Gary Wisenbaker | Gary Wisenbaker’s Blog

Primer on Electoral College: The genius of the framers of the Constitution

Thu, 26 Apr 2012 10:29:00 GMT

Primer on Electoral College
The genius of the framers of the Constitution

The contenders for president are now pretty much identified. A hard fought race will be run and a victor emerge. Its worth noting, briefly, why and how that victor will take over or remain commander in chief without the intervention of the military.

During the Spring of the year 236 years ago colonial congressional delegates in Philadelphia began an earnest debate on dissolving political ties between the American colonies and Great Britain. No small debate; no small task.

Yet even before they voted in July to throw off King George’s yoke, many began asking the question: So we win, then what?

The establishment of self government was a daunting task. John Adams, in his “Thoughts on Government”, asked at the time, “How few of the human race have ever had an opportunity of choosing a system of government for themselves and their children?” Aside from Jehovah establishing Saul on the throne of ancient Israel (at the insistence of the people who wanted a king like the surrounding nations), there is scant evidence of such an opportunity in history.

By 1789 the Founding Fathers produced a blue print for self government that was, and remains, nothing less than magnificent. The Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights reflected their concern over unbridled power inherent in a pure democracy and a national government. Thus they established a federal republic.

This republic would consist of a house of representatives proportioned by population and elected directly by the people (democracy) and a senate proportioned by the number of states and elected by the state legislatures (republic) (later unfortunately changed). As ingenious as this part of the hard fought plan is, the real ingenuity lies in the election of the chief magistrate, the president, by a combination of the two known as the Electoral College.

Ever so often the drum beat begins to get rid of the Electoral College and elect the president by popular vote. After all, the proposers ask, isn’t this a democracy? No, it isn’t. This is a democracy within a republic.

The success of this arrangement evidences itself: our survival as a nation against a 2nd war with Great Britain, a test of wills between and among the states and the federal government, two world wars, a Great Depression and numerous other challenges that a democracy simply could not survived. And in spite of detractors both in and out of government, the United States of America remains the most successful financial and military nation on earth. And our people the most free.

The glue that held America together was the Electoral College. And this is so because the president is elected by a majority vote of the electors who comprise the Electoral College.

Briefly the Electoral College works this way: Each state is allotted two electoral votes since each state has two senators (republic). In addition, each state is allotted a number of electors equal to the number of congressional districts it has (democracy). Whoever carries that state gets the vote, except for Maine and Nebraska which allows allocation based on who carries each congressional district, a terrible, terrible idea. Pennsylvania took such a notion off the table last fall, mercifully.

Were the Electoral College abolished or allocations allowed as in Maine, presidential contenders need only campaign in heavily populated states and urban areas. The voice of the sparsely or lesser populated states would be lost, a fate seriously debated by the framers of the Constitution and rejected. They rightly believed that each state should have a say in the running of the federal government (the senate) as well as the people themselves (the house of representatives). The way to preserve this concept in the election of the president was the establishment of the Electoral College. Simply genius.

Come January, 2013, a president will be sworn in. He may be new, he may be the incumbent. Whether power is transferred or maintained, it will be done without tear gas in the streets, tanks rolling thru neighborhoods or suicide bombers self destructing in malls or police stations.

And this is so because the man taking the oath of office will have been elected by and through a process that made all the states important, a process where all the states and, hence, all the people had a voice.

No small debate; no small task.

Demagogy, the Constitution, Taxes and Obama

Sat, 14 Apr 2012 20:35:00 GMT

Unble once again to put a spotlight on any successful policy of his administration, President Obama today took to the negative. Rather than argue how his programs have helped all Americans the president took on the mantra of class envy to promote punitive legislation against the successful. I refer, of course, to his April 14 radio address and the eurosocialistic Buffett Rule.

The Buffett Rule (“BFR”), as you may recall, is the idea that if your income is $2 million or more then your tax rate should be at least 30% regardless, evidently, of what the law requires. There are twists and turns to this, as there are with all rules, but that’s the sum and substance of it.

