Mark Sanford Has Won The South Carolina Special Election

Tonight the Washington Post is reporting that former South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford has been elected to the House of Representatives.

The article reports:

Mitt Romney won this district by 18 points last fall, but Sanford’s personal history made the seat competitive. Democrats poured money into the race while national Republicans abandoned their candidate, giving Colbert Busch a 5-to-1 advantage in outside spending.

If the American people can forgive Bill Clinton for his indiscretions, I guess they can forgive Mark Sanford for his. There are two things in this election that bode well for the Republicans in 2014–the amount of money poured into the coffers of Democrat Elizabeth Colbert Busch did not make a difference, and a seriously flawed candidate whose positions on issues are in line with the voters can win an election despite his flaws.

As the House of Representatives considers the immigration bill that the Senate will hand them in the near future, they would do well to keep this election in mind–issues won–money did not.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Don’t Mess With My Haircuts

This article is based on a story posted at Hot Air on Sunday.

In 1995, as part of what was going on in the House of Representatives at the time, the House barber shop was revamped and privatized. For whatever reason, the Senate barber shop was not. Now, Hot Air is reporting that the Senate barber shop needed a $300,000 bailout from the Senate to keep operating. In response to this expense, Senate sergeant at arms Terry Gainer is attempting to privatize the Senate barber shop. (Why do the House and the Senate need separate barber shops in the first place?) So far, Mr. Gainer has bought out four employees in order to replace them with independent contractors, and he hopes to do more of that in the future.

The article reports:

…in merely the past fifteen years, has cost taxpayers over five million dollars. Senate Hair Care Services is technically open to the public, for those who know/care about it, but last year alone the salon needed a $300,000 bailout from the Senate coffers to cover their jacked-up costs.

Might I suggest that the Senate barber shop might be a prime candidate for some serious budget cuts.

Enhanced by Zemanta

We Did Avoid A Government Shutdown

The Hill posted a fairly good summary of the budget deal reached in Congress that will prevent a government shutdown. The Congress has actually agreed on something. Now the bill goes back to the House of Representatives for final approval and the President has to approve it in order for it to become law.

The payroll tax cut was extended for two months. That means that we will have to sit through all the posturing and name calling again in about six to eight weeks. Yuck. The bill includes a provision to expedite the construction of the Keystone Pipeline. The bill does not extend some of the business tax breaks–this will not be good for the growth of the economy–there is no such thing as a corporate tax–all corporate taxes are paid by the consumer.

The Hill reports:

The bill now awaits approval next week by the House of Representatives. Senate aides expect House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) to agree to the proposal but he will not do so formally until he has had a chance to consult with members of the House GOP caucus.

The thing to remember here is that all these last minute theatrics are caused by the fact that the Senate has not approved a budget since President Obama took office (even during the two years he controlled the House and the Senate), so there are no spending guidelines in place. What we need is for Congress to actually pass a budget that they will have to follow. That would help make Washington a saner place.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

A New Level Of Chutzpah

Official portrait of United States Attorney Ge...

Image via Wikipedia

The level of chutzpah in the Obama administration never ceases to amaze me. The latest example is Eric Holder’s recent testimony before the House of Representatives. Hot Air posted a story on the testimony yesterday, complete with a Townhall.com video of the actual testimony.

The article at Hot Air reports:

That means he (Eric Holder) not only called for tighter gun control regulations — he also accused the House of Representatives of keeping law enforcement in the dark “when individuals purchase multiple semi-automatic rifles and shotguns in Southwest border gun shops.”

There are no words…

Enhanced by Zemanta

Do We Really Need Elections ?

Official photo of Governor Beverly Perdue (D-NC).

Image via Wikipedia

This article is based on two articles in the Daily Caller and one from John Hinderaker at Power Line. There was also a link on the Drudge Report which first alerted me to the information.

The Daily Caller reports a recent statement by North Carolina Democratic Governor Bev Perdue:

“I think we ought to suspend, perhaps, elections for Congress for two years and just tell them we won’t hold it against them, whatever decisions they make, to just let them help this country recover,” Perdue said at a rotary club event in Cary, N.C., according to the Raleigh News & Observer. “I really hope that someone can agree with me on that.”

Excuse me, the Constitution calls for elections for Representatives to the House of Representatives every two years and for Senators every six years. The idea is that the House is more responsive to the public and the Senate is supposed to be a more thoughtful body because it is less worried about elections. I could right a book about whether it actually works that way, but that was the intent. To think that the way to solve our current economic problems is to throw out the Constitution is not only nuts, it is not appropriate for an elected official. I don’t know about on the state level, but on a national level, all elected officials are sworn to uphold the Constitution. This was not an appropriate remark from any elected official.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Fight To Open The Boeing Plant In South Carolina

My photos that I took at today's First Flight ...

Image via Wikipedia

The Hill reported today that the House of Representatives has passed a bill to limit the power of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to dictate to a American company where it can expand its manufacturing.

The article reports:

The House approved H.R. 2587 in a 238-186 vote in which eight Democrats joined Republicans in supporting the bill and seven Republicans voted against it.

The bill is a response to the NLRB’s decision to sue Boeing after it opened a manufacturing plant for its new 787 Dreamliner jet in South Carolina. The NLRB is charging that the plane manufacturer picked South Carolina for new production in order to retaliate against strikes by its unionized workers in Washington state. South Carolina is a right-to-work state that generally bans union membership.

It is ironic that it would have been less complicated for Boeing to move its plant out of the country. That kind of government interference costs American jobs.

It is understood that the bill has little chance of passing in the Senate, but Republicans want a public vote in the Senate on the issue.

The article further reports:

House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said the bill would put real limits on the right of workers to bargain collectively. He said the bill would allow companies to say to workers, “Yeah, you have the right to bargain collectively, but if we don’t like what you’re doing, we’re taking a hike.”

Trade associations have lent their significant lobbying weight in support of the bill. Both the National Association of Manufacturers and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce told lawmakers that they would score votes on the bill.

Conservative activist groups, such as Americans for Prosperity and the Club for Growth, also have pushed for passage of the bill. 

Unions are in opposition, saying the legislation will gut worker protections and undermine the NLRB’s legal authority. 

I don’t know when the NLRB was given the power to tell companies where in the United States they could do business, but I do believe that it is time to take that power away. If corporations cannot meet union demands and still make a profit, they should be free to relocate where unions are not an issue. That used to happen in this country–one of the reasons the textile industry moved out of New England to the southeastern states in the 1950′s was that the southern textile plants were cheaper to operate because they were not unionized. When did companies lose that freedom?

Enhanced by Zemanta