Republican Women Have Misguided View of the Proper Role of Government

From a recent news story about how Republican women have been picked in the primaries.

"Career politicians in Sacramento and Washington, D.C., be warned: You now face your worst nightmare — two businesswomen from the real world who know how to create jobs, balance budgets and get things done," said Whitman, the billionaire former eBay chief executive,

You just don't get it do you  Meg,( and all you other "conservatives" out there). Here is the IT that you all need to get.

It is not the government's job to create jobs. It is the government's job to get the hell out of the way so that businessmen like ME want to and then DO create the jobs.

Again, job creation is NOT the job of government ... Unless you are in the planned economy .... like duh  ... socialism.

Argggg! Ask for the panties to settle for the bra. Even the Republicans are drinking the Kool-Aid. Kool-Aid Lite but Kool-Aid nonetheless.

~ byline Cato

My comments in italics

From a news story ...

Employers with more than 50 workers could face big penalties even if they are trying to do the right thing by offering health insurance to their workers. For example, they could be fined $2,000 per worker if they fail to follow Washington's rules in providing "affordable" coverage.

Companies are required to calculate whether their health plans meet Washington's afford ability test by determining each employee's household income, not just what they are paying the worker. To say this presents a significant challenge is an understatement. But if employers fail, they could face fines of $100,000 or more.

Uh, sorry, my company has no business knowing what my “household income” is! More tyranny!

Preview of 2010?

When private citizens do stuff like this, then we know that something is afoot. Hoping for some real change in 2010.

Cash for Clunkers & Government Spying

This sent to me by RayRay

And you thought that they just wanted you to go green....
Never in America ... Yeah Right

A Boot is Still a Boot

Starbucks - Bulverde Texas

I saw a fellow reading The 5000 Year Leap, and since we had just had a TeaRally, I stuck up a conversation by asking if he liked the book. He said the he did and that he was amazed at how far off the tracks the country has moved from the ideals that made the country in the first place.

Now, here is where it becomes distressing, for these preliminaries lead to a discussion of Statism and Big Government, and in that vein, I mentioned how the "Big-Government Problem" is not confined to the Democrats, but that the Republicans are helping hand-in-hand to expand the power of the Federal Government over our lives. Essentially, it being that the Democrats come from one direction while the Republicans come from the other - with the pocketbook of the citizen in the middle. To try and drive the point home that "our" party is power hungry just as are the Democrats, I mentioned that the thing that was the straw that broke my back was when our Republican Senators Hutchison & Cornyn, and my District 21 Representative Lamar Smith, ALL voted for the first TARP bailout - over the objections of their constituents.

Now, think of it. I had just told him that the Republicans were ½ the problem. Was there any light that went off in his head? Was there any nod of agreement? ABSOLUTELY NOT. Even though that I was telling him that his Republican Senators and his Republican Congressman sold him out, he was going to avoid that ugly fact and continue to think that it is all Obama and those evil Democrats.

I am so saddened that even the people that go to the tea parties, when led by a celebrity to "boo" the Republicans and the Democrats, do so with gusto; yet in their heart of hearts, when you get them "one-on-one" to look inside, you can see that they feel that it is all the Democrat's fault, and think that if the Republicans can boot them out then things will be all good and fine. They completely ignore that it was BUSH that came to Congress and wanted a $700 billion appropriation in 3 days.

In sum it will not be good if Obama has his way, nor will not be all good and fine if the Republicans with their current brand of Corporatism and Statism come back to power, because a boot is a boot and feels the same on my neck whether it is worn by a Democrat or a Republican.

In sum, I think that it is appropriate to remember - It is Not Left vs Right - It is the STATE vs YOU.

Government's Aspirations??

Cass Sustein, Obama's Regulatory Czar as seen on the Glenn Beck TV show 22 July 2009

"What Roosevelt did in altering the American government's aspirations for its citizens is capture [in] the second bill of rights better than anywhere [sic], Government's aspirations for its citizens"

Government's aspirations for its citizens?!! What the &^@*(!!!

1. The government is not a being with aspirations, not a father figure who will take care of me.

2. I am not "its" citizen. It does not own me. I own it.

3. Therefore I don't want the government to have any aspirations for me. I have aspirations for it, to curtail its power.

