As an observer of the political scene I’ve come to appreciate the many unique personalities that inhabit Washington , D.C. Some are known for their eccentric behavior, some for the causes they champion, some for the scandals in which they’ve been embroiled and some just because they are so reliably inept.

While I was perusing a list of favorite Christmas and holiday songs, it occurred to me that some of those songs could be re-written in tribute to these selfless men and women who have distinguished themselves in the cause of public service.

Toward this end and with apologies to those who were inspired to create them in the first place, the following is how I imagine a few of those songs might be adapted to provide a narrative for the triumphs, travails, peccadilloes and indiscretons of some of our favorite political figures.

Merry Christmas!

· “Hark! As Charlie Rangel Sings” – In a moment of complete candor “the raspy-voiced Congressman from Harlem ” confesses to being a serial tax cheat and all around scofflaw.

· “Rangel We Have Heard is High” – After winning re-election, Charlie Rangel recants his confession and excuses his behavior by claiming that someone of his exalted status should not be expected to conform his behavior to that of ordinary taxpayers.

· “It (Be)came Upon a Midnight Clear” – John Boehner gets all choked up describing the revelation that came to him at 11:59 PM on November 2nd that his anointing as “Speaker” was nigh.

· “A Christmas (Pork Barrel) Carol” – The musical “Scrooge” is the basis for a modern update in which Sen. Mitch McConnell takes on the role of “Tiny Mitch”, a poor Kentucky beggar who wanders the streets of Washington , D.C. lamenting his lost earmarks. Look for a cameo appearance by Harry Reid in the role of Bob Crotchety, the underappreciated counting house clerk who empties his employer’s vault, loots the bank account and maxes out the company credit cards in order to avert a global depression.

· “Good King Obama Claus” – President Barrack Obama adopts a traditional yuletide melody to boast that it was his beneficent reign (and trillion dollar sack of goodies) that restored prosperity to the land.

· “Do You Hear What I Hear?” – Dennis Kucinich pays musical tribute to the chorus of voices in his head.

· “Blue Christmas” – A drunken and soulful Alan Grayson engages in bitter recriminations against the Central Florida voters who decided they’d rather not have a lunatic representing them in Congress.

· “Jingle Bell Crock” – Nancy Pelosi uses an updated version of a popular holiday tune to explain that if it wasn’t for her brilliant leadership things would have been much, much worse for House Democrats.

· “I’ll Be Home (Permanently) for Christmas” – Blue Dog Democrats raise their voices in a poignant and bitter sweet tribute to wherever it was they came from and wherever it is they’ll be moving back to.

· “Over the River and Through the Woods” – It’s a twin spin for Blue Dog Democrats as they sing of their post holiday travel plans including their strategy for navigating past the Potomac on their way out of town.

· “The Little Dumber Boy” – Harry Reid uses a simple percussive arrangement to recount his life story and explain why he really is the intellectual equal of a bag of hammers.

· “Feliz Navidad” – Lindsey Graham and the Amnesty Singers send holiday greetings to our friends from south of the border.

· “Up on the Housetop” – Realizing that cap & tax is now dead & buried, a despondent Henry Waxman belts out a dramatic aria in which he threatens to hurl himself from atop the Capitol dome. When Rep. Waxman discovers that Al Gore has climbed out on the ledge ahead of him, the two embrace and console one another, vowing to fight on until America ’s carbon footprint has been reduced to the size of pre-Columbian fishing village.

· “Let it Grow, Let it Grow, Let it Grow” – The duo of Paul Krugman and Keith Olbermann rework the Sammy Cahn classic in an homage to an enlarging Federal deficit and to advance their unique theory that the only thing wrong with the Democrats’ stimulus plan was that it didn’t spend enough borrowed money.

· “What Child is This?” – Recorded in 2009, John Edwards is at his trial-lawyer best explaining why DNA evidence is inherently unreliable and that Rielle Hunter’s baby couldn’t possibly be his.

· “The First Nobel” – Barrack Obama lifts his voice in tribute to himself and shares his memories of winning the 2009 Nobel Prize. In the second, third, fourth and fifth verses he complains at length that he didn’t win again in 2010 and blames George W. Bush.

· “Dingell Bells” – Michigan Congressman John Dingell, who was just elected to his 29th term (I swear I’m not making this up!), employs a jaunty sleighing melody to describe the persistent ringing in his ears following his party’s drubbing at the polls.

· “Grandma Got Run Over by a Reindeer” – Recognizing that Democrat health care reforms have overlooked the threat posed by rampaging arctic livestock, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius sings of her plan to compel every American to purchase “Reindeer Insurance”. Alan Grayson takes over for the fourth and final verse accusing Republicans of wanting grandma to get run over by a reindeer.

