How to avoid sacrificing liberty for security

In under a month, Florida Republican voters will decide who they wish to send up against President Obama. The "conventional wisdom" as reflected by most media outlets says it will be either Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney. The point of this post will be to research these two in a few areas based upon  their past actions, and then to contrast these actions with the actions of Mr. Obama and the U.S. Constitution. I made use of the Southern New Hampshire 912 candidate matrix (click for PDF) in obtaining some of this information. It is an excellent means of contrasting the choices for 2012.

Mitt Romney
Republican voters often comment Mr. Romney is the only candidate that can beat Mr. Obama, and his business and government executive (Governor of Massachusetts) background make for a winning combination.

Let's look at this experience based upon the above criteria:
1. Mr. Romney supported the Massachusetts Climate Protection Plan in 2004 (click for PDF). You need to read no further than the cover page- the letter states that he is not even sure if climate change is happening, or how it is caused.

2. In 2006, he did an "about-face" on the state's clean air policy, as detailed here. The opinion of several quoted in the article was that he did so to help in his 2008 Presidential campaign. A friend of mine calls this "party above principle".

3. He is opposed to fundamental second-amendment rights. A piece contrasting his pro-gun control and then anti-gun control as well as more about-faces on issues is here. It can be summed up that Mr. Romney is indeed an experienced politician, and will change his position on an issue if it appears to be politically expedient.

His views are not in alignment with the U.S. Constitution, and are indeed similar to those of Mr. Obama. I'll close with a reference to "RomneyCare", a Massachusetts predecessor to "ObamaCare", i.e. mandated health insurance. While an argument can be made for this at a state level, it is indeed an expansion of government that a majority of voters in the USA tend to oppose.

Newt Gingrich

I am amazed that anyone wanting a leader that will follow the Constitution would even consider Mr. Gingrich, but a number of people seem to support him. Here is why I say I'm amazed:

1. While he is revered by many as being a conservative that will support and defend the Constitution, in 1979 he voted to create the unconstitutional federal Dept. of Education. This bill passed by only 6 votes. If you do not consider this a big deal, look at the budget for this behemoth agency- during a recession, it has gone from $56 billion in 2006 to $69.9 billion in 2011- about a 25% increase. While his website attempts to justify this vote by saying it was just supposed to be a small agency with limited powers, circa 2009, Mr. Gingrich toured with Al Sharpton in an effort to increase the federal government's role in education. Mr. Obama is pushing the "Race To The Top" program, which is a Trojan horse method of Washington controlling local education. That's the way business has always been done by D.C.

2. While in Congress circa 1994, Mr. Gingrich voted for the Global Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, or GATT. This bill undermined Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution, which gives the power to regulate trade with foreign nations to Congress, not a global authority.

3. More recently, Mr. Gingrich has been seen with former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in support of "climate change" (click for YouTube video).

More information on Mr. Gingrich can be found here. In summary, he has voted against the Constitution on more than one occasion. He agrees with Mr. Obama on education being a federal issue as well as on "climate change".

Summary

So if we can articulate where each of these candidates has stood on issues, we can predict where they will stand on them in the future, which should be of great concern to us. We've seen that each of them is weak on Constitutional adherence, and has been a proponent of expanding the government's role in our lives. In several respects, they not only do not differ from Mr. Obama, they in fact agree with him.

I liken candidates or politicians that say one thing to get elected then fail to stand firm on these promises to be akin to a saboteur that disguises themselves as something they are not to gain access to someplace they normally could not. As an extreme example, if you are standing guard duty at an army base and you see someone approaching with a bomb around their waist, you have a good idea that they mean to do you harm. If you see someone wearing the uniform of a Major, you will likely allow them in. If they in turn detonate a bomb once in, they have betrayed the trust you bestowed upon them. The point being, at least you know where the first person stood, and could take action as needed.

In my opinion, neither Mitt Romney nor Newt Gingrich will abide by our Constitution, and they will not work to limit the size and scope of the federal government.

Solution

As the saying goes, it is often easy to complain, but sometimes difficult to offer a solution. Fortunately, this is not one of those times.