The entire premise of Sustein's statement is an assault on my liberty -- before we even start talking about the abomination referred to as the second bill of rights. Indeed, the premise [a government having aspirations and a government that possesses citizens] is exactly an encapsulation of the ideology of today's mainstream Collectivist.

Just for the record, what was really happening was that Roosevelt was trying to use the governmental machinery to impose HIS aspirations on those he considered to be HIS citizens.

~Cato


Seneca's Comment: Oh No, it looks like I have created a monster. Cato and I have debated the various meaning(s) and consequence(s) of the ideology contained in my statement "What's Mine is Mine". This of Cato's seems to embody the sentiment very well.

Obamunism 102

From http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/13/AR2009051303014_pf.html

"For the first time, neither sales nor property nor income taxes are the largest source of money for state and local governments. The federal government is."

"We are toast", as they used to say around the Roman campfire.

~ Cato

A Letter to a Senator II

I got this from a friend of mine. It is an email that he sent to Senator Cornyn (R-Tx), one of the two Republican Senators from Texas that sold us out on the TARP bailout. My friend is a laid back guy that does not generally bestir himself to become entangled in the messy politics of the day because, like many of us that are not drinking the Kool-Aid, he is too busy working as an Architect.

The very fact that he has taken the time to pen this invective to his elected Senator is one of the reasons that I post his letter, for I believe there are millions like him (a.k.a. - Ayn Rand's "Creators") and that it is they that will make the difference in the next election cycle.

Indeed, if the Republicans do not wake up and smell the coffee, then they may wake up and find that the Democrats have taken even more seats because of the Republicans that figure that if they have a choice of 2 Democrats running, then it would be best to choose the Real Democrat as opposed to the other Democrat - i.e., that is running on the Republican ticket.

(Editors Note: I have taken the liberty to edit for context.)
_____________________

Senator Cornyn ,

The following is the opening paragraph of your May 1, 2009 Update newsletter.

"This week marked President Obama’s 100th day in office, and his agenda has been nothing so far if not ambitious. However, I have serious concerns about the long term impact it will have on our nation. Since being sworn in, President Obama and the Democrat majority have spent too much, taxed too much and borrowed too much. They have managed to spend more in 100 days than we have spent on the war in Iraq, Afghanistan and Hurricane Katrina relief-- combined. And they’ve stuck generations of Americans with the tab."

Oh, Yeah Right. Last October, I sent you, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson, and Representative Lamar Smith an email asking . . . NO - demanding - that you vote NO on the first TARP Bill. And yet, each of you voted FOR.

After my letter, I heard nothing from your office. (Hutchinson's office sent an acknowledgement email, and Smith's office sent some nonsense regarding "turning the stampede".)

So, based on your showing of your colors as a RINO (Republican In Name Only) when November came around, I voted for the Libertarian candidate in each race. I don't vote for people that refuse to listen to their constituency. I am not so naive to think that my opinion would sway any one vote, but, since the last election I have talked to many others who felt the same sentiment that the TARP was something that needed to be deep-sixed and were appalled at the Republican sell-out and accordingly stayed home .. or voted against you and the others. One friend of mine, Republican for all his life, actually voted for your Democratic challenger.

Now back to your disgusting and self -serving "update email newsletter". Since the water is now under the bridge, you now have a different take on the situation and you are nothing but the pot calling the kettle black. In addition, and more important, you have saddled my grandchildren and great-grandchildren with the enormous burden of paying back your excesses not only in money but in having to suffer under the tightening yoke of government control and intrusion over/ into our lives.

All of us are now in chains because of the liberal, phony propaganda machine, and "conservative" Senators like you, and Representatives like Lamar Smith, being unable and unwilling to take a stand for the beliefs of their constituency and unwilling to take a stand for private property (a.k.a. my money that is confiscated via taxation to pay for the statism that is infecting the country.)

Those of us in the private sector know what it takes to balance budgets. We don't have the luxury of printing money - which, by the way, is no answer either. My hope was that our elected officials would understand how business works, but apparently they don't.

Please know that I will work to oust any politicians that cannot or will not reflect my conservative thinking.

We were promised change . . . we got it . . and you, and the Republican Party helped bring it about!

