Read the editorial here.

Here is my response to Mr. Miller’s letter:

Once a proud example to the world, the American pubic school system is now a shadow of it’s former self and the United States is now last among the industrialized nations. The President recently laid out his plan for “winning the future”, but we can hardly do so with a third rate education system. Lately we’ve been hearing a lot from teachers and the teachers unions about how overworked and underpaid our teachers are. If we hope to lead the world in education again, we need to correct the tragic neglect of these valuable national treasures known as teachers and the heroic public service they provide our country.

In recognition that immediate action must be taken , I humbly submit the following proposal to advance the future of education in America.

We need a minimum starting base salary for new teachers, set by the Congress, thereby ensuring fairness among the states. Currently my nephew’s wife is going to school and planning to join the teaching profession. After she finishes school they are planning to move to whatever state pays their teachers the most money. This inequality allows those states with more resources to recruit all the best teachers. Therefore, pay should be standardized, giving all the states an equal footing when drafting new teachers. Naturally, it cost more to live in Manhattan than it does in Pocatello Idaho, so a local cost of living adjustment would be added to the base salary depending upon where the teacher lives and works. The only question remaining to be asked is, “How much is enough”?

Lately I’ve heard a lot of teachers and union people comparing the teaching profession to the work done by doctors and scientists, and suggesting we should pay teachers the same amount earned in those professions. With that in mind, I’m suggesting a starting BASE salary of an even $100k per year with automatic 5% increases in the base salary for each year of service. After 10 years, a teacher would be earning $147k a year in base salary. Mr Miller, who has been teaching for “26 plus years” would now be earning $322k in base salary. I’m curious what would be considered a fair pension.

Before all you aspiring teachers start planning your retirement to some beach house in Malibu , I have a few more things to add. As it turns out, there is more than one question remaining to be asked. In fact, there are several.

How do we pay for it?

I guess “The Rich” are just going to have to pay a little more of “their fair share“. Here in Washington State we don’t have a state income tax. A proposal to add implement one on high income earners was rejected by the voters in the last elections. I guess the legislature needs to do another end run around the greedy voters in Washington State an impose that income tax anyway. The teachers gotta have this money. Of course, if you have children at home you will qualify for child tax credits and probably won’t have to pay the income tax. Once again, the people using the system are not the ones paying for it.

How long will it be before we’re once again being told that teachers need a pay raise?

Human nature being what it is, there is never enough money. No matter how much you have, you’re always going to want more. It’s just human nature. Every time a union contract is renegotiated, they are always for more money, more benefits, or more time off. How much is enough?

How does a six figure salary for a 9 month teaching job improve the education of a child?

We’re already told how overworked and underpaid teachers are. If they are already doing the “best they can,” how is it possible that paying them more money will translate to children getting a better education? If they are already giving 100%, how can we expect 110?

One of two situations is the truth. One, they’ve been slacking off and holding the education system hostage while waiting for more money, or two, they know full well that higher teacher salaries will not result in a better education for little Johnny, (or Jose’). Either way, I think all this fuss about union benefits for teachers, and higher salaries exposes the truth once and for all. It’s never been about education. It’s always been about greed.

I recently heard an older man on a radio show complaining about proposals that would raise the retirement age to 70 years old. The host of the radio show said “We have to do something, the system is going broke. It’s not going to be there for our children and grandchildren.”

The old man’s response was, “I don’t care. I paid into the system and I’m going to get mine while it’s still there”.

The thinking from the teachers unions is pretty much the same. Anyone with even nominal intelligence knows that we can not keep demanding more and more money from a decreasing number of taxpayers to pay ever increasing wages and benefits for public sector union employees. We don’t have the money to sustain this, but union thugs just don’t care. They intend to get as much as they can, for as long as they can, even if it bankrupts everyone else.

Now, let’s set the record straight. Yes, teachers have a tough job. I sure wouldn’t want to do it. You couldn’t pay me enough to babysit 30 undisciplined misfits all day long. Yes, it’s also an important job. Educating the youth of America is just about important as it gets unless we want a society of people with the intelligence of Joe Biden.

There are a lot of people out there with important jobs though and most people think they should be paid more than they are getting. I’d love to be making 20% more in my paycheck but the man who signs that check has a different idea. When I’m not shooting off at the mouth in some blog post, I drive a milk tanker for my day job. If you think that’s not important, try eating your Frosted Flakes dry tomorrow morning. How about the cow? She’s got a pretty important job, don’t you think? (No, I’m not talking about the Secretary of State.)