Ron Paul has a record of supporting and defending the Constitution as a member of Congress. His votes and positions have not always been popular, but they have been within the rules. He is very consistent. I'll admit I did not know much about Dr. Paul in 2008 when I voted for John McCain, which is why I left the Republican party soon after (I've been back since 2010). After becoming politically involved in things, and seeing how Republicans were destroying liberty at a rapid pace here in Florida, I looked into Dr. Paul. I really liked what I saw and heard- I listened to him when he came to speak at Florida State University. I don't agree with everything he says. As one example (and I've gotten into debates over this), I support Ron Paul, but I don't want to legalize drugs. Following the Constitution, this is a decision that must be made by each state- and Dr. Paul recognizes this. If 50% +1 of the voters want to do so, then that will be the law. If I disagree, it's up to me and those that agree to write legislation and get it passed- kind of like the battles we're fighting with REAL ID and Red Light Cameras. As a related point, had Congress voted with Dr. Paul on the former, we'd have no battle to fight here.

Supporting Ron Paul is not just over a single issue such as climate change (which he has spoken about here), although his position consistently has been from the point of following our Constitution. In this case, he supports ending subsidies- a common-sense means of reducing government spending and allowing the free market to work. If you're interested in his positions on federal education, many can be found here.

Finally, the 800 pound gorilla- Ron Paul's foreign policy. It seems like the knee-jerk reaction is in so many words "I like Ron Paul EXCEPT for his foreign policy." I recently challenged my neighbor to contrast the foreign policy of Ron Paul with that of President Jefferson. Thomas Jefferson summed up the noninterventionist foreign policy position perfectly in his 1801 inaugural address: “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations- entangling alliances with none." As a logical thinker, I realize that we must indeed get our own house in order before we can begin to think about other nations- if America fails from within, then foreign policy is of little consequence. In the meantime, a strong defense is necessary, something Dr. Paul recognizes and supports.

A commonly known truism is that there are many paths for a bill to take for it to fail. There is only one path for it to become a law. In the past couple of weeks, we are seeing opposition for two of our bills from people that claim to be supporters of liberty. I spend a lot of time countering opponents of liberty on these issues, so it confuses me when I have to do so with people I thought were on the side of liberty and Constitutional rule of law.

REAL ID, HB 109

Why won't he hear this bill?

This bill is stalled in the Transportation and Highway Safety subcommittee. The Chair, Rep. Brad Drake, depicted above, has thus far declined to move it forward. His is the first committee of three the bill must go through. Having met with a majority of the members of this committee, I have no doubt this bill would pass easily. Rep. Drake is concerned that since 80% of Floridians are already in the system and the courts would overturn any such legislation we would be wasting our time with the bill. All of his concerns have been addressed, and many Floridians have either called or written to Rep. Drake to ask him to just hear the bill. I'll point out that Florida's (along with 26 other states) suit against the similarly unconstitutional federal health insurance law is now headed to the Supreme Court, so that was certainly not a waste of time. Defending our liberty and sovereignty can never be a waste of time. Just like with mandated federal health insurance, many other states oppose REAL ID, and 19 have done something about it.

As to his concerns, the DHSMV Executive Director Julie Jones said only 5 million Floridians are in the system, so with over 12 million drivers (plus an unknown number of ID card holders), this is well under half. As I pointed out to Rep. Drake my kids and grandkids are not in there. He's been given relevant case law from the Supreme Court that shows our bill would be entirely defensible and Constitutional, as well as other legal, practical, and even biblical references on this issue.

As I've noted elsewhere, Rep. Drake campaigned on a pro-liberty and smaller government platform. From his current campaign website's "Brad on the Issues" page- these are the first two items:

These are my basic beliefs that guide me as a State Representative:

» The government should be least intrusive in our lives.

» We the people should hold more personal freedoms.

In an editorial dated October 19, 2011, the NW Florida Daily News was critical of Rep. Drake for his firing squad death penalty bill:

He also shrugged off criticism. “When somebody laughs at me and says, ‘You’re wasting your time,’ then it just makes me want to do it even more.”

Why won't he hear this bill in his subcommittee?

Motorist Rights Restoration Act (MRRA), HB 343

Yesterday and today I found a number of comments from people that oppose red light cameras that the MRRA is a "Trojan Horse" bill that will authorize speed cameras, and to oppose it. I've had to take the time to explain that speed cameras (and any other type of infraction) are already authorized under Florida law thanks to the 2010 camera law (HB 325 of 2010). See s. 316.0083, the devices are not prohibited. You will not find the word "camera" in that law, just the term "Traffic infraction detector". What a law does not prohibit is just as important as what it allows. The MRRA specifies that any unattended speed measuring device must be tested as specified in Florida law- and the referenced law mandates testing speed measuring devices every 6 months. Currently, red light cameras (or any other use of an infraction detector) have no requirement for accuracy testing. The MRRA adds this requirement.

