Not exactly.

Although CBO completed a preliminary review of legislative language prior to its release, the agency has not thoroughly examined the reconciliation proposal to verify its consistency with the previous draft. This estimate is therefore preliminary, pending a review of the language of the reconciliation proposal, as well as further review and refinement of the budgetary projections.

You see, this is a preliminary estimate that does not include all the other changes that are being proposed to reconcile the House and Senate bills, yet the Democrats and their minions in the out of mainstream media are running around quoting this as fact.  It’s just more dishonesty in a long line of lies.

Here is one thing I am fairly certain of, though.  The House does not have the votes to pass this bill as of today.  If they did, they’d have already voted on it.  That doesn’t mean they won’t get them, however, so if you value your freedom and don’t want an unconstitutional government take over of your health care, then get on the phone and tell your Congressman to vote NO on this bill.

The four Democrats in our two states with the biggest potential of voting no on this are Heath Shuler, Mike McIntyre, Bob Etheridge, and John Spratt.  They all represent Republican leaning districts.  Definitely concentrate on them.

Heath Shuler
Phone: (202) 225-6401
Fax: (202) 226-6422

Bob Etheridge
Phone: (202) 225-4531
Fax: (202) 225-5662

Mike McIntyre
Phone: (202) 225-2731
Fax: (202) 225-5773

John Spratt
Phone: 202-225-5501
Fax: 202-225-0464

Since I know a lot of conservatives come here and read, I pose this question to you.  Do you still believe the Republican Party is a party that embraces small government and fiscal responsibility?

Those of the words of State Representative Greg Delleney (R-Chester) regarding the defeated State House bill that would have banned the funding of abortions in the state health insurance plan for women who became pregnant through rape or incest.  While I’m sure Mr. Delleney has good intentions, he’s out of touch with the mainstream.

I am pro-life.  I am opposed to abortion and I think the vast majority of them can be avoided by simple responsibility.  However, as a libertarian I do not support government intervention into what is a very personal and difficult issue.  In the same respect I do not believe public tax dollars should be used to fund them either, which I imagine most people would agree with.  That said, that issue at hand is regarding women who pregnant through no fault of their own, either through rape or incest.  I think the majority would also agree that a reasonable exception can be made in those cases and we’re talking very few cases anyhow.  A pregnancy resulting from rape is fairly rare.

This vote only failed by three votes indicating that culture conservatives still wield a great deal of influence throughout South Carolina.

Regarding the video, who ever edited it duplicated the first minute and forty seconds, so you can save yourself some time and just skip right to 1:40 and start listening there.

They may use the now-infamous Slaughter Rule, which would allow House members to claim to have voted to amend the objectionable Senate bill without actually having passed it through the House. Or they’ll come up with an even-zanier scheme, including a subsequent reconciliation process in the Senate designed to overcome the very filibuster they’ve used to block conservative bills and nominees in the past.

I don’t know about the rest of you, but I’m not planning to recognize such a result as legally binding. I’m not going to pretend to obey any dictates from federal health-care bureaucrats that have never been authorized by a constitutional vote of both houses of Congress. I will not submit to any extra-constitutional order to dismantle the consumer-driven health plan I have set up for my employees.

I will not comply. If the government tries to make me comply, I’ll sue. And I’ll win.

The Carolina Journal

Read the whole thing. It’s a great and passionate defense of the freedom too many people seem hell-bent on pissing away.

Republican House Leader Paul “Skip” Stam has a message for local governments that plan to keep funding elective abortions with taxpayer dollars: a lawsuit is coming.

Stam made the pledge minutes after the Wake County Board of Commissioners voted Monday along party lines to restore the county’s policy of covering medically unnecessary abortions in health care plans. Democrats on the board managed to reinstate the coverage after Commissioner Harold Webb, at home recovering from a stroke, phoned in his vote.

