Archive → November, 2011
Platts Report Week 11 (Nov. 20 to Nov. 26)
This is the eleventh 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.
Due to the holiday, there was little to no legislative activity in the U.S. House of Representatives. In this week’s Platts Report, I will discuss Congressman Platts’ votes on Iran. This expands my discussion on his interventionist foreign policy stances that I touched upon in Week 6.
Now that we are winding down in Iraq, interventionists in our government will need a new place to “spread Democracy” and eliminate potential terrorists. Is Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad delusional? Perhaps. He is still second in Iran’s governmental power to the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei however. The Supreme Leader is the one in control of the armed forces and the power to declare war in Iran. This is according to their “constitutional republic.” Is it interesting that neither Iran or the United States seem to pay much attention to their constitution, or appear to be a republic?
The most common reason I have heard for intervention in Iran during the latest Republican Presidential debates is for the protection of Israel. According to many of them, Iran cannot have nuclear weapons because it would be a threat to Israel and the United States. If Israel wanted to, it’s military could wipe Iran off of the world map. Israel is already a nuclear power. Delusional or not, President Ahmadinejad would be committing national suicide by attacking Israel (if given permission by Supreme Leader Khamenei that is). Keep in mind that during Iran’s conflict with Iraq, we took sides with Saddam Hussein and Iraq over Iran, but later attacked Iraq and removed Saddam Hussein from power. Confused?
It is reported that since the hostage crisis in 1979 and leadership changes, the sanctions imposed on Iran (mostly from the United States and our allies) have left the country in near total poverty. If a country is deemed to have attacked (or about to attack) the United States, then our Congress should declare a war and eliminate the threat for our own defense. What are we accomplishing by continually meddling in the affairs of Iran and instituting continuous sanctions against it? Here is a partial list of interventionist resolutions and legislation that Congressman Platts has voted for:
- Iran Sanctions Enabling Act of 2009 (HR 1327)
- Iran Threat Reduction Act of 2009 (HR 1208)
- Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act of 2009 (HR 2194)
- Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007 (HR 1400)
- Declaring that preventing Iran from nuclear weapons capability through economic, political and diplomatic means is vital to U.S. National security (H Con Res 362)
- Co-sponsor of the Iran Threat Reduction Act of 2011 (HR 1905)
Intervening in the affairs of other countries is never a good idea unless our country is under direct, near-imminent threat. Countries deemed unfriendly to the United States already are nuclear weapons capable. Congressman Platts’ consistent voting to sanction Iran can be seen as an act of war. Sanctions destroy a country’s ability to survive economically and are used to weaken their resolve and strength. We must put an end to these practices immediately.
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 10 (Nov.13 to Nov.19)
This is the tenth 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 the debate in the House over the proposed Balanced Budget Amendment (which I discussed in last week’s report), not much of consequence happened again this week. Therefore, a return visit to Congressman Platts’ voting record will take place in this week’s edition.
This week I will discuss a bill passed and signed into law in 2009, H.R. 1388: Serve America Act, or “The Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act.” This bill amended the National and Community Service Act of 1990 and the Domestic Volunteer Service Act of 1973 by revising programs and appropriations for them. In order to originally implement the Serve America Act, President Obama requested and received $1.149 billion, and a requested budget of $1.4 billion.
This bill can certainly be considered a first step towards forced service to the government. It created a Congressional Commission on Civic Service that would explore whether or not a reasonable MANDATORY service requirement for all able young people could be developed. We outlawed slavery with the 13th Amendment. “Neither slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”
Here are some of the more troublesome provisions summarized below:
- Establishes Youth Engagement Zones to involve middle and high school students in community service.
- Establishes the Education Corps to improve schools, the Healthy Futures Corps to serve unmet health needs within communities, the Clean Energy Corps to work on energy projects, the Veterans Corps to work with veterans and their families, and the Opportunity Corps to work with the economically disadvantaged.
- Establishes the Serve America Fellowship to assist with areas of national need, as determined by the State Commission on National and Community Service.
- Creates the National Service Reserve Corps of former national service participants and veterans who are capable of being called into service in the event of disaster or other emergencies.
- Establishes the Social Innovation Fund, National Service Programs Clearinghouses, and Volunteer Generation Fund to help local groups train, develop, and maintain volunteers.
Does any of this trouble anyone else? Unless I am mistaken, volunteering to help your community is just that…volunteering. How does mandated (forced) volunteering help develop our youth into responsible citizens when it makes it a requirement to graduate from school? When kids are forced to do these things, will it make them more or less willing to volunteer in their community?
Sure, as parents we all want our children to grow up and be responsible and honorable citizens of their communities. Having the government mandate or socially engineer their behavior is disturbing. It would be a very short step to include mandatory military service in future bills as expansions to this one. Representative Charlie Rangel submits a bill each year to do just that. It is only a matter of time until it passes. One of the provisions of his bill would authorize the induction of those “volunteers” into the uniformed services during wartime.
While Congressman Platts was not an original co-sponsor of the bill, he voted in favor of passing this when it reached the House floor both times it came up for votes. There is no Constitutional authority for legislation such as this. I would not vote for such legislation, and I would most assuredly speak out against it. Mandatory service to the government does not constitute a republic form of government, nor a democratic one at that. Mandatory service to the State falls under a fascist form of government.
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 9 (Nov. 6 to Nov. 12)
This is the ninth 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.
Yet again, this week provided no new bills that Congressman Platts sponsored or co-sponsored. What I will discuss this week is a guest column written by Congressman Platts for the local papers entitled, “Force U.S. To Balance its Budget.” Please take the time to read the column (it is fairly short) and then return to this analysis.