The fact is that the camera ban bill died in 2011. It would likely do so again in 2012- one has not even been introduced. Instead of wasting time fighting that battle again, I thought it better to address the shortcomings of the existing law- which is what MRRA does, and these shortcomings were recognized by several pro-camera legislators last session. It does NOT authorize speed cameras- they are already authorized. If one had taken perhaps 5 minutes to read the 5 page (with summary) bill, they would have discovered this fact.

Here's what it says about speed:

(summary)

providing for testing of certain unattended devices used to enforce traffic laws; providing that such devices used to enforce speed limit laws are also subject to specified provisions;

(bill text)

(b) Any traffic infraction detector or other unattended device used to enforce the unlawful speed laws of this state is also subject to s. 316.1905.

How do you get the bill authorizing speed cameras out of that? To break it down further, s. 316.1905 is the law that requires police to have their radars and lasers tested for accuracy every 6 months. Some red light cameras can already measure speed- and there is zero regulation on them.

By the way, HB 343 is also on the table for Rep. Drake's subcommittee. Will he give it a hearing?

So we're fighting the battle on both sides here, people that say they support liberty and smaller government as well as those that wish to ban red light cameras. I made the observation that this is like us fighting England in WW2 before we fought the Germans. How do you think that one would have turned out? I'll give you a hint- we'd have had REAL ID a lot sooner and red light cameras would be the least of our worries.
 

Corn: it's not just for dinner anymore- except for your engine

In the past few months I've been focused on Liberty issues- things like unconstitutional driver's license laws and working to restore the rights of motorists in Florida. This past week, I learned of some new legislation that will be a great benefit to all of us that use an internal combustion engine. As I told the Senators in a hearing, my concern was not so much that of a Liberty lobbyist, but more as one that collects and restores cars and motorcycles. Not to worry, there's a Liberty tie-in, so keep reading.

Back when you could still buy an honest-to-goodness made in the USA (not Canada) muscle car, you could go to your local gas station and put some high-octane leaded fuel in it. I recall Sunoco having like 6 different numerical grades of gas. Around this same time came the 1970's, Richard Nixon, the oil crisis, unleaded gas, Jimmy Carter, Newt Gingrich, and a heap of alphabet agencies like the EPA (1970) and DOE. Take your pick- that acronym is good for both the Departments of Education (1979) and Energy (1977). Mr. Nixon gave us the EPA and Mr. Carter gets the credit for the other two, with an assist from Mr. Gingrich for the Dept. of Education.

What this has led to several decades later is the EPA compelling the states to pass legislation that will allegedly help the environment. Sound familiar? It should, since Homeland Security did this with REAL ID. As with most federal legislation that lacks constitutionality, this one has given us unintended consequences. In 2008, the Florida Legislature passed a law that mandated most gasoline would have a 10% Ethanol content- there were exceptions for boats, motorcycles, and some other off-road type vehicles. This was done to comply with federal coercion, oops, legislation since it was believed Ethanol would allow for better use of our natural resources and a cleaner environment.

Here's the problem: It can't, it hasn't, and it won't. Yes, it burns cleaner, but you have to burn a lot more of it to go as far as you could on gasoline. Then there are the side-effects.

Ethanol is commonly extracted from corn. It's a form of alcohol, and is a sugar-rich product. The main issues with it involve corrosiveness and that it does not produce the energy of gasoline. Blending the two merely dilutes the gasoline. The unburned Ethanol remains in the combustion chamber (sugar does not burn), which causes the engine to operate less efficiently. There are specific racing applications using Ethanol, but these types of vehicles are not practical for street use. Back to the problems:

• Due to the lower energy content, a 10% mix of Ethanol in real-world applications show a reduction in fuel economy of about 10%. Keep the acronym CAFE in mind, and I'll get back to it later. Ethanol has been mixed to be as much as 85% of the fuel- this product is called E-85 and can be used in "flex fuel" vehicles. Most gas sold in Florida is E-10, or 10% Ethanol.
• Ethanol does not like many metals, notably aluminum. Many components like carburetors and cylinder heads are cast from aluminum to save weight. Saving weight gives better fuel economy. Still wondering about CAFE? Hint: It's not about food. Oh, and those "flex fuel" vehicles? They nave to have expensive stainless steel fuel lines and systems to combat the super-corrosiveness of the E-85.

