What I like about John Roberts' Ruling

Like most conservatives/libertarians, I would have wished the Court had firmly and undeniably squashed the individual mandate portion of the health care reform legislation passed by Democrats in 2010.  But I have found quite a bit to like from Chief Justice Robert's majority opinion.

First, the Court firmly stated that legislation such as this could not be brought forward under the guise of the Commerce Clause.  While the Court has allowed Congress broad leeway in using that portion of the Constitution to increase its regulatory powers, it drew a line in the sand on the ability to compel individuals to participate in commerce.  That's a good victory for those who would like Constitutional limits to be something more than historical footnotes.

Second, they also eschewed the notion that the Necessary & Proper clause could, on it's own allow Congress to compel individual action such as is required under the new law.  Again, the Court (and Justice Roberts) clearly articulated a conservative view on this point.

Unfortunately, Justice Roberts left the "conservative" perspective when upholding the individual mandate as a part of Congress' taxing powers.  But did he really abandon the conservative cause on this issue?  While the outcome was one no conservative really supports, Robert's reasoning can be substantiated through a conservative line of thought.

Robert's most effective point in supporting upholding the mandate as a "tax" is that we already use the tax code to reward or punish individual behavior.  I won't go through an exhaustive list, but the most obvious is the tax reward for purchasing a home.  By allowing home owners to deduct the interest on their mortgage, the government punishes non-home owners by requiring them to pay higher taxes. 

Since most conservatives believe home ownership is a "good" thing, they haven't minded this, or many other such utilization of the tax code.  But if we allow that the tax code can be used to reward or punish individual behavior, then whatever behavior Congress determines as desirable can be rewarded - and whatever it deems undesirable can be punished.  I hate to use the "slippery slope" moniker, but...

Another strong point from Robert's opinion was a very simple one:  If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it's a duck.  This "penalty" as the Obama Administration refers to it, is collected by the IRS via the normal income tax process, and enforcement of it comes through the IRS as well.  Despite what the President and his supporters want to argue, this is, and always has been, a tax.  Roberts simply confirmed what conservatives and others had been arguing since the legislation was introduced in Congress.

However, something happened between the oral arguments before the court and it's final ruling.  Conservatives were stunned when Roberts took a truly conservative stance.  A little acknowledged part of Robert's opinion explains that the Court has an affirmative obligation to sustain the constitutionality of legislation, if it can be done in a reasonable manner.  Roberts cited precedent in previous Supreme Court rulings to support this perspective and, to my knowledge, no one has stepped forward to challenge it.

So if it's accepted practice to use the tax code to reward or punish individual behavior, and if this "mandate" is indeed a tax, then Robert's reasoning makes sense, even if it creates a result I, or my fellow conservatives, oppose.

But here's what I really like about the ruling.  It will force conservatives to rethink this habit of utilizing the tax code for "behavior modification."  If they are at all serious about personal liberty, it should also compel conservatives to rethink the income tax entirely.  And not just changing from our current system to a "flat" tax.  But repealing the 16th Amendment and eliminating the thing completely. 

Will this happen?  I don't know.  But, if those who hold themselves out as conservative leaders have any intellectual integrity at all, they will take Robert's ruling as the cue to free our nation from the most insidious form of government financing developed.  If they do, Robert's opinion will become the catalyst for the single greatest freedom enhancing action in my lifetime.

Primary elections coming this Tuesday!

Oklahoma will hold primary elections on Tuesday, June 26th.  If you are a first-time voter, or haven't voted in a while, I encourage you to make the trip to the polls on election day.  Primary elections are where voters within each party (primarily the Republican and Democrat parties) choose their nominees for a variety of elected offices.  The winners will represent their respective parties in the general election which is held on the first Tuesday (following the first Monday) in November.

Participation in primary elections is much less than in the general election.  So, if you do vote, it carries more weight in these elections.  Usually, only about 25% - 35% of eligible voters will participate in these elections.  So, those who actually show up and vote will have a disproportionate share of influence in selecting their party's candidates for office.

