Just because you build it, that doesn't mean they'll come.

My column for the Gardner News.

You should be noticing a common theme here: Governments spending money they don’t have to build things that aren’t necessary based on projections that aren’t panning out. This isn’t a field of dreams – just because you build it doesn’t mean they’ll come.

The full article is at KansasProgress.com:

It’s Time to Get Off the Fence
by Jim Meyer

Note: The following viewpoint is solely my own. It does not represent an official endorsement by ResistNet or its partner organizations.

Even if the time hasn’t come for all ResistNet members to decide who should be the “Tea Party” Candidate for Congress in the Kansas Third Congressional District, and even if the time hasn’t come for ICaucus to render its judgment on the matter, I believe that the time has come for me to decide–and to announce–which candidate I personally favor in the Third District Congressional race.

I support Representative Patricia Lightner to represent the Kansas Third Congressional District in the United States House of Representatives.

For all practical purposes, the contest for the Tea Party/9.12 vote in the Third District Republican Congressional Primary has featured three candidates: Representative Lightner, John Rysavy and Daniel Gilyeat. All three of these fine individuals have waged honorable and above-board campaigns. All three have made sound, if not compelling, cases for themselves as candidates. And all three have articulated solid conservative principles and beliefs that are in complete harmony with those of the Tea Party/9.12 Movement. The Kansas Third District would be genuinely privileged to have any one of these excellent candidates as its Congressional Representative.

I should take this opportunity to pay my profound respects to Messers Rysavy and Gilyeat. These two fine gentlemen are both excellent candidates in their own right. Mr. Gilyeat is a genuinely earnest and sincere man, and he has clearly earned the respect and gratitude of an entire Nation with the sacrifices he has made in defending her. Mr. Rysavy is a very thoughtful, intelligent, serious and affable gentleman. He has no shortage of great ideas, especially on the critical issue of health care, and in the absence of a more qualified candidate such as Representative Lightner, Mr. Rysavy would truly be an excellent choice to carry the Tea Party/9.12 banner and represent the Kansas Third District in the US Congress.

There are two factors that tip the scales in Representative Lightner’s favor: Her experience and her desire...

Click here to read the rest of the article.

America is quickly becoming a country of haves and have nots.

The divide isn’t simple class warfare between those with money and those without, it’s a divide between those on the government dole and those of us too stupid to get jobs as bureaucrats.

USA Today reported on Dec. 11 that the average federal employee’s annual salary is $71,206 compared with $40,331 in the private sector.

This is unsustainable in the long term. It’s probably unsustainable in the short term, and it’s leading to a class of people – private sector employees – who are enslaved.

I shouldn’t have to explain this, but because I hear government officials advocating for tax increases by saying things like, It’s only the cost of a cup of coffee each month, I feel obligated to make this point as clearly as possible:

We, the dolts who were too stupid to find a cherry job in the public sector, work our tails off to provide the luxurious salaries and benefits those who work in government have come to expect and demand. It’s starting to feel an awful lot like government officials are taking most of our money, offering us services we don’t necessarily want at prices we can barely afford and giving us an allowance.

And it’s not just federal employee’s salaries that are far outpacing those of us in the private sector. According to USA Today, local and state employees make an average of $54,101 annually. Again, that’s compared to the lowly $40,331 private-sector employees earn.

And in the face of this recession, when the private sector has laid off 7.3 million people, the public sector keeps adding headcount. Federal employees added 192,700 or 10,000 employees per month during the recession through June. State and local governments have added 33,000 employees.

Um. I’m no math genius, but I have a simple understanding of where federal, state and local employees earn their wages. It’s taken bit-by-bit, dollar-by-dollar out of our paychecks. And while public employees pay taxes too, they also take money from the tax pot. Simple math will show that they take more from the tax pot than what they put in. The same can’t be said for the Average working Joe and Jane. They add money into the tax pot, and add money into the tax pot every time they purchase a soda at Sonic, earn a dollar at work or make a mortgage payment. (Most property taxes are paid through escrow accounts attached to mortgages.)

Public employees are living large in marble, statuesque buildings, fattening themselves up with regularly catered meals and training junkets in Las Vegas, we’re working, working, working here in the private sector attempting to create products and services that Americans actually choose to purchase rather than being forced by the taxman to support.

A lobbyist for federal managers, Jessica Klement, attempted to explain the mind-blowing disparity between federal employees and the rest of us in the USA Today article.