While passing some time at Wal-Mart tonight (married men will understand the code here), I was reading a motorcycle magazine. An article caught my eye. The author, a motorcycle mechanic, was talking about a bike he looked at. It was a 2002 Kawasaki with just a few thousand miles. This would usually command a great price, but when he opened the gas cap, he saw it had corroded away due to Ethanol sitting in the tank, and the tank was also damaged beyond repair. Neither of those parts were still available, so unless used parts could be found, the whole bike was ruined. That was a less than 10 year old bike. My favorite bike that I ride is now 30 years old, and I despise running corrosive Ethanol blend fuel in it. You have to run an additive to overcome the effects of the Ethanol. I've lined the tanks of the other bikes I've rebuilt to help with this issue. I could share many other examples of damage done to fuel systems and engines, but I won't fill up this post doing so. Suffice it to say Ethanol is bad news.

So what does CAFE mean? It's the Corporate Average Fuel Economy mandated by the federal government upon car makers. What it means is they have to sell cheap (or not so cheap: Volt/Prius) small crappy cars that get really good gas mileage so they can sell other cars & trucks that most people actually want to buy. If the government deems a vehicle is a "gas guzzler" it slaps a huge tax on it. A few years back, had I bought a 6.1 liter SRT Challenger instead of the 5.7 liter R/T model, I would have had another $1700 added to the price due solely to this law. So now on one hand, we have the government mandating that cars get better gas mileage, and on the other mandating a fuel that reduces gas mileage and destroys engines. How exactly does one stay in business making cars? Attentive citizens will know the answer to that one- except for Ford, our domestic automakers were bailed out by the taxpayer a couple of years ago. Excessive federal regulations have played a part in this situation. I've written about this here on another page.

Is there a light at the end of this tunnel? Maybe just a glimmer. It's H 4013 by Rep. Matt Gaetz and S 238 by Sen. Greg Evers. Frequent readers will recognize the latter name as the sponsor of our driver's license bill in the Florida Senate this year. Sen. Evers has a good grasp on the Liberty issue, specifically the 10th Amendment.

What these bills will do is to give gas retailers the freedom to sell unblended gasoline or Ethanol blended gas. Estimates were that pure gas would cost between 10 and 20 cents more per gallon. The benefit of course is that you go farther on each gallon, and your fuel is not eating away the internal parts of your engine and fuel system.

What can you do? Like any good bill, get behind it and ask your legislator to support it. They have to hear from you. These two are in the committee process, and I'm pleased to report S 238 passed it's first committee hearing virtually unopposed- only one Senator voted against it. I was able to testify at that hearing along with several of my friends. It was interesting to note the main concern from the Senators was the same one I've heard about REAL ID: It's federal law, so we have to do it. In my testimony, I explained that unless it was covered under Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution, it was an unconstitutional federal law, and we DID NOT have to do it. Under the 10th Amendment, we as a state have the authority to regulate our gasoline, just as we have the authority to issue our driver's licenses. This concept is neither Democrat nor Republican, and it appears many in the Legislature here and in other state legislatures are awakening to this fact- several of the yes votes that day were from Democrats.

Think of these bills as fuel at a gas station for Liberty: I say fill 'er up!

As children, this is a phrase we might hear on the playground after someone takes our favorite toy. As adults, it's unfortunately a phrase we do not hear often in governments regarding tax dollars. That's why I'm very pleased to write about something I saw take place this week in Jefferson County.

In the normal course of a County Commissioner meeting, people will approach the podium for any number of things. I've been there myself for a driver's license law resolution presentation. On several occasions, it is someone from the government asking for money- the Commissioners control much of the spending in a county. When I saw our Property Appraiser Angela Gray approach the podium with a folder, based on my experience I was reasonably certain it was not to ask for money.

As it turns out, she was not asking for money, she was giving it back. She gave the Commissioners a check for over $16,000. Everyone in the room applauded.

Since I was unsure as to the source of the money, I inquired during the citizen comments portion and learned it was excess budget money.

This struck home with me, since in my former career with the State of Florida  I've seen on several occasions how money is spent at the end of the budget year for things that are not absolutely vital. The conventional wisdom here is that if you don't spend it, you'll get less next year.

Angela Gray is an example of how our government should operate. I say this also based on personal experience with a valuation issue we had several years ago. Having lived in the southern portion of the state for most of my life, I was used to dealing with underlings when it came to local government. You never got to see the actual elected person. This is not the case with Mrs. Gray. We made an appointment and were speaking directly to her in less than 5 minutes after walking in the door. She listened to us (this alone is invaluable) and then resolved the issue within a couple of weeks.