I have the good fortune to know a few individuals up for election this Tuesday.  Here are my thoughts on their races:

• Kyle Loveless - Kyle is a long-time friend of mine.  We worked on the staff of former Congressman Ernest Istook together many years ago.  Kyle actually doesn't have a primary or general election.  He has developed such a strong reputation in his district that not a single individual (Republican or Democrat) chose to challenge him for election.  This is a first for an open State Senate seat in Oklahoma.  Even though he doesn't have an election, Kyle can still use your support.  He is having a fundraiser (hosted by Lt. Gov. Todd Lamb) in July, and I hope you will support Kyle.
• Brian Maughan - Brian is another long-time friend.  We have actually campaigned against each other and for each other.  Brian has worked tirelessly over many years to create a better community for those who live in S. OKC.  He was elected to the Board of County Commissioners for OK County four years ago and has done an excellent job.  Brian is especially proud of his S.H.I.N.E. program which has helped create a more attractive community while also lessening the burden on our county jail.  He has also done a great job of maintaining or repairing the roads and bridges in his district.  While I want to keep this mostly positive about Brian, I do want to say that I am very disappointed that his opponent is either quite misinformed about the issues, or he has chosen to mislead the public about Brian's record.  If you live in District 2 of Oklahoma County, I encourage you to re-elect Brian Maughan.
• Clark Jolley/Paul Blair - I have met both of these individuals, but must admit I am more familiar, and have more mutual friends with Clark Jolley.  The question here is do voters in this Edmond Senate District believe Jolley has effectively represented them?  It is unfortunate that both sides have apparently devolved into distorting reality about the other candidate to some extent.  As far as I can tell, both are good men doing what they believe is best for their community and state.  So it is doubly disappointing that both candidates have resorted to negative campaigning on issues of little significance.  I hope voters will make an informed choice and ignore the name-calling.
• Charles Key/Tim Rhodes - There are actually two other candidates in this race, but I have heard from neither of them, and believe it will come down to the two I have mentioned.  This is for Oklahoma County Court Clerk - a position that probably should be appointed rather than elected.  Having said that, this race is between an insider - Tim Rhodes - who has the support of most of the other County elected officials, and an outsider - Charles Key - who is a retiring State Representative.  It's becoming apparent that state legislators are cluing in that if they can't move up (getting elected to statewide office) then the county isn't a bad alternative.  In some cases, county officials make more than statewide elected officials, and they have less headaches.  Rhodes has been in the Court Clerk's office for many years and no doubt understands how it operates.  When I worked in OK County, Tim was always professional, courteous, and knowledgeable.  I can't say the same about Charles Key - at least when it comes to this position.  He seems to lack a basic understanding of the operations of county government, and he seems to focus on issues not directly related to the office.  While I don't expect Tim to act in an independent manner (from the majority of other county officials), and I certainly don't expect him to "shake things up," this seems to be what the public actually prefers in their county officers.  I'll probably be voting for Tim, too.

These are the four races I'm giving my attention to the most.  Not that my opinion carries that much importance, but I thought I'd share my thoughts.

What to Make of the Trayvon Martin Case

Lost in all the controversy over the Trayvon Martin case is that a young black man was killed.  His life ended prematurely, and we should all grieve for that.  Just as we should all grieve for the thousands of young lives lost each year.  But Martin's case has other aspects that keep it in front of the public eye. 

Many have alleged that the killing was racially motivated.  Others have alleged that Martin initiated the confrontation that led to his shooting, and that George Zimmerman was acting in self-defense.  And it's clear that media outlets, and pundits on the left and right have chosen to make this issue about politics, rather than about the tragic death of a young man.

From my own brief review of the case, it would seem that those seeking "justice" for Martin have one very good point - at the very least, Zimmerman should have been detained and an investigation fully conducted.  I understand the constraints that law enforcement must work under - and spent a day explaining them to a group of students.  However, there is no dispute that Zimmerman shot Martin.  Holding Zimmerman for the allowable amount of time, while investigating the shooting would seem to be warranted.  I'm sure it would have helped ease the public's mind regarding law enforcement's seriousness towards this case.

But those seeking "justice" need to be prepared that this situation will be all the more tragic because justice will not be found.  This case is very similar to that of pharmacist Jerome Ersland here in Oklahoma.  Many jumped aboard Ersland's defense when news of his situation first came out.  Ersland was seen as a sympathetic victim who decided to protect himself from criminals.  As Ersland's trial progressed, it became clear, there were no "good guys" in that situation.  Ersland lost claim to that title once he decided to return and repeatedly shoot one of his robbers after he was already wounded and no longer a threat.

