Question about Gay Rights

In a discussion, I was asked my opinion on Gay Marriage. While I do not speak for the Modern Whig Party, much like the differing opinions in the Democratic party, I believe that the denial of Gay Marriage rights is unconstitutional. Currently, there is a national "right" called marriage. It is not really a "right", but a status that affords the citizens that obtain a legal marriage certain benefits which include tax and survivorship benefits. In order to obtain this status, a man and a woman must have a legitimate marriage, either performed as a civil ceremony or as a civil ceremony which is part of a religious ceremony. By having a legitimate marriage, individual states cannot deny certain benefits afforded on a national level (each state has different benefits, but the marriage must be recognized).

And this is where the ban on gay marriage runs aground Constitutionally. Assuming all else is equal, each citizen is supposed to have rights equivalent to others in the same position. In other words, a woman is supposed to have at least the same rights as a man, and a man in one state is supposed to have at least the same rights under the US Constitution in one state as another. The Constitution is a quid pro quo document. It is stated in the Constitution that there must be a separation of church and state. Taking all of those together, it is illogical, and mere ideological based thinking, to deny the right of a man to marry another man when they have the right to marry a woman. That would mean that in certain situations, rights are curtailed merely based upon gender. In other words, remove all of the religious and moral arguments. At the very core, the denial of gay marriage rights is gender based discrimination.

Notice how I did not insert any moral aspects. This is merely based upon case law and logical thinking. I can be opposed morally to gay marriage yet, if I believe in the Constitution, I have to affirm the right of marriage to those of different sexual persuasion.

But, for the sake of argument, let's inject morality into this discussion. The number one reason why people argue that marriage should only be between a man and a woman is tradition based upon the fact that this country was founded by Christians. While I do not want to get into a lengthly discussion of the Christianity of our founders, they were also white, men, and half slave owners, so by that logic, we should also remove the rights of minorities and woman and bring back slavery. Do you see the absurdity? But I digress. Let's get back to the moral aspects. So, if the union between a man and a woman is more moral than the union between a woman and a woman, why are their laws permitting divorce? Divorce is the absolute destruction of a marriage, and in some religious orders, a moral sin. Yet, we seem to be comfortable as a society with this aspect.

See, the problem with morality is that it only works for those with the exact same viewpoints. While it is great that we live our lives in a moral fashion according to our own beliefs, what is our right to force our morals onto others? I cannot remember where I heard this, but to me, this rings true. "I am fearful of the day in which my guns and my religion are controlled by the same organization."

Fortunately, for us, America is composed of people with morals and ethics that span opinions. While we must legislate baseline morality (e.g. no killing, no theft, etc.), we should rely upon our Constitution and our desire as Americans to include all rational and reasonable viewpoints. To me, although others in the Modern Whig Party may have differing opinions, this type of thought process is the way of the moderates and the way of the Georgia Modern Whig Party.

Are Whigs Republican-Lite

There is a great discussion going on right now in a posting the Daily Kos about the article of the Georgia Modern Whig Party made it look like we were Republican-lite. There are some great comments and some offhanded insults, but really most were genuine in their analysis.

Unfortunately, because of space, my comments regarding my political ideologies was unfortunately cut-off. Mr. Howard provided a great, balanced article, but I think the fact that he only invited comment from the Republican county leader evidenced that I may have not made my point. I am a moderate. I believe that the solutions to a problem come from various sides of the political spectrum. We are reaching out to both Democrats and Republicans that are increasingly left behind by their parties. We believe in being socially progressive.

But, please let me be clear, I believe that ideological based solutions are incomplete and an incompetent manner in which to govern. How long do we as citizens have to suffer from dealing with politicians that pander to their extreme base by offering solutions based not on logic or data, but rather, on ideologies. The constant and incessant attempt to fit the proverbial square peg in a round hole is hurting us all.

To the leaders in Georgia, and from what I have gathered by talking to my fellow citizens in Georgia, being a moderate is not about being a middle of the road type of person. That tends to lead someone to believe that we believe in nothing, which is absolutely untrue. Rather, we believe that being a moderate is not succumbing to ideologies and putting forth rational, common sense solutions.