Sincerely,

Name withheld by request

Childcare, Congress & Camels

Let not thy camel's nose be seen under the edge of your tent, for soon thy beast will be inside, yea shall have no place to sleep, thy stores [food] shall be gone, and yea shall starve.
~ Jazeeb's admonition to his sons concerning the harm that befalls when one allows incursion of another onto one's property


I was watching the news the other day and saw a story about the Congresswomen that are getting pregnant and having kids while serving. After a bit of story setup from the talking head, a few snippets were played from one of the Representatives who was shown taking her kids to day care before going into session. The Rep. said that since she is a working mother and a legislator she can connect with the problems that working women face trying to juggle kids and work, and that she can use that knowledge when working in Congress on laws dealing with things like child care.

Madam, it is not in your purview to legislate child care, and indeed it is one of the problems nowadays that the Federal Government insists on insinuating itself into every facet of citizen's lives. Does the "Federal" not understand that the Constitution is an enumerated powers document and that all other powers are left elsewhere - in the hands of people other than them (Congress). Where in the Constitution does it talk about Child Care?

So, here it is then, that we have a Federal government that not only has the given power to declare war, but also a Government that has taken unto itself the power to declare how child care is to be managed in the American workplace, or declare the maximum number of gallons that a toilet can use per flush!

Am I the only one that sees such things as Federal intrusion in this seemingly benign area of child care as but one nose of the camel that is constantly being thrust under the edge of the tent of the people?

Here are the nose's of some of the other Federal Camel's brothers:
Health Care
Education
Welfare
Social Security
Retirement
Environment
Air Quality
Global Warming
Water Quality
Minimum Wage
Economic Stimulus/Planning

There are many others, but these are some of the first to come to mind. And note well that there are those that are reading this post that will take issue with one or more of these, but then again, there are those that have been brought up on the steady pap of a government that seeks always to aggrandize itself at the expense of the other entities of society that by the very Constitution retained the usurped powers.

Not to put too fine a point on things, it is not constitutional for the Federal Government to be the law giver with respect to, for example, "the environment". But "nay", you will say, (and mostly so because you think the environment needs to be saved), "then who is it that shall do this", as if the desirability of having a Federal Agency implement your desires, trumps the words of the Constitution that do not enumerate such an agency or enumerate such power, but which does set froth mechanisms for the other partners in the whole ( the people or the States) to do such things as saving that which you desire to be "saved'.

Yes, my friend, this is exactly what I am saying - that with respect to non-enumerated powers, it is the STATE (or the people) that has the power and not the Federal Government, and no amount of desire can change what the Federal is allowed to do and what they are not allowed to do.

Now, those tending toward the argumentative, would have you swallow the bait that as a practical matter, such things (as saving "the environment") should be done in a consolidated and coordinated fashion, and thus the desirability or practicality of such a consolidation arrangement means that the Federal Government should do it, and that this "should' means that the Federal government "can" take on this role.

Make no mistake, however, because that a thing may be more desirable does not act to create an authority for doing that thing itself considered desirable, for if the touchstone was desire, then the bank robber should be able to freely enter the bank and take the property of another, since that act of robbery would be deemed by him to be desirable and thus allowed.

Ah, but you say, "... the bank robber is prohibited by society's law (backed up by society's police power) from robbing the bank." This then brings me to the exact point, that:

a) the Founders, acting as agents for the States that sent them to the Convention,
b) the States themselves as they ratified the document, and,
c) "the people" themselves

all recognized the temptation and tendency of a too-powerful Federal government ( or those in control of it) to try and rob the people and erect a tyranny, and they therefore put in place - in the very instrument that constituted the framework for the Federal authority - the enumerated powers shackles to prohibit such acts of robbery. In other words, society's way of protecting itself from an ever expanding government that intruded itself into every aspect of the lives of the people and ate out their sustenance, was to was to constitute a Federal government that was shackled and could only do those things that were enumerated in the Constitution.

Returning now to babies and Congresswomen, that shackling means that the Federal has no authority to legislate Child Care matters, and their meddling in these areas represents the nose of the camel under the edge of the tent belonging to the people.

And You Thought They Were Any DIFFERENT???

