Why I Oppose the National Popular Vote Initiative

I sent the following to the legislators from my district:

Gentlemen,

I am asking you to OPPOSE the current national popular vote initiative.

In the past I have considered a form of national popular vote.  But the system being considered now has two critical flaws.

First, it requires each signatory state to cast its electoral college votes not for the candidate who garnered a plurality of popular votes in that state, but rather for the candidate who won the most popular votes nationally.  Those who back this approach will argue that, in this way, the plan would ensure that every voter—regardless of the state in which they live—would have their vote count equally to that of every other voter in the country.  This is fundamentally UNTRUE.  Committing all electoral votes to the person winning nationally means that the votes of those who voted against that individual are thrown away.  Worse, it means that their dissenting votes are essentially CHANGED - without the consent of those who cast them.  

Let me demonstrate this another way.  

Suppose the state of Michigan decided that all legislation would be enacted using the system being proposed for the NPV.  Legislation would be voted on in each house, and all votes would be committed to the side receiving the popular vote in both houses.  Regardless of how you, personally, felt about and voted on a given bill, your vote would ultimately be committed to the side garnering the most votes.  If the Yays took it, your vote would be thrown in with theirs - even if you voted Nay, or vice versa.  In effect, your vote would be changed - without your consent - to support the popular consensus.  That is exactly what is being proposed with the current NPV scheme.  Not only does it NOT count each vote equally, it marginalizes those who vote against a given candidate; it tells them that their vote, ultimately, doesn't matter.  While this illustration doesn't perfectly reflect the NPV proposal, I daresay that if someone were to propose such a system for the state legislature, you would oppose it forcefully - to the point of resigning because of what it would essentially do to your individual vote.  

Second, the current initiative is unconstitutional. The Constitution requires congressional approval before any state can enter a compact with another state.  While this has been watered down through successive Supreme Court decisions, even that body has continued to hold that any compact that has the effect of changing the balance of political power in DC must have congressional approval before any state can enter it.  The compact being ramrodded through the legislatures of the states today never received the congressional approval required by the Constitution.  As to dividing the vote, the Constitution gives states the right to appropriate the votes of the electoral college as they see fit.  If the state elects to give all of the votes to the winner of the state popular vote, it may; if the state elects to divide the votes, it may do that as well.  It is entirely up to the state, and does not require an illegal, unconstitutional compact to accomplish this.

I am very concerned about the NPV proposal as it is now stands, and I hope that you will oppose it.

A Theology of Church and Personal Security.....

One of the hot button topics of our day is the idea of allowing concealed carry in churches.  For some, this represents the ultimate expression of paranoia.  After all, the church is the one place where one should feel safe.  For others, the idea of allowing firearms in the church seems to fly in the face of implicit trust in God for our protection.


And yet, while Jesus did in fact teach that there are circumstances under which we turn the other cheek,  there is a Biblical basis for armed church and personal security.


Going back to the Old Testament, 1 Chronicles 9 details the decision made jointly between King David and the Prophet Samuel to establish a temple guard corps, a select group of men entrusted with the physical security of the tabernacle (and later, the temple), its treasuries, and its utensils.  These men guarded the entrances of the House of God to insure both the sanctity of the meeting place and the security of those taking part in the worship activities.  They accounted for the utensils used in the worship ceremonies, checking them in and out each day.  They guarded the finances and foodstuffs.  So while God is ultimately responsible for the defense of His house, David and Samuel recognized that we live in a fallen world in which God expects us to take those actions that are consistent with security and protection.  This is a principle laid out in Proverbs: "The prudent sees danger and hides himself, but the simple go on and suffer for it."  A literal translation of the term, "hides",  indicates covering one's self,  taking those steps that are consistent with protecting one's self from impending trouble or danger.


OK, but that was the Old Testament.  The New Testament tells us to turn the other cheek.  Again, this is true.  As was stated earlier, Jesus did teach that there are circumstances under which turning the other cheek is the most appropriate response.  But the same Jesus who gave this teaching also commanded His disciples to arm themselves for their own protection.  Luke 22 gives the account of the hours preceding the crucifixion of Jesus, specifically, the time He spent in the Garden of Gethsemane immediately preceding His arrest.  An interesting exchange took place between Jesus and His disciples in verses 35-36:  

And he said to them, "When I sent you out with no moneybag or knapsack or sandals, did you lack anything?" 

They said, "Nothing." 

