September 28, 2009

Unfounded Hope, Unwise Change

Posted by Brian Sikma under Conservatism, Foreign Policy, President Obama
1 Comment 
Iranian Missile

Iranian Missile

By: Brian Sikma

The past few weeks have seen a rapid series of developments take place with respect to our nation’s foreign policy goals. In the first part of September we saw the President continue his reluctance to speak out forcefully against Iran’s nuclear pursuits. Iran has repeatedly insisted that it is enriching uranium for peaceful and civilian purposes. To believe this line, and assume that Iran is limiting its program to only meeting its energy needs, is overly optimistic at best and terribly naïve at worst.

Former Senators Dan Coats and Charles Robb, and retired General Charles Wald, recently analyzed the Iranian situation and concluded that by 2010 Iran will have enough weapons-grade uranium enriched to fuel a nuclear device. Their conclusion factored in only the enrichment plant at Natanz and was made before the revelation that there is another small enrichment facility built into a mountain at Qom. The addition of this plant could further reduce the time line that Iran is working with on this project. Since the concept of a nuclear armed Iran became a serious possibility, observers, analysts, and other experts have repeatedly updated their projections with shorter and shorter estimates for when Iran will become only the second rogue state with nuclear capabilities.

Beginning after the last day of the Bush Administration, our nation has lacked a comprehensive approach to dealing with the building storm swirling around Iran’s nuclear ambitions. In the free world the nation that has continued to pose a significant moral and potential military objection to Iran’s action has been our ally in the Middle East: Israel. While Washington continues to solace itself with platitudes of peace and promises of dialogue, there is reason to believe that some in the position to shape US policy with Iran are hoping that Israel will play the bad cop role in this precipitous situation. But this is not an instance in which our country can afford to be a part-time, one-part player on the world stage.

In this near crisis we must not continue to abdicate our national position of responsibility and leave it to others to resolve this problem. Every diplomatic and military option must be on the table. Whether or not we like this obligation is irrelevant because our position in the world, the magnitude of the threat posed directly to us by Iran, and the grim consequences of inaction compel us to do something. Unfortunately, doing nothing or resorting to dialogues not backed up by a common commitment to realistic goals or a firm final policy position all form an array of poor choices we can choose from.

Related to the forward progress of Iran in acquiring nuclear weapons and perfecting and testing delivery systems is our voluntary withdrawal of key missile defense elements from Europe. In a sudden, though not unexpected move, President Obama surrendered the diplomatic achievements made by some of his predecessors in announcing that we will not deploy 10 missile interceptors to Poland and build an advanced radar and tracking station in the Czech Republic. Although they came under intense pressure from Moscow to not cooperate with the United States, these nations chose freedom over following the heavy-handed dictates of their former masters.

In making the brave choice to become part of our nation’s global missile defense system, Poland and the Czech Republic put their faith in us and in the success of our policy. The people of these countries and their leaders vividly recall what it was like to live in oppression and since they have escaped their shackles they have pursued liberty and state sovereignty with zeal. Their decision to become an integral part of our effort to neutralize the threat of WMD-tipped ICBMs was not only one of cold decision-making, but also a symbol of their willingness to put national sovereignty ahead of regional appeasement, to reinforce their separation with Russia, and assert their own security needs and their own view of what must be done to protect against 21st Century threats.

Our decision to abandon full-scale development of missile defense in Europe not only undermines the position that Poland and the Czech Republic have taken on their regional stage, it ungratefully leaves them to bear the shame of having to explain why they put their trust in a super power that is only interested in keeping the commitments it finds convenient. These nations took a risk with us and by extension we have a duty to lead them well. Abruptly folding the alliance and leaving them with nothing to show for their risk exposure discredits our credibility with the nations that matter.

Teddy Roosevelt

Teddy Roosevelt

Extending beyond the consequences for our European policy, eliminating missile defense initiatives in Europe dramatically hurts our capacity effectively respond to the Iranian threat before a catastrophic event materializes. By presenting a bolder diplomatic front – something the present administration has not done – and backing such forceful words with meaningful action both inside the region and within the ranges of Iran’s missile capabilities, we can achieve a far more meaningful result than we are on track to get right now. The old adage to speak softly and carry a big stick still rings true today, and replacing it with unfounded hope and unwise change carries a heavy penalty.