~ from Congressman Lamar Smith's website (Dist 21 Texas)

04/15/2009

Smith Congratulates TEA Party Organizers and Participants

Congressman Lamar Smith today, on Tax Day, sent the following letter of support to TEA Party organizers and participants throughout TX-21, which will be read at several TEA Parties in the district.

"Americans in Texas and across the country today are exercising their Constitutional rights to protest the massive expansion in the size and scope of government currently underway. ......"


Publius' Commentary
More Blah Blah Blah and blowing of smoke from elected politicans .......

In the 2010 election, remember, this is the guy voted FOR the $700 thousand million TARP bailout.

That vote was over the objections of constituents, who got, in response to their impassioned pleas, not only his YES vote to sell them down the river, but also got a letter of reply talking drivel about "stampedes" and " .... getting in front of the herd".

Folks, stuff like this political blah blah letter to the tea party people, is EXACTLY why, at many tea parties, political incumbents were not allowed to speak. It was a time for THEM to listen to US as opposed to us having to listen to them.

A Letter to a Senator

October 1, 2008

Senator Cornyn,

Subject: Bailout/Help/Assistance
Hell No - Vote No

I am a businessman in San Antonio and the time is NOW for the chickens to come home to roost from their feeding frenzy in the pasture of 15 years of credit expansion.

I, too, have money in stocks and if they crater, big deal. And, if it is a big deal - big deal. I took the risk, and it was speculation on my part, but my loss is not a reason for me to want, or be allowed to, pass that to you or others. America is supposed to be about earning your own keep and not about expecting others to earn theirs - and yours too.

So then, I urge you to quit listening to the talking heads whether they be on FOX or CNN. It is not about jobs. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the Federal Government is provide me a job, or a cheap house, or "manage the economy". Only in Statist countries is this part of the government ... it is called Fascism or Socialism, or some other 'ism, ..... but certainly not capitalism.

It is not about saving the economy - the economy is trying to save itself by destroying that which should be destroyed. Get out of the way.

It is not about saving mortgages and mortgage bankers- they took a risk. Get out of the way.

It is not about saving the working man - they too took the risk when they put everything under the sun on their credit card, and bought a $150,000 house when they should have stayed renting. Get out of the way.

It is not about ME - or saving me. Get out of the way.

Summary - Time now to pay. Credit contraction will be a benefit in the long run, for it weeds out the weak, and acts to point out bad decisions that do not comport with the reality of things. Get out of the way.

____________________________
Want to know how he voted and how my representative voted and how the other Texas Senator voted??? Hummmm.....take a wild guess.

And "they" (the RNC) wonder why McCain did not get elected.

They are at it again

March 23, 2009

Headline from USA Today
As bankruptcy filings mount, attention turns again to reform

The article contains this statement: " ...Congress is focused on efforts to stem home foreclosures by altering the law so that bankruptcy court judges will be allowed to modify certain mortgages to help people keep their homes."

Just great. Another deplorable step on the road to serfdom and the collectivist state and just what we need - to allow judges to modify this specie of contract. Yes, that is really going to be the ticket now isn't it?

I mean, it is not like the banks are now going to have to price into the equation the reality of the risk that some bleeding heart judge will later step in and change the terms of the contract to "help out" those that made a wrong choice and now need to pay the price consisting of the consequences.

Just another example of why the Constitution reads the way it does - to prevent Federal meddling in the economic engine and meddling in social policy. And please do not send any comments about the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. That was to prevent the individual States from setting up a set of protectionist taxes or bounties on trade coming in or going to another state. It was never thought that it would be used to stop a farmer in Ohio from selling corn to his neighbor because in doing so, his neighbor would not buy corn from Illinois, and thus there would be an effect on interstate commerce thus giving rise to an authorization for Federal intervention/control.

Try a little reductio ad absurdum to see that if this view of intervention is allowed, then everything falls under (and beneath the grinding wheels of ) the commerce clause. Indeed, even my posting this to my blog, typed on a black colored keyboard, because it may be read by a person in Ohio and induce him to not invest in any home because I convinced him that the government could come in an change his contract, can be deemed as having an effect on interstate commerce, and thus fall under control of the government and be used as an excuse to place restrictions on keyboard colors.

