that you have saved or invested, then don't do anything. But if I were you, and especially if you are a Republican, now is the time to fire up your word processor and write your Senators and Congressman and tell them to STOP THIS NOW!
Back in March of 2009, the Federal Reserve Bank printed $2 trillion dollars ex nihilo, which means that this money was being added to the money supply but was backed by no additional value in our actual treasury. In April of 2009, every dollar owned by everyone everywhere was worth 17% less than it was just before they printed the money.
Why would they do such a thing? Well, as the article explains, they are doing this because the federal government is finding it harder and harder to get anybody to buy our deficits. You know... those deficits where our beloved federal government, at the behest of the American people is spending more money than they are willing to pay it for the services they demand their government provide. So, if China or Bahrain or Qatar or the UAE or the UK are no longer willing to buy our bonds, then the Federal Bank is willing to step in.
Yup, they are going to electronically credit the Federal Reserve with an addition $600 billion dollars in order to be able to purchase our own debt. This is also called "quantitative easing", a desperation move that is taken by a government when an economy is stalled but interest rates for lending are already close to zero. This is also known as "monetizing the debt", something that has been tried before. I document this in a previous blog posting you can read here.
The Weimar Republic, the German government after World War I did this in order to pay off the massive reparations that they were obligated to pay per the Versailles Treaty. Look it up. It was not a happy time to be a German.
If you are OK with your government reducing the value of every dollar that you have saved or invested, then don't do anything. But if I were you, and especially if you are a Republican, now is the time to fire up your word processor and write your Senators and Congressman and tell them to STOP THIS NOW!
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Republicans have to sit in the back of the bus.
As distasteful a tactic as it has been, the Republicans have finally gotten some cojones and have refused to participate in the current administration's reckless spending spree. Although this President promised to be post-partisan and post-racial, nearly every major GOP led initiative with regards to the health care, TARPII and cap and trade have been rejected out of hand by the dominant party.
So here's President Obama's most recent olive branch to the GOP going forward. He said Republicans had driven the economy into a ditch and then stood by and criticized while Democrats pulled it out. Now that progress has been made, he said, "we can't have special interests sitting shotgun. We gotta have middle class families up in front. We don't mind the Republicans joining us. They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back."
No, Mr. President. If the current batch of GOP-ers are going to be true to their campaign promises, then the GOP is going to continue to fight you if you continue to add to the crushing debt that is now threatening to destroy our entire way of life.
But thank you, Mr. President, for so eloquently sum up your feelings about the GOP in particular and conservatives in general. It helps to clarify our choices for the upcoming elections.
So here's President Obama's most recent olive branch to the GOP going forward. He said Republicans had driven the economy into a ditch and then stood by and criticized while Democrats pulled it out. Now that progress has been made, he said, "we can't have special interests sitting shotgun. We gotta have middle class families up in front. We don't mind the Republicans joining us. They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back."
No, Mr. President. If the current batch of GOP-ers are going to be true to their campaign promises, then the GOP is going to continue to fight you if you continue to add to the crushing debt that is now threatening to destroy our entire way of life.
But thank you, Mr. President, for so eloquently sum up your feelings about the GOP in particular and conservatives in general. It helps to clarify our choices for the upcoming elections.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Amtrak Posts Record Ridership.
USA Today, in a Mike Chalmers article, reported that Amtrak posted record ridership with 28.7 million riders, an increase of 5.7% from 2009. Ticket revenue increased by 9% to 1.7 billion.
However, Amtrak posted $3.5 billion in expenses for the fiscal year.
Let's see.... $1.7 billion from ticket sales against $3.5 billion in expenses. Yup, another year in the red for Amtrak.
However, Amtrak posted $3.5 billion in expenses for the fiscal year.
Let's see.... $1.7 billion from ticket sales against $3.5 billion in expenses. Yup, another year in the red for Amtrak.
Separation of Church and State and the Politicians that Don't Understand It
Recent debate comments in Delaware serve to illustrate just how ignorant or disingenuous our current crop of politicians are with regards to the concept of "separation of church and state".
In a debate on Tuesday October 19th, Republican candidate Christine "the witch" O'Donnell criticized Democratic nominee Chris Coon's position that teaching creationism in public school would violate the First Amendment by promoting religious doctrine.
O'Donnell asked "Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?", and Coons replied that the First Amendment to the Constitution prevents Congress fro making laws respecting the establishment of religion, whereupon O'Donnell said "You're telling me that is in the First Amendment?"
The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States says verbatim: "Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
At play here is the fact that the concept of "separation of church and state" doesn't exist anywhere in our Constitution. Historically, this term first appears in a private letter written in 1802 from President Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury, Connecticut Baptist Association. He writes: "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."
Interestingly enough, this letter was in response to a written concern by the Danbury Baptist Association that, at that time (prior to the establishment of the 14th Amendment), the Federal Government could force out a state's official church.
It is important to remember the context in which the States demanded the addition of the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution before they would ratify it. The First Amendment prevents the government from imposing its will upon the people with regards to religion. With their freedom only newly won, the memory of religious oppression and forced conversion by royal rulers was strong enough that they wanted this freedom specifically protected.
Does teaching the concept of creationism in public schools rise to the level of "establishment of religion"? I do not think so, although better minds than mine have spent much time debating this touchy subject. Although the United States was founded by men who were primarily Christian in their beliefs, the concept of the world having been created by a singular divine intelligence or pantheon of divine beings is common among nearly all religions. I would agree that any program that would teach the concept of creationism to students in public schools would need to present more than the history as expressed in the book of Genesis (which is a common belief of Jews, Christians and Muslims). But again, would even such a carefully designed program actually bring about the establishment of religion in our schools? I argue that it would not.
More importantly, the "separatists" are perfectly happy to quote the first segment of the first sentence of the First Amendment, but often fail to address the second segment of that same sentence: ... "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". While I do not fall into the category of those who take a very literal interpretation of the creation of the universe and the earth from the book of Genesis, there those who do. If our public schools fail to teach about the alternative belief of creationism, would the government by proxy be guilty of prohibiting the free exercise thereof? Those students are being presented with a view of the creation of the earth (evolution) which is, in their interpretation, entirely invalid. In other words, those students are being forced to supress their belief in how the world came to be. I think that this is clearly a violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution.
So... to bring this back around to Chris Coons and Christine O'Donnell. Chris Coons clearly believes that teaching creationism is schools would be a violation of the principle of "separation of church and state". I would only agree with him if only the Genesis creation story would be presented. But in contrast, Christine O'Donnell should be aware of the fact that when President Jefferson first laid the words "wall of separation between Church & State", he specifically quoted the entire first clause of the First Amendment. Therefore, President Jefferson clearly intended those words to be associated with the protections provided by that Amendment.
In a debate on Tuesday October 19th, Republican candidate Christine "the witch" O'Donnell criticized Democratic nominee Chris Coon's position that teaching creationism in public school would violate the First Amendment by promoting religious doctrine.
O'Donnell asked "Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?", and Coons replied that the First Amendment to the Constitution prevents Congress fro making laws respecting the establishment of religion, whereupon O'Donnell said "You're telling me that is in the First Amendment?"
The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States says verbatim: "Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
At play here is the fact that the concept of "separation of church and state" doesn't exist anywhere in our Constitution. Historically, this term first appears in a private letter written in 1802 from President Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury, Connecticut Baptist Association. He writes: "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."
Interestingly enough, this letter was in response to a written concern by the Danbury Baptist Association that, at that time (prior to the establishment of the 14th Amendment), the Federal Government could force out a state's official church.
It is important to remember the context in which the States demanded the addition of the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution before they would ratify it. The First Amendment prevents the government from imposing its will upon the people with regards to religion. With their freedom only newly won, the memory of religious oppression and forced conversion by royal rulers was strong enough that they wanted this freedom specifically protected.
Does teaching the concept of creationism in public schools rise to the level of "establishment of religion"? I do not think so, although better minds than mine have spent much time debating this touchy subject. Although the United States was founded by men who were primarily Christian in their beliefs, the concept of the world having been created by a singular divine intelligence or pantheon of divine beings is common among nearly all religions. I would agree that any program that would teach the concept of creationism to students in public schools would need to present more than the history as expressed in the book of Genesis (which is a common belief of Jews, Christians and Muslims). But again, would even such a carefully designed program actually bring about the establishment of religion in our schools? I argue that it would not.