“There will be [a lawsuit], but in which county it will be and what month is a tactical question for whoever the lawyer and plaintiffs will be,” Stam said.

The Wake County Republican also had strong words for the four Democrats who voted to re-fund the procedure. “They’ve taken themselves down a path to a very minority status at the request of a Planned Parenthood lawyer,” he said.

The Carolina Journal

Think the Congress is the only government entity debating taxpayer-funded abortions? Think again…

After a pointed legal and moral debate, the Wake County Board of Commissioners agreed Monday to restore insurance coverage for elective abortions for county employees.

“I don’t think that government should be telling women what to do with their bodies,” board member Stan Norwalk said.

With Democrats outvoting Republicans 4-3, members overruled county manager David Cooke. Cooke removed the coverage from the county’s self-insured plan when he learned of language in a 1981 state Supreme Court decision that could be read to forbid counties from paying for elective abortions. Rep. Paul Stam, who was the plaintiff in the case, brought it to board chairman Tony Gurley’s attention this year.

The N&O

Hmmm. So my county tax money is now going to pay for something that I think is outright murder. Nope. Not happy. Campaign activities shall commence.

Here’s a quiz for all of you who supported this move: You think women have a “constitutional right” to an abortion, right? Fine, I’ll cede that. I have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. So if I have to pay for your abortion, why can’t I make you pay for that sweet 9mm I’ve been eyeing down at the pawn shop?

Oh, but Celtic… abortions are a vital health procedure! Guns aren’t!

Nope. These are elective abortions. Try again.

Oh, but Celtic… a woman might need an elective abortion for some legitimate reason!

Fine. I need that 9mm for a legitimate reason: defending myself and property. And for the zombie uprising.

If I have to pay for your constitutional rights, you should have to pay for mine.

Look. Take abortion out of this. The county is making me pay for someone else’s elective medical procedure. Why? I’ll pay for an employee’s emergency medical procedure; I don’t have a problem with that. But your elective procedures should be your business- be it abortion or ear piercing. This was a bad vote, and those four Democrats are going to hear about it.

President Barack Obama’s name and the message of “change” were the rallying call at a forum for Democratic would-be opponents against Republican Sen. Richard Burr Monday night.
That partly was because the forum was hosted by Durham for Obama, an organization counting 11,000 members that helped mobilize Bull City voters in 2008.

Another reason was that the message of “change” was still an effective invocation, generating enthusiastic applause from the 300 supporters, voters and volunteers who packed into the St. Joseph’s AME Church Monday night.

“America voted for change in 2008, and we have not seen it,” said Elaine Marshall, N.C. Secretary of State.

“We need to send a senator with the courage, intent and strength to bring change to the U.S. Senate,” said Ken Lewis, a Raleigh attorney.

The economy and health care were the hot topics Monday night. Some of the changes that the candidates proposed included creating more jobs through tax breaks for small businesses and investments in green technology, and including a public option in health care reform.

The Herald Sun

The crap going on in Washington, D.C. right now has sapped any patience I would have had for this story. At this point, I’m just going to deem that any person who even remotely supports this health-care abomination is a traitor and a wannabe despot. So there.

The first member of the North Carolina Congressional Delegation is pledging to vote “yes” on the latest version of health care reform. U.S. Rep. David Price said the bill will keep insurance companies from denying coverage because of pre-existing conditions, ban lifetime limits on care and strengthen oversight for insurance companies seeking to raise premiums.

Price also said the reforms will benefit the American people while reducing the federal deficit.

North Carolina News Network

Let it be known that Congressman David Price is now on record supporting a socialist take over of the American health care system and a culture of corruption that is ripping apart our Federal government.  He is also for raising the cost of health insurance for 85% of the country and he is a cowardly liar.