We believe in principles and goals, not ideologies. We believe in accountability and measurability, not ideologies. We believe in having an open mind, realizing that listening to opposing viewpoints is an opportunity to learn rather than a sign of weakness. No single one of us has all the answers, but together we do. It is this moderate thought process that gave us the Constitution.

How do politicians in DC "Cut taxes"

Every president for the past 20 years have professed to cut taxes, both individual and corporate. While corporate taxation is relatively straightforward, the way in which individual taxes are cut involves a slight of hand in a lot of instances. The Federal government can promote these things called "mandates", basically standards or laws that state and local governments must enforce or comply with. These mandates are often social or commercial programs that involve the actual spending of money. What the federal government does is push the cost down to the states, thus lowering the federal government expenditures, thus giving them the ability to "cut taxes". For example, to implement and comply with No Child Left Behind, states had to spend significant money. This is state money, thus requiring the states to either cut other programs or raise state taxes. So, the federal government gets to have its cake and eat it too. Not only do they get to tout the fact that they started a great program, but they also get to tout that they did not raise, and possibly did lower, taxes. In the meantime, states are left with the bill.

think about this when you read the healthcare bill and how it will be funded.

Re-adjusting the Size of the House of Representatives

A lawsuit was filed by a group called Apportionment.US. the suit alleges that the current allocation of seats in the HOR is unconstitutional. When the seats were allocated in 1911, the difference in population was minimal. In the last 90 some odd years, America has grown a little bit. It should be an interesting lawsuit to monitor. Unfortunately, these sorts of cases have typically been thrown out because the "harm" to the individual plaintiffs have usually been found to be too remote. Hopefully, they found a nice hook to keep it in court.

Fiscal Responsibility Does Not Equal Fiscal Conservatism

Much has been made about the need for fiscal conservatism to come back to Washington, but why then does the Modern Whig Party say "fiscal responsibility" rather than "fiscal conservatism"? One of the main concepts of the Modern Whig Party is common sense solutions. The solution should be derived from the problem itself, not based upon a preconceived notion of ideology. That is where fiscal conservatism becomes a real issue. Throughout the reign of the Republicans in the past decade, President Bush and the leaders in Washington touted, professed fiscal conservatism. It was their mainstay, their platform. But, we know it didn't work, and in fact, had the opposite effect. Deficits under the Republican were out of control and the government expanded in a manner unseen until President Obama took the reigns. Why?

Some would say corruption, greed, power. Yes, those cannot be ruled out. But, the larger issue is that the "theory of fiscal conservation" is just that, a theory. Reduce government spending, reduce the size of government. Great notions, but without more, it often leads to either expansion of government or inadequately funded mandates. How many times in the past 20 years or so did the federal government send mandates to the states, yet under the guise of fiscal conservation, did not fund the mandates? The congress people in Washington can tout their conservative principles for re-relection, yet, have failed to provide a real, common sense solution. They have merely succeeded in hiding the ball, shifting the spending from the federal government to the states. Now that states are broke, federal mandates are requiring the federal government to step in and fund the states, thus, leading to a massive expansion of government.

The best solution is Fiscal Responsibility. It is not about bigger government, smaller government. But rather, Fiscal Responsibility is about the Right Size of Government. It begins with the manner in which the problem is solved (discussed in another post below) and ends with finding the right, non-ideological biased solution to achieve the results. Fiscal Responsibility is about looking at the solution without preconceived biases, finding the common sense solution, and setting forth the right size of government intervention (if any) to meet the needs.

Fiscal Conservatism is an idea. Fiscal Responsibility is a solution.

Modern Whig Way of Problem Solving

When presented with an issue, here is the way that a problem should be solved, from start to finish:

1) Is this issue a local, state or federal issue?

2) If the issue is a federal issue, does the Federal government has a constitutional right to solve the problem?