 

September 12, 2009

Fixing What’s Wrong, Not Breaking What’s Right

Posted by Brian Sikma under Indiana
Leave a Comment 

By: State Rep. Wes Culver

The American health care system is ailing and policymakers at the national level are experimenting with various prescriptions trying to determine which one will cure the patient.  If we are not careful though, in our search for a cure we may end up failing to fix what is wrong with the system and harming what is already right with it.  I believe that our health care system can be fixed by giving it a strong dose of patient oriented reform that puts individuals and their doctors at the center of the system and forces third-parties to take a back seat role.  Overreaching federal regulation, heavily regulated insurance companies, and overzealous trial lawyers should not be in the driver’s seat of this vehicle.

For years we have looked on the health care sector as something different and unique from other consumer products or services.  While it certainly possesses dimensions that other sectors do not have, it is not too unique to be exempted from the innovative mindset that has generated advanced technology and better products at a reduced cost in other areas of our economy.  If we can make high quality electronic devices widely available at an affordable price, I think it is time for us to look at harnessing the principles that made that happen and put them to good use lowering the cost of health care and increasing our accessibility to that care.

The problem we must grapple with today in improving our health care system is not one of quality, but of affordability and accessibility.  Today, 85% of Americans are satisfied with the quality of care they receive from doctors, hospitals and other health care providers.  Yet even as the majority of our population approves of the job that our medical professionals and institutions are doing, no one is satisfied with the rising cost of that care.  From 2000 to 2008 the annual cost of employer provided health insurance rose from $6,438 per family to $12,680 per family.   Our nation annually spends $2.4 trillion on health care.

According to the President and Democrat members of Congress, the best way to control rising health care costs and increase accessibility to health insurance is to create a “public option” insurance plan that puts the federal government in charge of your medical care.  Observing the incompetency of Medicaid and the trillions of dollars in unfunded obligations in Medicare, expanding the federal government’s role in the health care sector is a bad idea.  Furthermore, our neighbor to the north, Canada, has been on a sort of public option health care program for decades and they recently concluded that the system has failed and now they are moving away from the direction the President wants to take us.

If the solution offered by Washington, D.C. is wrong, what can we do to fix our health care system?  I am proposing that Indiana do three things at the State level to lower costs, improve accessibility, and advance the quality of care that Hoosiers receive.  First, we should eliminate the mandate that our state places on insurance companies that their health insurance plans contain certain policy elements.  This mandate discourages insurance companies from competing in Indiana and limits Hoosiers to choosing from plans that might not be the best ones for them.  Second, we should allow Hoosiers to buy insurance from companies not located in Indiana and not currently competing in the Indiana insurance market.  By breaking down this barrier that surrounds our state, we can foster a more dynamic and competitive environment that gives Hoosiers access to more affordable health insurance.  Third, we can institute a system that calls for price transparency in all medical procedures.  Just as you expect to know what a particular item or service will cost you in another sector, you deserve to know what a particular health care procedure or service will cost you.

By moving forward at the state level with reforms that do not involve costly, inefficient and wasteful government programs that dictate how much health care you can access, we can make Indiana a leader in the area of affordable health care.  It’s time for us to once again become an innovator and build a better future for ourselves and those who will use the system after us.

State Rep. Wes Culver represents the 49th District in the Indiana House of Representatives.  Any questions or comments about health care can be directed to him by e-mailing healthcare@electwesculver.com.

 

June 22, 2009

The Scary Thing About School Funding (In Indiana)

Posted by Brian Sikma under Indiana
Leave a Comment 

By: Wes Culver (R-Goshen, Ind.)

Unless they work in education or state government, not many people know or understand the complicated formula that determines how much funding each school corporation receives each year.

Each school corporation receives a specific dollar amount per student. So, two schools with the same number of students will receive a different dollar amount because the amount per student is different.

The amount per student can be immense. The lowest amount received by a school corporation in 2008 was $5,414 per student in Northwest Allen School Corp. The school corporation with the highest rate per-student was Gary School Corp., receiving $9,010 per student.

Several community members have voiced their concern with this variation. Why, they ask, does the state give more money per student to some schools and less to others?

Generally, tuition support for schools is tied to the numbers of students — “average daily membership” in bureaucratic terms — in each school district. As such, districts with declining enrollments face decreasing amounts of tuition support.

However, districts are still provided partial funding for students who have left the district, which is known as “ghosting.” Ghosting may occur when a student was enrolled at the start of the school year and then left sometime during that year.