At the top of his list was State Road 13, the two-lane highway that wound its way along the eastern bank of the St. Johns River between Jacksonville and Hastings. While much of the scenery along State Road 13 looks the way it did twenty-five years ago, there’s no mistaking the fact that large portions of it have changed in ways that make it less appealing. Even rural Hastings, once the cabbage and potato capital of Florida, has attracted its share of new residential development.

I was born and raised in Florida and like most native Floridians of a certain age who remember what our state used to look like, it saddens me to see how much it’s changed.

But I’m also a realist who understands that Florida, with so much to offer, was always destined to evolve over time. That doesn’t mean we have to accept unbridled growth or embrace every proposed development that comes down the pike, but its does mean we need to accept the fact that Florida will continue to attract new residents and that as we grow our state will change in ways we may not like.

The solution to this problem lies in the application of reasonable controls (like the comprehensive plans already mandated by state law) that will allow for the level of continued development necessary to sustain us economically while still ensuring that growth takes place in an orderly manner that doesn’t overwhelm us.

What we don’t need, especially during this period of diminished prosperity, is the passage of Amendment 4 – the so-called ‘Hometown Democracy’ amendment – with its mandate that requires every change to a community’s comprehensive plan to be put before the voters for their approval. As one opponent described it, using Amendment 4 to control growth is “like using a sledgehammer to kill an ant.”

I support the comprehensive planning effort and I believe our communities would be better served if our elected officials demonstrated greater fidelity to the plans that are already in place, but Amendment 4 is not the way to achieve this. As it is written – and it’s written poorly – Amendment 4 is a prescription for disaster that will do immediate and lasting damage to Florida’s economy.

‘Hometown Democracy’ is a mass of contradictions based on a series of suspect claims and faulty premises that would, if passed, send the unmistakable signal that Florida was no longer business friendly. Whenever planning for a major start-up, expansion or relocation is subject to uncertainty you can be sure that business owners and major corporations will think twice before putting Florida on any short list.

Don’t believe me? Here are five very good reasons to vote against Amendment 4:

1. Advocates for ‘Hometown Democracy’ argue for its passage based on the faulty premise that “overdevelopment crashed Florida’s economy, leaving us with empty buildings and foreclosed subdivisions.”

Not true. Overbuilding was the symptom, not the cause.

The cause of the overbuilding was an overheated housing market fueled by lax lending standards and artificially low interest rates. At one point almost anyone could get a mortgage and the mortgages they got frequently featured artificially low interest rates – sometimes starting out at zero percent – that were tied to adjustable rate mortgages. These were the factors that combined to create the speculative bubble that “crashed Florida’s economy.”

It’s a fact: Oversupply results from an upsurge in demand and demand is closely tied to price. Since most of the purchase price of a home is financed, the ‘cost’ of a home is, in reality, the cost of the mortgage, i.e., the amount of the monthly mortgage payment. When interest rates are low people can afford to pay more for a house and when mortgages are handed out like candy, everyone is in the market to become a homeowner. As a result, housing prices were bid up beyond what they were actually worth so that when the bubble eventually burst, the market collapsed.

Look at it this way: If everyone in Northeast Florida suddenly received a low interest, $100,000 line of credit for the purpose of buying a new car, the price of automobiles would be bid up overnight to astronomical levels. When the credit dries up and the money to fund these purchases runs out, the bubble will burst and the market value of those cars will plummet. In such a scenario who’s at fault? The automobile manufacturers who built and sold the cars in the first place, or those who enabled the buyers to finance their purchases at prices that were unsustainable?

If you want to blame someone for the real estate crash, blame Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd. Don’t blame the developers for anything more than being just dumb enough to get sucked in by cheap money and plenty of hype.

As for the glut of commercial real estate that now sits vacant and that Amendment 4 organizers spend so much time complaining about, someone should remind them that those who own the empty storefronts and vacant warehouses are still required to pay property taxes regardless of occupancy rates.

2. ‘Hometown Democracy’ can’t deliver on the one thing it’s been promising Florida’s voters: An end to speculative real estate development.

‘Hometown Democracy’ supporters claim that rampant speculation in the real estate market led to excessive and unnecessary building, causing our economy tank. Their argument is that the referenda mandated by Amendment 4 are the only way voters can keep the development interests in check.

For this to be true, the effects of ‘Hometown Democracy’ would have to be fairly drastic, tamping down on speculative real estate development to the point where overbuilding would never be again be a problem.