He said to them, "But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. 

Notice what isn't - and then what is - covered here.


Jesus began by reminding the disciples that when He sent them out on an earlier missionary quest, everything was to be provided for them.  They were to take nothing with them - no   money, knapsack, sandals.  Not even their staves.  This is significant.  The staff wasn't just to assist them in traversing the rugged terrain, it was also a means of defense.  The reformer John Knox was known to have been a master of the staff, and he is reputed to have laid out a number of highwaymen during his years of travel.  But for the disciples, for their first quest, everything was completely in the hands of God. With His impending death, however, something changed.  I don't claim to fully understand why the change was necessary; God is still, ultimately, the one who provides everything, including protection, for us.  I simply acknowledge that something changed.  As Jesus readied the disciples to live in a world in which He was no longer physically present with them, He gave them a new mandate - with one significant addition.  Going forward, they were to make provision for funding, clothing, shoes -- and personal protection.  This last addition was so important that Jesus, the same one who taught us to turn the other cheek, commanded His disciples to sell some of their clothing if necessary to provide it.  His command had nothing to do with forestalling or repelling His impending arrest and death; the soldiers were already on their way at that moment.  Jesus understood that He was sending His disciples into a fallen world that was going to go from bad to worse, and that, while God is ultimately in control, there is still a human responsibility to provide for our own defense.


Is God ultimately the one who provides our protection?  Absolutely.  Did God entrust human government with the responsibility of providing a level of protection?  Again, the answer is yes.  Romans 13 teaches this clearly.  And yet, none of this negates our personal responsibility to provide for the protection of ourselves, our families, and our churches.  So when human government continues to diminish the level of protection it provides, more of that responsibility falls on the individual.  Thankfully, we live in a country whose Constitution explicitly recognizes that God has granted us the right to defend ourselves.  The right granted by our Constitution to bear arms in our own defense is consistent with the command given by Jesus Himself.

CCW Legislation - Show Your Support!

Your griping privileges have been revoked!  It's time to stop TALKING about the problem, and take action.  Three very important bills are in the pipeline, and legislators need to hear from you - NOW.


The first two, SB 58 and HB 4009, from Michigan, concern the elimination of so-called "pistol free zones" for holders of CPLs.  These identical bills were submitted for consideration in January, 2011, and because of Michigan's budget battles earlier this year, have been languishing in the Judiciary Committees of the House and Senate.  They are supposed to be added to the schedule in the very near future, but phone calls and emails to the Chairs of both of these committees, as well as communication with the legislators from your own district requesting their support for these bills, will add impetus to get them scheduled sooner rather than later.  


Why should we even be concerned?   Gun free zones are, in theory, supposed to provide protection to students, parishioners and physicians, among others, by denying access to people carrying weapons - even those private citizens who have been properly certified by the state.  And yet, with the exception of the shooting in Tucson, every large-scale shooting that has taken place in this country in the last 30+ years has occurred in areas that were designated to be gun-free and, therefore, deemed safer:  Columbine, Kentucky, Virginia Tech, churches.  On this basis, common sense would lead one to the conclusion that so-called "gun free" zones are counter-productive, that the likelihood of becoming a casualty in these areas is actually greater.  Since 1980, there have been 216 firearms-related incidents on the campuses of educational institutions across the nation (all of which were designated gun free zones) and 15 more at churches (of which all but one, New Life Church in Lakewood, CO, were gun free zones), resulting in 702 casualties (deaths/injuries/ hostages).  The shooting that took place at New Life Church in Lakewood, Colorado, the exception to the gun free zone designation, was stopped by an armed security officer who had been authorized by the pastor to carry her weapon there.  Had she not brought the shooter down, there would certainly have been many more dead.  Brendan Keefe, an emmy award-winning anchor and investigative reporter for WCPO in Cincinnati, made this observation in a recent email:  

Our detailed analysis of every major 'mass shooting' over four-plus decades did conclude that the vast majority took place in locations where guns were not otherwise allowed by law -- schools, post offices, college campuses, etc. ...The bottom line is that someone bent on committing mass murder is not going to be deterred by a sign saying guns are not allowed there -- they're already committing the most serious felony of all, murder.....Tactically speaking, any killer, sane or otherwise, would want to select a target based upon the resistance he would expect there -- putting yourself in the mind of the killer, you could be 100% assured that no one would be armed at a school or a place of business that posts signs banning guns.