The gravamen of the president’s argument is that the ‘rich” need to pay “their fair share”. I guess he forgets that the top 1% pay around 38% of all federal tax revenues and the top 5% account for 58% or so of the federal take. Facts and demagogy, however, don’t have mix very well.

The president and his comrades in the US Senate no longer recognize the origins or source of such income. If, for example, I am in top management of a major or successful company and I receive an annual salary of $2 million, then I am taxed at whatever the effective rate is for ordinary income. If, on the other hand, I have worked hard all my life and invested my after tax income (that is, money I’ve already paid a tax on) such that I sell off those investments from time to time at a profit, then that profit would be taxed at whatever the effective tax rate is on capital gains. (Keep in mind, I’ve already paid taxes on the money I invested, so I’m really being taxed twice.)

And that is what I counted on in making those investments, a lower tax rate. But as one can see, even at a lower rate, the 1% pay far more than their “fair share” in federal tax revenues.

The liberals would have you now pay taxes on your income as you earned it (fair enough), again should you profitably sell any investment purchased with that after tax income (a second time tax, arguable not fair) and yet again if your income crosses a certain threshold but your tax bill isn’t high enough (clearly not fair). This is clearly a punishment, a “taking” of property if you will, without due process.

What the BFR does is (1) specifically identify the people from whom property will be taken (those meeting a certain income threshold); (2) impose a punishment (excessive taxation thus requiring them to forfeit property to the state in excess of what is required); and (3) ignores the legal distinctions between types of income and the applicable rate thus denying, arguably, due process to the tax payer.

A classic definition of a Bill of Attainder. Something you don’t discuss much on a daily basis.

Under English law, bills of attainder were used somewhat ruthlessly when the Crown wanted someone out of his/her way. It usually involved a property reversion to the Crown or the Crown’s designee. They were, very generally speaking, laws that were passed specifically naming people and accusing them of wrongdoing. Conviction by legislation. No trial needed. And they were used against the colonists as well.

The Framers of the Constitution were so concerned about this device that bills of attainder were expressly forbidden in Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 3 of the Constitution. So strong was their fear that they also specifically forbade any state from passing such bills, one of the very few restrictions imposed on the states in the unamended Constitution.

Yet this is not the first time this has been tried by this administration and its Senate henchmen. The attempt to confiscate 90% of the money paid out as bonuses to AIG execs was considered by many as a bill of attainder even though the legislation failed to pass. Their crime was being bailed out by the US Treasury. Yet here we again, same song, different verse.

One cannot help but conclude that this administration has no respect at all for the Constitution of the United States. Or at least no basic understanding. Here’s a president (and a Senate) proclaiming that there is no precedent for the Supreme Court to overturn federal legislation. Tell that to Chief Justice John Marshall of Marbury v. Madison fame. Or insisting that there’s a constitutional basis for requiring private citizens to purchase a private commodity (health insurance).

Even with the BFR, they’re going about it unconstitutionally since they are attempting to introduce and pass a tax revenue measure in the US Senate when the Constitution is unequivocally clear that tax revenue measures must originate in the House of Representatives.
But here’s Comrade Reid rushing it to the Senate floor with no hearings or committee vote. He didn’t do it on his own; it had to orchestrated with the White House for no other purpose but to demagogue the issue and incite class envy and class warfare. They should all be ashamed of themselves for debasing the Constitution and the legislative process.

F.A.Hayek argued in The Constitution of Liberty that effective and respectable law ought to be general in nature, understandable, known and certain, and applied equally to all. The BFR is not general in nature, it is an aberration from the known and certain law, and it cannot be equally applied since it seeks to change the existing equally applied tax rules to apply them unequally.

If the real issue is tax code reform, then let’s reform the tax code. Gosh knows it needs it. But let’s not demagogue the issue to create class envy and warfare and divide our people.

Obama continues to debase and cheapen the majesty of the office he holds.

And he should be ashamed.