The inability to deny those with preexisting conditions and to implement lifetime limits will result in premium increases across the board for all of us.  Correct if me if I’m wrong, but this is the exact opposite result of why we were told they were engaging in health care “reform.”  Price is also a liar of the worst kind.  This bill will not reduce the Federal deficit one penny.  They make this claim because they will begin taxing for the program next year even though it won’t kick in until 2014.  That is how they achieve a deficit “reduction.” The bottom line is that the Federal government intends to spend another trillion dollars that we don’t have while we are already running annual deficits of a trillion and a half.

Today the Pelosi Congress is now considering passing this legislation with what has become known as the “Slaughter Rule.”  In essence, they will attempt to pass the Senate bill without actually voting on it.  Is this the representation that the American people voted for?  No, this isn’t representation at all.  It’s decree.  What this is is government tyranny and David Price is going right along with it.  It’s time for the American people to revolt against the oppression of the Federal government.

Appearing before Graham on ABC’s “This Week,” Axelrod had brushed off Sen. Scott Brown’s (R-Mass.) criticism of healthcare reform, saying that Brown had voted for a very similar package for his home state of Massachusetts.

“Senator Brown comes from a state that has a healthcare plan that’s similar to the one we’re trying to enact here,” Axelrod said. “We’re just trying to give the rest of America the same opportunities that the people of Massachusetts have.”

That argument rubbed Graham the wrong way.

“The American people are getting tired of this crap,” Graham said of Axelrod’s comments. “No way in the world is what they did in Massachusetts like what we’re about to do in Washington.”

The Hill

While it is true that America has grown tired of the lies and deception of the Obama administration, it is ironic that Senator Graham is tuned into that frequency, yet he cannot see that many of us here in South Carolina are as equally tired of Senator Graham’s crap.

Richard Burr’s campaign headquarters here in the basement of a bank building may look unassuming, but it neatly illustratesthe problem for his Republican primary challengers.

Burr has space set aside for volunteers, fundraisers and strategists, all of whom are working for a candidate who has already successfully run one statewide campaign and six bids for the U.S. House before that. The campaign expects to raise $15 million by the end of the year.

Designed to fight off the Democrats’ eventual nominee, Burr’s operation is beyond anything GOP challengers Eddie Burks or Brad Jones say they have at their disposal.

“I can’t imagine it,” Burks said of Burr’s fundraising goal. “There’s just no way that I can get the kind of money he has … Everybody who’s sent me anything, I’ve known who they are.”

The News-Record

It’s a shame that running for office has become so difficult for the average American. I think one of the reasons our country is in such a mess is because most of the successful politicians don’t have to be policy experts as long as they’re fundraising experts.

“I can’t imagine it,” Burks said of Burr’s fundraising goal. “There’s just no way that I can get the kind of money he has … Everybody who’s sent me anything, I’ve known who they are.”

Burks’ campaign staff consists of a manager and a treasurer, but he has no plans to hire a fundraising consultant.

That said, Burks has already produced three television spots and hopes to have enough money to put them on in specific spots throughout the state.

Jones said he will use some radio commercials and rely on friends throughout the state to spread the word about his campaign.

“It’s just going to be a grass-roots thing,” he said.

Neither Burks nor Jones think that Burr has been conservative enough or responsive to North Carolina’s needs.

“During the years of the Bush administration, he was a rubber stamp for every spending program,” Jones said. “They tried to outspend the Democrats and he went right along with it. And now that the executive branch is no longer held by a Republican, he’s acting conservative again.”

Jones said if he were elected he would call for an audit of all federal systems “down to the broom closets” and push Congress to adopt a balanced budget. The federal government also needs to make good on promises to those who have been forced to pay into Medicare and Social Security, he said.

When asked why he was running against Burr, Burks said it wasn’t an easy decision for someone who has served one term as a small-town mayor and is in the third year of his first term on the Asheboro City Council.

“It came to me in church one evening,” said Burks, who describes himself as a born-again Christian. Feedback from other businessmen and local government officials helped push him fully into the race.