This may again be a case in which there are no "good guys."  Is Zimmerman a racist?  I don't know.  If so, his reason for suspecting Martin loses credibility.  Did Martin actually initiate the confrontation that led to his shooting?  I don't know that either.  If so, he, and his supporters, can not escape the fact that his own actions are, in part, responsible for what happened.  No good guys, and, perhaps, no bad guys.  Just guys caught up in circumstances that led to a tragic end.

The more significant problem with this case is the blatant attempt by media outlets, politicians, and pundits to create a narrative of this story, rather than simply explaining what happened.  Some, on the right and the left, have a vested interest in creating division where none should exist.  And some seem to be more concerned with the political aspects of the case, rather than the human aspects.

Passions run high, and people are quickly jumping to one side or the other.  However, as I told my class today, let's be slow to take a side.  Let this situation play out and see what eventually happens.  Whether or not Zimmerman is arrested and/or prosecuted, we all have an interest in ensuring a full explanation of the decision is provided.  Let's allow time to help reveal more of the truth of this situation, and quit trying (or allowing others) to create their own "truth" about it.  Both Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman deserve that.  Justice will only come if people on both sides will resist the urge to accuse, blame, and demonize the others.

Sadly, this looks like another case where "justice" will be elusive, and we will not have a satisfactory ending to the story.  No good guys, no bad guys...just guys caught up in bad circumstances...Law enforcement can minimize this situation by going out of its way to ensure the public it is acting appropriately and taking this case seriously.

I'm Back...!

This blog has been on hiatus for a few months while I decided what I want to do with it.  I've decided to make it a bit more personal - writing about the things that genuinely interest me.  So, it will include a lot of posts about my family - especially my kids, as well as my thoughts on current events & politics, things relating to my business or profession, and occasionally, maybe even some sports related posts (not many though) as I'm more of a casual sports fan.

I've started teaching at the college level again and I teach two American Federal Government classes.  We are currently discussing the Declaration of Independence.  If you haven't read it in a while, get a copy and refresh your memory on why this is a truly amazing document.  As someone who is very interested in the period of the American Revolution and creation of the Constitution, I think it is nothing short of a miracle that the Declaration and Constitutions were created. 

The issues facing that generation were far more momentous than our current political issues.  And the various sources of division were no less heated.  The ability of these individuals to find ways around their differences and to create the foundation for what would be come the greatest nation on the face of the earth is more than a little remarkable.

Let's examine the most well-known passage of the Declaration:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident..." - Truths, not ideas, or principles, or concepts.  Truths.  Unassailable, unfaltering, unchanged by time or circumstance.  And they are so true as to be obvious.  They don't need to be discovered.  They are not hidden.

"...that all men are created equal..." - Not equal in possessions or ability.  The notion that men are or could be rendered absolutely equal is contrary to reality.  But we are equal in the rights we possess.  How we utilize those rights, what we become as a result of them, is dependent on us as individuals.  But we all have them.

"...that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights..." - Some will have an issue with the notion expressed here that the source of these rights are from a higher power.  While I personally believe this, let's avoid the spiritual discussion for now and focus on the political consequences of the idea that these rights are not the creation of governments or civil law, nor are they merely man-made constructs.  Their existence predates government and supersedes civil authority.  More importantly, they are as much a part of each individual as their eyes, nose, hair, or limbs.

"...that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..." - The three basic rights from which all others spring.

"...That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." - The purpose of government is to protect the rights we possess.  And legitimate forms of government recognize and respect that they are the property of the people, not vice versa.

"...that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government..." - When government no longer protects these rights, we have the right (in another passage the Declaration states we have a "duty") to change it.

The value and relevance of this document is seen the the inspiration it has been for people not only in our country, but across the world.  Peoples all over the globe have quoted it as the source for their own fight for liberty.  That the principles in this document are not fully recognized here or in other nations is a reality we must contend with.  But the great history of our country is the continuous progress we have made towards extending the ideal to more and more people.

Side note:  If you haven't seen the mini-series John Adams (based on the book of the same name), I highly recommend it.  You'll learn a lot about the process that lead to the creation of the Declaration of Independence, as well as the struggle for American Independence.