He Ain't No Cicero

The Cancer Spreads

I open my email this morning and what do I see but another encroachment and peering into the private lives of the citizens. If domestic spying was not enough, now big brother wants to know when and where you drive .... all of course under the guise of knowing how much you drive so as to collect money from you to keep you safe. What's next - government taxation of the library books you read, or the email that you send (oops that's already been done it was called The Stamp Act) with the excuse that they need to charge by the size of the book, and that therefore they need to know what books you are reading?

Here are some excerpts from the article:

CENews.com News Posted: Tuesday, March 03, 2009
Transportation commission urges shift to mileage-based fee
A bipartisan, congressionally created commission is urging lawmakers to fundamentally shift the way the federal government collects revenues to fund transportation infrastructure.... charging vehicle drivers a mileage fee embodies the "user pays" principle and more accurately aligns the costs and benefits of the surface transportation system to those who are using it. ..... "With the expected shift to more fuel-efficient vehicles," said Robert Atkinson, chair of the Financing Commission and president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, "it will be increasingly difficult to rely on the gas tax to raise the funds needed to improve, let alone maintain, our nation's surface transportation infrastructure."

Some Points
#1 We already have a mileage based fee. It is called the gas tax. It measures directly how much a person is driving and if you want to collect more revenues, then adjust the tax.

#2 Does anybody else see the threat here to civil liberties. If I was wanting to be a tyrant this would be exactly one of the things that I would want implemented as a first step to tracking the people and controlling their movements. As entertaining as Jack Bauer has become, Jack Bauer is wrong. There were plenty of Jack Bauers in Nazi Germany.

#3 - There is plenty of revenue generated for highways. One problem is that it is siphoned off.

#4 - There is nothing wrong with the nation's infrastructure. Harping on this is but a ruse for one interest group to clamor for their share of the pie that has been stolen from them via taxation. In a previous life I used to be a practicing engineer and I am sickened at watching the engineering society descend on Washington along with all the other pigs to fight, grunting and slobbering, for their position at the trough of government handout and subsidy.

#5 - Instead of taxing us out the ass - how about stopping the spending.

#6 - Still looking for the valley - if anybody knows were it is, let me know.

Message from Seat 29e

Hello all you boys and girls,

Today's story is about how being asleep at the wheel generally leads to nasty results.

And remember, when it comes to government meddling, those that do the meddling never have to sit in a Seat 29E of their own making.

http://www.xgeltesting.com/messagefromseat29e.php

Lincoln - Obama's Hero? Hummm....

February 10, 2009
San Antonio, TX
Post instigated by KH

Yesterday, I attended a professional society meeting where the topic was Politics for Engineers. In discussing his topic, and as a device to discuss some of the features of the Obama Administration, thed speaker asked the audience who Obama said his "hero" was.

Somebody said "Lincoln". The speaker then asked what Lincoln did, and, immediately seeing the connection between Lincoln, who himself was power hungry and a Constitutional usurper and sapper, and Obama who is more of the same, one soul at the back immediately remarked "Suspended Habeas Corpus". This was, of course, referring to the fact that Lincoln acted outside the Constitution that he had sworn to uphold, while at the same time, asserting that the States in Rebellion were the acting outside the Constitution, and therefore could be invaded and gutted by the Army of the North.

By way of reminder to us all - the operating manual for the United States is a delegated powers constitution. In the American system, it is (supposed to be) the people that have the power, and that to exercise that power, they articulated, through their proxies, a Constitution which confers only limited powers to the Government - all other powers being withheld .

This operating manual, in a move designed to limit the ability government's ability to tyrannize the citizens, partitioned the goivernment into 3 competing branches and delegated non-overlapping powers to those branches. For example, regarding revenue bills, ONLY the House has the power to propose a bill for spending money - all revenue bills MUST originate in the House. Another provision is that the power to suspend habeas corpus is a power reserved to Congress alone - it is a Legislative prerogative, not an Executive (Presidential) one. (Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution, dealing with powers conferred on the Congress' by the people.)