If teachers really want to be paid a better salary and actually improve the education system at the same time, then I suggest that we’re going to have to make some adjustments to the system that does not involve throwing more money at an already failed system.

Every time we get a new President, we get treated to a brand new plan for education. George H.W. Bush was going to be the “education president”. Clinton introduced “Goals 2000″. George W. Bush signed the “No Child Left Behind” act that was actually written by Ted Kennedy. Of course when it didn’t work out as promised, Bush took all the blame. Now Obama has released his education plan called “Race to the Top”. All of these education plans have two things in common. They have all required more money than we were spending before, and they have all failed.  According to figures just released by the Department of Education, 82% of the schools in the nation are failing to meet their goals.  Obviously we need a change in direction. If we keep doing what we’ve been doing, we’re going to keep getting what we’ve been getting. Failure. All the money in the world won’t change that.

“DRILL HERE – DRILL NOW.”

There are currently 103 permits for offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico that are being held up by the Obama Administration, even though the moratorium on offshore drilling has been lifted since October 12. Worse yet, the Obama regime shows no sign of changing it’s position on blocking offshore drilling at the expense of the American people.  Interior Secretary Ken Salazar canceled a Gulf lease sale last October. He postponed another, originally scheduled for March, until 2012. Yet another one that had been planned for October 2011 could be delayed until 2012. That would make 2011 the first year since 1965 that the federal government has authorized any drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.

The Gulf region accounts for more than 25 percent of domestic oil production and the lack of drilling there is having a devastating economic impact on the region and also threatens to exacerbate the problem of rising oil prices for the rest of the nation.  It also means less money for the federal government, which is apparently not a major concern to the Obama White House.   Rebecca Blank, under secretary for economic affairs at the Department of Commerce, told a Senate committee last fall that the revenue loss to the government would be “negligible.”    Not everyone agrees.

With production in the Gulf of Mexico expected to drop this year by 220,000 barrels per day, according to the US. Energy Information Administration, that equals about $3.7 million in lost revenue each day for the U.S. Treasury, (based on the $90/barrel oil and the royalty rate of 18.75 percent).   Over the course of a year, that adds up to more than $1.35 billion dollars in lost revenue to the federal government.   A recent study conducted by Wood Mackenzie for the American Petroleum Institute estimated that increased access to those areas would bring $150 billion into federal coffers by 2025.    If these numbers don’t  phase the administration at all, here are some other numbers that should be causing alarm.   According to Dr. Lee Hunt, President of the International Association of Drilling Contractors, there are 75,000 people who are unemployed because of this administrations opposition to domestic oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, (or anywhere else for that matter).   Imagine if those 75,000 people were working, and paying income taxes instead of drawing unemployment checks.   It’s called real wealth creation, not transferred wealth that the government has to either confiscate from someone else or borrow from China.

If the White House is serious about creating jobs, the President should order Ken Salazar to expedite the approval of those 103 oil permits.    While were at it, lets approve the construction of an oil refinery or two in this country.   The United States has not built a new oil refinery in 35 years.   The last refinery built is in Garyville, Louisiana, and it started production in 1976.   Demand has increased as our population has grown, but our supply is still the same, which is why gas costs what it does.   That bad news it, it’s going to get a lot worse if we don’t change our misguided environmental policies.

Where Barack Obama is concerned, there are always two ways of doing things, the right way, and Obama’s way. Sadly, the two are mutually exclusive and there is little chance they will ever meet.

Is it just me, or does it seem like someone needs to serve the Obama Administration with a nice big glass of “Shut the Hell Up Juice.” There’s probably a more professional and certainally a more politicaly correct way to say it, but it looks to me like this is an Administration who doesn’t know how to keep it’s mouth shut.

Remember back in the 2008 Presidential campaign when candidate Obama said that “America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.” in it’s dealings with other nations? While he may have been correct, but since he has taken office, this Administration has taken arrogance to a whole new level. In his first two years in office, Obama has alienated long time allies, emboldened dangerous adversaries, and embarrassed the United States with his egotism. Now his audacity may actually be costing lives in Egypt.

