National Interest in Marco Rubio

I am finding that I get comfort from the political storm and my constant criticism of the Congressional leadership and the President’s administration by reading about Former Speaker of the Florida House and candidate for the US Senate from Florida, Marco Rubio.

I take refuge in the simple, logical positions of a true conservative. I read his speeches or watch his videos and I believe that there is hope for the future. My comment after attending my first live event with Marco as the speaker was. “I was already a supporter – now I am a fan.”

So I was interested in several national endorsements this week for Marco.

The first is from syndicated columnist George Will, appearing in Townhall.com, who refers to Marco Rubio in the title of his article as a Principled Conservative. High praise. Will is critical of Governor Crist (challenging Rubio for the Republican nomination for Senate) for appearing at a rally with President Obama in support of the stimulus bill when no House Republicans and only 3 Senate Republicans voted for the stimulus. Crist favors cap and trade legislation and bothered many state Republicans by appointing a Crist political staffer and buddy to serve the balance of the Martinez Senate term. Finally Will is critical of the Crist support “public option” for property insurance which has driven some insurers out of the state and which may leave Florida citizens to foot the bill in the event of a major hurricane.

George Will speaks in glowing terms of Marco Rubio’s passionate conservative views, noting his endorsement in a recent cover article by the Nation Review. He applauds Rubio’s views including limited government, tax reform, spending restraint and removal of all impediments to entrepreneurship.

Read the George Will article in it’s entirety at: http://townhall.com/columnists/GeorgeWill/2009/09/27/a_principled_conservative

The second major endorsement last week came from Dick Armey, Republican Majority Leader in the House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003. Armey is credited, with Newt Gingrich, as author of the GOP Contract with America and with engineering the first Republican Majority in the House in 40 years in 1994. Armey had already endorsed Marco in July, but sent a fundraising letter on Marco’s behalf last week.

Armey stated in the current letter.

As I said when I endorsed him, Marco Rubio is a champion of freedom and an inspiring leader for the next generation of the conservative movement. His track record and conservative convictions are a breath of fresh air in a party looking for new leaders to advance the principles of limited government, lower taxes and economic liberty.

We need his energetic conservative leadership in the Senate. We need someone like him who will stand up for freedom no matter which party is placing it in jeopardy…

Governor Crist has lots of establishment money, but he doesn’t have Marco’s conservative vision, commitment to ideas, ability to deliver our message, or the support of thousands and thousands of citizens fed up with business as usual.”

See Dick Armey’s letter in full in David Weigel’s article for The Washington Independent at: http://washingtonindependent.com/60967/dick-armey-for-marco-rubio

Marco Rubio is polling at or above Governor Crist is areas where both candidates are known. He is consistently beating the Governor in straw polls at local county Republican events. But he still has a name recognition problem in many parts of the state. Marco held the highest legislative post in the state as Speaker of the Florida House – but has only run for election from his Florida House district of West Miami. Fundraising is his biggest challenge. Anybody who hears his message recognizes the differences between him and more liberal Charlie Crist. But he needs financial support to get that message out all over the state. Sitting governors tend to have fundraising power as well as state wide organizations. So Marco has his hands full. But Rubio has the message that the voters want to hear – and the track record to back it up.

Those of my readers who live in Florida or who value the presence of a true conservative in the US Senate in 2010 elections should support Marco’s candidacy at www.MarcoRubio.com. Immediate response is appreciated as the current calendar quarter ends in two days for current reporting requirements.

We all need to keep the energy and the message of the 9/12 TEA parties uppermost in our minds through the Congressional Elections of November 2010. Florida voters will also need to cast their votes for Marco Rubio for Senate in the Republican Primary in August of 2010 and again in the general election in November.

What ever happened to Liberty and the Freedoms of First Amendment ?

Humana, a major health care provider, has been ordered by the Federal Government to cease and desist from a program of mailings to their clients with negative information about the proposed health care legislation.  I believe the actions of Senator Max Baucus and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) are despicable and are just another indication that the liberal majorities in Congress and the Administration will not tolerate opinions which are different than their agenda. 