Keep in mind, school districts have five years before funding is completely phased out for that student — 100 percent the first year, 80 percent the second, then 60 percent, 40 percent and, in the fifth year, 20 percent.

School systems with declining student enrollments have benefited greatly from this method, while those with growing enrollments have suffered, even though both face the same problem of changing enrollment.

The governor’s budget wants to finally end ghosting to make sure the money follows the student. If the student is not there, the money for that student wouldn’t be, either. However, the House Democrat’s budget proposal includes the ghosting formula.

A declining enrollment creates no more problems than an increasing enrollment. Officials from schools with declining enrollments say the students leaving are not from one class, but rather a few from every classroom; therefore, they cannot get rid of any teachers. However, neither can a growing school corporation place all the new students in one classroom and hire one teacher.

Growing schools are forced to handle their greater enrollments by redistricting to most efficiently handle students; declining schools should do the same.

These are not easy problems for superintendents to resolve. But that is what their job is and why we put them in those positions. Tough decisions aren’t always easy for businesses and families either, but they have to make them when their income declines.

I don’t think we should ask our schools to do anything we wouldn’t do as families and business people. They should not be exempt from the struggles everyone else faces.

Wes Culver (R-Goshen) represents House District 49 in the Indiana House of Representatives.  His website is www.electwesculver.com.

 

June 8, 2009

Government Intervention has hurt the Economy

Posted by Brian Sikma under Indiana
Leave a Comment 

By: Brian Sikma

The turmoil that has enveloped Chrysler Corporation has had a substantial impact on our state.  From the parts suppliers who employ Hoosiers at their Indiana factories to the dealerships that dot the state and provide jobs to local mechanics and sales personnel, many have been impacted by Chrysler’s inability to stay solvent and afloat amidst a serious economic downturn.  But what has happened to the automaker also impacts Hoosiers who have never worked with or for the company or its many suppliers and vendors.  Because the state invested some road construction trust funds and some of the assets of the state’s police and teacher pension trust funds in secured Chrysler debt, the government’s mismanagement of the company’s reorganization has cost Hoosiers roughly $5 million.

The loss that these pension funds and the road construction fund have sustained has come about not because of Chrysler’s inability to stay solvent but because of the federal government’s decision to rewrite decades of bankruptcy law precedent.  Whenever a bond holder, such as these three state trust funds, invests in corporate bonds that are considered secured debt, they are investing in the company and, should the company fail, they are guaranteed a recovery of their investment by the sale of the company’s assets.  

When the federal government stepped in and began the process of organizing and managing Chrysler’s restructuring, they did so in a way that disregarded the fact that holders of secured debt are supposed to be first in line to recover their money.   This means that as Chrysler tries to restructure itself in the shelter of a bankruptcy court according to a blueprint forced on it by President Obama’s administration, it is jeopardizing the soundness and sustainability of trust funds that many Hoosiers rely on as part of their retirement.  Additionally, the state’s ability to build the roads that would generate jobs, improve the state’s transportation infrastructure and make Indiana a more attractive place for businesses to come to is threatened by the federal government’s actions.