The speaker, on not hearing this comment concerning the illegal acts of Lincoln - acts that by the way were also judged to be illegal and without force by the Supreme Court - yet nevertheless were continued by Lincoln as the South was laid to waste, referred to his slide showing the various members of the Obama Cabinet and their party affiliation, and used it to draw a parallel between Lincoln and Obama in that they both had mixed Cabinets. (In Mexico a Cabinet is called a ....... "junta". )

This brought to my mind the fact that there was another president that had a mixed cabinet and that was Jefferson. It also brought to mind that Jefferson's cabinet was constantly going behind his back and working to undermine his Presidency. But that we can hope the same happens with this overweening President - a president that really thinks that it is the governments right and duty to "run the country, run the economy, run the economy", instead of it being the right of the people and that the government by design is supposed to stay out of such things. This guy reminds me of a Caesar or a Xerxes. This kind of thinking is called tyranny and it was tried in Russia.

As a parting shot to this entry, drafted I admit, on a short clock and therefore choppy, it is interesting to note that Lincoln, in his March 9 1832 Letter to the Sangamo Journal, exposes the "morality" that will guide his decisions decades later. He says:

• 
  
  "In cases of extreme necessity there could always be means found to cheat the law, while in all other cases it would have its intended effect. I would not favor the passage of a law upon this subject, which might be very easily evaded. Let it be such that the labor and difficulty of evading it, could only be justified in cases of the greatest necessity." [Emphasis Added] ~ .........Lincoln, in his March 9 1832 Letter to the Sangamo Journal
  
  
  

Translation - The future president is here saying that he (and other officials) can do what they want "in cases of greatest necessity". Thus, all I have to do as a President is to declare a "public emergency" (a.k.a necessity) and then I can do what I want. For example, Mississippi Flood of 1927, The Depression, The Recession, the Stagnation, 9/11, Katrina, War of Terror", War on Drugs", War on the Economy", War on Poverty"

Yeah Right, sounds just like the English Kings - or Jack Bauer - or George Bush - or Obama. All doing things "for the good of the people". No thank you sir, I can do just fine without your meddling in affairs that are not in your constitutional purview.

THAT is why WE have a Constitution - to limit your power grab.

Obamanomics 1

dis·in·gen·u·ous

–adjective - lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere: Example: His statements, amounting to nothing more than historical revisionism, were disingenuous.

_______________

Our Savior, Obama, the most merciful, the anointed on high, takes the cake. As we learned from Bill Clinton, we must watch very carefully the words that are used by politicians and parse them accordingly. Remember, Obama is a lawyer (as was Clinton) and when viewed through this lens, we see here how he is very careful to be true - but at the same time is false. This is political rhetoric at its best.

Here is the real story - The policies he is pounding on the Republicans for can only be the policies of Republicans to be spineless (as was Congressman Lamar Smith and Senator Cornyn on the bailout) to allow Congress under Barney Frank committees to coerce the banks to lend money to people that should not have been taking such Ninja (no income, no job, no assets) loans in the first place. THAT (too much money floating around) is what fueled the "crisis".

Essentially, Congress thru Fannie and Freddie, told the banks that if they did not lend money to the appropriate politically correct "victims" groups, (a.k.a voter blocs), then their ability to merge with other firms and conduct their banking business activities would be impeded/interfered with.

This, my friends, is called using the government to force private enterprise to carry out government agendas - boxcars anyone? This is also called Fascism, which is when government combines with the industry and businesses to form an interlocking partnership. (Public/Private Partnerships anyone, NAFTA Super Highway anyone)

This consolidation of the private by the government has been underway for a long time, my fellow citizens, and it is not confined to Osama ( Oh, my bad, I meant Obama) although he is the most virulent representation of the tyranny of the state since FDR. Make no mistake- Bush engaged in expansion of the government and tightening of its yoke. Carter did too, as did Johnson, FDR, Wilson, etc.

Remember - It is not Left vs Right - it is the STATE vs. You!

The White House Contractor

Three contractors were bidding to fix a broken fence at the White House in D.C.; one from Illinois, one from Tennessee and a third from Kentucky. They all went with a White House official to examine the fence.

The Tennessee contractor took out a tape measure and did some measuring, then worked some figures with a pencil. 'Well', he said, 'I figure the job will run about $900: $400 for materials, $400 for my crew and $100 profit for me.'