To state the obvious, the more government becomes involved in segments of the economy, the more those segments lose freedom to run their businesses and even to speak out against the abuse of power by the bureaucracies. 

Humana and other health care vendors receive government money and the government thinks that means that they can muzzle these companies from voicing their opinions on pending legislation. 

Despicable, unconstitutional and frightening to those who love this country and the freedoms upon which it was built. 

NPR Health Blog (NPR is National Public Radio – hardly a right wing outlet) has an article today <link here> which describes the sequence of events.  The Huffington Post – again not exactly a right wing source – has provided a copy of the Humana mailing which generated the controversy.  <link here>

Different news accounts indicate that the President wants to cut out the Medicare Advantage plans (Medicare Part C) in order to save 100 to 500 billion dollars. The President has objected to the government subsidies paid to the providers, considering these subsidies in his category of waste and abuse.  As usual, my only response is Horsepuckey. Don’t let me confuse you with these technical terms.  I believe the President is misrepresenting the facts and merely wants to eliminate a partial privatization of the Medicare programs.

Most Medicare part A services (hospitalization) are provided to Medicare recipients without a premium charged for the coverages if the recipient has worked and paid Medicare taxes for 40 calendar quarters in their working life.  A premium for coverage is charged for Medicare part B (doctors services) – typically less than $100 per month. These programs provide government paid services for approximately 80% of a patients costs.  Most seniors purchase private insurance (medigap coverage) to help with the costs not covered by Medicare.

The Medicare Advantage plans were put in place by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 – under President Clinton.  The bill offered Medicare recipients the option of receiving their Medicare services through private insurance vendors.  The government negotiated the benefits packages with the health care vendors and the Medicare Advantage plans replaced the Medicare A and B services. The government pays the vendors a premium contribution in addition to the premium charged to the recipient.  (President Obama’s wasteful subsidy). The recipient pays a monthly premium (automatically deducted from Social Security payments – like the part B premiums) which is close to the part B premium that they were paying.  The plans cover more of the costs than part A and B coverages, they offer additional service emphasizing preventive care (physicals, eye and dental coverages for example).  Medigap coverages are not necessary.  The Medicare Advantage plans provided prescription coverage before Part D was implemented.  Most important they give recipients choices to fit their expected needs.  Multiple providers and multiple plans from providers allow the recipient to shade their costs and coverages toward the needs they expect to have during the next year.  The vendors renegotiate their plans with the government each year and the recipient makes new choices each year based upon their experience with the company. 

The government gains from the part C programs by buying health coverage at a fixed and predictable cost per patient.  They transfer the administration of the plans to private companies.  The insurance companies offer plans which are specific to the county or regional needs and circumstances.  They negotiate their contracts with doctors and medical providers locally and have an incentive to identify fraud and problem providers within each local area. My perception is that the Medicare Advantage plans offer value and cost control in an environment that does not prize these features.  Most important they offer choice to the recipients.  Not just a choice among the plans but a choice to accept the Part C programs instead of A and B. There is nobody in the Medicare Advantage plans who did not choose to be there.

But the plans represent a partial privatization of Medicare and is therefore an anathema to the President and the leaders of Congress.  The left does not believe in free choice, you will remember.  They believe that government knows better what each of us needs. The President who promised that nobody would be removed from their existing coverages wants to eliminate the Medicare Advantage plans impacting 20% of seniors on Medicare.

So the heavy hand of government has told Humana that they cannot tell their clients that they are going to lose services.  They cannot tell their policy holders to speak up if they disagree with this outcome.  The same government that fired CEOs of auto companies and banks and now must approve salary packages of banks is telling a major health care company that they can not voice their opinions to their own customers.  This is WRONG - and it is getting worse by the day. 

And by the way – do you think they would have silenced Humana if the company had agreed with them?

WAKE UP AMERICA !!

 

 

 

 

Here comes Trouble

The Obama Administration with little fanfare, through the Federal Communications Commission, announced today that they will move forward with a rulemaking proceeding to create formal net neutrality rules. 