Religion & Politics in Education? Not in Oklahoma!

During its most recent quarterly survey, SoonerPoll asked voters their opinion of teachers expressing their religious or political views in Oklahoma classrooms.  The results were interesting.  On the question of whether or not Oklahoma school teachers should be allowed to express their religious views in the classroom, the results were a statistical tie.  Of the 509 voters surveyed, 46.8% said teachers should not express their religious views while in the classroom, while 46.6% said they should be allowed to do so.

With a margin of error of +/- 4.34%, the difference is not enough to say which side voters truly come down on.  All that can be said with certainty is that voters appear to be evenly divided on this issue.  You can see SoonerPoll's analysis of this issue here. 

The response to whether or not teacher's should be allowed to express their political opinions in the classroom was much more clear, with a substantial majority (58.3%) opposing such actions.  Oklahoma voters seem uniformly opposed to teachers inserting their own political beliefs into their instruction of school children.

Some, such as University of Central Oklahoma professor and political blogger Kurt Hochenauer, are surprised that such a politically and religiously conservative state as Oklahoma would not have a stronger support for the expression of religious or political views in the classroom.  Professor Hochenauer wonders what results would be revealed if voters were given the opportunity to choose from various religions.  Would voters be more likely to support a "Christian" expression than a "Muslim" or "Jewish" expression?  Quite possibly so.

But where Professor Hochenauer veers off into trying to imply that a lack of support for teachers expressing their political views could also reveal a lack of support for broader public policy issues relating to religion and morality (see Professor Hochenauer's complete analysis here), I want to stay on point and examine this issue more deeply.

How has the rise of alternatives to public education impacted the public's thinking on this issue?  In a previous poll, SoonerPoll confirmed the growing trend toward opting out of the public school system.  During that survey, 55.7% of respondents said they personally knew someone who home schooled their child (see SoonerPoll's analysis here).  Oklahoma has become one of the leading states in offering a variety options to public education through charter schools, private and parochial schools, and home schooling.

Given the vast majority of parents who opt to place their child in a parochial school or to home school their child do so because they believe religion is an important aspect in their child's education, could this impact their response to a question about religious views expressed by public school teachers?  While I believe it does, further research is needed for any definitive conclusions.

As for political expression in public schools, I believe Professor Hochenauer is correct when he states that "teachers are often claimed to be less conservative than the overall general public."  This is even more true of the leadership of teachers' unions such as the American Federation of Teachers and the American Education Association, both of whom have dominated the public school system for the last forty years, along with what is taught in that system.

The one thing that both liberals and conservatives appear to agree on is that they don't want someone else pushing their political agenda on to the state's public school children.

These questions are interesting, but are just the start of assessing what voters think about religion and politics in education.  Professor Hochenauer believes that asking the question slightly different might yield differing results.  I tend to think that's somewhat correct.  But I think the continuing trend of families who want religion to be an important aspect to their child's education leaving the public school system will keep those numbers lower than what others think they might be.

Can You Pass the 4-Way Test?

"Truth is the secret of eloquence and virtue, the basis of moral authority; it is the highest summit of art and of life." - Henri Amiel

I recently attended a local Rotary Club meeting.  While I am not a Rotarian, I have several friends who are and I have always been impressed with the work of this civic organization.  I was pleased to have the opportunity to visit with my friend and Oklahoma County Treasurer, Butch Freeman while at this particular meeting.

Like many clubs, this group recited the Rotarian's 4-Way Test at the end of the meeting.  While I have heard this on many occasions, it had been a while.  For those who have never heard or read the test, here it is:

• Is it the truth?
• Is it fair to all concerned?
• Will it build goodwill and better friendships?
• Will it be beneficial to all concerned?

As I pondered these questions, I thought of my friend, Butch Freeman.  He has been the County Treasurer for nearly 20 years.  I've had the opportunity to observe his actions first hand, as a former county employee.  He is also the current District Governor of Rotary.  As I thought about my experiences in Oklahoma County and watching how Butch approached leadership, I was struck by how closely he adhered to these principles.

Butch was not concerned about scoring political points, or using his position as a springboard for higher political office.  But he was always particularly concerned with developing strong relationships and ensuring that the actions he and others took were beneficial to everyone concerned.  Butch was also a straight shooter.  He told you what he thought, whether he agreed with you or not.  But it was always in a respectful way.

