State's rights & wrongs

Until the Civil War, we commonly referred to ourselves as "These United States" and loyalty to state was more powerful than loyalty to America as a whole.  In the early years of our country, transportation and communications were slow and difficult and the Federal Government was feeble and distant by modern standards.  When seeking to create a stronger Federal Government, the Founders were very cognizant that the Union they were seeking to perfect was composed of sovereign states - states which were suspicions of ceding powers to the new Federal Government.  The Tenth Amendment seems like an obvious restatement of the principles in the Constitution describing limited Federal Government (as the Supreme Court famously asserted).  The fact that it was drafted at all arose from a fear that ultimately the states stood to lose power to the Federal Government.  As it turns out, these fears were well grounded.

Since 1789, states rights have been steadily whittled away, circumscribed, limited and in some cases defined out of existence as one crisis after another led Americans to demand action by a stronger Federal government.   Nullification, the Civil War, the Progressive Era, World War I, the New Deal, World War II and the Cold War marked significant milestones on the road to expanding federal powers at the expense of those customarily exercised by the states.   The Commerce Clause in particular has been used to justify legislation, regulation and enforcement over a wide range of issues.   Some of these such as gun control, growing home gardens or the personal use of medicinal cannabis would seem to be far removed from Congress's mandate to regulate interstate commerce.

Beginning in the 1980's - for the first time - the Supreme Court began to define the limits of federal encroachment on remaining states rights.   In Nevada this was paralleled by grass-roots citizen action such as the Sagebrush Rebellion.  The push-back continues to this day with parts of the Affordable Care Act being struck down in 2012 with reference to states rights.

While the national Modern Whig Party has no platform plank relating to the preservation of states rights there might be several sound reasons why this should be a concern to Nevadans:

1. Political decisions made at the state or county level produce legislation and administration best tailored to Nevada's needs and conditions.  Decisions made by a distant federal government in general do not.    
2. Concentration of power in any branch of government is a danger to our personal liberty.  Much as the separation of federal powers built into our Constitution protects our liberty so too does the separation of powers between the Federal Government and the States.  Preserving states rights and autonomy indirectly preserves our freedoms. 
3. The states serve as political incubators - devising solutions through trial and error to local problems.  The results of these experiments are important guides to designing effective national legislation.  The states led the way toward effective national welfare reform during the 1990's and are now devising changes to drug legislation and criminal sentencing to address pressing local social needs.  Without the benefit of these experiments, Congress would be working in the dark, imposing one-size-fits-all legislation that in many cases wouldn't work. 

What do you think?  Should we have a plank in our state platform on this issue?  If you think so, what should it look like? 

- Mike Power      

Time for a last ditch "Hail Mary" pass.

Whoever organized the migrant caravan from Honduras has handed the President a gift.  Odds are it was organized by a left-leaning group to galvanize Democratic voters, provoke the President and maybe trigger some incident that would embarrass the Administration.  While the caravan won't make it to the border before election day (at least without hitching a ride), organizers feel it is achieving its purpose.  It's likely going to backfire however.

In general, Americans are pretty neutral on immigration these days - a surprising change from twenty years ago.  Gallup polling on immigration shows that as many Americans think we should take in more immigrants (28%) as those who think we should take in less (29%).  Most (39%) think immigration levels are okay.  Rewind 20 years and most Americans thought we were taking in too many immigrants.

Of course, the current fracas about immigration has nothing to do with the issue per se; it's about galvanizing Republicans to get out and vote in what normally would be a quiet year.  Here's where the caravan plays directly into the President's hands:  Recent polling shows immigration is the #1 issue for Republican voters; for Democrats it's #18.    Conflate illegal immigration with national security and you have  winner - an issue that will selectively rile up Republican voters.  Better yet, as the New York Times points out, Democrats have no clear policy on immigration beyond opposing anything the Administration advocates. 