Think what would happen if we had people of this mindset running all of our agencies. Would we have a $14+ trillion deficit? I suspect we would not. This is an example of how our government ought to operate.

What is more valuable- profit or patriotism?

Today at the Capitol my co-worker John and I were privileged to hear some of the 16 pro-camera lobbyists that represent camera company American Traffic Solutions (ATS) when they spoke to a legislative aide regarding the Motorist Rights bill (HB 343). Apparently the Motorist Rights Restoration Act (MRRA) has them worried.  Many of the complaints and concerns I heard dealt with money, although one said the bill was just a sneaky way to get rid of the cameras.

I fully expected the pro-camera lobby to fight this tooth and nail. Let's look at what they are fighting.

1) The bill does not ban cameras. The bill does not become mired in the safety vs. revenue motivation for the devices. In the 2011 session, this was a huge battle and sticking point. It's a true statement that under the MRRA, if one gets a ticket and wishes to pay it, they can. A majority of traffic moving violation tickets in Florida are paid and/or not contested. Florida 2010 UTC figures show 34% paid the fine, 20% went to school via the clerk, 23% went to school via the court, 17% were dismissed, with less than 1% each found not guilty or nolle prossed- charges dropped. Only 7% were found guilty. Earlier years are similar.

2) The bill is titled "Rights Restoration" for a reason. You do not have the same opportunity for a hearing (right to due process as stated in the 5th Amendment) as do other alleged violators of the law- you must wait for a second ticket, which carries potentially more severe penalties solely due to your exercising your right to due process as an American. This is first of all an excessive fine in violation of the U.S. Constitution's 8th Amendment which states the right against excessive bail, fines, or cruel and unusual punishment- in this case a higher fine for the same type of violation. Secondly, a loss of the right of equal protection under the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment for the disparate treatment. When you (eventually) go into traffic court under the current camera law, you do not have the right against self-incrimination as was identified and defined by the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Likewise, you do not have the right to have any witnesses present that facilitated the evidence being used against you (actually your vehicle) as is the case for other offenses per the 6th Amendment. Of course you cannot bring a camera into court and put it on the witness stand any more than you can bring in a breathalyzer for a DUI case. What you can bring in are the people (witnesses) that processed or had care, custody, and control of that evidence. You can bring in the person that tested the breathalyzer to insure it was properly maintained as of the date of the alleged violation. I recall a Trooper on my squad that was the designated maintenance person for all of the breathalyzers. He had to spend time with them, and then he went to court to testify about them. Just like police radars, these devices have to be checked for accuracy every so often. This bring us to point #3.

3) Accuracy tests. Like it or not, cameras are unattended electronic enforcement devices. Let's contrast them with police speed measuring devices such as radars and lasers. Florida law in s. 316.1905(1) mandates that this equipment must be "…tested to determine that it is operating accurately. Tests for this purpose shall be made not less than once each 6 months, according to procedures and at regular intervals of time prescribed by the department." There's also a whole bunch of administrative rules for the accuracy tests on these devices.

I mentioned DUI breathalyzers earlier. Here's another electronic enforcement device used by law enforcement. The accuracy testing for them is monthly, not every 6 months (Florida Administrative Code 11D-8.006). Would you be OK with us never testing them?

It's only common sense that we have a disinterested third party make these accuracy tests. It's fiscally responsible to mandate the camera company pay for the testing, as they are:

a) Reaping a profit based on their device via the local government's contract with them, a unique situation when one considers we do not pay the company that makes radar guns a monthly fee, and

b) The government does not own the device, so it should not be responsible for the maintenance of it.

Are rights important? I think so. Apparently the group of people that founded America did as well. They enumerated the first ten amendments of our Constitution as the Bill of Rights. Did they pull these concepts out of thin air? No. These rights came about based on their experience dealing with the King of England and his government and court system. Some date back several centuries before then. In the 1700's, it was common to be hauled into court by the King and then being made to confess to the offense the King had charged you with. Likewise, the King allowed the testimony of witnesses that were not present. I'm not making this up. Click (5th 6th 8th Amendments) to read about some interesting history as to how these amendments came to be.

What I'm seeing is a questionable motive on the part of ATS via their lobbyists. It appears to me they are putting profit ahead of patriotism. To do away with the rights of Americans is.. un-American, un-Patriotic, and un-Acceptable. Remember Mom telling you two wrongs don't make a right? Well times have not changed that much. The loss of all of these rights is most certainly a wrong. The Motorist Rights Restoration Act is HB 343 / S 568 and it restores these rights and mandates accuracy tests every 6 months. It is currently in the Florida Legislature.