But in an attempt to deflect criticism that Amendment 4 will damage Florida’s economy, their own website admits – and I swear I’m not making this up – that Florida’s “local master plans have plenty of land set aside for development [that] builders could be building right now if it weren’t for the busted real estate bubble. In fact, there’s enough land set aside in Florida’s local comprehensive plans right now accommodate 100 million people – five times more than the 18 million people we have living here now.”

Huh?

First they say the problem is too much development and that Amendment 4 is the only way voters can nix it, then they turn right around and admit that our existing land use arrangements will permit a level of future building and development sufficient to accommodate another 100 million souls. Which is it?

If the “speculators” are prone to overbuild and if overbuilding is the source of our problems, then what difference will ‘Hometown Democracy’ make if there’s already “enough land set aside” for overbuilding to occur under the comprehensive plans that are already in place?

3. Hometown Democracy will hurt Florida’s economy and kill jobs. It’s a prescription for a permanent recession.

If the purpose of Amendment 4 is to prevent a significant amount of commercial and residential real estate development then the inevitable result must be a diminished level of economic activity associated with that development. That there will be both immediate and long term financial consequences, direct and indirect, is beyond dispute. The only question is how much damage will be done to Florida’s economy.

According to a study by the Washington Economic Group, “Amendment 4’s passage will have potentially devastating consequences to Florida’s economy at a time when the economic situation at both the state and national levels is uncertain…[and] when attracting new businesses to Florida is essential…”.

As for the number of jobs that will be endangered if Amendment 4 passes, the study pegs those losses at just over 265,000. And this doesn’t include the loss of jobs that would have been created in the future had Florida voters rejected Amendment 4 outright. According to the study, “…Amendment 4…would affect the whole economy of Florida, [including the] loss of potential new businesses expanding to and locating in Florida and the loss of high-wage and high-skill jobs in sectors that may not be directly impacted by Amendment 4.”

The study also calculated the financial cost to Florida’s economy that would follow Amendment’s adoption and concluded that in the most likely scenario those losses would top $34 billion annually. This translates into a $2.1 billion impact on Northeast Florida alone which by my estimation would mean a direct hit of approximately $4,500 per household. This is no trifling sum and would be enough to set back the income gains of working families by at least a decade.

Note: The study by the Washington Economic Group was funded by the opponents of Amendment 4. However, no one inside the ‘Hometown Democracy’ movement has been able to credibly impugn its methodology, disprove its conclusions or offer up any plausible scenario for how Amendment 4 would not result in significantly reduced economic activity. That’s because the whole point of Amendment 4 is to paralyze Florida’s building sector without regard to its effect on our economy as whole!

4. The effects of Amendment 4 go far beyond land use and will involve every aspect of a community’s comprehensive plan.

Advocates like to say that Amendment 4 will only involve local ‘land-use’ decisions, suggesting that every other aspect of a community’s comprehensive plan is off limits and implying that voters will only have to concern themselves with one particularly narrow aspect of the planning process.

But Amendment 4 goes well beyond ‘land-use’ and will require citizens to vote on changes to every element of a community’s comprehensive plan. The Florida Supreme Court said as much in an advisory opinion back in 2005 when Amendment 4 was first under consideration.

As recounted in an editorial in the Palm Beach Post – the hometown paper of the organizers of ‘Hometown Democracy’ – “the court presented a lengthy and detailed list of what [portions of a community’s comprehensive plan] would be subject to a referendum. [The list included a comprehensive plan’s] capital improvement element; a future land-use plan element; a traffic circulation element … a sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage, potable water, and natural groundwater aquifer recharge element; a conservation element; a recreation and open space element; a housing element; a coastal management element; an intergovernmental coordination element; a transportation element; an airport master plan; a public buildings and related facilities element; a recommended community design element; a general area redevelopment element; a safety element; a historical and scenic preservation element; an economic element …”

Don’t want to believe the justices of the Florida Supreme Court? Then check out the website of the Department of Community Affairs, the state agency tasked with overseeing the process by which local governments create and implement their comprehensive plans. According to the DCA, “comprehensive plans contain chapters or “elements” that address future land use, housing, transportation, infrastructure, coastal management, conservation, recreation and open space, intergovernmental coordination, and capital improvements.”

“Vote No on 4”, the most vocal of the groups aligned against Amendment 4, makes the point even more bluntly when it says that “Amendment 4 is so poorly written that it doesn’t even provide exceptions for vital community needs such as hospitals, police stations and schools.”

Because referenda could not be limited only to maters involving ‘land-use’, the conclusion of the Palm Beach Post editorial board was that “ballots would be packed with arcane matters. Routine government activity could slow”.