If you have ever met Butch, you know he is one of the most congenial individuals around.  He always greets you with a smile and a handshake.  He is an excellent representative for Rotary International, and you can tell he is passionate about the organization.

I also recalled an earlier conversation I had this week with another friend and Rotarian, Jerrod Shouse.  Jerrod also represents the best of Rotarian values.  Jerrod is part of the younger generation of Rotarians.  He is active and creating a strong reputation for himself.  I know the commitment he has made to the Rotary has helped him build that reputation.

In previous posts I've mentioned the five tenets of Taekwondo and their relationship to our daily lives.  I think the Rotary's 4-way test is another excellent tool by which we can gauge the quality of our actions.  If more people would apply this test before they spoke or acted, much of the conflict we see around us would dissolve.

I will probably join the Rotary soon.  I've been around it too much and respect the organization and the individuals who participate in it.  But I think whether we are members of Rotary International or not, we can all benefit from applying the 4-Way Test to our lives.

Education Reform? Probably Not

"When a subject becomes totally obsolete we make it a required course." - Peter Drucker

About the only thing I think I'm going to accomplish with this blog is aggravating a lot of people while allowing myself to vent.  But sometimes, that's enough...

Education continues to be one of the consistent issues people are concerned about.  In fact, SoonerPoll recently asked a question to 500 likely voters about consolidating school districts in the state.  SoonerPoll asked if voters believed there were too many school districts in Oklahoma.  It then followed that question by asking respondents if they would support the creation of a "committee of experts to oversee a process to consolidate Oklahoma's" school districts. 

Interestingly enough, while only 51% responded the state had too many school districts, nearly 57% said they would support creation of a committee to consolidate districts.  Apparently some who don't believe we have too many districts would nonetheless support consolidating them anyway.

And while my conservative friends hail school district consolidation as a major step in education reform, the fact is, this is just one of the many band-aid approaches to real change in our education system.

We see these ancillary issues continue to be the focus of reformers on the left and right- classroom size, teacher pay, school choice, consolidation, and more.  But these reforms are akin to placing a band aid on a severed artery -   not really all that meaningful.

When the framers of the U.S. Constitution came together in May of 1787 they were officially charged with revising the Articles of Confederation.  This was a group of laws so dysfunctional that several states were teetering on the brink of war with one another.  Many knew, and most quickly came to realize, that there was no point in trying to revise them.  The system was broken beyond repair.  So a completely new Constitution was created and submitted to the people for approval.

In 2011, there are a few who realize the current education system in Oklahoma has reached the point of no return.  We can apply all the band aids we want, but this patient will continue to bleed out.  It's time to admit this, and begin thinking about what a truly effective education system built to meet the needs of our students would look like.  We should be asking ourselves, as the framers of the U.S. Constitution did, what should be the guiding principles of this new system?

I'll offer four here:

• The "Age of the Entrepreneur" has arrived.  Our education system should be built to help students succeed in it.  It's not 1907 anymore, and we don't need large scale institutions creating mass employees for large scale industries. 
• Focus on the Individual.  If we believe education is a fundamental right, then let's design a system that allows each individual to maximize their skills and abilities and take full advantage of their learning style. 
• Redefining "Public Education."  Even as we reaffirm the notion of public funding of education (i.e., tax dollars), we should design a system that takes advantage of Oklahoma's vast diversity of educational alternatives (public, charter, private, parochial, and home schools).  The system should be designed to allow families the most options in selecting the educational delivery system best for their family's needs.
• Tax relief for families with school age children.  Here are some simple tax code adjustments that would prove our legislature truly supports education:  1) A dollar-for-dollar tax credit for all education related expenses; 2) Cease using property taxes as a funding mechanism for schools; 3) Until #2 is accomplished, offer a tax rebate to all families not using a "public school" to educate their children.

Reform of our education system is long overdue.  Oklahoma has some unique advantages that will allow us to create an education system that serves as an example for others to follow.  But we must first admit that the current system can no longer be repaired.  Instead of commissioning a committee of experts to create more band aids, let's commission it to create a whole new system that will meet the needs of students and families in our state.