It's easy to sit and complain about the state of the nation these days. So when something good takes place, I find it's great to write about it.

The highlight of my week is attending church on Sunday, followed by a meal with my wife, and then a relaxing motorcycle ride home on the beautiful back roads of North Florida.  This past week, during the meal portion is when I learned of the something good taking place. I'm a creature of habit… when I find something I like, I tend to stay with it. I also appreciate people that are good at what they do. We found a favorite restaurant for Sunday morning, and at the restaurant eventually a favorite waitress. A couple of decades of police work has given me the ability to subconsciously abbreviate things in acronyms. For those that can follow them, she quickly ascended to MFW status… just like the Most Favored Nation status America gives to some trading partners, I found a Most Favored Waitress. Her name is Victoria, and I'd estimate she's in her early twenties, one of many college kids in a college town. As with everything in this life, things do not remain the same. A few months back, we were saddened to hear that she was returning home out-of-state over 1,000 miles away due to her dad being ill.

We check with her former roommate, another waitress, from time to time to see how things are going. This week we were happy to hear Victoria's dad was doing much better. The roommate told us Victoria was working three jobs to help her mom get by while her mom cared for her husband.

This got me to thinking. In most things, there is an easy way to go and a more difficult way. One of my favorite Pastors gave me a truism several years ago that has held true:

A difficult decision, once made, only makes things easier. Taking the easy way out only makes things more difficult.

In this case, the easy way would be to ask the government for help, such as going on unemployment to get by while helping her mom, or to seek a government program for help.

The difficult path would be to work three jobs, giving up on your plans in Florida in order to help your parents… your family. When asked about health insurance recently, Dr. Ron Paul cited who used to help us when we had a need: Our friends, our family, our neighbors. He then correctly observed that we turned it over to the government, who created a bureaucracy, and the cost went up.

In Exodus 20, God gave Moses some instructions for life we call the Ten Commandments. One of these was Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you.

I have no idea if Victoria is a Christian, as I never discussed politics or religion with her other than sharing some of a sermon or two on occasion. What I do know is she is a great daughter and an example for others to follow. She's also evidence that there is indeed hope in our younger generation. We just don't seem to hear about things like this very much.

The battle for Liberty is a time and expense consuming one. This week, we were able to take a step forward in the red light camera battle. In the last Florida legislative session, the battle centered over banning the cameras. The bill barely passed the House and was never heard in the Senate. The process of an idea becoming a law is an extensive one, but in summary the idea must be sponsored by a member in the House and the Senate, then sent to bill drafting so it is formatted in the language of the Legislature and then sent to committees and finally voted on in both chambers- I'll call it Legislatese. As an example, what you or I may call a camera in Legislatese it is a traffic infraction detector. What's the difference?

Running a red light is but one traffic infraction. Others are things like speeding, following too closely, careless driving, etc. If you called a device a red light camera, it would not be able to issue a ticket for speeding. However, a traffic infraction detector could be used for any traffic infraction in the law book. This is why it is so important when reading laws, you must understand that it's not what they allow, but also what they do not prohibit. Under current Florida law, it is possible to utilize cameras for speed enforcement, just as is done in England. More on England in a bit.

The good news here is that this week, Rep. Peter Nehr of District 48 in the Tampa Bay area filed HB 343, which contains the Motorist Rights Restoration Act. A companion bill will be in the Senate soon. This law will place any camera tickets on a level playing field with those other tickets. In summary:

• It does not ban cameras. If someone gets a ticket in the mail, and they want to pay it, they can. A large majority of people that get tickets pay them. However, if an individual wishes to exercise their right to due process, the Act makes this practical.
• It gives vehicle owners the opportunity for a hearing when the first ticket is mailed. Currently, they must wait 30 days and receive a second ticket to go to court. This is a due process issue that is covered by the 14th Amendment.
• It makes the charging authority (the government) responsible for proving the law was broken by a specific person, not just a vehicle. Currently, this is done via the vehicle owner, who enters the court with the presumption of guilt, not innocence. The 5th Amendment's right against self-incrimination does not apply to civil infractions, but remember there were no traffic tickets when this Amendment was written. The concept remains the same- it was written for a reason, that reason being the life experience the colonists had with the King of England forcing confessions by weight of law.
• It requires the appearance in court as witnesses anyone that processed any evidence the charging authority relies upon. This is consistent with other cases where evidence is presented in court- someone has to be there to authenticate it. The cost for doing so under Florida law is provided by the State Attorney.
• It requires accuracy checks on the devices similar to what police do with radars and other devices used for traffic enforcement, and provides fines against the camera company and government for violations.

