Archive → October, 2011
Platts Report Week 7 (Oct. 23 to Oct. 29)
This is the seventh of many weekly analysis pieces detailing what Congressman Platts has voted on, or bills that he has sponsored/co-sponsored. I will briefly describe his action, the bill, and then detail how I would handle the same. Since it is not my full time job to read the entire bill (yet – with your help), I will read the summaries and base my decisions on those. I will also try and describe how libertarian principles apply in my decisions. During weeks that Congressman Platts is not in session or co-sponsoring bills, I will re-visit some of his older votes on legislation that has a had detrimental effect on our liberties.
Congressman Platts became a co-sponsor of H.R. 1254 with 15 other Republicans and 6 Democrats. This bill would amend the Controlled Substances Act to place synthetic drugs in Schedule 1. Scheduled drugs are those that are considered illegal in your possession (unless you have a prescription for certain ones). Schedule 1 drugs include heroin and marijuana. It is my opinion that the government creates the criminal atmosphere of the underground drug trade that includes criminal gangs, which results in violent crimes as well as placing someone in jail for a “victimless crime” such as possession of marijuana. The criminal atmosphere was created when alcohol was prohibited as well. I do not believe that anyone can control what someone puts in their own body and do not think it should be considered criminal behavior. As your Congressman, I would vote to repeal federal drug laws and leave it to the States to decide if they want to continue attempting to control personal behavior. This does not mean that I think the usage of some of these drugs is acceptable for everyone to partake in, I just do not think the government should have a say in what you put in your own bodies. I for one am tired of purchasing over the counter cold medicine from a pharmacy and having to scan my driver’s license and sign a statement that I would not use the product to manufacture methamphetamine. I find this an abuse of government power and an affront to your privacy.
The Congressman also became a co-sponsor of House Resolution 380 with 31 other Republicans and 17 Democrats. This resolution “condemns the terrorist attacks in Oslo and Utoya, Norway on July 22, 2011, and expresses condolences to the families and friends of those individuals who were killed or injured in the attacks. Reaffirms the joint mission of the United States and Norway to seek peace and reconciliation around the world.” This was referred to one committee on July 28th and another on October 25th. I certainly hope the people of Norway were not waiting for condolences from the United States since July. The last sentence of seeking peace around the world seems strange to me…about as strange as our President receiving the Nobel PEACE Prize and then continuing to fight the War in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as bombing Pakistan, Yemen and other targets. A better way of showing that we seek peace around the world would be by ending the wars and closing military bases around the world (as detailed in last week’s Platts Report).
Another bill that Congressman Platts co-sponsored last week was H.R. 3094 with 35 other Republicans. This bill amends the National Labor Relations Act with respect to representation hearings and the timing of election of labor organizations under that act. This bill is also called the “Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act” and modifies some aspects of the National Labor Relations Board. The NLRB is an independent agency of the United States government that conducts “elections for labor union representation and with investigating and remedying unfair labor practices.” Its jurisdiction covers private sector employers whose business has any appreciable impact on interstate commerce. The interstate commerce clause of the Constitution is abused by the Federal Government to get involved in nearly all economic and employment areas. Labor disputes can be settled in the court system. This board (which has nearly 2,000 employees) should be eliminated. It was formed after Executive Order 6763 on June 29, 1934 under President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Executive Orders that create legislation (which should fall under the Legislative Branch) are unconstitutional.
When the Federal Government gets involved in legislating nearly every aspect of your lives, it has exceeded its authority granted by the Constitution. Consider the summary of this bill, H.R. 2256, which Congressman Platts also recently co-sponsored with 6 other Republicans and 50 Democrats. When you wade through the legislation of bills like this, you can guarantee yourself that nearly everything you just used to read this report (computer, electricity, internet provider, internet browsing platform, companies that produce all of the above, etc.) has similar regulation and restrictions imposed on them by the Federal Government. All of these regulations and legislation erode your liberty, and by its very existence, requires a huge bureaucracy to enforce it.