5. The referenda required by ‘Hometown Democracy’ will invite endless litigation.

Imagine an environment in which even the most routine matters touching upon any aspect of a city or county’s comprehensive plan must be placed before the voters for their approval; a world in which plan amendments must appear on the ballot as precisely worded summaries acceptable to all parties.

In the polarized and fractious world of radical no-growth environmental groups vs. real estate developers, does anyone really think the respective parties will work cooperatively to achieve a just and equitable outcome?

It’s much more likely that the lawyers for each side will contest the wording of ballot summaries – which by statute cannot exceed 75 words in length and must accurately reflect the nature and scope of any proposed change – by filing lawsuits challenging those summaries prior to every election.

Consider the experience of St. Pete Beach where a local version of Amendment 4 was passed several years ago. The city has been sued numerous times and by various interest groups over the wording of ballot summaries when those interest groups were afraid the wording would place them at a disadvantage. Even if the suit failed to change the ballot language before the referendum, it would give plaintiffs who didn’t like the outcome the standing they’d need to continue litigating after the election in the hope of overturning the result or tying up the project in court.

One public official close to the situation who was interviewed by the St. Petersburg Times predicts that if Amendment 4 passes, the litigation over ballot summaries experienced by St. Pete Beach would “quickly become ‘copy and paste’ lawsuits, readily available to any disgruntled special-interest group on the losing end of a land-planning referendum.”

———————————————–

We don’t live in a democracy; we live in a republic, a democratic republic where we elect leaders to represent us. These leaders are in turn bound by the rule of law and by our Constitution and if they act in a manner contrary to what voters expect, are subject to removal from office on Election Day.

Plebiscites and referenda may have a role to play when deciding on major bond issues or tax initiatives, but using them for the purpose of routine decision making sets a dangerous precedent that runs the risk paralyzing our cities and counties in between elections.

Here it is in a nut shell: Either we trust our system of representative government or we don’t. It’s that simple.

When Charlie Crist vetoed the legislation, I put those columns aside and began to write about the rampant speculation that Crist would use the veto to position himself to run for the Senate as an independent. Although I strongly suspected Crist would bolt the Republican Party, there were enough good arguments against it to warrant a will-he-or-won’t-he analysis.

Work on that column – which lasted for about a day and a half – came to a halt when even a casual reading of the tea leaves revealed that Crist had no intention of honoring his pledge to remain in the Republican primary.

I still plan to write about education reform, but now that Charlie Crist has officially declared himself an independent candidate for the U.S. Senate (and in the process proved that he has no loyalty to any cause larger than his ego), wouldn’t it be more instructive to concentrate on the one question worth asking: Can Charlie Crist win as an independent?

In a word: No.

Here’s why:

1. The polls are not encouraging. Media spin notwithstanding, recent polling on a hypothetical three-way race for the US Senate isn’t very encouraging for Governor Crist. A Rasmussen poll of likely voters released last week had Rubio at 37%, Crist at 30% and Kendrick Meek at 22%. An earlier Quinnipiac poll, taken just after the veto, showed Crist slightly ahead at 32% with Rubio and Kendrick Meek at 30% and 24% respectively. That result was well within the margin of error and given the dynamics of a live-fire campaign, probably will be Charlie’s high water mark.

2. Charlie Crist will become the poster child for everything that’s reprehensible about politicians. When Senate Bill 6 was working its way through the legislature Crist had committed himself to signing. Then he started to have second thoughts. To hear the Governor tell it, it was because he’d spent the week leading up to the veto “listening to the people”. When he finally vetoed the bill, Crist assured reporters that “it [had] nothing to do with politics; it [was] all about the children of Florida.” We’re supposed to believe the most calculating politician to come out of Florida in a generation never once thought about the political consequences of such a move? Right.

3. Charlie Crist will be indelibly tagged as the greatest flip-flopper in Florida history. In his Fox News interview on March 28th with Chris Wallace, Crist was asked straight up if would even consider running as an Independent. His answer? “I’m running as a Republican.” Throughout the legislative session the Crist campaign was assuring anyone who would listen that Charlie was fully committed to running as a Republican in the Republican Party. Oops!

4. The (Jeb) Bush factor. With Rubio in the lead in a Republican primary and for the sake of party unity, it was likely the former Governor would have remained on the sidelines until after the Primary Election. But with Crist running as an independent the still popular Bush has the perfect opening to wade in and give his full throated support to Marco Rubio. Those who underestimate the importance of Jeb Bush in Florida politics do so at their own peril: Despite one of the most negative, fractious and expensive special election campaigns in recent memory, John Thrasher broke through the pack and won election to the Florida Senate largely on the strength of a Jeb Bush endorsement.