 Earlier this week, the President decided to double down, stating he intends to abolish birthright citizenship by executive order and calling for up to 15,000 troops to be sent to the border.  Retiring Speaker of the House Paul Ryan pointed out that this explicitly violates the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

Neither of the main political parties now have a coherent policy on immigration that works in the national interest.  Each is singing to their own choirs, and in this election, the President is turning the caravan issue into a fourth quarter "Hail Mary" pass to get the vote out and preserve a Republican House majority.

Immigration is a serious issue however with our future dependent on implementing a rational policy.   With declining natural birth rates, immigration is necessary to maintain and expand the workforce and entrepreneural talent pool we rely on to build and expand our economy, to pay taxes and to support a growing retired workforce.   Immigration is also central to who we are; with the exception of Native Americans, the rest of us immigrated here in the fairly recent past.   On the other hand, every country must defend its borders and has an obligation to ensure immigration works for the benefit of the country as a whole. 

Where does the Modern Whig Party stand on immigration?

The Modern Whig Party platform asserts that the United States is and has always been a country of immigrants. The Modern Whig Party understands the dual responsibility of securing our borders while also dealing realistically with those undocumented immigrants already in the country. Presidents as diverse as Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama have recognized the need to deal compassionately and humanely with our population of undocumented immigrants, and we agree; harsh proposals may satisfy some of our less honorable impulses, but do little other than satisfy the anger some feel toward those who have crossed our borders without authorization.

The Modern Whig Party proposes:

• A program offering undocumented immigrants the opportunity for citizenship if they join the military and serve out their initial contractual term honorably. Undocumented immigrants would not be entitled to jobs requiring security clearances, but would be eligible for the G.I. Bill, Tricare and all other benefits afforded to U.S. service members who serve honorably.
• Comprehensive reform of our immigration process to attract those whose skills, education and entrepreneurial spirit will enable them to become productive contributors to the knowledge-based economy of tomorrow. As our population ages it is crucial to augment the natural growth of our population with additional taxpayers who are willing to emigrate to the United States and become productive, patriotic naturalized Americans.
• English as a Second Language (ESL) classes for all who need them. Assimilation is a key element of our melting pot. While all of us should appreciate the various cultures making up the vast, diverse fabric of our national life, we believe all Americans should ultimately share a common language.

What do you think?

Want to see change happen soon?  

 

Join the Modern Whig Party.

Register as a Nevada Modern Whig Party voter. 

    

The elephant in the room

So... what do you think is the No. 1 issue on voter's minds this election?   Turns out it's health care.

Unfortunately in this age of hyper-partisan politics, the issue isn't getting much real discussion focused on practical solutions.  Democrats and Republicans have retreated to their respective corners and are preaching to their choirs.   Democrats think they have a winner defending the Affordable Care Act with their base:  Half of their campaign advertising cash is being spent on ads about Obamacare.   Having failed to repeal the Affordable Care Act, Republicans aren't saying too much, hoping other issues will steal the limelight.

In Nevada however, health care is a particularly contentious issue. After briefly flirting with Whig centrism, Democratic Senate challenger Jacky Rosen has returned to her central theme: attacking Republican Dean Heller over his "flip flop on Obamacare".   Dean Heller has in turn pointed out that while he did fall into line to vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act, he has since worked hard to ensure that the popular pre-existing conditions mandate is maintained.  As early voting begins, the race has tightened to a dead-heat.

On the morning of Tuesday November 7, we're going to be left with the same mess.   Is there a way out?

For many of us, health care is an issue that can trigger our deepest fears both for us and our families.   Facing a serious injury or disease, could we get financially wiped out or discover we can't get the medical care we need?  If we feel reasonably secure about our health care coverage, how much is it costing us?   These worries and concerns cut across party lines and our poorest neighbors feel them most keenly.

What can we agree on?  The Affordable Care Act was developed and implemented in a partisan manner which has led to the current impasse.  Nonetheless, it was at least an attempt to fix problems with the health care system that have built up over the past 90 years.  Reminds me of certain early aircraft designs.

Wouldn't it be nice to design something better?