This week was yet another week lost without Congressman Platts submitting a bill to return our lost liberties, regain fiscal sanity, bring our troops home, or return our government to its Constitutional limitations. This is one of the main reasons that I am challenging him in the 2012 elections. To my knowledge, he has never submitted one bill that would greatly affect a return to the principles above. He consistently submits or supports small pieces of legislation that further regulate every facet of our lives.
Follow my campaign at mikeforpa.com and the home page of the York County Libertarian Party: yorklp.org.
For Liberty,
Mike Koffenberger
Libertarian Candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives
Platts Report Week 6 (Oct 16 to Oct 22)
This is the sixth of many weekly analysis pieces detailing what Congressman Platts has voted on, or bills that he has sponsored/co-sponsored. I will briefly describe his action, the bill, and then detail how I would handle the same. Since it is not my full time job to read the entire bill (yet – with your help), I will read the summaries and base my decisions on those. I will also try and describe how libertarian principles apply in my decisions. During weeks that Congressman Platts is not in session or co-sponsoring bills, I will re-visit some of his older votes on legislation that has a had detrimental effect on our liberties.
Other than co-sponsoring a bill to authorize minting of a silver commemorative coin (which should be everyday legal tender in the United States), the past week did not have much legislative activity to discuss. Since President Obama ordered the withdrawal of all troops from Iraq by the end of the year, and Congressman Platts voted for “using force” in Iraq in 2002, I will discuss this topic for this week’s Platts Report.
When the President was a candidate for the office, he promised to end the war in Iraq and bring all troops home. It took some time, but a PARTIAL fulfilling of that promise is on the horizon. I say partial because there was apparently a lot of discussion as to whether to keep our troops in Iraq longer to train their security forces. Iraq would not grant immunity to them, so the only troops to stay in Iraq will be the approximately 150 to guard our embassy. This is the embassy that was dubbed “Fortress America” in 2006 with a then estimated cost to operate per year of $2 billion dollars. Securing an embassy is not quite a total withdrawal of all troops. How would you like being one of only 150 troops guarding an embassy that is surrounded by people unhappy with and quite hostile to your presence?
Since the embassy will cost over $2 billion a year to operate, and it cost less than $1 billion to build, perhaps a better solution would be to sell the embassy to the fledgling Iraqi government to use to house their government offices and staff. That would constitute a full withdrawal of all American military. It would return complete sovereignty to Iraq. It would also provide their government with a secure complex in which to try and rebuild their country.
As mentioned earlier, Congressman Platts voted in 2002 for the “Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002” – HJ Res 114 introduced on 10/2/02. Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution provides Congress with the power to declare war. Authorizing force is not declaring war. Congress has not Constitutionally declared war since World War 2. When a Congress is required to declare war, not only is it exercising powers actually granted to it, but it also provides a permanent record of who voted for war against another country. This decision allows for liberal discussion, and does not leave a political “out” to blame a bad decision on someone else…namely the President who is seeking authorization for force. I find authorizing the President to go to war (authorizing force) to be illegal and unconstitutional. Only the declaration of war is authorized. This includes declaring sanctions against another country, no fly zones, etc. These actions can be considered acts of war in and of themselves.
Congressman Platts did not authorize the President to deploy ground troops in Libya in June of 2011. What is the difference? He seemed to support the President in “stopping the slaughter of innocent civilians” in May of 2011. “As a member of NATO, I think we’re trying to find a way to balance our responsibilities to our great allies,” said Rep. Todd Platts (R-Pa.). If George W. Bush was President when seeking authorization for ground troops in Libya, would his vote have been different? No doubt. There is no major difference in meddling in Iraq or meddling in Libya. The resolution in 2002 for Iraq mentions (among other things) the leader of the country killing his own citizens and potential ties to terrorist groups dangerous to the United States. Both were not only constitutionally wrong, but wrong in so many other ways.