She explained that the government employs highly skilled people such as scientists, physicians and lawyers who make 26 percent less than private workers for comparable jobs.

That explanation, in reality, means that the government is top heavy. The private sector employs its fair share of highly-skilled people too. Sorry sister, I’m just not buying it – unless you force me through the strong-arm tactics of the Internal Revenue Service.

No one wants their friends and neighbors to lose jobs, but in order to save the Republic from crashing down on the enslaved class, it’s a necessity. Government officials should be trimming the fat in this recession. That means laying off employees and instituting salary freezes. Those freezes should be long term – until the average private sector salary catches up or preferably surpasses that of the average public sector employee.

In the meantime, readers, if you know of any jobs in the public sector, shoot me a message. These chains are getting heavy.

As 2010 rolls along, most conservatives in Kansas will be rightfully focused on state and national elections.  In Kansas, there is an open Senate seat and three open House seats, a very rare occurence and one that has the conservative movement focused on those elections.  In each of those races, conservatives are still trying to sort out which candidate to support in the primary, a process that is still ongoing and likely will be throughout the summer.

There are also a number of state races.  With all 125 House seats and one Senate seat (Terrie Huntington) up in the State House, there is an opportunity to move the ball forward there as well.  Kaw & Border has previously discussed the candidacies of Amanda Grosserode, Brett Hildabrand, Greg Smith, and others.  With Brownback likely becoming Governor, Kobach likely becoming Secretary of State and opportunities in the State Treasurer and Attorney General's races, there is a great deal of attention there as well.

However, one source of frustration for this blog and other conservatives within Johnson County has been the historic lack of attention that conservatives have given local elections.   This was seen last year when conservative Jim Churchman lsot to Amy Martin in Olathe, of all places, and when Ben Hodge wasn't able to finish 4th or higher for JCCC.  We just saw it this week when Kevin Straub finished a narrow 3rd in his primary for Shawnee City Council -- the worst part about all those three cases is that all were conservative incumbents.

What adds to the frustration in these cases is the profound impact conservatives could have if they just showed up!   Local elections often have turnout of less than 9% -- and spring primary elections are even less.  The problem is, as we've found out in many of these cases, those turning out in such elections disproportionately represent big government, Johnson County, local Chamber interests -- that of big developers, city employees, teachers unions, or the like.  Those concerned with freedom, liberty, competition, private property rights, and limited government are not represented.

Conservatives stay focused on August and November elections most likely starts with the fact that those elections are simply covered more by the media and are higher profile.  They also deal with social issues like abortion and marriage, which has always been a large part of the conservative movement.  But as the tea party has shown, and with the emergence of such respected organizations as Americans for Prosperity and Club for Growth, there is now a similar rise in economic conservatism, and local government has a large role to play in that field.

Politically speaking, also, having conservatives get involved in local politics helps create a bench of candidates for higher offices like the state and federal levels, giving individuals a chance to get their feet wet locally, while building a solid record to run on for other offices.  While there are a lot of legislative seats in Johnson County -- 29 right now, likely 35 by 2012, there are a ton of city council and board seats available as well.  Lenexa has 9, Shawnee has 9, Overland Park has 13, most other cities have at least 7 if not 9.   The school boards all have 6, at least.  The JCCC Board has 7.  Add all those up and you've got a lot of seats where conservatives can make an impact.

And they need to have an impact, and can have an impact.  Despite the pleas from local elected officials who claim that its residents want more government, polls indicate the opposite -- in this poll by Rasmussen, just 23% of Americans say they want higher taxes and more government.  Two-thirds (66%) of voters prefer a government with fewer services and lower taxes.  That number jumps to a meteroic 88% for Republicans, and Johnson County is a Republican county.  With turnout so low in the Spring, if conservatives simply just worked on a plan to get August voters to turn out for April, as they did in 2005 with the marriage amendment, they would be easily swept into office because the numbers would overwhelm the big government liberals that currently vote in Spring elections.

Take Kevin Straub's election on Tuesday.  He finished 3rd with 29%, just 28 votes out of 2nd (enough to qualify) and 45 votes out of first.  Just 100 more votes that do vote in August and not in April would have sent him into the lead.  Just 400 -- which is a possible task if conservatives would deploy like we do in August or even November -- would have made Kevin safe in the April general.

And what did Kevin Straub's defeat mean?  In Shawnee, which has 4 conservatives on the board, that means the mayor will no longer be able to break ties in favor of tax increases, less competition, and big government.  Also, with the impending resignation of Cheryl Scott, it means conservatives won't have a rare local government majority to put all those things to a halt and actually have a government focused on economic freedom, lower taxes, individual liberty, and the like.