Indiana State Treasurer Richard Mourdock has used his authority as manager of the threatened funds to file pleadings against the currently proposed Chrysler restructuring.  Mourdock is rightfully arguing that retirees and state taxpayers should not be forced to bear the brunt of this loss imposed by the disturbing actions of the federal government.  While it is important that Chrysler rework its structure and prepare itself to emerge from bankruptcy, it must not do so while following a plan that destroys the very trust on which it will be able to rebuild its business.
By stepping in and causing a $5 million loss to Hoosier retirees and taxpayers, the federal government has not only hurt Hoosiers, but it has also hurt Chrysler and started the very concerning practice of rewriting contracts that impact the economic standing of many Americans.  Investors observing their investments being destroyed by the federal government not only suffer an immediate loss but are also put on notice that any decision they make based on the mutual agreement and trust of the private sector may be quickly overridden if a government bureaucrat disagrees with the terms of the contract.  The unilateral rewriting of business and financial agreements by the federal government is a practice that must stop because it undermines the process by which our country will emerge from this downturn.
Our economy will recover and our nation will bounce back from this downturn if the federal government understands its real role in the marketplace.  The appropriate role of the federal government, and the job it should rightfully assume if we are going to see an increase in economic activity, the creation of jobs and the expansion of wealth, is to fulfill the duties of a referee.  A referee does not participate in the game but he or she does make sure that the rules are enforced.   When the federal government tries to participate in the economy by using its power to rewrite the rules and nullify agreements founded on mutual trust, then it exceeds its proper authority.  When, on the other hand, it enforces the rules fairly on all participants and holds parties to their contractual obligations, it is a party to the creation of the trust that is so necessary and vital to the operation of our economy.
The American people will emerge from this downturn strengthened for what lies ahead.  Chrysler Corporation and other companies that are going through restructuring will be poised to lead the way in the growing economy of the future, but only if the obligations that they have are not ignored or destroyed by irresponsible federal actions.  President Obama and his economic team must immediately cease their misguided efforts to dramatically make the government, and not the individual, the most important factor in our economy.turmoil that has enveloped Chrysler Corporation has had a substantial impact on our state.  From the parts suppliers who employ Hoosiers at their Indiana factories to the dealerships that dot the state and provide jobs to local mechanics and sales personnel, many have been impacted by Chrysler’s inability to stay solvent and afloat amidst a serious economic downturn.  But what has happened to the automaker also impacts Hoosiers who have never worked with or for the company or its many suppliers and vendors.  Because the state invested some road construction trust funds and some of the assets of the state’s police and teacher pension trust funds in secured Chrysler debt, the government’s mismanagement of the company’s reorganization has cost Hoosiers roughly $5 million.

The loss that these pension funds and the road construction fund have sustained has come about not because of Chrysler’s inability to stay solvent but because of the federal government’s decision to rewrite decades of bankruptcy law precedent.  Whenever a bond holder, such as these three state trust funds, invests in corporate bonds that are considered secured debt, they are investing in the company and, should the company fail, they are guaranteed a recovery of their investment by the sale of the company’s assets.  

When the federal government stepped in and began the process of organizing and managing Chrysler’s restructuring, they did so in a way that disregarded the fact that holders of secured debt are supposed to be first in line to recover their money.   This means that as Chrysler tries to restructure itself in the shelter of a bankruptcy court according to a blueprint forced on it by President Obama’s administration, it is jeopardizing the soundness and sustainability of trust funds that many Hoosiers rely on as part of their retirement.  Additionally, the state’s ability to build the roads that would generate jobs, improve the state’s transportation infrastructure and make Indiana a more attractive place for businesses to come to is threatened by the federal government’s actions.

Indiana State Treasurer Richard Mourdock has used his authority as manager of the threatened funds to file pleadings against the currently proposed Chrysler restructuring.  Mourdock is rightfully arguing that retirees and state taxpayers should not be forced to bear the brunt of this loss imposed by the disturbing actions of the federal government.  While it is important that Chrysler rework its structure and prepare itself to emerge from bankruptcy, it must not do so while following a plan that destroys the very trust on which it will be able to rebuild its business.

By stepping in and causing a $5 million loss to Hoosier retirees and taxpayers, the federal government has not only hurt Hoosiers, but it has also hurt Chrysler and started the very concerning practice of rewriting contracts that impact the economic standing of many Americans.  Investors observing their investments being destroyed by the federal government not only suffer an immediate loss but are also put on notice that any decision they make based on the mutual agreement and trust of the private sector may be quickly overridden if a government bureaucrat disagrees with the terms of the contract.  The unilateral rewriting of business and financial agreements by the federal government is a practice that must stop because it undermines the process by which our country will emerge from this downturn.

>Our economy will recover and our nation will bounce back from this downturn if the federal government understands its real role in the marketplace.  The appropriate role of the federal government, and the job it should rightfully assume if we are going to see an increase in economic activity, the creation of jobs and the expansion of wealth, is to fulfill the duties of a referee.  A referee does not participate in the game but he or she does make sure that the rules are enforced.   When the federal government tries to participate in the economy by using its power to rewrite the rules and nullify agreements founded on mutual trust, then it exceeds its proper authority.  When, on the other hand, it enforces the rules fairly on all participants and holds parties to their contractual obligations, it is a party to the creation of the trust that is so necessary and vital to the operation of our economy.

The American people will emerge from this downturn strengthened for what lies ahead.  Chrysler Corporation and other companies that are going through restructuring will be poised to lead the way in the growing economy of the future, but only if the obligations that they have are not ignored or destroyed by irresponsible federal actions.  President Obama and his economic team must immediately cease their misguided efforts to dramatically make the government, and not the individual, the most important factor in our economy.