“I found a surprising number of people who are involved in politics … who knew nothing about Senator Burr,” Burks said.

He said other city officials described Burr as “inaccessible.”

Unaffiliated legislative candidate Mark Brody is suing the state over what he calls unfair and unconstitutional ballot access laws.

After collecting the 3,000 signatures it took to appear on the 2008 ballot, Mark Brody ran as an unaffiliated candidate for North Carolina House District 103.

He earned 30 percent of the vote.

Brody assumed his high numbers at the polls would secure him an automatic place on the ballot in 2010.

He was wrong. When he went to his County Board of Elections last month to file for office, he was turned away. The board said if he wanted to get back on the ballot he had to petition all over again. He has until June to turn in the signatures.

Brody refuses to petition again. He says doing so would lend legitimacy to what he calls an unjust and incomplete election law.

The Carolina Journal

Good luck with that. The Democrats control the legislature, and they’d probably outlaw the Republicans if they could get away with it. And if the Republicans take over this year, how sympathetic will they be to Mr. Brody and those like him?

This is really one of those things where voters need to hold their elected representatives accountable. Ask your state house or state senate candidate if they will ease up on these restrictive laws. If they won’t, ask them why they have a problem with freedom and free elections?

Raleigh, NC – Wake Community PAC calls for the resignation of Wake County Commissioner Stan Norwalk for comments made concerning elective abortion insurance coverage for Wake County employees.

In an interview with David Bass of Carolina Journal, Wake County Commissioner Stan Norwalk stated:

Keeping the abortion coverage in the plan actually saves taxpayer dollars, Norwalk said, since bringing a child to term “would cost 10 times as much.”Wake Community PAC Director Joey Stansbury stated:

“Wake County Commissioner Stan Norwalk’s comments go beyond the pale of offensive. Stan Norwalk’s statements are so grossly offensive on so many levels. Mr. Norwalk’s statements lay bare the old argument of eugenicists who put a dollar value on the cost of life. Mr. Norwalk simply evaluates expectant children as an economic commodity – noting that economically it would cost taxpayers less if these children were disposed of before birth.

Mr. Norwalk’s comments are a slap in the face to single mothers and struggling families in Wake County’s socially economic disadvantaged community. He has reduced their children to a cost benefit analysis.

Stan Norwalk owes them and all of Wake County his apology. And his resignation.”

Meet Susie — the poster dog for animal rights in North Carolina.

You might remember her as the badly burned and beaten puppy found in a south Greensboro park last summer. The pit bull-shepherd mix captured the hearts of many, and they rallied to save her.

Now Susie’s supporters will gather Sunday to rally again — this time to advocate for tougher animal cruelty laws in North Carolina. They’re going door-to-door in Guilford County with information on the state’s laws, which allowed Susie’s abuser to get off with what they say is a light sentence.

Earlier this month, a judge sentenced Lashawn Whitehead to probation for felony animal cruelty, a judgment that followed the state’s structured sentencing laws. Whitehead, 21 , also received six to eight months in prison for setting personal property on fire. That personal property was Susie.

The News-Record

I’m in favor of a little “eye-for-an-eye” in cases like this. Forget the six-to-eight months in the clink; let’s pour some gasoline on this son of a bitch and light a match. Let’s see how he likes it. Maybe we’ll add a little something extra and douse the fire with vinegar instead of water.

“We want everybody to understand how minimal the penalties are for cruelty to animals,” said Roberta Wall , a Greensboro real estate agent who fostered Susie until she was placed in a permanent home with Donna Lawrence .

Under structured sentencing, the judge did not have the option to give Whitehead prison time on the cruelty charge, which is a Class I felony, the lowest level.

Under what has been dubbed “Susie’s Law,” that charge would be bumped up to a Class F felony, which allows a judge to hand out an active prison sentence.

New Hanover County’s four newest liquor stores are some of the most expensive in the state, costing on average 50 percent more than the average store cost statewide, according to a StarNews analysis.