On the surface you might think that rules to prohibit internet providers from selectively blocking or slowing web content and applications – include mobile broadband providers – was a good thing. 

In my view it is not.  In fact it scares the Hell out of me.

Nobody has had any problem with the network providers doing any of these things.  It is just another situation in which the Federal is moving to take over another major segment of the economy.  The internet, like the economy has undergone amazing growth for 15 years (is that since Al Gore invented it?).  Market functions and entrepeneural forces have driven this growth.  I see no good thing that can come out of government meddling and regulation. 

Don’t these people understand yet that when government picks the winners and losers in the marketplace, our capitalistic system is dead?

Don’t they realize when they screw the secured bond holders at General Motors to benefit the unions in violation of law that they stop major investors from buying what used to be considered secured debt in major corporations?

When the rules that govern our economic markets and traditional mechanisms for doing business can be altered at the whim of the political leadership from either party, then you are destabilizing the process and private investors will not be able to invest with faith in the system. 

We are becoming a banana republic in an economic, if not a political, sense.  Long term planning is becoming impossible for investors or major corporations because the basic landscape and rules of debt and equity are becoming unpredictable.  And the cause is, in my view, is GOVERNMENT.

You may read some of the news articles today <here> and <here>.

In my view this is an answer to a question that nobody is asking.  But the precedent of advancing FCC regulation of the internet is a problem and will not end well. 

Another of our Freedoms started to die today.

 

 

When will we ever Learn

This cartoon was created in 1948 by John Sutherland, a former colleague of Walt Disney.  After the war, Sutherland made industrial and propaganda films, employing many animators when other studios were not using them during the 40’s and 50’s.

The clip is 9:30 minutes and addresses the benefits of capitalism over communism.  The theme seems to speak directly to us today.

My source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVh75ylAUXY

 

Supreme Court waking Up?

Campaign finance reform has always scares me.  Any attempt to limit financial contributions or independent expenditures during a political campaign violates, in my view, the first amendment and always benefits the incumbent candidates.  The only permissible means of controlling campaign finance, in my view, is quick and full disclosure on the internet of all contributions or expenditures so that the public can understand who is supporting the candidates and what that may mean to their future representation in office. 

To me the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (usually referred to as McCain-Feingold Act after its primary sponsors) was and is appalling and unAmerican.  And those are its good points.

I was amazed and disappointed when several Supreme Court decisions upheld the constitutionality of provisions of the the act.  In a nation which protects pornography or racially derogatory material as free speech it is beyond me how political opinion can be suppressed.  We seem to have slipped a bit from our values and beliefs as provided by our founding documents. 

Well there is still hope.  The case Citizens United v Federal Election Commission came before the Court in 2008.  Oral Arguments were heard in March, 2009.  A decision was expected before the end of the current term of the Court in June of 2009.  However, on June 29, 2009, the Court ordered that the case be reargued on September 9, 2009, after briefing wider Constitutional issues including whether the Court should overturn one or more of its previous decisions on the validity of the McCain-Feingold act. 

The case involves a movie which presented then candidate Hillary Clinton in an unflattering light.  The movie was to be released in advance of important primary elections during the presidential race of 2008.  The United States District Court for the District of Columbia found that the movie and its promotional ads were electioneering communications and could be banned under the provisions of McCain-Feingold.  When argued before the Court, the deputy Solicitor General speaking for the government suggested that the law would permit banning books which fall within the definitions of expressed advocacy

The case is important since it is unusual for the Court to reverse its own decisions since the weight and importance of previous decisions (called stare decisis – it stands decided) gives the legal system some predictability and much of its validity.  Certainly the Court has changed its mind – Brown v Board of Education reversed generations of Court approved racial discrimination in schools.  But this case could impact recent cases, including a 2007 case where the opinion of the Court was written by Chief Justice Roberts, himself.  In order to attract five Justices to a decision in the present case, a narrow crafting of a “safe harbor” exclusion from regulation may be preferable to invalidating a section of the law. 

But not to me.

George Will has a good article about the issue at Townhall.com today.   link <here>.