Published in the South Bend Tribune and the Northwest Indiana Times.

 

May 12, 2009

Senate Considers Passing Hate Crimes Legislation

Posted by Brian Sikma under Congress, Hate Crimes/Hate Speech
1 Comment 

By: Brian Sikma

A few weeks ago the United States House of Representatives passed H.R. 1913, the Local Law Enforcement and Hate Crimes Prevention Act.  It is expected that the United States Senate Judiciary Committee will consider this proposed hate crimes legislation later this week.  This is not the first time that the House has passed a hate crimes bill, and this is not the first time the Senate has considered legislation designed to establish an unequal system of justice.  What is happening for the first time is the consideration of this legislation with a liberal Democrat majority in the House and Senate and a liberal President in the White House.

Although the political circumstances surrounding this latest attempt to classify thoughts as a crime are not favorable to those who believe in freedom, this does not mean that we should fail to take action.  If we establish a national hate crimes law it will be a direct assault not only on the principle of federalism and the traditional boundaries of criminal law, but it will also be an all-out charge against religious liberty.

Those who commit violent crimes should be punished regardless of their motive and regardless of the identity of their victim.  Contrary to what many advocates of hate crimes legislation wish you to perceive, not a single criminal is escaping the consequences of his crime because of the lack of a hate crimes statute.  Those who oppose hate crimes legislation do so on the grounds that everyone deserves to be equally protected from violent criminals.  When government seeks to use the criminal justice system to right supposed social wrongs, the outcome is far from what real justice should be.  You cannot have appropriate justice in the unequal application of justice.

In addition to the fact that this legislation is unnecessary from a criminal law perspective, it is also unnecessary because it constituents a very real threat against religious liberty.  In states where hate crimes laws exist, they have been used to threaten, intimidate, and silence those who seek to speak out about their beliefs on sexual morality.  Men and women of faith, and particularly Christians, have been silenced under the guise of preventing crime because voicing their deeply held beliefs would lead, so the reasoning goes, to violent crimes being committed against those who are living in a lifestyle that is contrary to those beliefs.

The first amendment of our Constitution partly declares in profound and yet simple terms “Congress shall make no law…preventing the free exercise [of religion].”  This entire amendment is focused on protecting the free exchange of ideas and the pursuit of those ideas free from any government coercion or limitation.  Expressing one’s view about moral issues has never, and should never, be limited because of the demands of political correctness.

Among the nations of the world our country stands as the greatest bastion of religious liberty.  This is not an accident of chance, it is the product of an arduous and vigorous debate that took place during our founding.  It was realized then that religion is not something that government can force men and women to adhere to or abstain from.  Religion and all that goes with it is a product of man’s personal belief in God.  Requiring some to recant their beliefs or keep silent as to their views because others consider them unpopular is not the legitimate role of the government.

If we fail to act today to respectfully and persuasively make the case to our elected officials that hate crimes legislation is not only unnecessary but also runs counter to the freedoms that we have embraced, we can expect to see a more intense assault take place on our values in the future.  Regardless of how your Senators may have voted on this issue in the past, they need to hear from you again.  Please take time to contact them and urge them to Oppose H.R. 1913.  Hate crimes legislation represents an unacceptable shift in the focus of criminal law and it poses a direct threat to religious liberty.

To learn more about the threat posed by hate crimes legislation, watch the below video of Congressman Mike Pence (R-IN) speaking about this type of legislation on the floor of the U.S. House:

 

April 25, 2009

Green Earmarking

Posted by Brian Sikma under Energy, Environment | Tags: |
Leave a Comment 

By: Brian Sikma

As Rep. Henry Waxman (D-California) works to move cap and trade legislation through his House Energy and Commerce Committee, he’s finding it a bit hard to sell the whole idea to members of Congress who come from districts that would be hit hard by carbon taxes. States with heavy industry or states that rely extensively on existing energy sources as part of their economy would be hardest hit with job losses, price increases, and taxes should the legislation pass.

In an effort to secure much needed support, Waxman has started talking to individual members about providing credits to various industries that are a big part of their local economies. While the cap and trade bill would apply across the board to many industries and businesses, specific exemptions for coal fired power plants, for example, would allow them to feel less pain from a new tax and regulatory structure.