Shawnee is rare in that it actually has conservatives on the board.  Lenexa has 0.  Overland Park really has 0.  The JCCC board has 0.  The Olathe School Board has 1.   Why?  Because conservatives don't care.  But they should, and here's why:

- Local governments send lobbyists to Topeka against citizen interests on things like private property, gun rights, property taxes, and the like.  The City of Lenexa has actively campaigned against eminent domain reform, Conceal Carry, and for reform to property tax appraisals. 

- Local governments decide issues such as business licensing.  They tell you how much of your home can be dedicated to your business, how many visitors you can have, how many employees you can have, and what you can do on your own property.   While basic lawas as to noise and such are fine, arbitrary city regulations such as this go beyond the scope of any reasonable government regulation. 

- Local governments decide how many pets you can have, and what kind, with arbitrary rules for doing so.  In most cities, you are limited to two cats and two dogs.  If you want an extra, you have to ask the city for permission -- a ridiculous notion that makes for a city full of law breakers.  If someone owns a large, 5,000 square foot home in western Lenexa, why should the city care if they have 5 cats, as long as there are no health or abuse concerns?  This is anti-freedom.

- Local governments have large budgets -- running into the tens of millions, if not over 100 million.  Conservatives should care those dollars are spent wisely, and that budgets do not become too big.

- Local governments often sell their souls to developers, picking between winners and losers in deciding what businesses to support.   This is inherently a conservative issue.

- Local government is what often grows the fastest, even beyond the bloated state and national governments, and where TABOR and other reforms are needed.

We could go on and on.  Point is that local government is where the disease of big government festers, and where the tea party movement and economic conservatism in general needs to have an impact.  They need to sit down and develop a comprehensive plan to encourage people to turn out in April. 

The results of doing so could be profound and positive -- not just in their immediate political impact, but in the long term fiscal health of our state and our cities.

I will argue on behalf of the following viewpoint:  If one is uncertain how a Senator Trey Grayson will vote, then make Rand Paul Kentucky’s next US Senator.

Erick Erickson at Red State wrote an article in favor of Rand Paul on March 1.  Leon Wolf replied on March 2, not for Trey Greyson — he wrote “The jury is still out Trey Grayson” and “I don’t have a strong feeling one way or another on Trey Grayson” — but against Rand Paul.

To be clear on two things:

• I’m not well-versed on statements (good or bad) made by either Ron Paul or Rand Paul.
• I concede it’s easier to be less bothered by a politician from Kentucky or Texas, when a Kansan like myself isn’t required to vote for him.

The debate of Rand vs. Trey, particularly for those of us outside of Kentucky, has far more to do with Ron than Rand.  So I’ll address Ron.  I’ll separate Ron Paul into two categories: the ideology of Ron Paul and the politician of Ron Paul.

First, Ron the politician.  And rather humorously, as with the “overall” Ron, I have polarizing reactions:

• I could do with less of him.  Two things come to mind:  I agree with Leon Wolf’s frustration that Ron Paul still accepts earmarks.  Even more bothersome to me was that he inexplicably endorsed Alaska’s enormous earmarker Don Young over Sean Parnell in the 2008 Republican primary for the US House.  Young won by less than 500 votes.
• I’m incredibly thankful that he ran for President in 2008.  Why: because of first-time voters.  The Republican party was (and remains) in a rather sad state, with regard to talking about good government, but then acting like Democrats with spending, incompetence, and corruption.  I’ll bet that Ron Paul was the only reason for many first-time, college-aged voters to pay any attention to the Republican presidential primary, rather than immediately jumping over to the Obama campaign in its early stages.  Among 18-29-year-old voters, John Kerry won by 9 points in 2004, but Obama won this group by 34 points in 2008.  It seems reasonable to me that Ron Paul helped with the youth vote.

Now, to Ron Paul’s ideology and how he usually acts (apart from random Don Young endorsements, etc.).  Leon Wolf described Ron’s thinking as “warped,” “ridiculous,” “odious,” and “morally offensive”:

• In general, more libertarian than the average DC Republican.
• Willing to talk about issues that the average member of Congress won’t talk about.
• Most of the criticism of Ron Paul from conservatives appear to be on foreign policy, specifically with regard to a much greater “hands-off” policy.

It's not just a cup of coffee