If you support the cameras, then this does not ban them, and hopefully you also support the rights of individuals upon which our nation was founded.

If you oppose the cameras, this does not ban them. Hopefully you realize what a difficult fight that was last session, and how it is better to focus on the deficiencies in the current law.

I salute Rep. Nehr for sponsoring this bill, as it is the first step in this battle. Please call or email him and thank him for doing so. We often want to call our legislators and vent our anger over laws, so it's only proper to also pass along a job well done.

The next step in this battle is getting this bill past committees. I will update with who needs to be contacted as the bill makes progress in the Legislature.

• The widow could move in quickly- the delay was her main complaint with the CDBG process.
• The cost would be less than building a new home.
• The paperwork and administrative costs would be far less.
• The local real estate market would be helped.
• If the home were vacant, there would be one less vacant home on the market.
• She would not be as adversely affected by property taxes.

• The cost would be far less than the $65,500 estimated by Meridian.
• Local business would be “stimulated” for the removal and installation, as well as possibly the sale.

Frequent readers may think the title is one of sarcasm. It's not.  A commonly-held perception is that government workers are overpaid, lazy, and inefficient. This past week, a friend and I have been making the rounds at the Capitol to try and get appointments with Legislators that sit on the committees that will hear our driver's license bill (HB 109 / S 220) and at the same time "shop" for a sponsor for the red light camera bill, the Motorist Rights Restoration Act (MRRA). In the process of so doing, we encountered one such worker that was none of the above. I write about vehicles with State Legislator tags passing by over the speed limit on I-10, so I think when good work is found it should likewise be documented.

First, some background. The idea-to-a-law process is complex and would be worthy of it's own post and corresponding flowchart. What I'm writing of here are the very preliminary steps that must be taken.

The MRRA deals with making the traffic infraction detector (known to most as red light cameras) accountable to the same standards of law as are other violations, and also establishes an accuracy check for the devices. What has to happen is a Legislator in each chamber (House and Senate) must sponsor the bill. Getting to that point usually requires meeting with the Legislators (although this was not the case for our driver's license bill). Getting to that point means making an appointment via their aide. This is where we've experienced a great deal of frustration. Just like buying something off Craigslist, some sellers prefer you to call, while others want a text or others will only accept e-mails (and may never reply, but that's another blog post as well). Some aides will make an appointment via a phone call, others ask for an email.

This past week, we had the good fortune to meet with several representatives regarding our driver's license bill. While there, we brought up the MRRA, since both would likely be heard in the same committees. In our meeting with Rep. Peter Nehr, he not only listened to the driver's license bill, but also the MRRA. He went so far as to ask us to submit it electronically so it could be sent to bill drafting (one of those steps in the idea-to-law process above). That's where this posting comes in.

It's been said behind every good man is a great woman. I can say from personal experience that's the case in more ways than one when I consider my wife and a female colleague of mine that donates hours of her life to help in these political causes. In this case, Rep. Nehr's aide, Sharon, made the appointment, kept us up to date on what was going on, and then listened to our presentation so she was up to speed on both issues. When Rep. Nehr asked that the bill be sent to drafting, Sharon made sure we had the correct information to do so. Here's the timeline of events:

• We met with Rep. Nehr on Sept. 21.
• I emailed the bill to Sharon Sept. 22.
• Sharon submitted the bill to drafting on Sept. 22.
• On Sept. 27, I had a response from her with a preliminary draft for review.

That's six days, two of which were a weekend.

We did not have a similar experience with any of the other aides we spoke to.

This young lady is an example of how we should all strive to do our jobs. When I asked if it was OK to write publicly about this, her response was indicative of her good character:

Of course I don’t mind (a little) pat on the back, but please understand I am only doing my job.  One that I happen to believe in and enjoy.

One thing I learned as a supervisor on the highway patrol was that unlike the public sector, we could not give a bonus for exceptional work. We could give something nearly as powerful though, recognition. I'm recognizing the superior job done by this employee, and set her forth as the standard for others to be measured against. I'll be sure to write a letter to her boss so he's aware of it, although I suspect he probably already is.