What this kind of behind the scenes maneuvering seems to boil down to is green earmarking. If a member of Congress wishes to show his dedication to the folks back home he or she can do so by securing an earmark for this project or that project, a bridge, a dam, or some other public works initiative that would generate jobs and goodwill for the incumbent member. With the high economic costs of cap and trade standing tall against any future plans by businesses and industries to expand and grow, affected communities and businesses would benefit by exemptions and built in carbon credits that give them a pass from the otherwise broad regulations.

Green earmarking will allow members of Congress to appear to be concerned about the environment and be on the politically correct side of the climate change discussion while at the same time giving them a tool to make sure that nothing they do is going to really harm their districts. If we thought that earmarks were a bad part of the process now, let’s imagine what they will be like when a new program designed to raise hundreds of billions of dollars becomes open to special amendment by individual members of Congress.

 

April 25, 2009

A Jobs Bill

Posted by Brian Sikma under Congress, Energy, Environment | Tags: |
Leave a Comment 

By: Brian Sikma

President Obama and House and Senate Democrats have joined forces with the environmental lobby to promote a “cap and trade” plan for dealing with global climate change. Under a cap and trade plan the government would sell carbon credits to businesses and the money raised by those sales (where the customer has no other option to turn towards outside of simply closing up shop) goes towards carbon reducing programs and policies. Companies that cannot buy enough credits will-if they intend to keep up production-need to invest in expensive new technology designed to reduce carbon emissions.

The creation and implementation of these carbon reducing measures is not just about saving the environment but is, according to Democrats, about jobs. Indeed, this plan is about jobs. I will cost the American economy jobs, increase unemployment, and drive up the cost of products and services that Americans use every single day. With cap and trade, while the net amount of carbon emissions will decrease, so will the number of good American jobs. Without a specific tie between carbon emissions and global warming being scientifically proven and without a meaningful cost/benefit analysis showing that it is better to impose an entire new class of taxes than to allow the current situation to exist, cap and trade legislation is not a good idea.

The problem of cap and trade was addressed by Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) earlier this week on the House floor. In the key line he declared “The Democrat plan actually caps growth and trades jobs. The truth is, this cap and trade legislation is essentially an economic declaration of war on the Midwest by liberals in Washington, D.C., and it must be opposed.”

See the video below for Rep. Pence’s entire remarks:

 

April 3, 2009

Iowa Decision Makes Case for Indiana Amendment

Posted by Brian Sikma under Indiana, Marriage Amendment
Leave a Comment 

By: Brian Sikma

When traditional marriage supporters advocated for a state marriage amendment in 2008, Speaker Pat Bauer argued that such a constitutional amendment was unnecessary and redundant in light of Indiana’s existing state law.  Proponents of the amendment responded by saying that the same judicial reasoning that allowed courts in Massachusetts and elsewhere to challenge the constitutionality of marriage laws could be used by Indiana courts.  The Iowa Supreme Court’s decision to create a constitutional right to same-sex marriage and impose that new definition on the state proves the Speaker wrong, and marriage supporters right.

Unlike Massachusetts, a state known in recent decades for being highly “progressive” in both fiscal and social policy, Iowa is a mid-west state whose citizens have many of the same values that Hoosiers have.  One may have expected courts in states like California and Massachusetts to have activist judiciaries more than willing to redefine the definition of marriage.  But Iowa is not a state that would have been considered a prime candidate for this sort of judicial misrule.

Indiana legislators and policy makers should take close note of the Iowa decision and realize that what happened there could happen here.  Marriage is a fundamental institution in society and the state must act whenever necessary to protect its status and definition.  Without its presence as a bedrock unit in the makeup of society, our state cannot expect to move forward into a prosperous future.  The strength of our state, the well-being of our children, and the prosperity of our communities depend on our ability to protect marriage from those who would redefine it into something it has never been, and will never be able to successfully be.

Although this session of the General Assembly failed to act on a marriage amendment, with Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Richard Bray (R) being responsible for his committee’s failure to hear the matter in the Senate, the Iowa ruling will hopefully spur legislative leaders to action next session.

 

March 17, 2009

Obama Picks Activist to Be First Judicial Nominee

Posted by Brian Sikma under Indiana, Judicial Branch
Leave a Comment 
Judge David F. Hamilton

Judge David F. Hamilton

By: Brian Sikma

Without a doubt one of the most contentious issues of President Bush’s two terms in office was his appointment of various individuals to serve in the federal judiciary. In Article 2 Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States, the President is awarded the power to appoint judges to the federal judiciary. When this power is viewed in light of the doctrine of judicial review, the reasoning that justifies the power of the courts to overturn laws passed by Congress and regulations imposed by the Executive Branch if they are found to be un-constitutional, the power of judicial appointment is understood to be one of the more important roles that a President fills.