Only Mecklenburg County Alcoholic Beverage Control built pricier stores than New Hanover County on a consistent basis, and Mecklenburg officials are under investigation by federal authorities for no-bid contracts surrounding the purchase and development of real estate for the stores.

While it’s unclear why the stores built in New Hanover were so costly, and many factors can influence construction costs, the manner in which the stores were built was almost certainly a significant factor.

The Star News

A few weeks back I sent out some candidate questionnaires to the 13 candidates running for Congress in South Carolina’s 1st Congressional District.  They were lengthy and very detailed and I felt would be a great source of information on each candidate running in both the Republican and Democratic primaries.

Unfortunately, to date I have only received one back.  I am disappointed in the response because I am not one to give softball questions (which may be why I only got one back) and I think these questionnaires could be used as excellent educational resources for those of you wanting to read up on the candidates running.  But, without further ado, here are the responses from Republican candidate Paul Thurmond.  It’s a long read, but well worth it.  If you wanted to know it, the answer is probably here.

Health care and insurance costs have been rising steadily each year.  What is your opinion of the current proposal that is currently being reconciled between the House and Senate?  What, if anything, would you propose differently to help bring down health care costs?

I cannot and will not support a plan, like the one offered by Congressional Democrats that is currently being considered.  Should either the current House bill or Senate Bill be enacted before I am elected, I will work to repeal these bills when I get to office.

The current proposals, increase government control while doing nothing to address the biggest problem with our system- rising costs. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Obama Administration’s own actuaries have said that the Democrats’ plan would raise costs for American families, and raise the amount we spend on health care in general.

Instead of forcing people into plans they may not want and out of the plans they currently enjoy, we should enact real reform that decreases costs for all Americans while focusing on patients instead of government. I would support a plan that increases the number of insured Americans while decreasing the cost everyone pays.  Such a plan will include reforming allowing people to buy plans across state lines, and providing states the tools necessary to lower health care costs. Unfortunately the Democrats’ plan does none of these.

Do you feel that the Federal government has an obligation to provide a public health insurance option for those who cannot obtain their own?

Long ago, our government created health care systems to provide quality care for the elderly, and the chronically poor.  These long-standing commitments cannot now be broken.  That said, we also must recognize the reality that currently nearly half of the funding spent on health care is spent by the federal government, and that spending is increasing at a rate much higher than the dollars being spent by the private sector.

If another government run insurance plan were created, what little health care cost containment we have now, would be completely lost and we would forever surrender 1/6^th of our economy to the Federal government.  What we should do, instead, is focus on lowering the cost of health insurance so that those who cannot afford it now can do so in the future.

The current Congress has come under heavy scrutiny over its spending practices.  The current National Debt is over $12 trillion and the debt ceiling was recently raised to over $14 trillion.  Does this concern you?  Why or why not?

The current Democrat controlled Congress and White House makes the fundamental mistake of thinking that they can spend our way out of the current recession.  They spent 2009 passing trillion dollar bill, after trillion dollar bill and when President Obama’s budget, the health care bill and the cap-and-trade bills are combined they have threatened to raise taxes by $3.6 trillion over the next decade.

This spending and taxation are unsustainable, we must enact across the broad cuts in spending and taxation.  On the spending side, Congress needs to sunset duplicative government programs, eliminate under-performing agencies, and address the runaway spending of entitlements.  On the tax side, we must create an environment where small business is allowed to expand, hire more employees and become more profitable.

For the 2009 fiscal year 62% of the Federal budget was allocated towards Social Security, Medicare, and defense, the three biggest expenditures of the Federal government by far.  These percentages are increasing each year.  How can the Federal government continue to fund these programs at their current rate particularly with Medicare having a projected insolvency date of 2017 and Social Security in 2037? (these figures come from a May 13, 2009 publication in the Wall Street Journal)

There is not a government program more important to the future of our nation than the Department of Defense, Social Security and Medicare are individually.   One of the explicit powers of the Federal government mentioned in the Constitution is providing for the common defense and as I said previously, we have made long-term commitments to our senior citizens, and I will not allow these commitments to be broken.