3) Generate the "system". List the inputs into the issue, list the outputs from the issue. For example, the issue may be health care costs. Inputs include fraud, legal actions, chronic illnesses, immigration, and technology. Outputs are care and quality.

4) Determine how each input affects each output at a local level.

5) Determine scalability. Even if a problem may be handled on a federal level, if a "one size fits all" approach does not scale, then the issue should be solved at the highest level. For example, healthcare is very much a local issue. Immigration is not so much of an issue in Montana as it is in California.

6) Optimize the solution. Right level of solution (local, state or national). right size of government (if even necessary). Right change in inputs or additional inputs for the desired output.

7) Write legislation that provides a means of measuring the affect.

8) In the legislation, provide a means for changing or abolishing the legislation based upon the measured affect.

What is a Moderate?

Here in Georgia, we are redefining what it means to be a moderate. Right now, the two major parties want to force people into two camps, liberal or conservative. They are moving these camps further and further to the left or right. They want the people to believe that political beliefs are a range. It makes things easier. its easier to incite your base if you can use throwaway terms instead of addressing the issues. It is easier to get your constituents to buy into your bills if you can generalize the bill according to an ideology rather than the actual issue itself. We believe that ideological thought processes are radical, and creating solutions based on the issues themselves, without any preconceived ideological biases, is true moderate thinking.

For example, it is easy for Dems to sell the healthcare package because they label and design the package as bigger government. Republicans are finding ways to incite their constituents against the bill because they allege bigger government.

Unfortunately, what Washington does now is not pass into law solutions, but ideas. There are so many costs that go into healthcare, and no one in Congress has bothered to figure out how the new healthcare bill is going to affect those costs. For all we know, the costs could skyrocket, thus putting a taxable load on the american people.

Here is how a moderate would handle the problem (according to how we think what a moderate is): use basic engineering principles. Determine your inputs, change an input, measure the change in output(s). perform the change for each. Optimize the solution based upon the changes. Have a means for measuring results and a way to change the input if the results are not satisfactory.

Applied to the healthcare debate, there are about 9 major factors that lead to "costs" in healthcare (chronic illnesses, fraud, lawsuits, inefficiencies, etc.). What we should do is go to the local level and change one of the inputs. For example, a city can be funded by the federal government to crack down hard on insurance fraud. measure the output. use the cities and local governments as test tubes. figure out a process in which the major inputs can be changed at a local level and measure the output. figure out what works best (reduces costs, increases quality, increases accessibility).

No where in this discussion did I invoke the need for smaller government, more taxes, etc. The solution will come from the problem itself.

Just a thought.

The President's Speech

As we looked at President Obama's speech last night, two things are clear: the man can give a good speech and that Washington is broken. Plainly evident was the fact that any hope of any compromise is gone, as each side has taken cover and is ready for a fight. It is disappointing that at each turn, each side is ready, willing and able to personally and professionally insult those on the other side of the aisle. It is a shame that one of the most precious gifts our forefathers gave to us, our government, has turned into a fourth grade shouting match. Just because someone does something wrong or does something that you do not agree with should not be looked at as an opportunity for insult and belittlement.

One Size Fits All Federal Government Does Not Work...

and never has.

As we look at what the federal government has become in the last 40 or so years, one thing is plainly evident, the issues Georgia faces are the same exact issues that California faces. This is not the case, and we that have lived in several states know that each state is different. For example, education is a major issue in the south and a major accomplishment of the north. California is bankrupt while some states, even in this recession, still have surpluses in the bank. Most southern and southwestern states, as well as California, have severe illegal immigration issues, with the accompanying safety and public welfare burdens placed upon their systems.

Yet, despite these differences, the federal government still attempts to assert a one size fits all solution in every case. The simple fact of the matter is that while some issues handled by the federal government may be national in scope, the specific facts of each state vary from state to state. A national solution will inherently be inefficient and ineffective unless it is tailored specifically to the situation at hand. As we have seen, the federal government is neither willing nor able to relinquish any control or authority to the states.