5. Rubio will make a credible claim that Crist will vote with President Obama and the Democrats. Because Republicans are unlikely to win back the Senate in 2010 and because Charlie won’t be able to indulge his ambitions by serving in the minority, it’s only logical that Crist will vote to organize with the Democrats and bargain his support in return for a committee chairmanship or some other plum. The only way Crist could blunt this attack is by assuring voters that he would vote to organize with the Republicans. But who would believe him? The surest way for Rubio to carve out a victory is to tie Crist to an increasingly unpopular President and to make the Rubio-Crist portion of the contest a referendum on Mr. Obama.

6. Charlie Crist will become Kendrick Meek’s number one target. With the Governor running as an independent, Kendrick Meek will immediately shift the focus of his campaign to a sustained attack on Charlie Crist. Think about it: If the race could be won with as little as 34% or 35% of the vote, where does Meek go in search of his margin of victory? He certainly doesn’t try to peel away Rubio supporters; he goes after Charlie Crist instead! If Meek runs to the center while painting Charlie as the candidate no voter can trust, he ends up poaching votes from a hapless Crist.

7. With Charlie Crist running as an independent, Rubio can run to the center. The only reason some Republicans and moderates would consider voting for Crist is if they saw Rubio as out of the mainstream. But with the Republican nomination all but locked up, Rubio can concentrate on the kitchen table issues that concern most voters: Jobs, the deficit and long term economic security. While still touting himself as the “true conservative in the race”, Marco can craft a message of common sense conservatism that should appeal to any voter concerned with the overreaching agenda of the Democrat Party.

8. The Republican Party – at both the state and national level – will come down on Crist like a ton of bricks. Already the embodiment of RINO (Republican-In-Name-Only) Republicanism, Charlie has now made himself a pariah. He’ll be repudiated by every Republican in elective office and shunned by almost every political ally he ever had. Endorsements for Rubio will flood in and as Crist ratchets up his attacks, anti-Crist sentiment will only intensify. The sin qua non of party politics, win or lose, is loyalty to the party and its nominees. Charlie Crist is about to discover that the world of politics is a different place when you violate this basic tenet.

9. Charlie Crist will be running without the benefit of a grassroots organization. It’s nice to have lots of money, but in politics there’s no substitute for boots on the ground when it comes to boosting voter turnout. In a tight race, a well organized get-out-the-the-vote effort can provide the margin of victory by padding a candidate’s vote total by as much as 3% or 4%. The advantage political parties have is that they’re organized down to the precinct level and have large numbers of volunteers they can draw on. By bailing on the Republican Party, Crist loses any hope for a decent ground game and in a close election that places him at a major disadvantage.

10. Any Republican or conservative who votes for Crist will have to perform a series of mental gymnastics that are almost too painful to contemplate. The right to vote one’s conscience is sacrosanct and there are as many reasons for how we vote as there are voters. Believing that he was a genuine and thoughtful conservative, I voted for Charlie Crist in both the Primary and General Election in 2006. Plenty of other voters – Republicans, Independents and more than a few Democrats – voted the same way. But in a political environment where integrity and principled leadership are at a premium, it’s hard to imagine how Charlie Crist can ever make that sale again. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

In Florida, as in much of the country, the battle for votes is in the middle. Hard core Republicans, about 30% of likely voters, and hard core Democrats, another 30%, will support their party’s nominee no matter what. This means the winning margin for Crist has to come from somewhere inside the same block of swing votes that gave Barrack Obama his winning margin in 2008.

But the independent voters who’ve become disillusioned with Obama and who abandoned the Democrat party in Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts are those least likely to view an independent run by Crist as anything more than political opportunism.

Running as an independent, Charlie Crist will only reinforce the widespread cynicism that underlies voter dissatisfaction. In an election cycle where an angry electorate is motivated largely by distrust, what could be worse than a politician who abandons his party – after clearly forswearing this possibility – for the purpose of gaining a political advantage?

No matter how he spins its, Crist will have a hard time explaining why he felt comfortable running and winning as a Republican for over twenty years only to bug out when the tide turned against him.

If you want to know what the campaign narrative will sound like, here it is:

Marco Rubio: If you send Charlie Crist to Washington he’ll vote with the Barrack Obama and the Democrats.

Charlie Crist: No, I won’t.

Marco Rubio: How can you believe a man who deliberately misled Florida voters? How can you trust someone who turned his back on his own party?

Charlie Crist doesn’t win in that exchange. Marco Rubio does.

Now that the Democrats have officially voted to subvert our health care system and, in the process, to shred the Constitution, let us remind ourselves that we still live in a functioning Republic that prominently features a well defined process for redressing grievances at the ballot box; a process that allows us to overturn bad legislation by removing bad legislators from office.