These numbers demonstrate conclusively the veracity of the old cliche, "Where guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."


It makes no sense that those who are certified to carry concealed are denied the privilege of carrying in these places.  After all, those possessing CPLs in Michigan have passed state-mandated training, have undergone background checks (twice - once before purchasing a handgun, and then one performed by the FBI before receiving a CPL), and have demonstrated an ability to safely handle firearms.  Numerous studies have proven that allowing greater access to CPLs has not increased the incidence of gun violence, particularly in Michigan.  On the contrary, as Governor Granholm was forced to admit a year after opposing the 2004 ballot initiative to expand access to CPLs, the incidence of gun violence in Michigan DECREASED. There is ample evidence to suggest, as was graphically demonstrated in the recent Walmart and Walgreen's pharmacy cases, that concealed carrying can provide a level of protection in a dangerous situation that police cannot.  Law enforcement has my full support, but trusting one's safety to them has one major drawback - they are almost never able to respond before something has actually happened.

These two bills would change that by providing those with CPLs to be proactive with regard to their own safety; it would also bring our laws into better conformity with the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights.

Click on the following two links to email these gentlemen - ask them to place these bills on their committee schedules as soon as possible:


Senate Chair Senator Rick Jones
House of Representatives Chair Representative John Walsh


You can find contact information for the Michigan legislators from your home district by going to:  http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(2axmao45czrdql55wylumlzj))/mileg.aspx?page=legislators.


CPLs have come a long way in recent years, but to say that we have arrived is premature.  You can bet that the anti-carry lobby, organizations such as the Brady Campaign (which is working toward complete disarmament), is working overtime to keep these bills from passing; your legislators need to hear from you - NOW!  Take a moment and help restore this foundational right to its proper Constitutional place in our society.

Mitt Romney Misstates FairTax Impact in Televised Republican Debate in Florida

Press Release

Sept 13, 2011, Kalamazoo, MI - Because a politician or candidate says it, does not make it true. In a response to a question in the September 12 Republican presidential debate about the FairTax tax replacement plan (HR 25 & S 13), Mitt Romney stated that "the FairTax will help the rich and poor but hurt the middle class". 

Because the question was asked only of Mitt Romney, no other candidate had the opportunity to respond to Romney's statement and the public was left with only the unsubstantiated statement by Romney. 

Mitt Romney, R-MA, misstates impact of FairTax. Rick Perry, R-TX, looks on. Photo by Scott Audette, Reuters

Some of America's brightest economists have conducted studies on the FairTax that show that Americans of every income level and family status fare better under the FairTax than under the current income tax system. 

There is no study by any reputable economist that shows otherwise.

In hearings held this past August by the U.S. House of Representatives' Ways and Means Committee, testimony was presented by economists Dr. Laurence Kotlikoff (Boston University) and Dr. David Tuerck (Beacon Hill Institute) that the FairTax will benefit all Americans by rapidly growing the economy and creating jobs in the U.S. for Americans.

Politicians and candidates making unsubstantiated statements do a disservice to the American public by misleading them, thereby leaving the public in the position of having to make decisions with false information. 

In the event that Mr. Romney has some evidence to substantiate his claim, the Michigan FairTax Association would like to know of it so as to determine its validity.

To view the studies and to learn about the FairTax visit the national FairTax web site at www.fairtax.org.

September 11, 2001 - yet another day which will live in infamy....

I have taken the speech delivered by FDR after the attack on Pearl Harbor and revised it for September 11.

Ten years ago, September 11, 2001—yet another date which will live in infamy—the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by aircraft hijacked in the name of Islamic extremism.

The United States was at peace with that religion within our own borders, and, at the solicitation of numerous Islamic governments and organizations throughout the middle east, was still in conversation with these governments and organizations looking toward a peaceful solution in the region. Indeed, in the years that have passed since the events of that fateful day, these governments and organizations continued to request the assistance of the United States.  While public statements of these governments and organizations indicated doubt that such a peaceful solution seemed likely through existing diplomatic negotiations, and tense rhetoric frequently ensued, they contained no threat or hint of war or armed attack.

It will be recorded that the distance of Manhattan and Washington, D.C., from the countries of the middle east makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many months or even years prior to the events of that day. During the time preceding the attacks, the representatives of numerous Islamic organizations and governments continued to express hope for a peaceful solution in their communications with the United States, an outlook obviously not shared by the extremists sheltered in their midst.