More importantly, the "separatists" are perfectly happy to quote the first segment of the first sentence of the First Amendment, but often fail to address the second segment of that same sentence: ... "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". While I do not fall into the category of those who take a very literal interpretation of the creation of the universe and the earth from the book of Genesis, there those who do. If our public schools fail to teach about the alternative belief of creationism, would the government by proxy be guilty of prohibiting the free exercise thereof? Those students are being presented with a view of the creation of the earth (evolution) which is, in their interpretation, entirely invalid. In other words, those students are being forced to supress their belief in how the world came to be. I think that this is clearly a violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution.
So... to bring this back around to Chris Coons and Christine O'Donnell. Chris Coons clearly believes that teaching creationism is schools would be a violation of the principle of "separation of church and state". I would only agree with him if only the Genesis creation story would be presented. But in contrast, Christine O'Donnell should be aware of the fact that when President Jefferson first laid the words "wall of separation between Church & State", he specifically quoted the entire first clause of the First Amendment. Therefore, President Jefferson clearly intended those words to be associated with the protections provided by that Amendment.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
The Unfinished Business of the Federal Government (or We have met the enemy and they is us)
I'd be willing to bet that more than 70% of the American public is completely ignorant with regards to the responsibilities of the U.S. federal Congress. Article I Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution states: "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills."
But the partisanship being displayed by both the Republicans and Democrats have made the environment in Washington so toxic that Congress has utterly failed in this fundamental and Constitutionally mandated responsibility.
A federal income-tax hike in the midst of our weak economic recovery seems unfathomable. Such a hike will surely stifle consumer spending and either stall or dampen any recovery we might experience going into 2011. And yet, our Congress completely failed to come to any agreement on the extension of the "Bush tax cuts", which are scheduled to expire on December 31st of this year. Worse yet, here we are in late September of 2010 and we don't even know what the tax tables are going to look like for next year. How can our vaunted and esteemed Congress possibly budget when they don't even have a GUESS as to what revenues will be?
So we don't get a federal budget. Of course, the political junkies will tell you that Congress is not required to provide a federal budget. And they're mostly right. But how can you possibly control spending unless you create a budget and then try and stick to it? Or maybe it's that our "transparent Congress" doesn't want to pass a budget because then they might be expected to actually control spending. Hmmm...
That same "transparent" Congress (reference to Speaker Nancy Pelosi's infamous promise) has failed to adequately investigate misconduct charges leveled against Representatives Charlie Wrangle (D-NY) and Maxine Waters (D-CA).
But Congress CAN raid our empty treasury to authorize a $42 billion "small business stimulus" bill even though small business aren't likely to borrow money for expansion or hiring because the tax hike will discourage consumers from parting with what little discretionary spending they still have in their own household budgets. More "chicken in every pot" politics and Americans LOVE it.
Every taxpaying citizen I talk to (I don't talk to non-taxpaying citizens because they have no skin in the game so why in the hell do I care about THEIR opinion?) laments the fact that the government spending is completely out of control. And yet, when I start mentioning reduction of the budgets for the Dept. of Education, teachers scream. Or if I mention reduction in Medicare/Medicaid then seniors and the unfortunates of our society scream. Or if I mention reduction in military spending, then the hawks and those serving in the military scream.
Our elected leadership has utterly failed (for at least 60 years) to give it to us straight, to give us the plain, unvarnished truth. If you want to have a healthcare system like Sweden's, or Canada's, or the United Kingdom's, then you have to pay taxes like a Swede, a Canadian or an Englishman. Or, if you want lower taxes, then you must do more for yourself and your community and expect less from your government, especially with regards to entitlements and the redistribution of wealth. But our Congress and our President (again, for over 60 years), has told us we can lower taxes and still provide all the entitlements that you could ever ask for.
I do not lay the huge mess, the possibly unrecoverable mess, at the feet of Pelosi, Reid and the President. I lay it instead at the feet of every Congressman that ever asked for an earmark, every President that pushed social-engineering through government programs, every Senator that ever tacked on unrelated resolutions to authorizations (ala Harry Reied and the "DREAM" act for the current Defense Spending Authorization). Ultimately, I lay our huge mess on every American that still refuses to do with less of their piece of the entitlement pie and still expects our bloated federal government to reduce spending.
So Congress is going into recess. Well, during that period I guess the important and constitutionally mandated business of the people will have to wait. But by the same token, if they are in recess then they can't do any more harm to us. I guess that's the silver lining. But that sure isn't the American Exceptionalism I grew up with.
But the partisanship being displayed by both the Republicans and Democrats have made the environment in Washington so toxic that Congress has utterly failed in this fundamental and Constitutionally mandated responsibility.
A federal income-tax hike in the midst of our weak economic recovery seems unfathomable. Such a hike will surely stifle consumer spending and either stall or dampen any recovery we might experience going into 2011. And yet, our Congress completely failed to come to any agreement on the extension of the "Bush tax cuts", which are scheduled to expire on December 31st of this year. Worse yet, here we are in late September of 2010 and we don't even know what the tax tables are going to look like for next year. How can our vaunted and esteemed Congress possibly budget when they don't even have a GUESS as to what revenues will be?
So we don't get a federal budget. Of course, the political junkies will tell you that Congress is not required to provide a federal budget. And they're mostly right. But how can you possibly control spending unless you create a budget and then try and stick to it? Or maybe it's that our "transparent Congress" doesn't want to pass a budget because then they might be expected to actually control spending. Hmmm...
That same "transparent" Congress (reference to Speaker Nancy Pelosi's infamous promise) has failed to adequately investigate misconduct charges leveled against Representatives Charlie Wrangle (D-NY) and Maxine Waters (D-CA).
But Congress CAN raid our empty treasury to authorize a $42 billion "small business stimulus" bill even though small business aren't likely to borrow money for expansion or hiring because the tax hike will discourage consumers from parting with what little discretionary spending they still have in their own household budgets. More "chicken in every pot" politics and Americans LOVE it.
Every taxpaying citizen I talk to (I don't talk to non-taxpaying citizens because they have no skin in the game so why in the hell do I care about THEIR opinion?) laments the fact that the government spending is completely out of control. And yet, when I start mentioning reduction of the budgets for the Dept. of Education, teachers scream. Or if I mention reduction in Medicare/Medicaid then seniors and the unfortunates of our society scream. Or if I mention reduction in military spending, then the hawks and those serving in the military scream.
Our elected leadership has utterly failed (for at least 60 years) to give it to us straight, to give us the plain, unvarnished truth. If you want to have a healthcare system like Sweden's, or Canada's, or the United Kingdom's, then you have to pay taxes like a Swede, a Canadian or an Englishman. Or, if you want lower taxes, then you must do more for yourself and your community and expect less from your government, especially with regards to entitlements and the redistribution of wealth. But our Congress and our President (again, for over 60 years), has told us we can lower taxes and still provide all the entitlements that you could ever ask for.
I do not lay the huge mess, the possibly unrecoverable mess, at the feet of Pelosi, Reid and the President. I lay it instead at the feet of every Congressman that ever asked for an earmark, every President that pushed social-engineering through government programs, every Senator that ever tacked on unrelated resolutions to authorizations (ala Harry Reied and the "DREAM" act for the current Defense Spending Authorization). Ultimately, I lay our huge mess on every American that still refuses to do with less of their piece of the entitlement pie and still expects our bloated federal government to reduce spending.
So Congress is going into recess. Well, during that period I guess the important and constitutionally mandated business of the people will have to wait. But by the same token, if they are in recess then they can't do any more harm to us. I guess that's the silver lining. But that sure isn't the American Exceptionalism I grew up with.
Monday, August 30, 2010
Glenn Beck cranks up the culture wars.
Rich Benjamin, in an article on cnn.com (click here) made a series of arguments designed to support the position that Glenn Beck, the wildly popular conservative pseudo-religious radio and talk-show host, has "cranked up" the culture wars.
His first argument is based on the claim that despite Beck's assertions to the contrary, the August 28th rally in on the Washington Mall was a political rally. He points to the presence of a rally participant wearing a t-shirt with the message "If you can't love America, move back to Kenya." Even though Beck specifically directed the attendees to not bring signs of any kind. Even though not one speaker mentioned President Obama by name, or the Democratic party. It's reaching way down into the barrel to label this a patriotic rally based on a few t-shirt slogans.