So let’s cut to the chase: The Democrat Party has dragooned the American people into a program of health care “reform” that will explode the deficit, kill jobs, increase health care costs and delay economic recovery.

The only rational response is to execute a plan to remove them from power.

If we are to repeal the Democrat’s health care legislation and replace it with something that would actually work, here are the items we need to agree on and the things we need to be doing:

1. The repeal of the Democrat’s health care legislation must be the number one mission of the Republican Party over the next two election cycles. It starts by taking back the House of Representatives in 2010 and by making significant inroads in the Senate. It ends in 2012 by regaining a Republican majority in the Senate and with the election of a Republican President.

2. There is no such thing as a moderate or conservative Democrat. Any Democrat elected to Congress who votes to organize with a majority which then turns around and elects someone like Nancy Pelosi as Speaker is an enabler of the hard core left. Any Democrat that votes to elect leaders who then appoint the likes of Barney Frank, Henry Waxman or Charlie Rangel to key chairmanships is making common cause with those who are committed to a corrupt legislative process and a radical transformation of America. After the health care bill passed last night Michigan Democrat Bart Stupak, who famously swore he would never support any legislation that lacked an imbedded prohibition on abortion funding and who then betrayed this pledge with a ‘yes’ vote, actually took to the floor to denounce the same Republicans who had gone to great lengths to support him.

3. Now that the legislation has been passed into law we need to study every jot and tittle in the 2,700 page monstrosity in order to expose its deficiencies. Every conservative activist, every conservative think tank and every elected official who claims kinship with the conservative movement needs to scrutinize the legislation and become familiar with its provisions. Democrats are mistaken if they think that passage of the bill will end the critique. In reality, the process of dissecting, examining and exposing the legislation has only just begun.

4. The Republican Party, talk radio, conservative media outlets and every conservative in the blogosphere needs to spend the next seven and a half months exposing every lie told by Democrats, every corrupt backroom deal and every sleight-of-hand trick that was used (or contemplated) in passing the health care bill. The Democrats sold their snake oil (to the 35% of Americans who seem eager to buy it) using distortions, half-truths and falsehoods. Voters need to be reminded of these deceptions at every turn.

5. Republicans need to put together a comprehensive proposal explaining – in summary form – precisely how they will go about repealing ObamaCare and explaining the five or six pieces of legislation that would replace it. Republicans (and conservatives) have many thoughtful suggestions for reforming our dysfunctional health care system. It’s time they were presented as a complete package.

6. Every Chamber of Commerce in the country needs to conduct a survey to determine how the health care legislation will affect its member businesses. They need to report on the number of businesses that will postpone hiring or be forced into layoffs, as well as the number of businesses that will be unable to invest in job creation as a result of health care ‘reform’. Caterpillar Inc. reports that its health care costs will increase by over $100 million in the first year of ObamaCare. Whether large or small, it’s unlikely that Caterpillar will be the only business in America similarly affected.

7. The Tea Party movement needs to turn it up a notch and begin organizing like minded voters at the precinct level; voters who can then carry the Tea Party message door-to-door in their communities. In many ways, the Tea Party movement acts as the conscience of mainstream conservatism and its organizers have performed a valuable service by rallying opposition to the ill conceived policies of the Obama administration and its collaborators in Congress. As they continue their non-partisan voter education efforts, I also hope they will decide to publish a voter guide that will explain each candidate’s background and positions on key issues. Exposing the views and voting records of Congressional Democrats will go a long way toward unseating them in November.

8. The Republican Party needs to get serious about recruiting candidates who can defeat incumbent Democrats in 2010. Allen Boyd, the panhandle Democrat who represents Florida’s 2nd Congressional District, voted for Cap and Trade in 2009 and for health care reform on Sunday. According to insiders, Boyd believes he can get away with this because the Republican candidates who’ve filed to run against him are not seen as especially strong and haven’t been able to raise much money. With the filing deadline for Congressional candidates at the end of April, the Republican Party is quickly running out of time to recruit competitive candidates. It’s time for the Republican National Committee to step into the breach and guarantee adequate funding in the General Election for any quality candidate willing to take on a Blue Dog.

A lot of things can happen between now and November and Democrats are counting on being able to engage in just enough obfuscation, pandering and demagoguery to maintain their majority in Congress.

For those conservatives who want to turn the Democrat’s out of office now is the time to pitch in and get involved. Sitting on the sidelines while waiting for someone else to do the heavy lifting won’t do anything to move the needle come Election Day.