The Modern Whig Party recognizes that government has clearly established its central role in our health care system and believes that:

• Health insurance should be available, portable and affordable for all citizens, with means-tested government subsidies for those who cannot pay in full.
• Health benefits should be separated from employment -- the practice of saddling employers with costly pension and health insurance benefit obligations is hurting the ability of American companies to compete in the global economy.
• The Affordable Care Act does not do the full job of extending health care coverage to all Americans. More research and work needs to be done, and legislative changes will have to be made in order to correct some of the shortfalls of the ACA while preserving some of its successes.
• The ultimate goal should be to reduce overall healthcare spending while improving access, quality and efficiency and ensuring health care providers are fairly compensated for the vital services they perform. 

Now I have to admit - the last point sounds great but boy is this going to be a difficult goal to reach.   There are so many vested interests dug in on various sides of the health care reform issue that the debate resembles a World War I battlefield - pure trench warfare.   Nonetheless, Whigs could make a real contribution to the national health care dialog by developing a realistic practical and detailed health care platform.  We need the help of Nevada Modern Whigs with experience working in the health care sector to build this platform.

Who knows?  If it proved popular, one of the main parties might steal it and implement it.  I'd call that success - the aim here is to help America move forward to a better system of health care.

Want to see change happen soon?   

Sign up with the Modern Whig Party 

Register as a Nevada Modern Whig Party voter. 

 

Is Jacky Rosen a closet Whig?

Working away in my little cabin in Goldfield, my peace was interrupted today by repeated internet radio ads from Democratic Congresswoman and Senate candidate Jacky Rosen.  

From the usual array of just ordinary folks (veterans, a teacher, a medical worker) we learn that:

• She works with both parties and across party lines.  She even joined a bipartisan congressional group.
• She wrote legislation to improve veterans health care and President Trump signed it into law.
• She stood up to Nancy Pelosi to reform the VA.
• She passed bi-partisan legislation strengthening science and math education

The conclude with "We need that in the Senate".  We sure do and this is a fundamental plank of the Modern Whig Party.  So... is Jacky Rosen a closet Whig announcing her true colors?

Forgive my suspicions about conversions on the road to Washington - I don't think we will see Jacky Rosen in the Nevada Whig Party anytime soon. 

I think this ad campaign is a reaction to the disgust many American felt over the circus surrounding the approval of our latest Supreme Court Justice.  No matter where you stand on the outcome, the process demeaned everybody involved.   Polling analysts such as Nate Silver suggest that momentum in the mid-term Senate races has shifted as a result.  

It is nonetheless reassuring to see that experienced politicians are starting to wake up and smell the coffee.  They are being driven to adopt Whig-like rhetoric - perhaps in time they might even adopt Whig policies!  Americans are fed up with bi-partisan cat-fights and tribal politics.  Instead of squabbling over who gets to be in power, we should be focusing our attention on creating and implementing practical, reasonable solutions to the problems we're facing.  We need to elect people who are really committed to public service.

Want to see this happen soon?   

Sign up with the Modern Whig Party 

Register as a Nevada Modern Whig Party voter. 

The student debt bomb

 

In May, 2018 we hit a historic milestone: according to Forbes, student loan debt topped $1,500,000,000.  More than 44 million Americans are carrying student loan debt and it tops all other debt outstanding in the country except mortgage debt.   

From a May report in CNN Money, 42%  of those who finished bachelor degrees had to go into debt with the average being $28,400.  Women hold on average 10% more debt than men and 2/3 of all the debt outstanding is owed by women.    

Courts have made it extremely difficult to get out from under student loan debt if it becomes too much to bear (SBLA).   This is driving some people to leave the country in an attempt to either escape their debts or work their way out from under them (Vice):     

It's a phenomenon that I'm quite familiar with actually," says student loan lawyer and author Adam S. Minsky. "In my experience, people leave because there's a sense of hopelessness and they see greater opportunities overseas, usually through a combination of higher pay and lower living expenses. They think they'll be better positioned to either pay their loans in real time, from abroad, or to save up and be in a better place to address the loans a couple of years from now.