The attacks ten years ago on the cities of Manhattan and Washington, D.C., caused severe damage to American security and economy. We regret the need to remember the 3,200 American lives that were lost in the attacks, and the thousands of American lives that have been lost in military actions undertaken since in the effort to eradicate these extremists. In addition, American ships have been attacked in the waters of the middle east.

In the intervening years, Islamic extremists have launched attacks against Britain.

They have hijacked French aircraft.

They have attacked Israel.

They have attacked India.

They have attacked Indonesia.

They have attacked Spain.

This is only a partial list of the countries that have suffered atrocities at the hands of Islamic extremists.

Islamic extremists have, therefore, undertaken an offensive extending throughout the world. The facts of the last decade - and preceding decades - speak for themselves. The people of the United States have already formed their opinions and well understand the implications to the very life and safety of our nation.

Various commanders in chief of the United States military, intelligence and law enforcement agencies have directed that all measures be taken for our defense. But always will our whole nation remember the character of the onslaught against us.

No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory.

We believe that we interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when we assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost, but will make it very certain that this form of treachery shall never again endanger us.

Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory, and our interests are in grave danger.

With confidence in our armed forces, with the unbounding determination of our people, we will gain the inevitable triumph -- so help us God.

We recognize that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Islamic extremists on Tuesday, September 11, 2001, a state of war has existed between the United States and Islamic extremists around the world.

Never again forget, never again let down our guard.

In Remembrance -- Thank You.

On August 15, 1973, under the terms of the Case-Church amendment, US involvement in Vietnam officially ended, although the war would continue until the fall of Saigon in April of 1975.


To all the men and women who saw action in Vietnam during those bewildering years, and the families who supported them, Thank You.

Marijuana Dispensaries and the Michigan Marihuana Law....

No, that isn't a mis-print.  The word Marijuana in the title of the Michigan Marijuana law is indeed spelled with an H instead of a J.

Regardless, the media have reported that there has been quite a bit of controversy about the law that was passed by voters in 2009, particularly with regard to dispensaries.  

The argument goes something like this:  The Michigan Medical Marijuana law permits each patient to cultivate up to 12 plants, and to possess up to 2.5 oz. of usable marijuana.  Since it is likely that the plants will produce more than the amount required by the individual patient, either the patient or their designated caregiver should have the option of selling the excess weed in dispensaries or clubs to others who need it.

For those who think the law is vague on this point, here is what it says:

MCL 333.26424 Qualifying patient or primary caregiver; arrest, prosecution, or penalty prohibited; conditions; presumption; compensation; physician subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty prohibited; marihuana paraphernalia; person in presence or vicinity to medical use of marihuana; registry identification issued outside of department; sale of marihuana as felony; penalty.

4. Protections for the Medical Use of Marihuana.

(b) A primary caregiver who has been issued and possesses a registry identification card shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including but not limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, for assisting a qualifying patient to whom he or she is connected through the department's registration process with the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act, provided that the primary caregiver possesses an amount of marihuana that does not exceed:

(1) 2.5 ounces of usable marihuana for each qualifying patient to whom he or she is connected through the department's registration process; and

(2) for each registered qualifying patient who has specified that the primary caregiver will be allowed under state law to cultivate marihuana for the qualifying patient, 12 marihuana plants kept in an enclosed, locked facility; and

(3) any incidental amount of seeds, stalks, and unusable roots.

Now, I have been over this law more times than I can count, and while there are those who say the law is vague, I think this is spelled out with remarkable clarity.

The caregiver may cultivate up to 12 plants for each of five specific patients (the total number of patients is specified elsewhere in the Act).

Period.

The caregiver may possess up to 2.5 ounces of usable weed for each of five specific patients.

Period.

Look at the law yourself! No where does the law allow the caregiver to sell the excess weed. In fact, Section 4(d) goes on to stipulate:

(d) There shall be a presumption that a qualifying patient or primary caregiver is engaged in the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act if the qualifying patient or primary caregiver:

(1) is in possession of a registry identification card; and

(2) is in possession of an amount of marihuana that does not exceed the amount allowed under this act. The presumption may be rebutted by evidence that conduct related to marihuana was not for the purpose of alleviating the qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition or symptoms associated with the debilitating medical condition, in accordance with this act.