With regards to the "tea-party" opinion that President Obama is a marxist/socialist, well, it does seem to be that way. The massive expansion of nationalized health care at the same time that 47% of American workers (the majority who are in the poor, lower income and lower middle income brackets) do not pay any income taxes at all is seen by most fiscal conservatives as redistribution of wealth, a fundamental tenet of socialism. He also rammed cash for clunkers down our throats, encouraging people to buy cars with taxpayer subsidies. Again, money moving from those who pay taxes to many who do not. This was followed by cash for toasters, encouraging people to buy new appliances with... you guessed it... taxpayer subsidies.
And for good measure let us not forget the first time homebuyer credit of $8,000 dollars (in 2009) and homebuyer assistance program of $6,500 dollars, again targeting those in the lower income brackets (most of whom pay no or little in income taxes) with money taken from the income tax payers.
There's lots more where that came from, but I think that the citations above are a clear indication of a political motivation on the part of the president and his party to move money from those who can afford to pay taxes to those who cannot. Is, or is that not socialism?
He further claims that the claims on the part of the conservative factions that President Obama is a communist or marxist or socialist is similar to admittedly similar claims against Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr in the 1960's The huge difference is that the attacks against Dr. King where clearly fueled by racist hatred, especially in the South. But in the case of President Obama, we only have to look at the record of legislation passed during his administration to see what is plainly written.
As an aside, Reverend Al Shaprton claimed that the push by the "tea party" to restore "state's rights" is a direct assault on the civil rights movement and is a conscious effort to rollback those hard won gains.In this case the US federal government through civil-rights legislation signed in the late 60's forced states to accept a federally mandated standard for guaranteeing the protection of the civil liberties and rights of minorities. There is no question that under the guise of state's rights, many states (again especially in the South) implemented legislation that unarguably were designed to deny or obstruct the rights of minorities, and particularly blacks, to vote, equal access to education and government services.
But today, the resurgence of state's rights advocacy is couched firmly in the US federal government's failure to uphold its end of the contract that binds the states of our union together. The federal government continues to spend more and more and yet services seem to decline or fail altogether. Immigration laws, especially with respect to the prosecution and deportation of aliens living here illegally, including border security is one aspect of the federal failure. Another is the inability of the government to respond quickly to natural disasters. The 2005 hurricane Katrina disaster clearly demonstrated the red-tape that obstructs swift response by the federal government as well as the complete and utter lack of coordination between federal, state and local emergency response agencies. Our national infrastructure is coming apart. Roads, bridges and dams are falling into disrepair before our very eyes, and yet there is no money to fix them! People who genuinely need government assistance can't get it while shysters and thieves who have studied the system collect "overpayments" from the government with impunity. The US Dept of Education consumes more tax revenue than ever and yet our nation continues its slide into mediocre scholastic performance among industrialized nations.
States are understandably outraged. They are being forced by federal mandate to spend more money on federal programs and yet they do not have the access to print more money when their budgets are bled dry. Not to mention that progressive legislation in states like Michigan, California, Arizona and Ohio have literally bankrupted them. States and local communities would very much like to have more say in the standards of education and welfare that they provide to their citizens, but are continually stymied by an outrageous and bloated bureaucracy that is reflected in the HUGE amount of regulatory law that those bureaucracies are expected to enforce.
I understand the need for regulations, but when the process for getting FDA approval to get a drug to market can cost multiple billions of dollars. And yet, after getting such approval, a drug company is completely unprotected against expensive lawsuits when unknown side-effects not discovered during the FDA approval process inevitably arise. Question: If the FDA won't stand behind its approval process by helping to defend the pharmaceuticals, why in the hell do we force them to seek FDA approval?
With regard to Mr. Benjamin's concern that a third of the nation thinks that President Obama is a muslim. Well, I don't get that either. And we further agree that birthers are idiots.
But I think that the charge of the current administration's movement of the nation to a more socialist government is completely founded and beyond debate.
His first argument is based on the claim that despite Beck's assertions to the contrary, the August 28th rally in on the Washington Mall was a political rally. He points to the presence of a rally participant wearing a t-shirt with the message "If you can't love America, move back to Kenya." Even though Beck specifically directed the attendees to not bring signs of any kind. Even though not one speaker mentioned President Obama by name, or the Democratic party. It's reaching way down into the barrel to label this a patriotic rally based on a few t-shirt slogans.
With regards to the "tea-party" opinion that President Obama is a marxist/socialist, well, it does seem to be that way. The massive expansion of nationalized health care at the same time that 47% of American workers (the majority who are in the poor, lower income and lower middle income brackets) do not pay any income taxes at all is seen by most fiscal conservatives as redistribution of wealth, a fundamental tenet of socialism. He also rammed cash for clunkers down our throats, encouraging people to buy cars with taxpayer subsidies. Again, money moving from those who pay taxes to many who do not. This was followed by cash for toasters, encouraging people to buy new appliances with... you guessed it... taxpayer subsidies.
And for good measure let us not forget the first time homebuyer credit of $8,000 dollars (in 2009) and homebuyer assistance program of $6,500 dollars, again targeting those in the lower income brackets (most of whom pay no or little in income taxes) with money taken from the income tax payers.
There's lots more where that came from, but I think that the citations above are a clear indication of a political motivation on the part of the president and his party to move money from those who can afford to pay taxes to those who cannot. Is, or is that not socialism?
He further claims that the claims on the part of the conservative factions that President Obama is a communist or marxist or socialist is similar to admittedly similar claims against Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr in the 1960's The huge difference is that the attacks against Dr. King where clearly fueled by racist hatred, especially in the South. But in the case of President Obama, we only have to look at the record of legislation passed during his administration to see what is plainly written.
As an aside, Reverend Al Shaprton claimed that the push by the "tea party" to restore "state's rights" is a direct assault on the civil rights movement and is a conscious effort to rollback those hard won gains.In this case the US federal government through civil-rights legislation signed in the late 60's forced states to accept a federally mandated standard for guaranteeing the protection of the civil liberties and rights of minorities. There is no question that under the guise of state's rights, many states (again especially in the South) implemented legislation that unarguably were designed to deny or obstruct the rights of minorities, and particularly blacks, to vote, equal access to education and government services.
But today, the resurgence of state's rights advocacy is couched firmly in the US federal government's failure to uphold its end of the contract that binds the states of our union together. The federal government continues to spend more and more and yet services seem to decline or fail altogether. Immigration laws, especially with respect to the prosecution and deportation of aliens living here illegally, including border security is one aspect of the federal failure. Another is the inability of the government to respond quickly to natural disasters. The 2005 hurricane Katrina disaster clearly demonstrated the red-tape that obstructs swift response by the federal government as well as the complete and utter lack of coordination between federal, state and local emergency response agencies. Our national infrastructure is coming apart. Roads, bridges and dams are falling into disrepair before our very eyes, and yet there is no money to fix them! People who genuinely need government assistance can't get it while shysters and thieves who have studied the system collect "overpayments" from the government with impunity. The US Dept of Education consumes more tax revenue than ever and yet our nation continues its slide into mediocre scholastic performance among industrialized nations.
States are understandably outraged. They are being forced by federal mandate to spend more money on federal programs and yet they do not have the access to print more money when their budgets are bled dry. Not to mention that progressive legislation in states like Michigan, California, Arizona and Ohio have literally bankrupted them. States and local communities would very much like to have more say in the standards of education and welfare that they provide to their citizens, but are continually stymied by an outrageous and bloated bureaucracy that is reflected in the HUGE amount of regulatory law that those bureaucracies are expected to enforce.
I understand the need for regulations, but when the process for getting FDA approval to get a drug to market can cost multiple billions of dollars. And yet, after getting such approval, a drug company is completely unprotected against expensive lawsuits when unknown side-effects not discovered during the FDA approval process inevitably arise. Question: If the FDA won't stand behind its approval process by helping to defend the pharmaceuticals, why in the hell do we force them to seek FDA approval?
With regard to Mr. Benjamin's concern that a third of the nation thinks that President Obama is a muslim. Well, I don't get that either. And we further agree that birthers are idiots.