However, the fact that these programs are important does not mean they are without waste, fraud and abuse.  Congress must take a line-by-line review of these programs in order to eliminate these cost overruns.  The savings we see from these cuts must not be used to pay for new Federal spending.

At a time when our servicemen and women are putting themselves in harm’s way in order to protect our freedom and security, we must cut carefully.  Ensuring we do not repeat the mistakes of the 1990s where the Defense budget was cut to the point that we found ourselves unable to effectively protect our servicemen and women after September 11^th.  In fact, defense spending, as a percentage of GDP, has been falling since the 1960s.

The world has been witnessing increased aggression from nations like Iran and North Korea. Do you agree with the idea of the Monroe Doctrine that the United States has an obligation to police the world against these types of perceived threats?

As the last remaining Superpower, the United States has a responsibility to deal proactively with nations that have the potential to harm our citizens or international stability.  In many corners of the world, the only appeal for peace understood by dictators is a stern call from our Secretary of State, or a United States aircraft carrier, parked off their coast.

While I am uncertain if any appeal will be heard by the current rulers of Iran and North Korea, we must use all available options to calm the threat posed by these rouge states.  In doing so, military force should be the last resort, used only when international dialog, economic sanctions and all other options have been proven fruitless.

Were Israel to launch an attack against Iran over their goal of uranium enrichment capabilities, how should the U.S. respond?

Israel is the United States top ally in the Middle East and I am deeply concerned about an Iranian regime that continues to defy the United Nations and the international community by developing a nuclear weapons program.  I support all international efforts to eliminate this development that poses a grave threat to Israel and to the United States. I support every option available to prevent Iran from achieving success with its nuclear weapons program and would have co-sponsored and supported the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007, the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act, and the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act.  I support Israel’s right to determine its security needs by its own standards.  I also find it unhelpful for other governments, such as Russia and China to conduct back door dealings with Iran and at the same time try to dictate when Israel should or should not use force.

South Carolina’s unemployment rate is over 12%.  What can the government do to bring that number down and help put people in our state back to work?

Government should not be in the business of job creation.  Government should be in the business of creating the environment where small businesses are allowed to flourish by giving them the tools to succeed.  I would advocate allowing credit to be made more available to small businesses as well as encouraging small business tax credits.  I would also work to defeat harmful policies such as climate taxes, cap-and-trade, card check and government run health care legislation that have frozen the level of confidence that small business have which has resulted in small businesses not hiring new employees.  Also transportation and infrastructure projects would immediately help create new long lasting jobs in areas such as high speed rail and modernizing America’s bridge and highway systems.

Do you feel it is in the best interest of the United States to continue sending foreign aid to other nations despite our rising national debt?

I feel that strategic foreign aid is an investment of tax payer dollars for the national security interests of the United States.  I support a strong system of transparency where the public is entitled to know where every dollar of foreign aid is spent.  I strongly support former President George W. Bush’s vision for the Millennium Challenge Corporation.  His criterion for foreign aid through the MCC was only to nations that demonstrated: good governance, economic freedom, and investments in their citizens were eligible for foreign aid. By using this model for partnerships it allows developing nations to be strategic allies of the United States and prevents them from becoming havens for terrorism.

Some have criticized NAFTA saying it is responsible for the loss of manufacturing jobs in the U.S.  Do you agree or disagree with that sentiment and what is your overall opinion of NAFTA?

Trade pumps more than $45 billion into the South Carolina economy every year and employs more than 260,800 South Carolinians.  Almost all of these dollars flow through the Port of Charleston and the Port of Georgetown from countries with which we have trade agreements.  Additionally, while trade is often demonized as an American jobs killer, the facts do not support this argument, since the enactment of NAFTA, only 3 percent of job losses can be attributed to free trade.