To wit, his statement in a CNBC interview when he said that “if it was a choice today between Plan A, which is what we’ve got, or Plan B… the Senate bill, I would vote for the Senate bill. But I would much rather see a plan C that really attacks costs.”

Huh?

I thought that the whole point of the Democrat plan was to reduce health care costs. Wasn’t it President Obama who said that we couldn’t fix the economy until we got health care costs under control?

Mr. Buffett’s observation that the Obama-Reid-Pelosi plan will do nothing to control costs isn’t news to anyone who’s followed the now year-long debate on health care “reform”. What is news is Mr. Buffett’s confession that the “[Democrats] came up with a bill that really doesn’t attack the cost situation that much” while still continuing his support for the folly that is health care reform.

How come the media isn’t all over this?

Sorry. Dumb question.

Despite his refusal to come out in opposition to the Senate bill, at least Mr. Buffett has confirmed, albeit in the eleventh hour, what conservatives have been saying all along: There’s no real “reform” in health care reform.

Rather than restoring the market conditions that would “bend the cost curve downward”, the Democrat plan doubles down on entitlement spending and increases the demand for health care services without doing anything to improve supply.

In fact, the Senate bill that Nancy Pelosi is so desperately trying to get passed in the House is a prescription for significantly higher health care costs in the years ahead.

Here’s why the Democrat plan will make health care more expensive:

• It perpetuates an expensive, dysfunctional insurance model. Instead of allowing consumers to purchase low cost major medical insurance to protect against the consequences of a high cost illness or injury, the Democrat plan effectively outlaws this approach in favor of an insurance model that provides coverage for even to most routine health care purchases. It’s like having homeowners insurance that pays for cutting the grass! This isn’t insurance, it’s overpriced pre-paid medical care that will inevitably lead to higher levels of consumption and shortages in supply.
   
• It discourages competition between insurance companies and limits choice. Instead of promoting competition by allowing insurance companies to sell the kinds of policies people want to buy (think major medical), the Health Choices Czar will dictate mandatory benefit packages and force every insurance company to sell what is essentially the same product. Insurance carriers will be reduced to the status of public utilities and will have no ability to differentiate themselves in the marketplace by offering a selection of products at a variety of price points.
   
• It leads to adverse selection in the risk pool and higher insurance premiums. Although the Democrat plan imposes an (unconstitutional) individual mandate requiring everyone to purchase health insurance, the penalties for those who refuse coverage are so light that many will simply opt out. Coupled with the “guaranteed issue” provision in the legislation that forces insurance companies to accept those with preexisting conditions, there’s a strong incentive under the proposed plan for healthy people to avoid buying insurance until they’re sick and need medical care. As a result, risk pools will tend to attract more of the chronically ill, which will cause premiums to increase, which in turn will cause increasing numbers of healthy people to drop their coverage altogether. In the end, only those whose premiums are heavily subsidized by the government will be able to afford insurance.
   
• It produces massive cost shifting onto the private sector. President Obama and the Democrats continue to tout deficit reduction as a key selling point of their health care plan. Even though it’s a fiction, they make this claim believing that many Americans will equate deficit reduction with cost reduction. But they are not at all the same thing. Under their plan, deficit reduction is accomplished largely with taxes on health care purchases (high value insurance plans, medical devices, over-the-counter drugs, etc.) and Medicare spending cuts that slash hospital reimbursement rates, both of which will result in significant cost shifting back to the private sector. This shell game may reduce the deficit, but it will drive up insurance premiums and increase costs for consumers.

The American people have grown weary of the debate over health care. They are fatigued by the effects of a severe recession and frightened by the prospects of a diminishing prosperity. Now is not the time to impose major social change via legislative fiat; change that will fundamentally alter the relationship between government and the people.

The cynical among them are so distrustful of the Democrat’s motives that they believe the only purpose behind the reform agenda is to make health care so bureaucratic, and health insurance so expensive, that the only option eight or nine years from now will be single payer, universal health care.

What’s happening in Washington D.C. – the disinformation, the pandering and the manipulation of the legislative process – is fundamentally corrupt. If Democrats succeed in forcing through their health care legislation it will foment a level of resentment that will poison political discourse in this country for the next twenty years.

When the voters elected President Obama they thought they were getting a post-partisan centrist who would fix the economy and govern as a moderate. His message of “change you can believe in” was a pledge of accountability and a promise to the American people that he could be trusted to do the right thing.

President Obama needs to reflect on that promise and on his duty to the American people.

President Obama needs to do the right thing and stop forcing change on a nation that wants no part of it.