But I think that the charge of the current administration's movement of the nation to a more socialist government is completely founded and beyond debate.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Kevin Costner, Actor and Environmentalist Entrepreneur
British Petroleum has been largely "stymied" for 52 days with a oil spill disaster of immense proportions. Some estimate that the amount of crude oil gushing into the Gulf of Mexico may actually be 100,000 barrels, or five and one-half million gallons per day. I think this is a highly pessimistic value, but even one-tenth of that is far too much.
While BP has spent nearly two months either trying to stifle, plug or siphon the gusher results appear to be disappointing. On June 5 they claimed to capture 640,000 gallons and yet the "spill cam" looked like most of the oil was escaping into the ocean. BP is also employing clean-up crews to begin the labor-intensive process of cleaning decaying crude oil from the coast line of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas and Florida. CNN reporters have caught video images of many of their workers spending most of their time sipping water under pop-up tents instead of actually cleaning, so this effort is questionaable.
It may not be too facetious to say that God is doing his part. So far, the weather has kept the oil slick away from the dreaded "loop" current that would whisk the oil out of the Gulf around the Florida peninsula and north along the U.S. eastern seaboard. But we can't count on that forever, especially with hurricane season's official start on June 1st.
It's hard to tell what the hell the federal government has been doing. There is no question that Vice-admiral "Thad" Allen of the U.S. Coast Guard has been working hard monitoring the situation and coordinating efforts. In fact, he officially retired in May but he's still the operational commander. Kudos to him.
Congress, on the other hand, wants to criminally investigate BP. Good timing. BP's stock prices plummeted on that news. That removes money from BP's liquid assets that are going to be needed to pay for the repairs to the wellhead, cleanup effort as well as the loss of income from tens of thousands of Gulf residents who directly make their living from the sea.
President Obama is looking for whose "ass" to kick. Good for him.
With all this... up steps Kevin Costner, the star of the much-maligned movie "Waterwold", a forgettable movie. In the wake of the Exxon Valdez oil spill of 1989 it occurred to his research scientist brother Dan Costner that there must be a way to separate oil and other fluids from water, as long as their specific gravity is different. What they developed was a high-speed high-capacity centrifuge. Since oil is lighter than water, when spun rapidly in a cylinder the water will pool around the outside off the cylinder while the oil will collect in the center of the fluid column. The oil is then pulled from the center while the water "spills" out of vents at the top of the center. Testing has shown that water heavily contaminated with Alaska crude was extracted with a better than 99% purity level.
He applied for a federal license from the U.S. Department of Energy in 1993 and the devices have been shown to work for nearly two-decades. Kevin Costner is a partner in the two companies that manufacture and sell these devices: Ocean Therapy Solutions (http://www.ots.org) and Costner Industries Nevada Corp (http://www.cincmfg.com). While these devices were designed with oil-spill cleanup in mind, they can be used for other purposes, such as water-contaminant removal. Considering the magnitude of the Prince William Sound contamination, you would have thought that these things would be purchased by the federal government and/or the oil companies by the dozens. Mr. Costner has to date sunk nearly $26 million of his own money into this idea, and was quoted by the London Mail in 2007 as having lost $40 million in all the technologies that his companies have invented. But for some reason, neither the U.S. federal government (especially MMS or DOE) or the oil industry seemed to be very interested in this technology.
Until now.
Mr. Costner is reported to have said that the ideal use would have been to immediately collect the oil/water from the gusher and process it. The largest unit that his company makes, a 2 1/2 ton stainless steel monster called the "V-20", can process 200 gallons per minute, or 12,000 gallons per hour. The other beautiful thing about his centrifuges is that they are chemical-free. That's right. No dispersants of any kind. Additionally, they are relatively mobile and easily installed on barges, sea platforms or ships. Ten of these devices theoretically can process 2.8 million gallons of fluid per day.
Why the hell aren't these devices on every drilling rig and oil platform? Why is there no stockpile of these devices?
Having reviewed the information from the literature on their websites, I'm comfortable in stating that had these devices been in place, the Gulf Coast would have seen little to no contamination.
If one assumes that these centrifuges work as advertised and the video shown on OTS.org is not doctored, then the fact that the MMS did not insist that there be a stockpile of these devices, purchased by the oil industry and stored by the federal government as a hedge against disasters such as this should be the real criminal investigation.
Mr. Costner and his companies are the proof of what people like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and other so-called "right-wing wackos" have been braying: Private entrepreneurs will always be the provider of solutions to our problems. Kevin Costner can apparently do what neither BP or the U.S. federal government cannot; turn oil back into water.
While BP has spent nearly two months either trying to stifle, plug or siphon the gusher results appear to be disappointing. On June 5 they claimed to capture 640,000 gallons and yet the "spill cam" looked like most of the oil was escaping into the ocean. BP is also employing clean-up crews to begin the labor-intensive process of cleaning decaying crude oil from the coast line of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas and Florida. CNN reporters have caught video images of many of their workers spending most of their time sipping water under pop-up tents instead of actually cleaning, so this effort is questionaable.
It may not be too facetious to say that God is doing his part. So far, the weather has kept the oil slick away from the dreaded "loop" current that would whisk the oil out of the Gulf around the Florida peninsula and north along the U.S. eastern seaboard. But we can't count on that forever, especially with hurricane season's official start on June 1st.
It's hard to tell what the hell the federal government has been doing. There is no question that Vice-admiral "Thad" Allen of the U.S. Coast Guard has been working hard monitoring the situation and coordinating efforts. In fact, he officially retired in May but he's still the operational commander. Kudos to him.
Congress, on the other hand, wants to criminally investigate BP. Good timing. BP's stock prices plummeted on that news. That removes money from BP's liquid assets that are going to be needed to pay for the repairs to the wellhead, cleanup effort as well as the loss of income from tens of thousands of Gulf residents who directly make their living from the sea.
President Obama is looking for whose "ass" to kick. Good for him.
With all this... up steps Kevin Costner, the star of the much-maligned movie "Waterwold", a forgettable movie. In the wake of the Exxon Valdez oil spill of 1989 it occurred to his research scientist brother Dan Costner that there must be a way to separate oil and other fluids from water, as long as their specific gravity is different. What they developed was a high-speed high-capacity centrifuge. Since oil is lighter than water, when spun rapidly in a cylinder the water will pool around the outside off the cylinder while the oil will collect in the center of the fluid column. The oil is then pulled from the center while the water "spills" out of vents at the top of the center. Testing has shown that water heavily contaminated with Alaska crude was extracted with a better than 99% purity level.
He applied for a federal license from the U.S. Department of Energy in 1993 and the devices have been shown to work for nearly two-decades. Kevin Costner is a partner in the two companies that manufacture and sell these devices: Ocean Therapy Solutions (http://www.ots.org) and Costner Industries Nevada Corp (http://www.cincmfg.com). While these devices were designed with oil-spill cleanup in mind, they can be used for other purposes, such as water-contaminant removal. Considering the magnitude of the Prince William Sound contamination, you would have thought that these things would be purchased by the federal government and/or the oil companies by the dozens. Mr. Costner has to date sunk nearly $26 million of his own money into this idea, and was quoted by the London Mail in 2007 as having lost $40 million in all the technologies that his companies have invented. But for some reason, neither the U.S. federal government (especially MMS or DOE) or the oil industry seemed to be very interested in this technology.
Until now.
Mr. Costner is reported to have said that the ideal use would have been to immediately collect the oil/water from the gusher and process it. The largest unit that his company makes, a 2 1/2 ton stainless steel monster called the "V-20", can process 200 gallons per minute, or 12,000 gallons per hour. The other beautiful thing about his centrifuges is that they are chemical-free. That's right. No dispersants of any kind. Additionally, they are relatively mobile and easily installed on barges, sea platforms or ships. Ten of these devices theoretically can process 2.8 million gallons of fluid per day.
Why the hell aren't these devices on every drilling rig and oil platform? Why is there no stockpile of these devices?
Having reviewed the information from the literature on their websites, I'm comfortable in stating that had these devices been in place, the Gulf Coast would have seen little to no contamination.
If one assumes that these centrifuges work as advertised and the video shown on OTS.org is not doctored, then the fact that the MMS did not insist that there be a stockpile of these devices, purchased by the oil industry and stored by the federal government as a hedge against disasters such as this should be the real criminal investigation.