Since the inception of the federal judiciary, federal judges and justices have had to wrestle with a number of disputes over the meaning, purpose, and intent of the Constitution, various federal laws, government regulations, and treaties that have been ratified by the United States. Their job has not always been a high-profile one, but perhaps since the uproar over President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s “court packing” scheme in the 1930s, their time in the limelight has grown. This increased attention has also come about as a result of some of the more activist decisions that have been handed down in opinions since the middle of the 20th Century.

Because a judge on the federal bench today will probably at some point hear crucial cases relating to abortion, same sex marriage, 2nd Amendment rights, interstate commerce, religious liberty, and even property rights (recall the Kelo v. City of New London decision that touched off a firestorm of controversy over eminent domain), and because judges are appointed for life, their nomination has become a rigorously public and political affair.

President Bush frequently chose to nominate individuals to the federal judiciary who embraced an originalist interpretation of the Constitution and who viewed their prospective role as one in which they should enforce the law and uphold the Constitution, not twist it to fit a convoluted yet politically correct way of interpretation. The vast majority of them believed that, whatever their personal political preferences, it was the job of legislators, executives and citizens to work together to change the law. They did not find rights to abortion, same-sex marriage, unrestrained eminent domain, or affirmative action in the Constitution.

Yet it was often because of these beliefs in a restrained and limited judiciary that led liberal groups and liberal senators, including the current President, to vehemently oppose the nomination of judges like Charles Pickering (who went unconfirmed), John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and Janice Rogers Brown. These individuals were viewed as “dangerous” and a “menace” to the Constitution and to the freedom that we enjoy because they were not active enough to legislate from the bench. It is odd when those who refuse to distort the power of their office are deemed dangerous, but those who stop at nothing and from time to time use international law as a justification for superseding the plain meaning of our Constitution are hailed as champions of liberty.

Although the days of the fighting over President Bush’s judicial nominees are over, President Obama re-entered the judicial nominee fray in a different role on March 17 when he made his first judicial nomination. Since he is a former Constitutional law professor and liberal Senator who had the chance to vote on judicial nominations in the Senate, it was not hard to guess what sort of judges and justices President Obama would nominate.

In nominating Judge David F. Hamilton to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, President Obama solidified what many had already suspected about his approach to the judiciary. Judge Hamilton has served as the Chief Judge for the Federal District Court of the Southern District of the State of Indiana and in that capacity he has earned a reputation that runs counter to the flowery rhetoric that is now used to describe his temperament and qualifications.

Judge Hamilton drew the ire of many Hoosiers and a sizeable number of Indiana state legislators when he ruled in 2005 that prayers before the Indiana House of Representatives must not contain the words “Jesus Christ” or any other phrase that refers to the Christian faith. In a poorly researched opinion that relied on an amateurish ignorance of controlling precedent, he made it clear that prayer was allowed so long as it was to a vague, God-like figure that was not affiliated with any particular faith. Prayers that were clearly affiliated with non-Christian faiths were allowed to proceed.

Two years before his ruling imposing a gag order on the Indiana House of Representatives’ opening prayers, Hamilton struck down a state law requiring women seeking an abortion to be provided with information 18 hours before the abortion by either the doctor or staff regarding alternatives to abortion. The law did not seek to eliminate abortion, it only sought to make sure that women preparing to undergo a very serious medical procedure with important psychological consequences were aware of the fact that they do not have to kill their unborn child to deal with the situation.

Tellingly, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals-the very court Hamilton has been nominated to serve on-has found occasion to do damage control and reign in his aggressive rewriting of the Constitution and legal precedent. Now that he will be sitting on the court that has often overturned his judicial misbehavior, he is in a position to support activist judges like himself who are working hard at the federal district court level in Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin.

In an attempt to set a bipartisan tone for his first judicial nomination, President Obama noted that he made his decision in consultation with Indiana Senators Evan Bayh (D) and Richard Lugar (R). Both senators indicated their support for the nomination. It is to be expected that Sen. Bayh would support Hamilton since he held an official position in the 1990s in then-Governor Evan Bayh’s administration. However, Sen. Lugar’s support for the choice is deeply unfortunate and greatly disappointing. Sen. Lugar should have already known that Judge Hamilton does not have a record of service indicating a qualification to serve at a higher level in the judiciary.