The Kentucky contractor also did some measuring and figuring, then said, 'I can do this job for $700: $300 for materials, $300 for my crew and $100 profit for me.'

The Illinois contractor didn't measure or figure, but leaned over to the White House official and whispered, '$2,700.'

The official, incredulously, whispered back, 'You didn't even measure like the other guys! How did you come up with such a high figure?'

The Illinois contractor replied, '$1000 for me, $1000 for you, and we hire that guy from Kentucky to fix the fence.''

Done,' replied the government official.

And that, my friends, is how our government works!

From a web circulated email joke seen eslewhere

PS - And don't think that it is just the other guy's "party" that does this sort of thing.

Just Say No!

Attention Texas Engineers
TSBPE Proposed Rule Change

The Texas State Board of Professional Engineers has proposed a change to the rules that will negatively affect the way you do business. http://www.tbpe.state.tx.us/proposed.htm

This is a bad proposed rule and if, like me, you are concerned about this proposed change, then you need to submit your comments to the board against it. Your comments must be in to the Board by February 13, 2009.

In addition, please go ahead and comment the hell out of things here on this blog to let others know how YOU feel.

You know, one thing I would like to know is how, with all the talk of government intrusion into things, such a proposal even made it this far. What is it going to be next? Are they going to make another rule after this one fails to "do the trick" that to be "clear" to the client our calculations have to be done in Color #45334 ink, on paper having a yellow#34 tint, and that we will have to determine the color blindness level of the client and that it is a Rules Violation if we have not?

BTW Mr Kinney, -- contrary to what you say about how this thing will have no financial impact to the engineers of small firms ... Where do I sent the bill for the $800 that I had to pay our corporate attorney to comb through your proposed rule and draft up this letter?? How many other engineer dollars are having to be spent responding to something that should have never been proposed in the first place?


So then my fellow engineers, here is a copy of a letter that is going out today (2/2/09) at my request, and on my dime, from our corporate attorney.

___________________________________________________

Lance Kinney, P.E.
Deputy Executive Director
Texas Board of Professional Engineers
1917 IH35 South
Austin, Texas 78741

Dear Mr. Kinney:

I have an engineering education, and, prior to going to law school, practiced engineering and was licensed in Ohio as a P.E. Over the past 40 years I have, as an attorney, represented engineers, architects, developers and construction contractors from time-to-time in contract negotiation and dispute resolution. From the vantage point of that background, I have been asked to comment on your proposed additions to Board Rule 137.63 (b)(4). The proposed additions address two issues – the first attempting to define the engineer as a "faithful agent" for employers in subpart (A), and the second attempting to define the engineer as a "faithful agent" for clients in subpart (B). Both attempts are, in my opinion, ill-advised for the reasons stated below.

Subpart (A) goes far beyond the requirement to avoid conflicts of interest, and is overly broad. If enforced to its logical conclusion it would penalize engineers who are common-law employees of business organizations and engineering firms for simply exercising their legal rights to change employment and take their acquired knowledge with them to a new employer. Subpart (A) requires that the employer’s time, equipment, resources and project information be used "only for the benefit of their employer and not for personal gain or the benefit of any outside employment purposes." Yet every engineer learns on the job and acquires skills and useful knowledge from utilization of the employer’s resources of time, equipment usage and project information. That is how engineers (and all other professionals and trades persons) grow in their ability to serve the public. The law does not allow employers to restrict, even by contract, the transfer of acquired knowledge for the benefit of new employment, except under very limited conditions. There is a large body of law in Texas which defines the extent and limits which are placed on employers and employees in this regard. Subpart (A) broadly interpreted conflicts with the statutory and common-law rights of engineer employees, and should not be enacted by the Board.