Mr. Costner and his companies are the proof of what people like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and other so-called "right-wing wackos" have been braying: Private entrepreneurs will always be the provider of solutions to our problems. Kevin Costner can apparently do what neither BP or the U.S. federal government cannot; turn oil back into water.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Boycotts work two ways.
My beloved wife and I had planned on going to Anaheim this October and spend a fun weekend at Disneyland. I've been wanting to see the "Haunted House on Holiday" exhibition for the last couple of years and we finally seemed to able to arrange things so that we could go this fall.
Well, all of a sudden, California cities started making a fuss about Arizona's anti-illegal immigration enforcement laws, also known as "SB 1070", also known as "Arizona Safe Neighborhoods and Law Enforcement Act". Cities like Los Angeles, San Diego and Berkeley (OK, Berkeley isn't a surprise, really) have indicated that they will boycott contracts with Arizona.
Clearly, they've not actually read the law (even though the total number of changes to existing Arizona state statutory laws account for only about 16 pages or reading). Clearly, they've not yet seen that the law can only be enforced as part of a "contact by law enforcement officials" for other reasons and that questions can only be asked about immigration status if "reasonable suspicion" arises as part of that lawful contact. They've also clearly not read the even more strongly worded amendment that specifically prohibits the use of race in evaluating "reasonable suspicion".
OK, California. Have it your own way. But although your contracts with us are important to us, I know that tourism from out of state visitors is also important to you. So let me point out a few things:
You remember that California vacation I alluded to earlier? Well, we're going to Jackson Hole, Wyoming instead.
Well, all of a sudden, California cities started making a fuss about Arizona's anti-illegal immigration enforcement laws, also known as "SB 1070", also known as "Arizona Safe Neighborhoods and Law Enforcement Act". Cities like Los Angeles, San Diego and Berkeley (OK, Berkeley isn't a surprise, really) have indicated that they will boycott contracts with Arizona.
Clearly, they've not actually read the law (even though the total number of changes to existing Arizona state statutory laws account for only about 16 pages or reading). Clearly, they've not yet seen that the law can only be enforced as part of a "contact by law enforcement officials" for other reasons and that questions can only be asked about immigration status if "reasonable suspicion" arises as part of that lawful contact. They've also clearly not read the even more strongly worded amendment that specifically prohibits the use of race in evaluating "reasonable suspicion".
OK, California. Have it your own way. But although your contracts with us are important to us, I know that tourism from out of state visitors is also important to you. So let me point out a few things:
- Rasmussen polls:
- 53% in Pennsylvania favor passing legislation similar to AZ SB1070 in their state.
- 57% in Texas support passing legislation similar to AZ SB1070 in their state.
- 68% oppose boycotts of Arizona over SB1070.
- 55% nationally favor immigration law similar to AZ SB1070 in their state.
- Pew Research Center
- Broad approval for New Arizona Immigration Law
- 73% approve requiring people to produce documents verifying status. (86% of Republicans, 65% of Democrats, 75% of Independents)
- 67% approve allowing police to detain anyone unable to verify status.
- 59% approve the general provisions of SB1070.
- Gallup Poll
- Among those who have heard of the law, 51% favor and 39% oppose it.
- MSNBC/Telemundo
- 61% favor AZ SB1070, although only 31% of Latinos favored it.
You remember that California vacation I alluded to earlier? Well, we're going to Jackson Hole, Wyoming instead.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Intended Consequences of SB 1070, and the Pain it Will Cause.
Today, azcentral.com ran a story about one of the very predictable results of the new Arizona immigration law (SB 1070); illegal immigrants going even further underground than they currently do.
The article is here.
The first thing about this article that caught my eye was the headline: "Arizona immigrants move deeper into the shadows". The story is about a Mexican born naturalized US citizen, who is married to an illegal alien, also a Mexican and their US born daughter. In the context that the wife is an immigrant, I suppose the headline is technically correct, I still resent the title because only those who are here illegally or those who are aiding and abetting illegal aliens in their efforts to remain here illegally have to move deeper underground. Legal immigrants who are following the law have nothing to fear from SB 1070.
The summary of the story is that the wife fell in love with her husband to be and had already made plans to marry him when he revealed that he was in the US without permission. Since then, they have been carefully controlling their daily and weekly activities to keep a low profile. They keep a neat yard. They dress nice. He works hard. They obey all other laws. They immaculately maintain their vehicle in order to avoid traffic stops. In other words, they sound like nice people. People that I would like as neighbors.
But, he is still here in violation of the law, and she is aiding and abetting him. Their daughter is growing up believing that her family are all US citizens, a lie. One day, be it tomorrow or in ten years, he may be found out and when it happens, he will be deported with the inevitable result that their family will either be ripped apart or they will leave together to go to Mexico, where they will have far fewer opportunities.
This is the consequence breaking the law. He entered the country illegally, and she has supported and aided him ever since she found out that he was an illegal alien. Until proven otherwise, the US and Arizona are both governed by laws, and justice must be blind when upholding it. Either that, or we abandon the law. To do so would be, in my opinion, just as unjust if not more so to the millions of people that have become naturalized US citizens by following the law, or the hundreds of thousands more who continue to follow the law and are still patiently awaiting naturalized US citizen status.
The story is tragic. But it is not a tragedy of injustice. It is the tragedy of a nice little family that turned a blind eye with regards to immigration law and are both daily paying the price. And potentially to pay the highest penalty for breaking it.
The article is here.
The first thing about this article that caught my eye was the headline: "Arizona immigrants move deeper into the shadows". The story is about a Mexican born naturalized US citizen, who is married to an illegal alien, also a Mexican and their US born daughter. In the context that the wife is an immigrant, I suppose the headline is technically correct, I still resent the title because only those who are here illegally or those who are aiding and abetting illegal aliens in their efforts to remain here illegally have to move deeper underground. Legal immigrants who are following the law have nothing to fear from SB 1070.
The summary of the story is that the wife fell in love with her husband to be and had already made plans to marry him when he revealed that he was in the US without permission. Since then, they have been carefully controlling their daily and weekly activities to keep a low profile. They keep a neat yard. They dress nice. He works hard. They obey all other laws. They immaculately maintain their vehicle in order to avoid traffic stops. In other words, they sound like nice people. People that I would like as neighbors.
But, he is still here in violation of the law, and she is aiding and abetting him. Their daughter is growing up believing that her family are all US citizens, a lie. One day, be it tomorrow or in ten years, he may be found out and when it happens, he will be deported with the inevitable result that their family will either be ripped apart or they will leave together to go to Mexico, where they will have far fewer opportunities.
This is the consequence breaking the law. He entered the country illegally, and she has supported and aided him ever since she found out that he was an illegal alien. Until proven otherwise, the US and Arizona are both governed by laws, and justice must be blind when upholding it. Either that, or we abandon the law. To do so would be, in my opinion, just as unjust if not more so to the millions of people that have become naturalized US citizens by following the law, or the hundreds of thousands more who continue to follow the law and are still patiently awaiting naturalized US citizen status.
The story is tragic. But it is not a tragedy of injustice. It is the tragedy of a nice little family that turned a blind eye with regards to immigration law and are both daily paying the price. And potentially to pay the highest penalty for breaking it.
Friday, May 21, 2010
CNN's Reuben Navarette: American Flag wearers were "Disobedient Brats".
Reuben Navarette's article was in regards to the Live Oak High School incident where five students who wore American flag inspired clothing were ordered to reverse their t-shirts or be sent home for the day. The boys refused, recognizing that their clothing is an expression of political speech and therefore protected under the First Amendment.
The main point of Reuben's argument is that wearing the American flag at an American high school on May 5th is disruptive behavior. Cinco de Mayo is not even a US holiday, for crying out loud. How is wearing US national colors on any day of the year in school "disruptive"? These boys were making a political point. "Celebrate your Mexican national roots but don't forget that you are Americans." Or should be, who knows today with so many illegal aliens from Mexico and Central America in our nation?
He then cited three cases that came before the U.S. Supreme Court that upholds the right of school administration to restrict speech. However, his citations of case law is disingenuous and I'm disappointed.
In Bethel School District v Fraser (1986), the court upheld that schools have the right to uphold community standards and were right to stop a speech that was filled with sexual innuendo. This was not a political speech issue and therefore not protected to the same standard.