Both of Indiana’s Senators could have, and should have, chosen to quietly set aside the politics of perceived bipartisanship and opposed this nomination on the grounds that Judge Hamilton did not serve his office well when he used his power to impose on the people of Indiana a very twisted and misunderstood view of the Constitution. Hoosiers know that Judge Hamilton’s record is not one marked by wisdom, sound judgment, and a solid legal philosophy. Now it’s up to the Senate to learn that lesson too.

 

March 16, 2009

Educational Incompetence

Posted by Brian Sikma under Indiana, Opinion and Analysis
1 Comment 

By: Brian Sikma

The recent, and ongoing, debate over the future of the Washington D.C. school voucher program has served as a high profile reminder that efforts must continue to be made to improve the quality of education provided by public schools.  Here in Indiana, the House has passed a bill that has the potential to lower the quality of education in this state and increase the administrative workload facing school districts.  The bill deals with creating “cultural competency” standards and protocols for schools around the state and has been sponsored by Rep. Greg Porter (D-Indianapolis).

Cultural competency is often defined as understanding the differences in action, behavior, and communication that span across various cultural and social groups.  If one is able to take this understanding and act in ways that are consistent with an increased awareness of these differences, they can be considered culturally competent.  To bring it to the practical level, if one is to be culturally competent they must be willing to adjust their actions based on the culture they are dealing with and, by extension, they emphasize the fact that differences between the two groups exist.

Cultural competency is good for diplomats.  It is not good for Indiana’s teachers and students.  By requiring school districts to develop programs to train teachers in cultural differences, set benchmarks for culturally competent behavior, and implement a system that monitors the cultural competency of teachers, we are shifting our focus away from the proper goal of classroom instruction: educating students in a way that stretches them academically and prepares them to become successful individuals and good citizens.  We should not turn the focus of classroom instruction into understanding the varying degrees of differences that we have with one another.

Teachers do need to be aware of the different socio-economic backgrounds that their students come from.  Yet this understanding should not be translated into a mandate that classroom education be reduced to a number of different individual standards with each student being held to his or her own level of accountability.  Our teachers should have the freedom to hold all students accountable for their actions and demand that each student do their very best in class.  Not all students will be at the top of the class, but by excusing lack of effort, inattention to instruction, or other behavioral issues by ascribing them to the cultural background of the student, we are sending the message that because of one’s background they will not be expected-or encouraged-to achieve great things.

Tailoring an educational program, whether in the individual classroom or throughout an entire school, to meet the needs of individual students is appropriate.  However, substantially altering the program to consciously emphasize the cultural differences between students or between student bodies across the state would not be the right thing to do.  Emphasizing, either explicitly or implicitly, what issues divide us does not make for an educational process that prepares students to be well equipped to join a society founded on a unity of beliefs and ideals with regard to responsibility and freedom.

Some have expressed concern that cultural competency will turn into a round about method of indoctrinating Hoosier school children with moral and social values that are not consistent with the values held by a majority of Hoosiers today.  This concern is a valid one because this result would occur if educators were required to not only acknowledge but also emphasize and encourage students to accept behaviors such as same-sex marriage and adoption. In the name of teaching students to accept diversity (which, when properly understood is a good thing), other states have had this very thing take place.

Indiana’s educators should not overlook or ignore the broad variety of cultures that have come together to make Indiana what it is today.  Yet as our state moves forward we must keep in mind that the secret to our past ability to assimilate various cultures into the fabric of our state’s society today is that we emphasized the ideas that united us as Americans and as Hoosiers.  Immigrants to our country have long recognized that it is not a common race or ethnicity, economic occupation, social status, or even intellectual ability that has brought us together as a people.  It has been our common commitment to a shared set of values, visions, and responsibilities that has created the rich tapestry of our history.

The future of the next generation of Hoosiers is too bright and too brimming with potential to waste in the shallow demands of the bureaucratic do-goodism known as cultural competency.  Young Hoosiers should be aware of the differences that they have with others, but they should be educated by teachers and an education system that focuses on what unites us and does not excuse a lack of effort in the name of a political correct form of condescension.

 

Next Page »