This video was from the recent Presidential debate in Tampa. The question dealt with someone that didn't buy health insurance and had a serious injury requiring intensive care. The moderator asked Rep. Ron Paul who would pay for the care? Please listen to Dr. Paul's answer. He starts out with the statement "This is what freedom is all about." Dr. Paul then made the assessment that when he was a younger man and working as a physician in San Antonio Texas before medicare, who paid was never an issue- no one was turned away. The churches, friends, and neighbors took care of it. Then it got dumped on the government, who created a bureaucracy, and the cost went up.

Yesterday this issue hit home for me. Over the past month, I have been trying to get a livable home for a widow in my area without the use of tax dollars (the phrase in these parts is "federal dollars"). The mobile home she owns is in very bad shape, so she is on the list for the government to build a new home for her via the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. What this program does is utilize tax dollars that have been sent to Washington and are then returned to the states. The states then send the tax dollars to the several counties, who then in turn pay local contractors to build homes for the needy. Sounds pretty good, right? Remember what  Dr. Paul said about the cost?

In a 2009 study, it was found the administrative costs for the CDBG were as follows:

• Federal: 5%
• State: 8%
• Local: 17%
• Builder: 10%

Total administrative overhead: 40%. This leaves only 60% of the money to actually build the home.

The relevant section of this report is as follows:

Excessive Bureaucracy

One result of involving all three levels of government in funding local projects is rampant bureaucracy. Local governments that receive CDBG funds spend 17 percent on administration, on average, according to the Government Accountability Office.²⁰ For the portion of CDBG funds that flow to state governments, state-level bureaucracies are an additional cost. The GAO found that state government administration consumed 8 percent of CDBG funds. On top of those costs are federal administration costs, which are about 5 percent of the value of grants.²¹

After the government bureaucracies take their share, CDBG monies get distributed to the private businesses and organizations that carry out funded projects. Federal rules usually specify the share of funding that may be used by recipients for administrative costs, and 10 percent seems to be common. Thus, considering all the administrative costs at all layers of government and private organizations, a large share of the CDBG budget disappears before any actual work is done.

One cause of high administration costs in grant programs is that governments and private groups must comply with complex federal regulations. Consider, for example, that the State of Virginia’s CDBG manual explaining the regulations is 170 pages long, and the state’s application package for grant applicants is 132 pages long.²²

If you doubt these numbers, please check the linked source material- they are principally from the Government Accounting Office (GAO). It's inarguable that the more hands money passes through the less is available at the intended recipient.

Here's something else- at a prior commission meeting, the following hourly rates were listed for the private-sector group that received the tax dollars as part of a 12-page grant administration services contract:

Where grant funds cannot be used or for additional services the following schedule will be utilized:
Description Fee*
Principal   $225.00 per hour
Project Manager   $150.00 per hour
Financial Services Manager   $140.00 per hour
Construction Manager   $110.00 per hour
Construction Inspector   $ 85.00 per hour
Accounting/Budget Specialists   $ 85.00 per hour
Administrative Assistant   $ 45.00 per hour
*Please note that all fees include overhead, profit, travel, office supplies, benefits, etc.

Remember those local administrative costs? There are some of them. The lowest-paid worker is $45/hour. And this is just to administer the grant for the county. None of these people are laying block or running electrical wire. When I spoke about this money at the meeting, I contrasted a state trooper who risks their life each day makes about $19/hour. Something is very wrong here.

What I found depressing was when I updated our commission about my activities, I was told I had endangered the contract the widow had signed and she may not get a government home. Of course, nothing has been done to her home, as I was not even sure the gentleman that said he could refurbish it for under $5,000 could do so. I've since called the widow and told her what was said at the meeting, and she has decided to go ahead with the government new home since she was already in process. She did mention that when she spoke to the contact person today, her paperwork was set for next week, which was apparently sooner than expected. God works in mysterious ways, I'd like to think my actions helped her in some way perhaps by lighting a fire under the local officials.

One of the reasons why this nation is 14 trillion dollars in debt is due to inefficient use of our tax dollar as noted above. What would happen if instead of collecting $100 from the taxpayer for the government to build homes, this money could be kept in the community (meaning of course that $100 in taxes would not be collected)? By the numbers:

• Currently, $60 of the $100 is actually used for the home.
• Under this concept, up to $90 would be used for the home. As noted in the above article, if the local government were involved (and they need not be), the local administrative costs are unrealistically high. If there were no layers above the local level, these costs would be lower.

Another possibility was mentioned by a friend of mine today. With so many homes sitting empty due to foreclosure and prices low due to short sales, why is the government building new homes?

We have a choice in our nation. We can either depend on ourselves, our friends, family, and neighbors, or we can depend on the government. The choice to me is clear.