Subpart (B) states principles of good contract drafting and performance, but goes too far in that it elevates less than perfect drafting and performance to an ethical violation. This opens the engineer to professional disciplinary action where a breach of contract claim is much more appropriate. It also opens an engineer involved in a law suit to the argument that the applicable "law" (as embodied in the Board ethical rules) always requires the engineer to meet every requirement of subpart (B), and that failure to do so is somehow always actionable malpractice. Any lawyer worth his license will make this argument in a dispute, and a jury that knows nothing of professional practice may well accept the argument. If you enact the proposed language, you will open engineering practitioners to unjustified risk of legal judgments which have no basis in common sense. The language of subpart (B) fails the interests of both the engineer and his or her clients in the following respects:

Defining the responsibilities of the engineer and client for a project is a two way street subject to negotiation between the engineer and client – yet (B)i places the burden of definition solely on the engineer. What is meant by "clearly"? – What is clear to two particular contracting parties may not be clear to two others. Circumstances of the parties vary all over the map. Whether or not something was clearly defined is better left to the flexibility of the legal process rather than rigidly imposed through ethical rules.

Clarity of the allocation of responsibilities is frequently the subject of contract disputes and of suits by third parties to recover for injuries suffered when something goes wrong. The law and legal practice is well developed to determine the issue under particular circumstances. Making clarity of responsibilities an ethical responsibility of only the engineer exposes him or her to substantial legal risk that may often belong to the client or to a plaintiff himself.

Making timely completion of services an ethical responsibility also places the Board’s disciplinary process in the position of deciding contract disputes when that decision would be better left to the parties through negotiation, mediation, and if necessary litigation. It provides the client with the leverage of threatening an ethics complaint, and places the engineer at a distinct disadvantage in settlement negotiations and litigation. All professional practitioners and their clients know that any number of circumstances can cause delays in performance, and that delays are often justified by circumstances beyond the engineer’s control – circumstances such as delays in decision making by a client or problems dealing with regulatory agencies. Again, where timeliness of performance is an issue, that issue is better left to the legal process for resolution if the parties themselves cannot resolve it by negotiation.

(B)iii requires that the engineer always communicate matters related to changes in writing. That may be advisable for large complex projects, but is not necessarily advisable for smaller projects, particularly where there is a relationship of mutual respect and trust between the client and engineer. To always require written communication can increase costs without corresponding benefit to the client, and can create a paper work nightmare for the engineer. Even where contracts require written communication, the law recognizes that the requirement may be waived by practice of the parties. Your proposed rule does not provide for that.

(B)iv makes it an ethical violation to be untimely in responding to client communications. This is appropriate in extreme cases. Timely communication is always good client relations practice. However, every delay in communication should not be an ethical violation, as such a delay is not necessarily a breach of the relationship between the engineer and client.

The commentary which precedes the changes states a determination that "there are no fiscal implications for the state or local government as a result of enforcing or amending the section as amended." That assessment could not be more mistaken. There are so many issues raised by the language of the amendment that any disciplinary action would require the same effort, Board involvement, and state expense for hearings, as is required of the parties in a civil trial. These issues include identification of key provisions in the allocation of responsibilities between engineer and client, the size of type font or other emphasis to flag the key provisions, and location of the key provisions in the body of a contract, and determination of what detail failed to be "clear." The issues also include whether accounting and project management systems and software are adequate to control schedules and costs, and which party should be responsible for which systems. If the Board greatly expands the rules to deal with specific issues of adequate performance, as is often done in consumer protection statutes, it would still find that one size does not fit all situations and that it accomplished nothing of practical significance.

The responsibility for sorting out the issues should be left to the engineer and client for resolution by negotiation, mediation, or litigation under already well established legal procedures and use of state resources already tailored to that task. The only sensible approach is to have the Board rules simply state that conflicts of interest are prohibited and sound engineering practice is required, and then leave it to the legal process with aid of technical expert witnesses to assess and resolve specific issues between specific parties.

The commentary also states that there "is no adverse fiscal impact to the estimated 1,000 small or 5,300 micro businesses currently regulated by the Board of Engineers." This also is mistaken. Just the requirement of always requiring written advice of changes creates a paper work burden on the small offices. Requiring an engineer to defend himself or herself on two fronts – before the Board and in civil courts, places an extraordinary burden on the small office. The proposed changes will divert the engineer’s time and attention from sound engineering practice to defensive practices in anticipation of potential law suits, driving up the cost of engineering services.

In summary, the Board’s proposed amendments may stem from good intentions. However they will accomplish no more than to provide plaintiffs’ attorneys making client claims or third party injury claims with more ways to get specious claims past the judge and in front of a jury. That does not serve the public, the client, or the engineer.

Yours truly,
Loren W. Peters