How much more clear does the law, written by the marijuana lobby, need to be with relation to dispensaries? Section 4(d) clearly states that any attempt by the caregiver to use excess plants or weed for any purpose other than treating the qualified patient with whom they specifically have a legal relationship under this law is illegal. Period. 

Up to five patients. Period. 

Up to twelve plants for each patient. Period. 

No more than 2.5 ounces of usable weed per patient. Period

To argue now that a caregiver should be allowed to sell any weed in excess of the 2.5 ounces they are allowed to possess for each of their five specific patients is moot -- the letter of the law, written by the marijuana lobby, doesn’t allow for it. Period. If you want the law to make provision for dispensaries, then its up to you to get the wording of the law, written by the marijuana lobby, amended. Until that happens, the law is clear. No dispensaries.

There is nothing to debate.  The marijuana lobby made a major mistake in this regard - they failed to make specific provision for dispensaries in the law they crafted.  Instead, they left it up to the legislators of the State of Michigan to clarify.  Supporters of dispensaries now have one of three options: First, work through the legislative process to amend the wording of the law they wrote.  Second, work to place yet another initiative on the ballot as they did to get the law passed in the first place.  Third, the common sense approach.  If the plants available to the qualified patient produce more usable weed than is required by the patient, then the patient obviously doesn't need all of them.  Destroy the excess plants and stop wasting our time debating something that the law clearly doesn't allow!

I suspect, however, that supporters will choose the fourth option - judicial legislation.  They will continue to sue until they find a judge who is willing to see things their way.  After all, isn't that the way we do things today?

A reminder of why we celebrate on July 4....

Declaration of Independence Here is the complete text of the Declaration of Independence. The original spelling and capitalization have been retained. (Adopted by Congress on July 4, 1776) The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world. He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them. He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only. He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures. He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people. He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within. He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands. He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers. He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries. He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance. He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature. He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power. He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation: For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us: For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states: For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world: For imposing taxes on us without our consent: For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury: For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses: For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in these colonies: For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments: For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever. He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us. He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation. He has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands. He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions. In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people. Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends. We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor. New Hampshire: Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton Massachusetts: John Hancock, Samual Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry Rhode Island: Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery Connecticut: Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott New York: William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris New Jersey: Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark Pennsylvania: Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross Delaware: Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean Maryland: Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton Virginia: George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton North Carolina: William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn South Carolina: Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton Georgia: Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton Source: The Pennsylvania Packet, July 8, 1776

Post-operative Ileus.....

OK, so this posting isn't about anything political or social.


And no, I'm not a medical expert by any stretch of the imagination.


What I am is a son who has watched his father go through more surgeries during his lifetime than any person should have to undergo.  An average of one major surgery every one-and-a-half years for the last 40 years.  Back.  Knees.  Wrists.


The long surgeries all have one thing in common - post-surgical ileus.


Getting the digestive tract working again after receiving anesthesia for several hours is a problem faced by thousands of patients every day.  And despite the best efforts of medicos to treat this problem pharmacologically, for many patients the problem will persist for days on end - the most serious cases resulting in even more surgery to correct the digestive tract complications that can occur.  Medicines, suppositories, enemas, all are tried in an effort to get the ol' poop shoot working again, but for many, these measures are insufficient.


Such was the case of my father with his most recent surgery.  After spending nearly eight hours on the operating table for his most recent back surgery, he suffered from a severe case of post-operative ileus.  Doctors, including a professor of gastroenterology, tried everything for nearly a week to kick-start his system.  Everything they tried failed.  One morning, I received a call from dad.  To say that he was in distress would be an understatement.  I asked him for the exact diagnosis of his condition - post-operative ileus - and then began digging.   I found a paper in the American Medical Association archives relating to post-operative ileus.  There was the usual discussion of the nature of the problem, and a significant portion of the paper was devoted to pharmacological intervention.  But buried in the paper was a section dealing with non-pharmacological remedies for this condition.  And that is where we got our answers.


You see, post-operative ileus is the result of several factors.  


First, the patient is typically required to fast for 12 to 24 hours prior to major surgery.  Nothing is remaining in the stomach, and most of the contents of the intestines are passed.  This means that there is nothing remaining to stimulate the muscles of the digestive tract to function properly.


Second, the intestinal tract is home to beneficial bacterial flora which aid in the digestion of food.  When the digestive tract is emptied during fasting, those bacteria begin to die off - meaning that the ability of the digestive tract to function properly is also compromised.  What isn't killed off during the famine known as fasting is finished off by the drugs that are administered during the course of a surgery.