Taming the Gas Pump Shrew

Fri, 13 Apr 2012 14:26:00 GMT

Taming the Gas Pump Shrew

Fueling the economy

It happens to us at least once a week, sometimes twice: The gas pump confrontation. We simultaneously pump fuel into the gas tank and siphon much needed fuel out of the economy.

Craig Johnson, CEO of Customer Growth Partners, puts the problem in perspective. As of March 26, 2012, gasoline was 70 cents over December levels. He figures that an increase of this magnitude “takes almost $10 billion per month out of [non-energy] consumer spending...”, as reported by cnbc.com.

That’s a whole lot of eating out, minivacations and other discretional spending now on hold.

The prediction of future gas prices have been dire suggesting that prices could increase to $4, maybe even $5, per gallon before peaking. Recently, however, there’s talk that the price has peaked since the national average of $3.92/gal has held for some 2 or so weeks.

Let’s hope so.

The caveat to the “its peaked” assertion is that the oil supply has to remain stable, refinery capacity remain constant, and continued limp demand, i.e., slow or no economic growth. A real mixed bag. The former and latter seem pretty much in play. The refinery issue is the problem And here’s why.

Pricing gasoline isn’t as simple as looking at the price of a barrel of oil (ppb). This is so because gasoline is traded as a commodity like gold, silver, wheat, and 21 other items on the Standard & Poor’s GSCI Index. Accordingly, speculators really set the price. They have pushed the future price of gasoline (gasoline futures) up 24% thus far this year. And this has happened although the ppb of oil has not similarly increased.

Speculators consider a wide range of factors both empirical and emotional in betting on a future price. Refinery capacity is part of that equation as well. And that could be the rub.

We are in the middle of the largest incidence of refinery closures on the East Coast, or anywhere for that matter, since the early 1980s. While Midwest refineries are running at or near 95% capacity, the East Coast hovers around 60%, according to Oil Price Information Services. This means gasoline has be moved from the Midwest and Gulf to the East Coast to close the supply gap.

But if you only have 5 oranges, you only have 5 oranges no matter how you move them around the fruit bowl.

The refinery issue receives little or no national media attention. It is a huge issue, however. Our domestic oil production could be 60% of the world total rather than the 10% that it is but if you can’t refine the oil in quantities sufficient to meet demand, then you still have a shortage....and higher prices.

If a producer can’t maintain a profit margin to justify the production of a product, then it will cease that production. Such is the case with domestic gasoline refinery owners.

While many factors set the profit margin, government regulation has emerged as a major reason for the spate of refinery closures in the US. Regulations in play in southwest Pennsylvania, for example, requiring the production of certain gasolines to meet federal air quality targets, were instrumental in the recent closing of 2, possibly 3, refineries there. Unless these rules are suspended or repealed, these refineries will remain closed and the loss of jobs permanent, according to John Kulik, executive VP of the Pennsylvania Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Store Association.

Investor’s Daily is even more direct, according to Kenneth Green in The Enterprise Blog. In discussing the Pennsylvania closings, Sunoco lost nearly $1 billion over the past 3 years. Over this same period of time, it spent nearly $1.3 billion to meet EPA rules or possibly pay more in fines or penalties. This in addition to the fines and penalties already heaped on their other refineries by the Obama administration. Talk about adding insult to injury. And Sunoco is just one producer; multiply this out and you start talking about real money.

A shrinking refinery capacity is a real problem. And it needs addressing now by the Obama administration, the Congress and even GOP presumptive presidential nominee Mitt Romney. Ten billion dollars a month being diverted from a struggling economy is devastating.

The logical place to start is with a sweeping review of EPA regulations regarding air quality, how to best meet sensible targets with sensible rules on gasoline ingredients, and practical, workable requirements on plant operations. Perhaps we could overhaul the entire Agency transforming it from a “job killing regulatory engine of higher prices” to an agency that uses “incentives and work[s] cooperatively with local government and industry to achieve better environmental outcomes...” as suggested by Speaker Gingrich on his web page.

The point is this: A large part of the gasoline price problem is government created and the US government can take steps now to fix its portion of the problem. And it can be fixed.