Political forces opposed to Egyptian President Mubarak have been attempting to force him from power for months. On Tuesday it appeared that Mubarak was prepared to throw in the towel and announced that he would be leaving office in September and would not attempt to appoint his son to replace him. Though not exactly what they wanted, the opposition seemed ready to accept this plan and let everything proceed peacfully. That is until Barack Obama decided to step into the middle of this Egyptian political rivalry.

“It is not the role of any other country to determine Egypt’s leaders”, Obama said on Tuesday night, but then went on to do just exactly what he said was not our place to do. “What is clear and what I indicated tonight to President Mubarak, is my belief that an orderly transition must be meaningful, it must be peaceful, and it must begin now.”

Evidently September was not soon enough for Obama. So, like the former chairman and CEO of General Motors, Rick Wagoner, the President of Egypt is being fired by the President of the United States. What may have been a nice orderly transfer of authority a few months from now, has now become a violent mob that is becoming increasingly dangerous.

The danger of the situation is not lost on Israel, who is keeping a very close eye on the situtation in neighboring Egypt. According to Associated Press writer Amy Teibel, senior Israeli officials maintain that Obama, who they view as a foreign policy neophyte, is repeating the same mistakes of prececessors like Jimmy Carter. Carter pressured the Shah of Iran to loosen his grip on power in the late 70′s, resulting in the Shah being driven into exile and replaced by hardline Islamic dictators.

Political analyst Aluf Been, writting for the daily Haaretz in Jeruslem says, “Jimmy Carter will go down in American history as ‘the president who lost Iran, and Barack Obama will be remembered as the president who ‘lost’ Turkey, Lebanon and Egypt, and during whose tenure America’s alliances in the Middle East crumbled.”

Apparently the government in Tehran agrees. The Iranian government released a statement on Thursday saying the protest in Egypt were a sign of an “Islamic renaissance” in the Middle East, and that they echoed Iran’s 1979 revolution, which toppled the U.S. backed Shah.

Egypt, under the Mubarak government, has always had a friendly relationship with the United States, and has aided American efforts in the war against radical Islamic terrorists. When Hosni Mubarak is driven from office, his government will most likely be replaced by the Muslim Brotherhood, a group that favors rule by Islamic law, and probably won’t be as friendly to the United States, perhaps even openly hostile.

All of this comes because of the one man who told us in the campaign that he would heal damaged U.S. relations around the world. We’ve been told by his supporters that this is the smartest man to ever occupy the Oval Office. Last month, James Corum, writting for the UK Telegraph said that Obama always considers himself the smartest man in the room. He may be right…. provided he’s in an empty room.

In a Fox News story on Monday, Chris Stirewalt writes, “If Republicans are serious about brushing off Obama’s demand to add to the current $14.3 trillion limit, which was bumped up by $1.9 trillion less than a year ago, it will not reassure Hu and the Chinese lenders that American debt is a safe haven anymore.”

Let me make sure I’ve got this straight. By raising the amount of debt, refusing to make the hard choices and kicking the can a little further down the road, somehow this is supposed to make the Chinese feel better about loaning us MORE money. I’m not a banker, but that doesn’t make any sense at all to me.

If I were Hu Jintao, who has already said he is not sure about America’s ability to meet it’s existing debt obligations, I might actually be relieved to see Congress take the bull by the horns and address the issue. Refusing to raise the debt limit, and perhaps even shutting down the government for a while, will send a message that we’re serious about getting our fiscal house in order.

We have ignored the problem for far too long. The Chinese must believe that as well. Hu Jintao recently told the Wall Street Journal “The current international currency system is the product of the past”. For those who may not be aware, he’s talking about the U.S. Dollar.

Speaking of Jintao, does anyone besides myself think that his visit here this week is a bit like the future landlord coming to inspect his new acquisition?

The Brookings Institute issued a study showing that when Ronald Reagan was President there were 295 CORE positions that needed to be filled. There are now 422. Complaining about the workload, Reid pointed out that the Senate now has the responsibility of confirming a total of 1,215 presidential nominees.

Isn’t bipartisanship great? Of course, I’m sure Harry Reid would still be in favor of streamlining the process if George W. Bush were still in office. What about in 2013 when Barack Obama is gone? Will Mr Reid still be interested in getting the nominees confirmed as quickly as possible, or will they in typical democrat fashion try to change the rules once again to fit the needs of the moment. I’m confident that Mitch McConnell will once again be demonstrating bipartisanship by joining them in their efforts.