Instead of returning to the failed protectionist policies, we must create a climate that incentivizes companies to move their manufacturing operations to South Carolina.   The first step in this process is fighting against harmful policies such as a cap and trade tax, card check and government run health care legislation all of which will kill more manufacturing jobs than trade ever has.

Were you supportive of TARP, the automotive bailout, and the stimulus bill and/or do you feel they have been effective?

Washington repeatedly touts statistics which they claim prove that the Stimulus and the bailouts have worked.  But even if these facts are to be trusted, the only thing they can tell us is that these bills just kick the can down the road.  Avoiding tough questions to stay in office, while saddling future generations with debt, has unfortunately become the rule in Washington. Instead, these issues should be addressed head on to truly solve problems before they become unmanageable.

I do not believe these skewed statistics and judge these programs to be failures.  TARP was supposed to bring back responsible lending in this country, yet homebuyers and small business owners still find it nearly impossible to secure credit.  Our domestic automakers are once again turning profits but have become wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Federal Government.  The Stimulus was touted as necessary to keep unemployment below 8 percent.  South Carolina’s unemployment rate for the past few months has hovered above 12 percent.

Instead of government enlargement, we need to remove government from the private sector.  Give the freedom to build the cars that the American people want to buy at a price they can afford back to American car companies.  Jobs can be created by allowing businesses to spend more of their capital on growing their business and less spent to pay the tax man.  Finally, Wall Street needs to learn that the Federal Government is not their insurance agent.

If I had been in Congress, I would have voted NO on TARP, NO on any automotive bailout, and NO on the Stimulus.

Should the Federal government raise taxes to make up for the rising Federal budget deficits?

No.  Increasing taxes will only stifle innovation and economic growth.  Without this growth, our tax base will shrink as businesses lay off existing workers or forgo hiring new workers, which also leads to more government expenditures due to the payout of unemployment benefits.

As a real world example of this fact, the Obama Administration’s proposal to increase the top two tax brackets from 33% and 35% to 36% and 39.6%, respectively.  According to the Administration, this tax increase will make the “rich” pay their fair share while helping to balance the Federal Budget.   However, when the facts are examined, it is evident that 44% of small business owners would see a tax increase due to this proposal.  As such, this targeted-at-the-rich tax increase will in fact hit those which are responsible for 80 percent of new hires.

Should the Federal government cut spending to balance the budget?  If so, what specifically should it cut?

Yes.  We cannot return fiscal order to our government without making cuts to the Federal budget.  The first step should be ending duplication in Federal programs.  While, the Federal government should help retrain workers to capture new job opportunities, it is absurd that there are 15 different Federal entities managing 165 different job-training programs, similarly there are 342 economic development programs run by the Federal government through 13 autonomous government entities.  Cutting the duplication out of these programs could save billions of dollars in overhead and administrative savings alone.  This is just a first step; we must also cut those Federal Departments which only serve to further their own interest.  For example, of every taxpayer dollar which finds its way to the Department of Education, 30 cents never leave D.C.  Instead these funds are used to pay Washington bureaucrats.

Would you be in favor of a Constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget by the Federal government?

Congress should be forced to live within its means, just as every local government, state government and American family already does.  I applaud our Senators Lindsey Graham and Jim DeMint for leading this charge in the Senate and when elected, I promise to sponsor or cosponsor an Amendment to our Constitution requiring a balanced budget.

Do the American people have a reasonable expectation to privacy?

Our Founding Fathers wrote strong protections against government intrusion in our daily lives into the Constitution; and if elected I will place my hand upon the Bible and swear to uphold those protections.  Our nation now faces an enemy which uses tactics and strategies that our national security apparatus have never encountered and were certainly never envisioned by our Founding Fathers.  However, these new threats do not make our Constitution obsolete and I will spend my time in office ensuring that our government continues to maintain a responsible balance between security and privacy.