We can have clean air and water and we can have an adequate supply of affordable energy in the form of gasoline. And we can have both without $9/gal gas, regardless of the goals of Energy Department Secretary Chu and the Obama administration.

This shrew can be tamed.

Why Unite? Its Easier to Divide Or Confessons of a Korean Point Dog

Thu, 12 Apr 2012 16:42:00 GMT

There was a time when American school children were taught that the greatness of their country was rooted in the common concern of its citizens: the “melting pot” theory. The idea was that people from all over the globe came here for opportunity and freedom giving up their individual ethnic and cultural backgrounds in order to become an American.

Learning and mastering a common language was part of that Americanization. And so was understanding that everyone had a chance to live their dream free from governmental (and even private) interference. Understanding that such an opportunity existed became the crux of individualism and the harder that opportunity was became the crux of rugged individualism.

While there were kinks and chasms to deal with along the way, the roadway became smooth and broad ensuring that there was ample room for everyone to travel their chosen road to opportunity at whatever pace and in any (legal) manner they wished. Viola! The American Dream.

Then something insidious happened. The idea developed that the American Dream wasn’t something you worked toward but something that ought to be handed to you. And this morphed into the thought that if you worked and amassed wealth and possessions then, well, that was wrong. The government, once the benign facilitator of commerce, took on the new role of arbiter and distributor of wealth.

That smooth and broad road we all traveled was reconstructed. Speed bumps and detours of governmental regulations were installed; worse, lanes were put to be traveled only by those of a specified ethnic background or sex or orientation or religious belief or disability or income bracket.

The melting pot was cleaned out and put away. “Haves” were pitted against “have nots”. Blacks against Whites against Hispanics against Asians and on and on. Men against women. Gay against Straight. Marriage against cohabitation. Professionals against laborers. Employed against unemployed. Voila! Class warfare.

Obama, who has adopted it as his governing modus operandi, recently escalated his class warfare rhetoric with the “soak the rich” tax scheme announcement on April 10. We’ve discussed this before. He doesn’t seem to understand that the tax rates for the higher brackets are generally based on capital gains: they buy and sell stock; they buy and sell land; they buy and sell businesses...all are job creating exercises. Moreover, the vast majority of these high income “earners” are in reality companies owned by individuals or LLCs or LLPs, entities whose profits and losses flow thru the individual taxpayer. Again, these are job creating engines, entrepreneurs.

He just doesn’t get it. The tax code was structured to treat different types of incomes differently (I won’t get into the merits or demerits of such a structure) and for good reason: to encourage investment. So of course Warren Buffett’s or Mitt Romney’s tax rate (say, 18% capital gains rate) may be lower than their respective secretary’s rate (say, 27% ordinary income rate) but its because of the different types of income. The Code, ostensibly at least, seeks to reward risk takers who go out and invest and grow wealth. There’s nothing nefarious about it; it’s the law.

But as demagogy trumps good government and since divisiveness trumps responsible governing, Obama stays on task: Divide and conquer. Winning at any cost to the solidarity of the American people.

Yet now the Obama Administration finds another wedge issue for his reelection campaign: Stay-at-home-moms (SAHMs) vs. working moms (WMs). Clearly a new low, even for this administration. His campaign unleashed DNC pit bull (my apologies to the breed) Hilary Rosen to attack likely GOP nominee Mitt Romney on Wednesday evening, April 11.

You might recall that the White House has no record to run on: Unemployment at 8.3%, a failed $800 billion dollar “stimulus” package, a severely flawed and unpopular health care “reform” act (regardless of how the USSC rules), a failed energy policy, a failed foreign policy, a failed [you fill in the blanks, I’m tired]. Since all they can do is tear down (see his AP Editors speech from 2 weeks ago where he assailed the House budget offering absolutely nothing in its place), that’s what they did.

Only they picked on Mrs. Romney, mother of five sons. Rosen snarled that the Governor’s wife had “never worked a day in her life.” (This, of course, follows Obama’s proclamation that SAHMs are “a luxury”.)