Our country should never use our military to enforce decisions made by an international body like the United Nations. Libertarians believe in wars of defense. Does that mean we wait until attacked? No, but evidence must be clear of impending attack. How do we justify having so many military bases all around the world? Does this help our Congress decide to use the military to “protect our interests” that we so often hear about? It is complete arrogance and naivety to not believe that other countries may hate us because we have troops in their country or holy lands. Stating that people hate us because we live free is ridiculous and a neo-conservative approach to the world. We must remember the reasons our founding fathers used for not getting involved in the affairs of other countries. Thomas Jefferson said it best in his First Inaugural Address in 1801: “Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political; peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliance with none…”
Congressman Platts always goes out of his way to thank the members of the military. Supporting the members of our military is a good thing, however it is my opinion, that the best way to support our troops is to bring them home to their families and friends. Republicans and Democrats are so fearful of being considered anti-military, or “weak on defense.” How can we state that our country is well defended when our troops are spread out all over the world? If elected, I will propose numerous pieces of legislation to end armed conflicts and close as many overseas military bases as possible. It is best for our troops, our country, and for peace and prosperity.
This week was yet another week lost without Congressman Platts submitting a bill to return our lost liberties, regain fiscal sanity, bring our troops home, or return our government to its Constitutional limitations. This is one of the main reasons that I am challenging him in the 2012 elections. To my knowledge, he has never submitted one bill that would greatly affect a return to the principles above. He consistently submits or supports small pieces of legislation that further regulate every facet of our lives.
Follow my campaign at mikeforpa.com and yorklp.org.
For Liberty,
Mike Koffenberger
Libertarian Candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives
Platts Report Week 5 (Oct 9 to 15)
This is the fifth of many weekly analysis pieces detailing what Congressman Platts has voted on, or bills that he has sponsored/co-sponsored. I will briefly describe his action, the bill, and then detail how I would handle the same. Since it is not my full time job to read the entire bill (yet – with your help), I will read the summaries and base my decisions on those. I will also try and describe how libertarian principles apply in my decisions. During weeks that Congressman Platts is not in session or co-sponsoring bills, I will re-visit some of his older votes on legislation that has a had detrimental effect on our liberties.
One bill in which Congressman Platts was the primary sponsor on this week is HR 3234: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow penalty-free withdrawals from pension plans. Since it was just introduced, a copy of the bill cannot be found on the internet at this time. The only other information that can be found is that it is for individuals that have exhausted their rights to unemployment compensation. It is my opinion that this is up to the individual to decide without government permission and without having to pay taxes on any income derived from the withdrawal. For someone to have to make the difficult decision to take money out of their retirement to get by in life, in order to buy food for their family, pay their bills, or whatever it is that they need to do, is difficult enough. You should not have to seek permission from the government, let alone, have to pay taxes on it as “earned income.” While this bill seeks to eliminate the tax penalties applied to the withdrawal, only for those that are unemployed, the entire system of paying taxes on your own income needs to be addressed. This bill is a “safe” piece of legislation. Attempting to tackle the problem of taxing income is too controversial for him. My attempt to tackle the issue of taxation can be found on my web site.
Congressman Platts became the co-sponsor of two ridiculous (for lack of a better word) pieces of legislation: HR 3165: Positive Behavior for Safe and Effective Schools Act and HR 3170: Promoting Alternatives to Truancy and Incarceration by Encouraging New and Comprehensive Efforts (or the PATIENCE Act of 2011 – yes the government loves those acronyms). HR 3165 would expand the use of school-wide positive behavior supports in schools in order to systematically create a school climate that is highly conducive to learning, to reduce discipline referrals, and to improve student academic outcomes. Yes, really…see the text here. To summarize the bill, instead of suspending or arresting criminal juveniles that completely disrupt every other child’s day of learning, we are going to enforce “positive behavior supports” instead. Apparently, these will educate the teachers and principals to positively support bad behavior? Of course they will have to be trained in these procedures, so that will require additional “staff development days” in the school calendars, and more funding.
This bill demonstrates why I support eliminating the Federal Department of Education, all of the programs involved with it, such as “No Child Left Behind,” and eliminating all budget items or legislative power to dictate any education policies. The Republican Party used to be for eliminating the Department of Education because of its complete overreach. The majority of Republicans in the Congress today, which includes Congressman Platts, continue to add more bureaucracy to the education of your children. Talk of the elimination of the Department of Education is now controversial. Just like the belief that the best governments govern least and govern local, the best schools would be those that are governed least and governed local.