It is articles like this one that make me wonder if he wrote this column, or if a member of his staff did. In the first paragraph, Congressman Platts states that the $14 trillion national debt has grown to be as large as our entire economy, and that it borrows close to forty cents of every dollar it spends. Keep in mind that this column comes a few months after he voted to raise the national debt ceiling! He then states that he opposed the $800 billion stimulus plan in 2009.Well that is like me telling my children not to eat candy, but to eat their vegetables, and then eating a candy bar in front of them! How can he seriously expect the government to live within its means and lower the national debt by voting to increase the amount of money it can spend?
He then begins to talk about “one of the most important actions that Congress can take,” and that is to adopt a balanced budget amendment. To even seriously consider paying off our national debt and returning our country back to some semblance of fiscal sanity, the very first thing to do is to STOP SPENDING! It also needs to cut many of the agencies and departments it currently runs. Only then can a balanced budget have meaning. I would certainly support and vote for one, however cutting spending and eliminating portions of our federal government must be a part of the process.
One disclaimer Congressman Platts mentioned in current bills calling for a balanced budget is “recognizing a common-sense exception for defense under limited circumstances.” However, House Resolution 1 calls for a 3/5 majority vote to increase revenues (taxes) and a 3/5 majority vote to spend more than it takes in. What good is a balanced budget amendment if it only takes a 3/5 majority to disregard it? The “common-sense” exception for defense must be what is in H.R. 1 that states, “the provisions of this article may be waived for any fiscal year in which the United States is engaged in military conflict…” Well, that is at least 10 of the last 10 years and many more to come with the direction our “defense” policy is taking. Basically, the balanced budget amendment proposals currently being submitted can essentially be disregarded whenever Congress declares it can be. That is NOT a check and balance on the power of our government to spend.
Congressman Platts states that during this upcoming week, a required up or down vote on a balanced budget amendment is required for both houses of Congress as a provision for raising the debt ceiling. This allows our Congress to state that it is concerned about our fiscal future and vote for a balanced budget with all of the loopholes I mentioned above. Now it is time for the politician speak from Congressman Platts: “As we approach this vote, I will continue to actively advocate for the adoption of a responsible balanced budget amendment to the United States Constitution. Such an amendment will help to restore fiscal integrity in Washington, boost confidence in the American economy, and stop Washington’s practice of saddling future generations with insurmountable levels of debt.” I cannot see, after voting to raise the debt ceiling, how Congressman Platts can say that with a straight face! He must be counting on our forgetfulness to hold Congress accountable for their past actions. The citizens of this district and the country have been calling for someone to say what they mean and mean what they say. The only thing a balanced budget amendment needs to say is that a balanced budget will be submitted to the President each fiscal year. Only a constitutionally declared war would be acceptable in not submitting a balanced budget. Period. Not four pages of legal jargon and loopholes that is portrayed as an amendment in H.R.1.
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 Report Week 8 (Oct. 30 to Nov. 5)
This is the eigth 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
Due to internet web site issues, a list of current co-sponsored/sponsored bills from the past week could not be obtained. Therefore a past vote of Congressman Platts’ will be explored in this report. The vote that will be discussed is Congressman Platts’ vote for the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.
A brief summary of this bill lists the following as “key provisions” that were passed by the final bill when it was signed into law by President George Bush on December 19, 2007:
- Raising the efficiency of light bulbs that effectively bans the production of and importing of the majority of current incandescent light bulbs.
- Reducing the usage of fossil fuel in new and renovated federal buildings and requiring that all new federal buildings be “carbon-neutral” by 2030.
- Taxpayer funded research and development of several energies including solar.
- Expanded taxpayer research on “carbon sequestration” technologies (keeping CO2 out of the air to lessen global warming).
- Creating training programs for “green jobs.”
- New federal standards for drain covers and pool barriers.
- Requires that automakers boost gas mileage to 35 mpg on all passenger automobiles and light trucks.
- Creating incentives for the development of plug-in hybrid vehicles.
- Taxpayer funded research for increased biofuel production.
First and foremost…where in the United States Constitution is the power delegated to Congress to pass the legislation contained in this bill? There is none. Forcing any private industry to stop making one product in favor of another, taxpayer funded research on new energy sources, reliance on science commonly discussed as climate change that has not been agreed upon, and creating “green jobs” are not constitutional functions of the federal government.
When our government decides that it is the final authority in new energy technology, yet creates incentives for “plug in hybrids” that use electricity that is generated from the very fossil fuel production it is looking to reduce, you can guarantee conflicts and expensive corrections. It is in this area where we need to have faith in a true free market system.
Research and development by private industry (with no federal subsidies) would eventually produce an alternative fuel, as well as engine technology that burns less of our current fossil fuel. There is no doubt that the first company that can produce such things, will create the next technological industry and make millions of dollars. Currently, there is no incentive for an auto industry to spend its own money and develop the next technology because of government subsidies, buyouts, taxpayer funded research, and government manipulation on what that future automobile will power itself with.
Who in the Congress is an expert on energy technology, energy efficiency, or fuel production? There is none. Highly paid lobbyists from numerous industries lobby our Congress members for money for research and development, taxpayer funded subsides and the like. Attempting to pass legislation such as this to “decrease our dependence on foreign oil” is a political game of charades. For how many decades, under both Republican and Democrat administrations, has our government been talking about decreasing our dependence on foreign oil?
It is in votes like this one, where Congressman Platts continues to show that he is always willing to regulate every aspect of our lives, and those of private industries, yet not attempt to seriously decrease regulation on our supposed free market system. There is no provision in the Constitution that allows for an “all-knowing” and “all-seeing” federal government. Subsidizing one industry over another is illegal and allowing legislation like this to continue to pass does nothing but increase the amount of lobbyists around Washington D.C.
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