On the other hand, there is another idea we could try. If there are too many nominees for the Senate to confirm, LETS REDUCE THE NUMBER OF NOMINEES !! If we reduced the size of government back to Reagan era levels, the senate would have less work, and the government would have more money. What a concept.

During the campaign, Obama said that he would use a scalpel to carefully trim the size of government. Everyone knows now that was a lie. I reject the notion that a scalpel would have been the proper tool anyway. I’m thinking chainsaws and bulldozers.

Let the slash and burn begin.

Depending on how well some of these new people do, they may or may not need to be replaced.  Some of the “old guard” definitely need to take a hike. Some because they have forgotten why they wanted to go there in the first place and are now only looking out for themselves and their special interest groups.  For others it may simply be time for them to step aside because they have been there long enough. Congress was never intended to be a lifelong career.

The later is the case in the 4^th Congressional district of Washington.  Doc Hastings is a good man who has served the constituents of his district with honor and distinction for 8 terms and is now beginning his 9^th term.  First elected in the Republican resurgence of 1994, Rep. Hastings will have served in Congress for 18 years at the end of his current term. I submit that 18 years is long enough.

In football it does not matter how good you are. If there is someone better, younger and faster on the team… you get to sit on the bench, get traded away, or forced into retirement. Doc Hastings has always been a good reliable conservative vote, but I would argue that it’s time to bring in a new player. One who is looking for a fight and is ready, willing and able to stir up a little dust.

When I first heard Clint Didier speak last year in Yakima my first reaction was that there was a bit too much anger in his voice and manner to be effective in public office. That was before I listened to Nancy Pelosi tell us that they needed to pass the health care bill so that we could find out what was in it. That was before Barack Obama shut down even more domestic oil production and sent oil prices climbing toward $100 a barrel. And that was before the democrats ignored the security problem at our southern boarder while they tried to ram the “dream act” down our throats. After all that, and more, I’m thinking Clint Didier might not have been angry enough. There’s plenty to be angry about. If you’re not mad as hell, you’re just not paying enough attention.

It’s going to take someone with a lot of fire in the belly to combat the entrenched D.C establishment and actually role back the scope of a government that has grown beyond the consent of the governed. Someone who also has the courage to stand up and take the heat when they’re attacked in the press for defending what they believe in. Clint Didier has shown that he has that kind of courage and determination.

Last year after Dino Rossi won the primary and Clint refused to give Rossi his full endorsement, the republican establishment unloaded on him with every thing they had. All the “smarter than everyone else” people on the other side of the mountain called him everything short of a traitor, but Clint Didier stood his ground and could not give his full endorsement to a man who would not fully commit to conservative principles. I think Clint Didier will show the same kind of courage and loyalty to his values in Washington D.C that he has shown here in Washington state.

We hear a lot of talk about “civility” and “compromise” these days. I have no use for either one. Barack Obama can go down to Arizona and talk about the need for us to have civil discourse, but this is the same guy who in 2008 told his supporters how he deals with opposition. “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.”

And who could forget this bit of civility? When telling his supporters how to deal with people who have different views, Candidate Barack Obama said, “I want you to argue with them… get in their face.” This is the guy who tells us that we need to be civil? Yeah right. What he’s really saying is that he just wants conservatives “get in the back”, sit down and shut up. I don’t think that will work very well with Clint Didier.

America is at a time now where we can’t afford to have conservatives that are not willing to stand up, take the heat and make hard choices. The measly 10% cuts recently proposed by the “Deficit Commission” are not going to cut it. We’re going to have to make 20% to 30% cuts across the board with the exception of Defense. We may actually need to INCREASE defense spending. Nations around the world who are not overly friendly to the United States are investing billions of dollars into new state of the art equipment while at the same time we are cutting back on our high tech weapons.

Since all funding bills begin in the House of Representatives, this is the first line of defense against the growth of government. This is also the place where it’s going to have the best chance of getting it rolled back by slashing the funding of programs that need to go away. The democrats are going to fight us every step of the way, and by whatever means possible. That’s why we need someone who understands that you don’t win by making deals and giving up some of what you believe. You win by making the other guy give ground, sometimes with brute force.

Now, because some people may take my comments a bit too literally, I feel the need to clarify. I am in no way suggesting that Clint Didier, or anyone else, go to Washington and slap that aging queen Barney Frank upside her head. That just wouldn’t be civilized. Fun, but not civilized to be sure. I am however talking about a knock down, drag out, take no prisoners fight WITHIN THE ARENA OF IDEAS.