Really.

Tell that to my wife who retired from teaching to raise (just) 3 kids. The funny thing about Rosen’s remark was that it was intended to show how “out of touch” Mitt was with women, their issues and concerns. Talk about out of touch.

They had to do something, however, since Obama’s poll numbers are sketchy, at best, with the SAHMs where Romney does well. Gotta shore up the “have nots” against “the haves”: “energize the base”. Rather than address the real issues and how Obama’s policies have failed all Americans, not just the working moms, the simpler, more liberal, more Democrat approach is to pit one American against another.

Or would they be cynical enough to sic this attack dog on Mrs. Romeny on the eve of a North Korean rocket launch which, if successful, would demonstrate their ability to deliver a nuclear device within our borders? Maybe deflect attention from one of the most glaring foreign policy failures of this administration?

Nahhh.

Good News on Teen Births

Tue, 10 Apr 2012 17:49:00 GMT

The National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), party of the Center for Disease Control (CDC), recently reported that the decline in teenage birth rates continued its decline from 2009 to 2010. The latest rate is 34.3 births per 1,000 which is roughly half the reported 76 per 1,000 reported in 2002. This 2002 report itself reflected a dramatic drop from the 1990 rate of 117 per 1,000.

Note the dates: 1990 to 2010. They’re important.

The NCHS report went on to report that the 1992 -2010 decline “is substantial” and the “widespread significant declines in teen childbearing that began after 1991 have strengthened in recent years.” It noted that the “impact of strong pregnancy prevention messages directed to teenagers” deserved credit for the lower rate. In this same paragraph of the report, NCHS went on to distinguish and note that there was also recorded an increase use of contraception. This leaves one to divine that abstinence was also a part of the strong “messages directed to teenagers.” The paragraph concluded, however, that the trend of increased use of contraception “may have contributed” to the decline.

USA Today, of course, commented only on the increased use of birth control and the innocuous “may have contributed” in slanting the report as supporting condom and birth control pills giveaways to teenagers.

In June 2010, the CDC reported that the “proportion of high school students who have ever had sexual intercourse declined from 54% in 1991 to 46% in 2009.” The 1990s witnessed the bulk of the decline as the number of sexually active teenagers dropped 15%. Interestingly, the rate of decline leveled out and there was no measurable decrease beginning in 2009, the first year of the Obama regime.

But back to those dates, 1990 to 2010.

You may recall that the federal government began funding abstinence programs back in 1982 with experimental funding under the Adolescent Family Life Act. It wasn’t until 1996 with the passing of the landmark welfare reform act (thank you Newt and yes, even you, Bill) that funding for these programs exploded. The idea was to discourage pre-marital sex in general but aimed primarily at teenagers.

The empirical data suggests that it worked. And it continued to work at least until inauguration day, 2009.

The cost of out of wedlock childbirth is high. Nationwide the price tag for teen childbearing in 2008 alone was $10.9 billion. That’s with a “b”. This came to$1,647 as the average annual cost per taxpayer. This is just the cold Scrooge-like analysis.

The real cost is much higher where there are fatherless homes with grandparents raising grandkids and all of them in a cycle of poverty, crime and hopelessness.

Certainly abstinence based programs alone didn’t do the job. But their inclusion and giving the idea a seat at the table clearly helped. Why? It gave kids an out, a way to say “No”, even as the sex ed teacher handed out the foil packets. It’s the higher moral ground and we should pursue it.

But what does Obama do? He undermines the concept, eager to marginalize it, as he did with his 2012 FY budget (which, of course, was resounding defeated even in the Democrat controlled Senate) by cutting funding for abstinence based programs to peanuts. That budget funded foil packets and The Pill over abstinence by a ratio of 16:1, even as he plunged us deeper and deeper into debt.

And no one here is “forcing any values” on anyone else. That makes no more sense than forcing a teenage to have sexual intercourse, which would be morally despicable. Wouldn’t dream of doing that. Forcing a little common sense could be another matter, however.

After all, as the liberals are fond of saying, “its for the children”.