The other bill, HR 3170, would amend the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 to provide incentive grants to promote alternatives to incarcerating delinquent juveniles. A very vague bill that encourages States to support programs that would reduce harsh punishment of juveniles, and provide funding incentives to those States that demonstrate a reduction in recidivism and a decrease of racial and ethnic disparities in the delinquency system. Why the Federal Government believes it is their duty to make the States find ways to reduce criminal recidivism so that they can obtain grant money (which we do not have to give) is beyond me. This issue should be left to the States period.
This week was yet another week lost without Congressman Platts submitting a bill to return our lost liberties, regain fiscal sanity, bring our troops home, or return our government to its Constitutional limitations. This is one of the main reasons that I am challenging him in the 2012 elections. To my knowledge, he has never submitted one bill that would greatly affect a return to the principles above. He consistently submits or supports small pieces of legislation that further regulate every facet of our lives.
Platts supports more health care legislation.
This is the fourth of many weekly analysis pieces detailing what Congressman Platts has voted on, or bills that he has sponsored/co-sponsored. I will briefly describe his action, the bill, and then detail how I would handle the same. Since it is not my full time job to read the entire bill (yet – with your help), I will read the summaries and base my decisions on those. I will also try and describe how libertarian principles apply in my decisions. During weeks that Congressman Platts is not in session or co-sponsoring bills, I will re-visit some of his older votes on legislation that has a had detrimental effect on our liberties.
Several bills were co-sponsored by Congressman Platts this week. None of the bills appear to take our financial crisis or debt seriously. They do not bring our troops home and do not do anything to limit the size and scope of our federal government. If anything, the majority of them increase the amount of regulating the government will be doing in our lives.
First this week is HR 2245 – “Preserving Access to Life Saving Medications Act of 2011.” Congressman Platts became one of 7 Republicans and 29 Democrats to co-sponsor the bill. This is another one of those bills that provides the federal government the ability to regulate when a drug company would cease producing a drug. It mandates that companies notify the Secretary of Health and Human Services when the production of a drug ceases or will be interrupted. It also establishes civil monetary penalties for violations. My opinion: when the federal government can regulate the production of any product in the free market, it is no longer a free market. The excuse used in this bill is no doubt the commerce clause of the Constitution. Using such a broad definition allows them to regulate any product. It also seems to fall in line with some of the provisions in the “Obama Care” legislation. There is no reason for the federal government to be involved in the decision making process of a private business on whether or not the company wishes to continue making a product.
Next, Congressman Platts became one of 21 Republican and 24 Democrat lawmakers to co-sponsor HR 2595 – “National Neurological Diseases Surveillance System Act of 2011.” The summary states that it will amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for the establishment of permanent national surveillance systems for multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease, and other neurological diseases and disorders. More federal government involvement in health care! The private sector and non-profit groups are so much better equipped to collect this information and study it to the right ends. Involving the federal bureaucracy will only slow down any progress to be made on the treatment and care for these diseases. Potential life saving medications are already tied up forever in the red tape of the FDA, and this type of bill will continue the process of destroying any hope of a free market recovery of health care costs and research.
Congressman Platts also became one of 10 Republicans and 4 Democrats to co-sponsor HR 2960 – “National Diabetes Clinical Care Commission Act.” The third in a series of bills to further involve the federal government in health care. This one states that it would foster more effective implementation and coordination of clinical care for people with pre-diabetes and diabetes. Do any of these three bills give anyone an indication that the repeal of “Obama Care” will occur? If it is not obvious, I would vote no on this and the previous two bills should they make it to the House floor for a vote. According to 2004 statistics, the Department of Health and Human Services employs 67,000 people and it’s budget in 2010 was $78.4 billion. Do any of these three bills reduce the size and scope of government? Are our Congressmen/women actually engaged in activity to curtail spending by a federal government that is trillions in debt?
Next, Congressman Platts became a co-sponsor with 19 other Republicans of HR 2252 – “Citizens Self-Defense Act of 2011.” This bill is “to protect the right to obtain firearms for security, and to use firearms in defense of self, family, or home, and to provide for the enforcement of such right.” This is already guaranteed under the 2nd Amendment. Re-affirming this is a waste of time. A better use of time could be spent in submitting bills to eliminate unconstitutional bans on firearms and firearm ownership.