Third, anesthesia does more than put one's lights out; it can paralyze muscles in the digestive tract, as well.  Somehow, those muscles must be re-awakened.


So what can one do to reduce the likelihood of a prolonged bout of post-operative ileus?  What I provide here is based mostly on our own observations of what has proven effective.


First, as soon as possible after surgery, begin chewing gum.  Yes, that's right.  Chew gum.  While one may be on a highly restricted diet immediately after surgery, even relying on IVs to deliver nutrition and hydration, chewing gum initiates the flow of digestive juices throughout the digestive system.  It is a placebo for the digestive system.  Chewing gum three times a day for an hour beginning postoperative day one begins the flow of digestive juices and can produce significant results.  In a randomized, prospective, controlled study on gum chewing as a method to stimulate bowel motility after laparo-scopic colectomy for colorectal cancer, the patients who chewed gum 3 times a day starting postoperative day one until oral intake experienced the passage of first flatus an average of 1.1 days earlier than the control group (day 2.1 vs 3.2). The first bowel movement for gum-chewing patients occurred by post-operative day 3.1, versus postoperative day 5.8 for the control group (Mechanisms and Treatment of Postoperative Ileus, Andrew Luckey, MD; Edward Livingston, MD; Yvette Tache ́, PhD, p 211).


Second, increase intake of fiber.  Fiber stimulates the muscles of the bowels and goes a long way to insure bowel health and proper function.


Third, as soon as possible, begin intake of pro-biotics, particularly acidophilus.   As was observed previously, drugs administered during surgery kill beneficial bacterial flora in the gut; taking pro-biotics repopulates the digestive tract with the beneficial bacterial flora that is so necessary to effective digestion.


In our experience, the combination of these three things can bring about a much more speedy resolution to the problem of post-surgical ileus.

An Open Letter to the President, the Congress, and the American people Concerning Reform of the Federal Tax Code

The following letter, signed by more than 80 economists, was sent to the President and Congress.

An Open Letter to the President, the Congress, and the American people Concerning Reform of the Federal Tax Code

Dear Mr. President, Members of Congress, and Fellow Americans,

We, the undersigned business and university economists, welcome and applaud the ongoing initiative to reform the federal tax code. We urge the President and the Congress to work together in good faith to pass and sign into federal law H.R. 25 and S. 25, which together call for:

• Eliminating all federal income taxes for individuals and corporations,

• Eliminating all federal payroll withholding taxes,

• Abolishing estate and capital gains taxes, and

• Repealing the 16th Amendment

We are not calling for elimination of federal taxation, which would be irresponsible and undesirable. Nor does our endorsement call for reduced federal spending. The tax reform plan we endorse is revenue neutral, collecting as much federal tax revenue as the current income tax code, including payroll withholding taxes.

We are calling for elimination of federal income taxes and federal payroll withholding taxes. We endorse replacing these costly, oppressively complex, and economically inefficient taxes with a progressive national retail sales tax, such as the tax plan offered by H.R. 25 and S. 25 – which is also known as the FairTax Plan. The FairTax Plan has been introduced in the 109th Congress and had 54 co-sponsors in the 108th Congress.

If passed and signed into law, the FairTax Plan would:

• Enable workers and retirees to receive 100% of their paychecks and pension benefits,

• Replace all federal income and payroll taxes with a simple, progressive, visible,

efficiently collected national retail sales tax, which would be levied on the final sale of newly produced goods and services,

• Rebate to all households each month the federal sales tax they pay on basic necessities, up to an independently determined level of spending (a.k.a., the poverty level, as determined by the Department of Health and Human Services), which removes the burden of federal taxation on the poor and makes the FairTax Plan as progressive as the current tax code,

• Collect the national sales tax at the retail cash register, just as 45 states already do,

• Set a federal sales tax rate that is revenue neutral, thereby raising the same amount of tax revenue as now raised by federal income taxes plus payroll withholding taxes,

• Continue Social Security and Medicare benefits as provided by law; only the means of tax collection changes,

• Eliminate all filing of individual federal tax returns,

• Eliminate the IRS and all audits of individual taxpayers; only audits of retailers would be needed, greatly reducing the cost of enforcing the federal tax code, 