Hazelwood v Kuhlmeier (1988) documents a case where Hazelwood School District was determined to be innocent of violating student's First Amendment rights when an article about teenage pregnancy and use/non-use of birth control was edited from a high school paper, again because the subject matter was deemed inappropriate for the younger class members of the school. Not a political expression issue, and therefore not protected to the same standard.
Morse v Frederick (2007) was a school speech case in which the Supreme Court that First Amendment does not prevent educators from suppressing student speech, even at school supervised events, that can be reasonably viewed to promote illegal drug abuse.
Hey Reuben, how about citing some case law that actually deals with freedom of expression of POLITICAL views? Your argument is pathetic and I, a non lawyer, was able to rip it to shreds in fifteen minutes of Google searches.
To sum up, these boys were expressing their POLITICAL views by wearing those shirts on May 5th and as long as the display of the national colors is in good taste the wearing of such colors should never be deemed disruptive.
The main point of Reuben's argument is that wearing the American flag at an American high school on May 5th is disruptive behavior. Cinco de Mayo is not even a US holiday, for crying out loud. How is wearing US national colors on any day of the year in school "disruptive"? These boys were making a political point. "Celebrate your Mexican national roots but don't forget that you are Americans." Or should be, who knows today with so many illegal aliens from Mexico and Central America in our nation?
He then cited three cases that came before the U.S. Supreme Court that upholds the right of school administration to restrict speech. However, his citations of case law is disingenuous and I'm disappointed.
In Bethel School District v Fraser (1986), the court upheld that schools have the right to uphold community standards and were right to stop a speech that was filled with sexual innuendo. This was not a political speech issue and therefore not protected to the same standard.
Hazelwood v Kuhlmeier (1988) documents a case where Hazelwood School District was determined to be innocent of violating student's First Amendment rights when an article about teenage pregnancy and use/non-use of birth control was edited from a high school paper, again because the subject matter was deemed inappropriate for the younger class members of the school. Not a political expression issue, and therefore not protected to the same standard.
Morse v Frederick (2007) was a school speech case in which the Supreme Court that First Amendment does not prevent educators from suppressing student speech, even at school supervised events, that can be reasonably viewed to promote illegal drug abuse.
Hey Reuben, how about citing some case law that actually deals with freedom of expression of POLITICAL views? Your argument is pathetic and I, a non lawyer, was able to rip it to shreds in fifteen minutes of Google searches.
To sum up, these boys were expressing their POLITICAL views by wearing those shirts on May 5th and as long as the display of the national colors is in good taste the wearing of such colors should never be deemed disruptive.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
USCD panel of legal professors state that SB 1070 probably passes Constitutional muster.
Leslie Berestein of the San Diego Tribune reported on May 14th that a panel of three law professors discussing Arizona law SB 1070 could well pass constitutional muster, although violations could occur during enforcement.
The article is here.
The primary points made by the professors were:
1) It does not appear to give law enforcement more authority, contrary to claims by opponents of the law.
2) The the law was carefully written by Russel Pearce with the help of Constitutional law professor Kris Kobach of the Univ. of Missouri. It mirrors federal immigration laws. Because immigration law is adjudicated by the federal government, the Arizona law could be pre-empted because federal law overrides state law. Arizona is essentially notifying the federal government that it will enforce the law until the federal government explicitly orders them to stop doing so. Since there is no conflict, the likelihood that the federal government will "pre-empt" the enforcement of this law is unlikely. Further, if SB 1070 is found fail constitutional muster, that means that federal law ALSO fails constitutional muster, an unsavory consequence for the federal government.
The article is here.
The primary points made by the professors were:
1) It does not appear to give law enforcement more authority, contrary to claims by opponents of the law.
2) The the law was carefully written by Russel Pearce with the help of Constitutional law professor Kris Kobach of the Univ. of Missouri. It mirrors federal immigration laws. Because immigration law is adjudicated by the federal government, the Arizona law could be pre-empted because federal law overrides state law. Arizona is essentially notifying the federal government that it will enforce the law until the federal government explicitly orders them to stop doing so. Since there is no conflict, the likelihood that the federal government will "pre-empt" the enforcement of this law is unlikely. Further, if SB 1070 is found fail constitutional muster, that means that federal law ALSO fails constitutional muster, an unsavory consequence for the federal government.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
The Danger of Playing Economic War When you are DOWNSTREAM
Interesting, considering the situation that exists between both Southern California and Arizona. They both are states that border Mexico. Their electorate are mutually groaning under tremendous budgetary shortfalls that are pushing our public programs to their very limit.
However, Arizona in recent years has become a virtual highway into the United States for migrants from Mexico. Specifically, Arizona is now dealing with rampant human trafficking, kidnapping, drug-related murder and other crimes, and vehicle theft. Phoenix is the kidnapping capital of the United States. Five of the last eight Arizona law enforcement officers that we have lost in the line of duty were killed by illegal immigrants. Two prominent ranchers have been killed and the evidence strongly indicates illegal drug activity associated with Mexicans in our state illegally.
For these reasons and others the state of Arizona, a state somewhat more 'red' than our neighbor to the west, has decided that if the federal government of the United States will not enforce existing laws with regards to immigration, then Arizona will. This was a bold step by Governor Jan Brewer and Arizona state senator Russel Pearce. Both of them have publicly lamented the need to do this. But citizens who have earned the right to live here because they have declared allegiance to this great country have an expectation to be protected by their government, and "Uncle Sugar" ain't making the grade.
Enter SB1070, or the (Support our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act). Nearly everybody that has proclaimed (loudly) that this is racist legislation that will open the doors to the dreaded phrase "Papers, please!" has also now admitted that they have themselves not even read it yet. I have done an analysis of the law (which you can find on this blog), which clearly shows that police may only act on this law in the course of an already existing "contact" between themselves and a potential perpetrator. Since I did that analysis, the law has been even further modified to put further restrictions on what constitutes 'reasonable suspicion'.
Nonetheless, the liberal main-stream media, in cahoots with their progressive brethren and constituents in the Latino community, La Raza, the Reconquistas, and their fraternal friends in the civil rights movement have whipped up a completely false picture of how this law will be implemented. President Obama, US Attorney-General Holder, Dept. of Homeland Defense Napolitano have all rebuked Arizona over the law even though all of them now admit they haven't even read it.
Now several cities in Washington, Illinois and California have decided to boycott Arizona originated goods and services. With regards to California the Los Angeles City Council, strongly led by Mayor Villaraigosa, has decided to jump on the bandwagon.
However, there can be, from time time, found even in offices of politicians and bureaucrats individuals who have the strength of character to respond forcefully and yet without emotion or irrationality. Arizona Corporate Commissioner Gary Pierce has decided enough is enough and wrote a little missive to Mayor Villaraigosa, reminding him the Southern California buys a lot of our power. I think that the Commissioner's stand on their own:
May 18, 2010
VIA FACSIMILE & US MAIL
Mayor Antonio R. Villaraigosa
Office of the Mayor
200 North Spring St., Room 303
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Re: Los Angeles boycott of Arizona
Dear Mayor Villaraigosa:
I was dismayed to learn that the Los Angeles City Council voted to boycott Arizona and Arizona-based companies--a vote you strongly supported--to show opposition to SB 1070 (Support our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act).
You explained your support for the boycott as follows: "While we recognize that as neighbors, we share resources and ties with the State of Arizona that may be difficult to sever, our goal is not to hurt the local economy of Los Angeles, but to impact the economy of Arizona. Our intent is to use our dollars--or the witholding of our dollars--to send a message." (emphasis added)
I received your message; please receive mine. As a state-wide elected member of the Arizona Corporation Commission overseeing Arizona's electric and water utilities, I too am keenly aware of the "resources and ties" we share with the City of Los Angeles. In fact, approximately twenty-five percent of the electricity consumed in Los Angeles is generated by power plants in Arizona.
If an economic boycott is truly what you desire, I will be happy to encourage Arizona utilities to renegotiate your power agreements so Los Angeles no longer receives any power from Arizona-based generation. I am confident that Arizona utilities would be happy to take those electrons off of your hands. If, however, you find that the City Council lacks the strength of its convictions to turn off the lights in Los Angeles and boycott Arizona power, please reconsider the wisdom of attempting to harm Arizona's economy.