 

 

Governor Crist Mis-steps on Senate Appointment

Governor Charlie Crist had a surprisingly hot potato dropped into his lap recently with the announcement that Senator Martinez (R) of Florida was intending to resign his position in the Senate to return home ahead of schedule. Senator Martinez had announced previously that he did not intend to seek re-election in 2010 – creating an open seat in the United States Senate races for 2010. Governor Crist announced that he would be a candidate for the open seat. Former Florida House Speaker Marco Rubio also

announced his candidacy for the seat. But the Martinez announcement that he would leave ahead of schedule, things bacame more complicated for the Governor.

Under Florida Law, Governor Crist will appoint an interim Senator to act for the State of Florida until the general election in 2010 elects a Senator for a full six year term. The Governor, wisely, immediately announced that he would not appoint himself to the seat. Even Mr Crist knows the voters would be likely to take him out in the next election if he acted so blatantly in his own personal interest. While the State of Florida has a number of senior statesmen who would be useful and effective Senators for his consideration for appointment, apparently none could be trusted not to like the job enough to run for a full term at the next election, changing the dynamics of the 2010 Senate race in which Charlie Crist already sees himself to be the favorite.

Governor Crist has maintained his popularity in office. When the open seat became a target, many state and federal Republican office holders rushed to endorse Charlie as a safe candidate to maintain a warm Republican body in the Senate. But Mr Crist’s record as Governor does not inspire confidence for those conservatives who feel his cap and trade, immigration and stimulus policies are not what they support. Former Florida House Speaker Marco Rubio – also a declared candidate for the Martinez seat is bright, articulate, effective as a legislative leader – and Hispanic into the bargain.

So the most qualified person the Governor of the State of Florida could find to represent our state in the critical votes that approach and will occur prior to the 2010 election turns out to be his close friend and former aide, George LeMieux whose primary qualification is that Crist trusts him not to get too comfortable in Washington. This is, in my opinion, a pathetic example of cronyism and back-room politics as usual, which would – in and of itself – give me adequate cause not to vote for Mr Crist in 2010.

Bill Rufty, writing in the Lakeland Ledger, says, “What the Governor, one of the most politically astute politicians in the state, failed to do was appoint someone the public and his Republican party knew and trusted as a statesman. Bill’s full article may be found <here>.

I frequently find humor and good sense in the writings of Larry Thornberry, a local Tampa writer and contributor for the American Spectator. In his column this morning in the Spectator, Larry agrees with us that The Senator from Charlie may not be what Florida needs or wants at this critical time in Washington.

My Source: http://spectator.org/archives/2009/08/31/the-senator-from-charlie

The Senator From Charlie

By Larry Thornberry on 8.31.09 @ 6:08AM

TAMPA -- In a story with perhaps more charm than truth, the Roman emperor Caligula in about 40 A.D. was said to have gotten his horse, Incitatus, appointed to the Roman Senate. Pretty dodgy political move. But then Caligula was clinically insane.

Liberal Republican Florida governor Charlie Crist isn't insane. Insanely ambitious, perhaps. And he didn't appoint his horse to the U.S. Senate last Friday. Just his horse-holder, George LeMieux.

The forty-year-old LeMieux, now a Ft. Lauderdale attorney, has never held elected office. In his only election bid he ran for a seat in the Florida Legislature in 1998 and lost. Now he'll serve out the 16 months left of the U.S. Senate term of Republican Mel Martinez, who resigned August 7. LeMieux has pledged not to seek the seat in 2010, paving the way for his former boss and benefactor, Crist, who is running for the seat.

The appointment doesn't come close to passing the smell test, and is getting the raspberry it deserves across Florida from the media and from political types for being the grossest sort of political cronyism. During a protracted, tax-paid charade, Crist crisscrossed the state interviewing a host of Floridians with far better résumés than LeMieux's before announcing Friday he would send his former campaign manager, chief of staff, confidant, and best friend to Washington. He didn't say it in his announcement, but in honesty he should have added, "to keep the seat warm for me."