• Allow states the option of collecting the national retail sales tax, in return for a fee, along with their state and local sales taxes,

• Collect federal sales tax from every retail consumer in the country, whether citizen or undocumented alien, which will enlarge the federal tax base,

• Collect federal sales tax on all consumption spending on new final goods and services, whether the dollars used to finance the spending are generated legally, illegally, or in the huge “underground economy,”

• Dramatically reduce federal tax compliance costs paid by businesses, which are now embedded and hidden in retail prices, placing U.S. businesses at a disadvantage in world markets,

• Bring greater accountability and visibility to federal tax collection,

• Attract foreign equity investment to the United States, as well as encourage U.S. firms to locate new capital projects in the United States that might otherwise go abroad, and

• Not tax spending for education, since H.R. 25 and S. 25 define expenditure on education to be investment, not consumption, which will make education about half as expensive for American families as it is now.

The current U.S. income tax code is widely regarded by just about everyone as unfair, complex, wasteful, confusing, and costly. Businesses and other organizations spend more than six billion hours each year complying with the federal tax code. Estimated compliance costs conservatively top $225 billion annually – costs that are ultimately embedded in retail prices paid by consumers.

The Internal Revenue Code cannot simply be “fixed,” which is amply demonstrated by more than 35 years of attempted tax code reform, each round resulting in yet more complexity and unrelenting, page-after-page, mind-numbing verbiage (now exceeding 54,000 pages containing more than 2.8 million words).

Our nation’s current income tax alters business decisions in ways that limit growth in productivity. The federal income tax also alters saving and investment decisions of households, which dramatically reduces the economy’s potential for growth and job creation.

Payroll withholding taxes are regressive, hitting hardest those least able to pay. Simply stated, the complexity and frequently changing rules of the federal income tax code make our country less competitive in the global economy and rob the nation of its full potential for growth and job creation.

In summary, the economic benefits of the FairTax Plan are compelling. The FairTax Plan eliminates the tax bias against work, saving, and investment, which would lead to higher rates of economic growth, faster growth in productivity, more jobs, lower interest rates, and a higher standard of living for the American people.

The America proposed by the FairTax Plan would feature:

• no federal income taxes,

• no payroll taxes,

• no self-employment taxes,

• no capital gains taxes,

• no gift or estate taxes,

• no alternative minimum taxes,

• no corporate taxes,

• no payroll withholding,

• no taxes on Social Security benefits or pension benefits,

• no personal tax forms,

• no personal or business income tax record keeping, and

• no personal income tax filing whatsoever.

No Internal Revenue Service; no April 15th; all gone, forever.

We believe that many Americans will favor the FairTax Plan proposed by H.R. 25 and S. 25, although some may say, “it simply can’t be done.” Many said the same thing to the grassroots progressives who won women the right to vote, to those who made collective bargaining a reality for union members, and to the Freedom Riders who made civil rights a reality in America.

We urge Congress not to abandon the FairTax Plan simply because it will be difficult to face the objections of entrenched special interest groups – groups who now benefit from the complexity and tax preferences of the status quo. The comparative advantage and benefits offered by the FairTax Plan to the vast majority of Americans is simply too high a cost to pay.

Therefore, we the undersigned professional and university economists, endorse a progressive national retail sales tax plan, as provided by the FairTax Plan. We urge Congress to make H.R. 25 and S. 25 federal law, and then to work swiftly to repeal the 16th Amendment.

Respectfully,

Donald L. Alexander Professor of Economics Western Michigan University

Wayne Angell Angell Economics

Jim Araji Professor of Agricultural Economics University of Idaho

Ray Ball Graduate School of Business University of Chicago

Roger J. Beck Professor Emeritus Southern Illinois University, Carbondale

John J. Bethune Kennedy Chair of Free Enterprise Barton College

David M. Brasington Louisiana State University

Jack A. Chambless Professor of Economics Valencia College

Christopher K. Coombs Louisiana State University

William J. Corcoran, Ph.D. University of Nebraska at Omaha

Eleanor D. Craig Economics Department University of Delaware

Susan Dadres, Ph.D. Department of Economics Southern Methodist University

Henry Demmert Santa Clara University

Arthur De Vany Professor Emeritus Economics and Mathematical Behavioral Sciences University of California, Irvine

Pradeep Dubey Leading Professor Center for Game Theory Dept. of Economics SUNY at Stony Brook

Demissew Diro Ejara William Paterson University of New Jersey

Patricia J. Euzent Department of Economics University of Central Florida

John A. Flanders Professor of Business and Economics Central Methodist University

Richard H. Fosberg, Ph.D. William Paterson University

Gary L. French, Ph.D. Senior Vice President Nathan Associates Inc.