Clint, if you’re reading this, I hope you’re ready. One season is behind us, but another one is coming fast. It’s time to pull that game plan out and blow the dust off of it, grab your pads and get ready to take some hits.

To the rest of my Tea Party friends let me say that it’s time that we begin finding our own candidates and “drafting” them. It’s not longer good enough to wait and see who throw their hats into the ring at the beginning of the election season and then choosing the “lesser of evils”. We need to be looking for people who have never been in public office before. In other words, people who have actually done something with their lives other than run for office year after year. There are a lot of positions coming up next year that we should be focused on now and finding candidates for. You might say that it’s a target rich environment.

Welcome to the 2012 Congressional Draft.   The first round is under way and Clint Didier is my first round draft pick.

The Israeli’s probably have more experience than anyone on the planet at fighting terrorists. Contrast that with the experience of Janet Napolitano. What has she ever done in her life that qualifies her to be a national security expert? Zilch. She’s been a lawyer her entire life who got her political career started by being the attorney for Anita Hill. I guess when you try to destroy the career of a prominent conservative, the democratic party owes you a few favors. Two years after the Clarence Thomas hearings, Bill Clinton appointed her as U.S. Attorney for Arizona.

When candidates are running for office, we always hear a lot a chatter about whether that person is qualified for the office or not. Sarah Palin is a perfect example. I can’t count the number of people I’ve heard say that she is not qualified to be President, even though she has more executive experience than the guy we gave the job to in 2008. I maintain that we spend way to much time debating the qualifications of the person we are electing. We should instead be looking at what kind of person they are, and the types of positions they have taken in the past. Bill Clinton once said that character doesn’t matter. I would suggest that character and judgment are almost the ONLY things that matter when determining if a candidate is qualified. No candidate can be an expert in every field. It’s for that reason that our elected officials are surrounded by advisers, and industry experts. It’s the supporting cast that needs to have real world experience in the areas of government they work in. Janet Napolitano is a lawyer and career politician who looks at everything through the prism of politics instead of real world facts.

It’s clear that politics is the reason Israeli-style security measures won’t work here in the United States.

Opponents of the measures implemented by Napolitano have called for U.S. Airports to adopt the security protocols used in Israel which rely heavily on behavioral profiling of travelers. Politics and political correctness will not allow for any type of profiling in the United States. If it happens to be only one ethnic group who is causing a problem, the politicians like Napolitano will require the police to check everyone, including the 90 year old grandma with an oxygen tank and a wheelchair, just to show that we’re not being “racist”. It may not be the best security model out there, but at least the politicians can say they are endangering everyone’s lives equally.

According to the Centers for Disease Control, more deaths are caused each year by tobacco use than by all deaths from human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), illegal drug use, alcohol use, motor vehicle injuries, suicides, and murders combined.  In fact, they estimate that 1 in 5 deaths in the United States result from the use of tobacco.

Here’s a little closer look at the numbers:

443,000 deaths annually.  Of those, nearly 50,000 were were from secondhand smoke.  (Isn’t that called negligent homicide?)

The Washington State Department of Health has said that 7,625 people died in 2007 alone as a result of tobacco use and exposure.  They further estimate the economic impact of smoking related illness at roughly $3.5 Billion in health care costs and lost productivity.

If that hasn’t got your attention yet, try this:  Every Washington household pays and estimated $631 per year for smoking related healthcare, even if no one in that household smokes. (Washington Dept. of Health numbers)

Since I’m positive that our “leaders” in the legislature lack the moral courage to take such a bold step, I’m hoping that some civic minded attorney will step forward and write a voter initiative for the next election that will address this serious issue and end all the needless death caused by first and secondhand smoke.  We here in Washington State can lead the way and provide and excellent example of courage for the rest of the nation.

As in most things, there is a downside in passing such a piece of legislation.  In fiscal year 2009, the cigarette tax generated $392 million in revenue for the State of Washington.

IF all of this is true, and cigarettes are really THAT bad, then we need to do the civilized and humane thing and BAN the sale and use of all cigarettes and tobacco related products.  In failing to take decisive action against the greatest health threat since the Bubonic plague, what the government and the anti-smoking crowd are basically saying is: “It’s o.k, if half a million people a year are dying, as long as we can make money off it.”