Both of the major parties have tried to grapple with this problem but naturally each has a slant.

The Obama administration offered debt relief programs contingent on working for the government, becoming a teacher or putting in public service as well as some income-based relief (Nerd Wallet).  Their big focus however was going after for-profit institutions:

BDR relieves students of all federal loans if a school used illegal or deceptive tactics to persuade students to borrow money to attend. Gainful employment requires that action be taken — including possible expulsion from the federal student aid program — against vocational programs whose graduates leave with heavy student loan debt. Ninety-eight percent of the programs that officials found to have failed to meet those standards are offered by for-profit colleges.  A program is considered to lead to “gainful employment” if the annual loan payment of a typical graduate does not exceed 20 percent of their discretionary income or 8 percent of their total earnings, my colleague Danielle Douglas-Gabrielle explained here. Exceeding those debt-to-earnings rates means possible expulsion from the federal student aid program. Ninety-eight percent of programs found by department officials to fail to meet the gainful employment thresholds are offered by for-profit colleges.  (Washington Post)

(Which begs the question -  are there no predatory not-for-profit institutions?)

The Trump administration has scaled back the campaign against for-profit institutions, leading recently to:

The top government official overseeing the $1.5 trillion student loan market resigned Monday (Aug 31, 2018), citing what he says is the White House’s open hostility toward protecting the nation’s millions of student loan borrowers.  “The damage you have done to the Bureau betrays these families and sacrifices the financial futures of millions of Americans in communities across the country,” Seth Frotman said. (Huffington Post) 

Neither major party seems to accept that the central problem is a higher education system that forces prospective students into debt and is now fueled by debt peonage.

On both ends of the political spectrum, some recognize this.  Bernie Sanders says education should be tuition and debt free.   In a recent interview with the Wall Street Journal, George Gilder takes aim at vested interests which have profited from the current state of affairs and proposes a radical solution: 

The idea of a “completely providential government” arose in America, and a “whole generation of young people were given college loans in a fabulous national mistake, in which the Republicans participated.” These loans were used by the university system to “increase perks and tenured luxuries and ideological distractions”—all of which led to the “diversity campaigns and CO2 panics” that currently dominate university faculties.

The only way to undo this “vast blunder,” says Mr. Gilder, is to forgive student loans across the board and “extract the money from all the college endowments and funds that were used to just create useless departments and political campaigns.” More than $1.5 trillion in student-loan money is outstanding, according to the Federal Reserve. That money, Mr. Gilder says, “wasn’t deployed to improve education. Not a scintilla of evidence has been adduced that learning has been improved. It was used entirely to lavish on bureaucracies that, in turn, paid tribute to government and leftist nihilism.

Is it possible that the current system does little to make university or college education more affordable?   Instead, does it just raise the market value of higher education by feeding burdensome debt into university and college coffers?

The Modern Whig Party platform is that a public college education should be debt-free.

If you agree, why not join us?  

Whisky's for drinking - water's for fighting

What could be a more important issue for Nevada than water?   A recent interesting article in the Nevada Independent discusses a problem that just keeps getting bigger.  With more urban users, conflicts between the states over water appropriations, and perhaps even climate change thrown in, the bottom line is we're running short of water - particularly in the Las Vegas area.   Based on an interview with John Entsminger, head of the Southern Nevada Water Authority,  this article covers the issue from the standpoint of the largest water user in the state.

“I think a small group of people that are relatively antagonistic to each other have had that discussion for a long time,” he said. “I don’t think it’s been a broader public dialogue.”

When asked if there is room for compromise between the water authority and the coalition opposing the pipeline, locked in a legal fight for decades, Entsminger said: “I hope so.”

He said water users within the state should look to the contemporary history of the Colorado River as an example of where once-feuding water users have charted a path, albeit an uneasy one at times, to self-regulate and avoid legal fights that can take many decades to resolve.