People of goodwill can disagree over the merits of SB 1070. A state-wide economic boycott of Arizona is not a message sent in goodwill.
Sincerely,
Commission Gary Pierce
The City of Los Angeles may regret that they didn't build more nuclear power plants in the 1970's, 80's and 90's.
If you want to see the actual facsimile copy of the letter, you can go here to the Arizona Corporate Commissioner's website.
However, Arizona in recent years has become a virtual highway into the United States for migrants from Mexico. Specifically, Arizona is now dealing with rampant human trafficking, kidnapping, drug-related murder and other crimes, and vehicle theft. Phoenix is the kidnapping capital of the United States. Five of the last eight Arizona law enforcement officers that we have lost in the line of duty were killed by illegal immigrants. Two prominent ranchers have been killed and the evidence strongly indicates illegal drug activity associated with Mexicans in our state illegally.
For these reasons and others the state of Arizona, a state somewhat more 'red' than our neighbor to the west, has decided that if the federal government of the United States will not enforce existing laws with regards to immigration, then Arizona will. This was a bold step by Governor Jan Brewer and Arizona state senator Russel Pearce. Both of them have publicly lamented the need to do this. But citizens who have earned the right to live here because they have declared allegiance to this great country have an expectation to be protected by their government, and "Uncle Sugar" ain't making the grade.
Enter SB1070, or the (Support our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act). Nearly everybody that has proclaimed (loudly) that this is racist legislation that will open the doors to the dreaded phrase "Papers, please!" has also now admitted that they have themselves not even read it yet. I have done an analysis of the law (which you can find on this blog), which clearly shows that police may only act on this law in the course of an already existing "contact" between themselves and a potential perpetrator. Since I did that analysis, the law has been even further modified to put further restrictions on what constitutes 'reasonable suspicion'.
Nonetheless, the liberal main-stream media, in cahoots with their progressive brethren and constituents in the Latino community, La Raza, the Reconquistas, and their fraternal friends in the civil rights movement have whipped up a completely false picture of how this law will be implemented. President Obama, US Attorney-General Holder, Dept. of Homeland Defense Napolitano have all rebuked Arizona over the law even though all of them now admit they haven't even read it.
Now several cities in Washington, Illinois and California have decided to boycott Arizona originated goods and services. With regards to California the Los Angeles City Council, strongly led by Mayor Villaraigosa, has decided to jump on the bandwagon.
However, there can be, from time time, found even in offices of politicians and bureaucrats individuals who have the strength of character to respond forcefully and yet without emotion or irrationality. Arizona Corporate Commissioner Gary Pierce has decided enough is enough and wrote a little missive to Mayor Villaraigosa, reminding him the Southern California buys a lot of our power. I think that the Commissioner's stand on their own:
May 18, 2010
VIA FACSIMILE & US MAIL
Mayor Antonio R. Villaraigosa
Office of the Mayor
200 North Spring St., Room 303
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Re: Los Angeles boycott of Arizona
Dear Mayor Villaraigosa:
I was dismayed to learn that the Los Angeles City Council voted to boycott Arizona and Arizona-based companies--a vote you strongly supported--to show opposition to SB 1070 (Support our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act).
You explained your support for the boycott as follows: "While we recognize that as neighbors, we share resources and ties with the State of Arizona that may be difficult to sever, our goal is not to hurt the local economy of Los Angeles, but to impact the economy of Arizona. Our intent is to use our dollars--or the witholding of our dollars--to send a message." (emphasis added)
I received your message; please receive mine. As a state-wide elected member of the Arizona Corporation Commission overseeing Arizona's electric and water utilities, I too am keenly aware of the "resources and ties" we share with the City of Los Angeles. In fact, approximately twenty-five percent of the electricity consumed in Los Angeles is generated by power plants in Arizona.
If an economic boycott is truly what you desire, I will be happy to encourage Arizona utilities to renegotiate your power agreements so Los Angeles no longer receives any power from Arizona-based generation. I am confident that Arizona utilities would be happy to take those electrons off of your hands. If, however, you find that the City Council lacks the strength of its convictions to turn off the lights in Los Angeles and boycott Arizona power, please reconsider the wisdom of attempting to harm Arizona's economy.
People of goodwill can disagree over the merits of SB 1070. A state-wide economic boycott of Arizona is not a message sent in goodwill.
Sincerely,
Commission Gary Pierce
The City of Los Angeles may regret that they didn't build more nuclear power plants in the 1970's, 80's and 90's.
If you want to see the actual facsimile copy of the letter, you can go here to the Arizona Corporate Commissioner's website.
Monday, May 17, 2010
Factoid of the day.
I typed "miserable president" into Google search engine today (May 17th @ 10:11 AM MST), and here's what I got:
Well, for once I agree.
Friday, April 30, 2010
Arizona SB 1070: Here's what it actually says...
If you want to see the actual bill as passed by the Arizona legislature and signed by the Governor, you can go here.
I have attempted to summarize it as much as possible below.
Changes are made to Sec 2. Title 11, Chapter 7 of Arizona Revised statutes, amended by adding article 8.
8.a) No official or agency of any Arizona juridiction may adopt policies that limit or restricts enforcement of federal immigrations laws.
8.b) When lawful contact made by Arizona law enforcement, where reasonable suspicion exists that the person may be an illegal alien, a reasonable attempt will be made to determine the person’s immigration status.
8.c) If it is determined that the person is an illegal alien and convicted of a violation of Arizona jurisdiction law, they shall be immediately transferred to ICE or the US Border Patrol.
8.d) Notwithstanding other law, law enforcement may securely transport an alien in their custody to a federal facility in Arizona or other point of transfer to federal custody outside law enforcement agency jurisdiction.
8.e) Law enforcement may without warrant arrest a person under probable cause to believe that person has committed a public offense that makes person eligible for removal from the U.S.
8.f) Except as restricted by Federal law, Arizona officials may not be prohibited or restricted from transmitting, requesting or storing immigration-related status information for the following purposes:
8.f.1) Determining eligibility for any public benefit provided by any political subdivision of Arizona or the Federal government.
8.f.2) Verification of claim of residence or domicile is required under Arizona law or judicial order pursuant to a civil or criminal proceeding in Arizona.
8.f.3) Confirming ID of any person who is detained.
8.f.4) If person confirmed to be an alien, determining whether the person is in compliance with the Federal Registration Laws prescribed by Title II, Chapter 7 of the Federal Immigration and National Act.
8.g) A person may bring an action to challenge any official or agency of an Arizona jurisdiction that adopts or implements a policy that restricts full enforcement of federal immigration law. If an official or agency has been found in violation, the court shall:
8.g.1) The person who brought the action recover court costs and attorney feeds
8.g.2) The entity will pay a civil penalty of not less than $1000 or more than $5000 for each day the limiting policy was in effect after the filing.
8.h) The court shall collect civil penalties from 8.g and remit them to the Dept. of Public Safety for the Gang and Immigration Intellgence Team Enforcement mission fund.
8.i) A law enforcement officer is indemnified for reasonable costs and expenses, incurred by any action so long as the officer is judged to have acted in good faith of enforcement of the law.
8.j) Guides implementation.
Sec. 3. Title 13, Chapter 15, Arizona Revised statutes modified as below:
15.a) In addition to any violation of federal law, a person is guilty of trespassing if the person is both:
15.a.1) Present on public of private land in Arizona.
15.a.2) In violation of 8 USC Sec 1304(e) or 1306(a).
15.b) In enforcement of this section final determination of an alien’s immigration status shall be determined by either:
15.b.1) A law enforcement officer who is authorized by the federal government to veiry or ascertain an alien’s immigration status.
15.b.2) A law enforcement officer or agent communicating with US ICE or US Border Patrol pursuant to 8 USC 1373(c).
15.c) A person sentenced pursuant to this section is not eligible for suspension or commutation of sentence until sentence is served.
15.d) In addition to any other penalty prescribed by law, the court shall order the reason to pay jail costs and an additional assessment in the following amounts:
15.d.1) At least $500 for first violation.
15.d.2) Twice the amount from 15.d.1 if person was previously subject to an assessment pursuant to this subsection.