Professor James Frew Economics Department Willamette University

K. K. Fung University of Memphis

Satya J. Gabriel, Ph.D. Professor of Economics and Finance Mount Holyoke College

Dave Garthoff Summit College The University of Akron

Ronald D. Gilbert Associate Professor of Economics Texas Tech University

Philip E. Graves Department of Economics University of Colorado

Bettina Bien Greaves, Retired Foundation for Economic Education

John Greenhut, Ph.D. Associate Professor Finance & Business Economics School of Global Management and Leadership Arizona State University

Darrin V. Gulla Dept. of Economics University of Georgia

Jon Halvorson Assistant Professor of Economics Indiana University of Pennsylvania

Reza G. Hamzaee, Ph.D. Professor of Economics & Applied Decision Sciences Department of Economics Missouri Western State College

James M. Hvidding Professor of Economics Kutztown University

F. Jerry Ingram, Ph.D. Professor of Economics and Finance The University of Louisiana- Monroe

Drew Johnson Fellow Davenport Institute for Public Policy Pepperdine University

Steven J. Jordan Visiting Assistant Professor Virginia Tech Department of Economics

Richard E. Just University of Maryland

Dr. Michael S. Kaylen Associate Professor University of Missouri

David L. Kendall Professor of Economics and Finance University of Virginia's College at Wise

Peter M. Kerr Professor of Economics Southeast Missouri State University

Miles Spencer Kimball Professor of Economics University of Michigan

James V. Koch Department of Economics Old Dominion University

Laurence J. Kotlikoff Professor of Economics Boston University

Edward J. López Assistant Professor University of North Texas

Franklin Lopez Tulane University

Salvador Lopez University of West Georgia

Yuri N. Maltsev, Ph.D. Professor of Economics Carthage College

Glenn MacDonald John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics and Strategy Washington University in St. Louis

Dr. John Merrifield, Professor of Economics University of Texas-San Antonio

Dr. Matt Metzgar Mount Union College

Carlisle Moody Department of Economics College of William and Mary

Andrew P. Morriss Galen J. Roush Professor of Business Law & Regulation Case Western Reserve University School of Law

Timothy Perri Department of Economics Appalachian State University

Mark J. Perry School of Management and Department of Economics University of Michigan-Flint

Timothy Peterson Assistant Professor Economics and Management Department Gustavus Adolphus College

Ben Pierce Central Missouri State University

Michael K. Pippenger, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Economics University of Alaska

Robert Piron Professor of Economics Oberlin College

Mattias Polborn Department of Economics University of Illinois

Joseph S. Pomykala, Ph.D. Department of Economics Towson University

Barry Popkin University of North Carolina- Chapel Hill

Steven W. Rick Lecturer, University of Wisconsin Senior Economist, Credit Union National Association

Paul H. Rubin Samuel Candler Dobbs Professor of Economics & Law Department of Economics Emory Univeristy

John Ruggiero University of Dayton

Michael K. Salemi Bowman and Gordon Gray Professor of Economics University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Dr. Carole E. Scott Richards College of Business State University of West Georgia

Carlos Seiglie Dept. of Economics Rutgers University

John Semmens Economist Phoenix College Arizona

Alan C. Shapiro Ivadelle and Theodore Johnson Professor of Banking and Finance Marshall School of Business University of Southern California

Dr. Stephen Shmanske Professor of Economics California State University, Hayward

James F. Smith University of North Carolina- Chapel Hill

Vernon L. Smith Economist

W. James Smith Dean of Liberal Arts and Sciences and Professor of Economics University of Colorado at Denver

John C. Soper Boler School of Business John Carroll University

Roger Spencer Professor of Economics Trinity University

Daniel A. Sumner, Director, University of California Agricultural Issues Center and the Frank H. Buck, Jr., Chair Professor, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of California, Davis

Curtis R. Taylor Professor of Economics and Business Duke University

Robert Vigil Analysis Group, Inc.

John H. Wicks, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus Department of Economics University of Montana

F. Scott Wilson, Ph.D. Canisius College

Mokhlis Y. Zaki Professor of Economics Emeritus Northern Michigan University