LeMieux and Crist are joined at the hip (politically speaking). When Crist was elected Florida Attorney General in 2002, he appointed LeMieux his deputy. LeMieux managed Crist's successful campaign for the governorship in 2006, earning the sobriquet "maestro" for orchestrating a W for Charlie. He then served as Crist's chief of staff for Crist's first year-plus as governor.

LeMieux has since moved on to a high-powered law firm in Ft. Lauderdale, but he and Crist have remained close. Florida Republican political consultant Chris Ingram said the two men are as close to being brothers as they could be without sharing the same DNA. A St. Petersburg Times columnist referred to LeMieux as the keeper of Crist's to-do list. And they're more than just friends: the Miami Heraldreports that Crist's campaign records reveal that LeMieux's law firm and its clients have ponied up almost $150,000 for Crist's campaign war-chest.

I hold no brief for any of the other possible appointments. But Crist, taking a page from the Harriet Miers playbook, chose his faithful factotum over three well-regarded former U.S. House members; a former Florida governor and drug czar under George I; a former university president; a highly regarded, long-time conservative member of the Florida Senate; and a former U.S. Attorney. It wasn't like Charlie had to call someone up from AA ball because Florida's bench was weak.

Floridians could have had an experienced and accomplished politician they were both familiar and comfortable with. Instead, Edgar Bergen chose Charlie McCarthy. Apparently after all those promises to choose the best person for Florida, the only real standard was loyalty to Charlie and his political career. Floridians have every reason to ask whether LeMieux will be representing them in Washington or representing Charlie Crist. ("Chair recognizes the gentleman from Charlie.")

Crist was blasted right away for his choice both by Democrats and by conservative former Florida Speaker of the House Marco Rubio, who's running against Crist for the Republican nomination for the Senate seat. Florida editorial writers viewed the sorry business with alarm.

State Democratic Party Chairwoman Karen Thurman said LeMieux's "only qualification is being Charlie Crist's crony." Rubio was humming the same tune, saying, "George LeMieux is a talented political operative and the governor's best friend, but that doesn't make him the right choice to represent Florida."

Ad hominem stuff aside, what kind of a senator is LeMieux likely to be? Hard to tell, as so few Floridians know anything about him. Locals are asking, LeWho? Those who don't complain of Crist's pick say LeMieux is a capable guy and will vote consistently with Charlie Crist's political philosophy. The only problem with this is that no one can say with any assurance what Charlie Crist's political philosophy is beyond keeping himself in office.

Crist likes to occasionally brag about holding the line on taxes in Florida. But at the same time he's supported President Obama's $787 billion "stimulus" orgy, going so far as to appear on stage with Obama in Florida while Obama was whooping the stimulus up. He's called for a state carbon cap and trade program to save Florida from global warming, which he's called "one of the most important issues that we will face this century." He's asked the Florida Legislature to oblige Florida utilities to produce 20 percent of their power with boutique, "renewable" fuels that exist in only small amounts and cost a packet. He's asked that expensive California auto fuel standards be imposed on Florida.

Florida media like to refer to Crist as a moderate. But if support for the elephantine government programs described above doesn't make a guy a liberal, what on earth does?

All these needless enviro-phantasms, if enacted, would cost Floridians a large multiple of any amount they may have been saving from Charlie holding the line on taxes, which Florida's conservative legislature is doing anyway without any help from Charlie. So it's difficult for conservatives to take any comfort when LeMieux says he will pursue "Charlie Crist-type Solutions" in Washington. (For Charlie, Charlie Crist is the solution -- it's just one of the things he has in common with Obama.) LeMieux has said he's concerned about the federal deficit, but supporting cap and trade is about the best way to super-size a deficit already on steroids.

So we don't know what this guy will be like in Washington, though there's reason for dreadful surmise. The only upside to this pathetic peccadillo is that this ham-handed, transparently self-interested appointment may well hurt Crist's chances of winning the Republican nomination and becoming the U.S. Senate's newest RINO.

When Martinez resigned, Crist promised that he would not appoint himself to the open seat. Crist kept that promise. But just barely.