Do you agree or disagree with the TSA’s push to deploy more full body scanners at airports across the country?

TSA’s efforts to deploy more full body scanners will be another tool to increase aviation security.  The current magnetometers in the Nation’s airports – which detect only metal objects – are antiquated and are a 1970s solution to the current day security challenges.  While the whole body scanners may not be the silver bullet, they far surpass the abilities of the Nation’s current airport screening technologies.  Whole body imagers can detect liquids, powders, gels, ceramics, small improvised explosive devices and likely would have detected the explosive on the Christmas Day Detroit terror bomber.  While passengers may have legitimate privacy concerns, privacy issues are being addressed with the TSA and no passenger will ever be forced to undergo whole body scanning.  Pat downs remain an option.

Should TSA engage in profiling?

TSA’s Behavior Detection program is a relatively new layer of aviation security.  Behavior Detection Officers (BDOs) observe passenger behavior at airport checkpoints and throughout airports in uniform and in plain clothes.  Based in part on Israel’s human factors layer of security, BDOs are trained to detect certain behaviors in the stressful airport environment to determine if a passenger may have ill intent. While the BDO program would not be considered profiling, it is an important step in engaging passengers directly within the confines of U.S. law.

Should illegal immigrants in the country be given a pathway to citizenship and what can be done to stop the flow of illegal immigration?  Should it be stopped?

We are a nation of immigrants. However, without the rule of law, our nation loses the vital character imbued in it by the Constitution.   Rewarding those who enter our country by breaking these laws with amnesty degrades the value of citizenship and damages our country.

Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution states, “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States….”  In terms of providing for the general Welfare, what does that mean to you?

To me, government should provide for the people that which they cannot provide for themselves.  Too often the Federal government is considered the first option when in fact it should be considered only when the private sector, local government and state government have proven themselves incapable of handling a problem.

What, in your opinion, is the primary role of the Federal government and have they stayed within or strayed from the constraints of that role?

The primary role of the federal government, as laid out in the Constitution, is to foster a society where all Americans are free to use their inalienable rights. What the Federal Government cannot do, though it has increasingly been attempted (resulting in outsized deficits, an unmanageable debt, and increasing dependents on government largesse), is to guarantee individual outcomes. If elected, I will fight to ensure that the Federal Government is one that promotes strong families, individual achievement, growth in the economy, and everything that makes America the exceptional country that it has been since 1776. But I will also strongly oppose government that replaces these things with bureaucracy and unaffordable government from Washington that ignores what makes this country great.

While most of our York County discussions typically center around the unscrupulous, incredulous, and very cagey Paul Lindemann, there is actually another seat on the York County Council that will also be quite competitive in the upcoming June primary. Rock Hill School Board and State Board of Education member Dr. Britt Blackwell announced his candidacy last week to take on Councilman Buddy Motz for the Republican nomination.

Motz came within 42 votes of losing his seat in 2008 to Alex Haefele who is also running again this year. Motz and Haefele were at odds over an expansion of the runway at the Rock Hill/York County Airport. This year, the big issue will likely be the flop with the Crystal Lakes housing development in Newport.  I imagine a lot of blame is going to be thrown in Motz’s direction.

Blackwell had a kick off event on Friday in which more than 70 people showed up which is pretty good for a county office candidate on a weekday afternoon.  Among the crowd were State Representatives Gary Simrill, Debbie Long, and Phil Owens shoring up support for Blackwell.  It was a sure sign that people are looking for some change in our county’s governance.

If elected, Blackwell intends to focus on job creation by aggressively recruiting businesses to York County.  He wants to reduce county taxes by weeding out waste and making the county government operate more efficiently.  He is also an advocate of open and transparent government and pledges not to be beholden to any special interest groups.