15.e) The court will collect these assesements and distribute them to Dept. of Public Safety, subaccount for Gang and Immigration Intelligence Team Enforcement Mission appropriations.
15.f) This section does not apply to a person who maintains authorization from the federal government to remain in the United States.
15.g) Violation of this subsection is a class 1 misdemeanor unless
15.g.1) A class 3 felony is committed while in possession of
15.g.1.a) A dangerous drug as defined in 13-3401
15.g.1.b) Precursor chemicals used in manufacture of methamphetamines in violation of 13-3404.01.
15.g.1.c) Possesses a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument as defined in 13-105.
15.g.2) A class 4 felony is committed if the person
15.g.2.a) Is convicted of a second or subsequent violation of this section
15.g.2.b) Within 60 months prior to violation, has been deported from the US pursuant to 8 USC 1229a or has accepted a voluntary removal from the US to 8 USC 1229c.
Sec.4 Section 13-2319 AZ revised statutes amended:
Insert section E:
E) Notwithstanding any other law, a peace officer may lawfully stop any person who is operating a motor vehicle if the officer has reasonable suspicion to believe that the person is in violation of any civil traffic law.
Redesignate section E as section F.
Sec. 5 Title 13 Chapter 29 AZ Revised Statues amended by adding 13-2928 and 13-2929
Section 13-2928 makes it illegal to pick up anybody from a street, roadway or highway for the purpose of work at a different location if the vehicle impedes normal traffic. It also makes it illegal to enter a vehicle under the same circumstances. Finally, it makes it illegal for an illegal immigrant to seek work in a public place or perform work as an employee or independent contractor. 13-2928 will be a class 1 misdemeanor.
Section 13-2929 makes it illegal for anyone to attempt to, or actually perform any of the following if they know or recklessly disregard a person’s illegal immigration status: transport, move, harbor, conceal, shield, or encourage to reside in this state unlawfully.
Modification of Sec 23-212 to define entrapment of businesses by law enforcement agencies under certain circumstances such as law enforcement initiating idea to commit the offense, with or without inducement and it can be shown that employer was not predisposed to commit offense prior to contact with law enforcement agents.
Section 23-214 is modified to specify that employers shall participate in e-verify and maintain the record of verification of the employee’s employment or at least three years, whichever is longer.
Section 28-3511 modified to permit the removal, impoundment or immobilization of a vehicle if the person is in violation of a criminal offense and is transporting, moving, concealing, harboring or shielding or attempting to do so of an alien in a vehicle if the person knows or recklessly disregards the fact that the alien is residing in the U.S. unlawfully.
I have attempted to summarize it as much as possible below.
Changes are made to Sec 2. Title 11, Chapter 7 of Arizona Revised statutes, amended by adding article 8.
8.a) No official or agency of any Arizona juridiction may adopt policies that limit or restricts enforcement of federal immigrations laws.
8.b) When lawful contact made by Arizona law enforcement, where reasonable suspicion exists that the person may be an illegal alien, a reasonable attempt will be made to determine the person’s immigration status.
8.c) If it is determined that the person is an illegal alien and convicted of a violation of Arizona jurisdiction law, they shall be immediately transferred to ICE or the US Border Patrol.
8.d) Notwithstanding other law, law enforcement may securely transport an alien in their custody to a federal facility in Arizona or other point of transfer to federal custody outside law enforcement agency jurisdiction.
8.e) Law enforcement may without warrant arrest a person under probable cause to believe that person has committed a public offense that makes person eligible for removal from the U.S.
8.f) Except as restricted by Federal law, Arizona officials may not be prohibited or restricted from transmitting, requesting or storing immigration-related status information for the following purposes:
8.f.1) Determining eligibility for any public benefit provided by any political subdivision of Arizona or the Federal government.
8.f.2) Verification of claim of residence or domicile is required under Arizona law or judicial order pursuant to a civil or criminal proceeding in Arizona.
8.f.3) Confirming ID of any person who is detained.
8.f.4) If person confirmed to be an alien, determining whether the person is in compliance with the Federal Registration Laws prescribed by Title II, Chapter 7 of the Federal Immigration and National Act.
8.g) A person may bring an action to challenge any official or agency of an Arizona jurisdiction that adopts or implements a policy that restricts full enforcement of federal immigration law. If an official or agency has been found in violation, the court shall:
8.g.1) The person who brought the action recover court costs and attorney feeds
8.g.2) The entity will pay a civil penalty of not less than $1000 or more than $5000 for each day the limiting policy was in effect after the filing.
8.h) The court shall collect civil penalties from 8.g and remit them to the Dept. of Public Safety for the Gang and Immigration Intellgence Team Enforcement mission fund.
8.i) A law enforcement officer is indemnified for reasonable costs and expenses, incurred by any action so long as the officer is judged to have acted in good faith of enforcement of the law.
8.j) Guides implementation.
Sec. 3. Title 13, Chapter 15, Arizona Revised statutes modified as below:
15.a) In addition to any violation of federal law, a person is guilty of trespassing if the person is both:
15.a.1) Present on public of private land in Arizona.
15.a.2) In violation of 8 USC Sec 1304(e) or 1306(a).
15.b) In enforcement of this section final determination of an alien’s immigration status shall be determined by either:
15.b.1) A law enforcement officer who is authorized by the federal government to veiry or ascertain an alien’s immigration status.
15.b.2) A law enforcement officer or agent communicating with US ICE or US Border Patrol pursuant to 8 USC 1373(c).
15.c) A person sentenced pursuant to this section is not eligible for suspension or commutation of sentence until sentence is served.
15.d) In addition to any other penalty prescribed by law, the court shall order the reason to pay jail costs and an additional assessment in the following amounts:
15.d.1) At least $500 for first violation.
15.d.2) Twice the amount from 15.d.1 if person was previously subject to an assessment pursuant to this subsection.
15.e) The court will collect these assesements and distribute them to Dept. of Public Safety, subaccount for Gang and Immigration Intelligence Team Enforcement Mission appropriations.
15.f) This section does not apply to a person who maintains authorization from the federal government to remain in the United States.
15.g) Violation of this subsection is a class 1 misdemeanor unless
15.g.1) A class 3 felony is committed while in possession of
15.g.1.a) A dangerous drug as defined in 13-3401
15.g.1.b) Precursor chemicals used in manufacture of methamphetamines in violation of 13-3404.01.
15.g.1.c) Possesses a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument as defined in 13-105.
15.g.2) A class 4 felony is committed if the person
15.g.2.a) Is convicted of a second or subsequent violation of this section
15.g.2.b) Within 60 months prior to violation, has been deported from the US pursuant to 8 USC 1229a or has accepted a voluntary removal from the US to 8 USC 1229c.
Sec.4 Section 13-2319 AZ revised statutes amended:
Insert section E:
E) Notwithstanding any other law, a peace officer may lawfully stop any person who is operating a motor vehicle if the officer has reasonable suspicion to believe that the person is in violation of any civil traffic law.
Redesignate section E as section F.
Sec. 5 Title 13 Chapter 29 AZ Revised Statues amended by adding 13-2928 and 13-2929
Section 13-2928 makes it illegal to pick up anybody from a street, roadway or highway for the purpose of work at a different location if the vehicle impedes normal traffic. It also makes it illegal to enter a vehicle under the same circumstances. Finally, it makes it illegal for an illegal immigrant to seek work in a public place or perform work as an employee or independent contractor. 13-2928 will be a class 1 misdemeanor.
Section 13-2929 makes it illegal for anyone to attempt to, or actually perform any of the following if they know or recklessly disregard a person’s illegal immigration status: transport, move, harbor, conceal, shield, or encourage to reside in this state unlawfully.
Modification of Sec 23-212 to define entrapment of businesses by law enforcement agencies under certain circumstances such as law enforcement initiating idea to commit the offense, with or without inducement and it can be shown that employer was not predisposed to commit offense prior to contact with law enforcement agents.
Section 23-214 is modified to specify that employers shall participate in e-verify and maintain the record of verification of the employee’s employment or at least three years, whichever is longer.
Section 28-3511 modified to permit the removal, impoundment or immobilization of a vehicle if the person is in violation of a criminal offense and is transporting, moving, concealing, harboring or shielding or attempting to do so of an alien in a vehicle if the person knows or recklessly disregards the fact that the alien is residing in the U.S. unlawfully.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