This week was yet another week lost without Congressman Platts submitting a bill to return our lost liberties, regain fiscal sanity, bring our troops home, or return our government to its Constitutional limitations. This is one of the main reasons that I am challenging him in the 2012 elections. To my knowledge, he has never submitted one bill that would greatly affect a return to the principles above. He has been a consistent vote to the Republican Party and other leaders, while submitting small pieces of legislation that further regulate every facet of our lives. The first three bills discussed are prime examples of superfluous regulation that Congressman Platts supports.
For Liberty,
Mike Koffenberger
Libertarian Candidate, U.S. House of Representatives
District 19 – PA
www.mikeforpa.com
Platts Votes to Take Away Your Liberty – Platts Report Week 3
This is the third of many weekly analysis pieces detailing what Congressman Platts has voted on, or bills that he has sponsored/co-sponsored. I will briefly describe his action, the bill, and then detail how I would handle the same. Since it is not my full time job to read the entire bill (yet – with your help), I will read the summaries and base my decisions on those. I will also try and describe how libertarian principles apply in my decisions. During weeks that Congressman Platts is not in session or co-sponsoring bills, I will re-visit some of his older votes on legislation that has a had detrimental effect on our liberties.
This week, was a “light” week for voting on legislation. Since there are not many bills to discuss, I will use this opportunity to revisit one of Congressman Platts’ older votes and discuss what I would do differently.
Congressman Platts votes consistently in favor of the PATRIOT Act and all of its renewals (HR 3199 Dec 2005, and most recently HR 514, Feb 2011). Protecting our country from terrorist attacks is obviously a good thing, however the PATRIOT Act violates our rights under the Constitution…especially those guaranteed from the 4th Amendment.
As a police officer, I have been involved with hundreds of search warrants. There is no reason to allow a federal agent to ever not need a warrant for a search (or a court order for a wiretap). There are protections in place for obtaining one. The agent would have to write the warrant. Most likely a supervisor would review it. Then a judge/magistrate would review the warrant and decide if probable cause exists for issuing the warrant or wiretap. In extreme emergency situations, a scene could be secured to protect lives, and then, prior to any searching, a warrant could be obtained. This is the checks and balances in place between the executive and judicial branches of government. I would be the first person to defend someone in law enforcement, because I know what the job entails, however there are bad apples and overzealous people in every occupation. Those types of agents would take advantage of the provisions in the PATRIOT Act.
The PATRIOT Act legislation has also somewhat redefined what terrorism is, and it now includes many non-terrorist activities (marches, demonstrations and civil disobedience) as potential terrorist activities. Your rights of assembly and free speech are threatened by such legislation.
Under the PATRIOT Act, your private records are subject to review by a federal agent. Your employment records, medical records, school records, library records, bank records and internet browsing are all easier to review. Do you think that you still have privacy?
Is it acceptable to suspend the rights guaranteed in the Constitution for any reason? I do not believe so. Our liberty has been legislated away with each renewal of the PATRIOT Act and its provisions. Liberty can never be exchanged for security. I would submit legislation for a full repeal of the PATRIOT Act and all of its provisions. The national Libertarian Party also calls for a full repeal of the PATRIOT Act.
One must also seriously look at the “War on Terror.” Terrorism is a tactic and the battlefield is everywhere…including the United States. This definition allows the “War on Terror” to potentially go on forever. Over time, if left in place, the PATRIOT Act legislation would only be added to. More of our liberties would be jeopardized. More of our privacy lost.
This week was again short on Congressman Platts co-sponsoring legislation, and yet another week lost without him submitting a bill to return our lost liberties, regain fiscal sanity, bring our troops home, or return our government to its Constitutional limitations. This is one of the main reasons that I am challenging him in the 2012 elections. To my knowledge, he has never submitted one bill that would greatly affect a return to the principles above. He has been a consistent vote to the Republican Party and other leaders, while submitting small pieces of legislation that further regulate every facet of our lives.
For Liberty,
Mike Koffenberger
Libertarian Candidate, U.S. House of Representatives
District 19 – PA
www.mikeforpa.com