“Within Nevada, we have to evolve to a place where we can have that conversation to be able to say this distinction between agriculture and urban [water] is a false distinction,” Entsminger said. “Our residents buy the agricultural products. So we need to somehow come together as a state and recognize what is good for Las Vegas isn’t bad for everyone else.”

Unfortunately, this sure isn't the view of many in rural eastern Nevada.

As far north as Baker and Border City, ranchers, miners, rural residents and other users are worried and angry that southern Nevada will use their vast resources of money and political clout to run roughshod over their vital interests.   A trip through Owens Valley in eastern California is an edifying example of what happens when this happens; dried up watersheds and aquifers, ruined ranches and communities.  Only recently have they begun to undo the damage.

There's going to be some solution here eventually and perhaps there's time left to find the least bad one.  This is a classic problem where the Modern Whig approach might come in handy:

• Make sure we have knowledge before acting:  The SNWA has been pushing for comprehensive hydrological studies to determine exactly what the state of the aquifers is and to make reliable predictions on how they recharge.  This would be money well spent.
• Use available science and technology to mitigate the problem: For all its sins, Las Vegas does a remarkable job of conserving and reusing water.   For the city to grow however, they're going to have to do even better and resources should be allocated to devising even more ingenious means of saving water.
• Make sure the interests of rural Nevadan's are respected.   If decisions are made solely on the basis of population, money and political clout, rural folk in Nevada and Utah are going to lose big time.   Their voices - those of the people on the ground who will be most affected by water diversion have to be heard and respected.   They need clout in the decision making process disproportionate to their numbers.
• Preserve property rights while respecting the common interest. Water rights are the foundation of any enterprise rooted in the land.  Any solution must work within the context of existing water rights law.  

 What do you think?  How can we make sure Las Vegas has the secure water supply it needs to grow without destroying livelihoods and damaging the environment in eastern Nevada and Utah.

The Nevada Modern Whig Party wants to offer Nevadans a workable, moderate and pragmatic solution to the critical issue of water use.   We would welcome your ideas, perspectives and suggestions on this issue.

Why not sign up here and help us out?

The Modern Whig Party is for Entrepreneurs

The Modern Whig Party is a Centrist, Practical, and Ambitious political party, which makes it the ideal party for you, the Entrepreneur. The Modern Whig Party's values are simple: Integrity, Meritocracy, and Independent Thinking. Here is why I think that those values align perfectly with Entrepreneurial Values.

Integrity: Basic honesty and a commitment to an ethical approach to business is vital for an entrepreneur to succeed in today's business world. Social Media brings constant scrutiny to our leaders and nobody is above the law.

Meritocracy: Society should reward merit. Entrepreneurs grind, drive, push, and pound the pavement. That hard work, combined with intelligence, talent, and competence, deserves both financial and social success. Whigs believe in awarding merit.

Independent Thinking: Entrepreneurs challenge the status quo. The Whig's political process is pragmatic. Whig's review and analyze all possible solutions to a problem.

In addition to Whig values aligning with Entrepreneurial values, The Modern Whig Party advocates for Entrepreneurship education, founded in a long-standing principle in economic development. A Former Whig, and former President said:

Economy I consider a virtue & should be practiced by all; there is certainly no better way in which money can be laid out than in the education of children. -Zachary Taylor

Specific policies on the Modern Whig Party platform are:

• Greater emphasis on and investment in our system of public education so the creative potential of every young person is realized
• Generous grants and contracts to universities and corporations to support scientific research and development
• Maintenance of a sound safety net to promote entrepreneurial risk-taking
• Indirect investment by the general public in the commercialization of new ideas and discoveries through professionally managed public venture funds, with the profits returned to ordinary citizens as a direct "social innovation" dividend
• High schools and colleges teaching entrepreneurial skills and fostering// collaborative teamwork through inter-disciplinary projects.

Are you an entrepreneur that wants to join the Modern Whig movement? 

Sign Up Here