Here are my thoughts:

1. Rather than a “Grand Plan” intended to transform Downtown Jacksonville in one fell swoop, an incremental approach would allow the City to put some low cost fixes in place while waiting for the economy to turn around. We might have a clearer path to follow if we allowed organic change to play out over the next few years. A revitalization effort that unfolded naturally and in response to market forces might be superior to one that originated from a master plan.

2. Concentrate on the low hanging fruit and do the common sense things that are likely to produce the best result for the least amount of money. As Times-Union columnist Ron Littlepage suggested (he’s not always my cup of tea but when he’s right, he’s right), the City should buy a couple of pressure washers and some paint. Upgrade the property safety (and appearance) codes and then enforce them. Pick up litter, keep the City’s landscaped property well manicured and fix the Southbank Riverwalk (although I kind of like Friendship Fountain the way it is).

3. There are three populations that support any Downtown: Those who work there, those who live there and those who visit. The Times-Union reports there are 55,000 people who work Downtown but only 2,500 who live there. If these numbers are correct, those who work Downtown constitute a large pool of potential new residents that should be tapped into. If it turns out these prospective tenants are unwilling to relocate Downtown because it’s too expensive or is otherwise unattractive, then we will have gone a long way toward identifying whatever problems underlie the issue of Downtown livability.

4. On a related note, be kind to developers with the high-rise apartment buildings who are trying to make Downtown more livable. This is especially true for those that received City backed financing and who now find themselves trying to stay afloat in a deteriorating real estate market. Some are asking the City to lighten their burden by allowing them to make interest-only loan payments until the market improves. If local leaders make demands that these developers are unable to meet, our City will get a reputation for being unreasonable. Cut these developers some slack.

5. To bring more visitors to Downtown, especially those drawn from the lucrative tourist market, some have argued we should invest in a new and improved convention center. But a new convention center only makes sense if the Tourist Development Council can demonstrate that a level of demand exists sufficient to retire the revenue bonds necessary to finance it. If we do build a new convention center it should be configured to hold a number of smaller events simultaneously and should incorporate all the latest video conferencing technology. Being able to do smaller conferences and conventions exceptionally well might be the niche market that Jacksonville needs to pursue.

6. If what we’re looking for is to establish a thriving ‘core’ at the center of our city, then we need to expand our definition of ‘Downtown’ to include nearby neighborhoods that are vital in this effort. Downtown proper should be the locus of office based commerce, government, high rise living and the major sports and performance venues. For a thriving mercantile and entertainment district in close proximity to Downtown, we should be thinking about the Five Points area of Riverside, the Southbank and San Marco Square. These areas work because they are street level, brightly lit and have lots of parking. If the City wants to be inclusive they should draw Brooklyn, Lavilla and Springfield into the mix as well.

7. The areas under the Fuller Warren Bridge immediately East and West of Park Street look like open cesspools. I once saw a truck that hauls sewage emptying its tank into “Lake Cesspool West”. It turns out they had a contract to haul non-toxic wastewater from a FDOT construction site nearby…but still. Nobody passing these eyesores would be persuaded that Jacksonville is serious about its Downtown core. While they’re at it, the City needs to take a serious look at the perimeter of downtown for other aesthetically challenged streetscapes.

8. The City of Jacksonville should take a lesson from the community based efforts that have turned around Riverside and Five Points. For years Riverside was treated like a red-headed stepchild. It wasn’t until community leaders created Riverside Avondale Preservation 35 years ago that things began to turn around. Last year a group of visionaries led by Dr. Wayne Wood and Doug Coleman launched the Riverside Arts Market as a project of Riverside Avondale Preservation. Every Saturday from March through December the area under the Fuller Warren Bridge at Riverside Avenue is alive with artists, artisans and organic produce vendors. The Downtown Art Walk is another example of how creative thinking can create a new dynamic for an urban neighborhood.

9. Build a decent upscale grocery store somewhere in the Southbank area between the St. Johns River and I-95. Such a location would be accessible from San Marco and St. Nicholas as well as Downtown and would create the essential anchor that every community needs to build around. Riverside had no neighborhood grocery store for over 30 years and languished as a result. When Publix opened its new store in 2001 it was the catalyst for a number of commercial and residential projects throughout the area and the impetus for a revitalized Five Points shopping district.

10. Like it or not, the perception among many northeast Florida residents is that downtown Jacksonville is unsafe. More police and a highly visible City run security force could help alter this perception. Riverside Avondale Preservation has recently suggested to the JSO that it secure several dozen AmeriCorps volunteers to aid in this effort. Each ‘full time’ volunteer would cost the City less than $2,000 a year and could provide the level of security that’s currently missing. (And yes, I know that the concept of a paid ‘volunteer’ is a misnomer, especially one funded by a Federal grant).

11. I’ve saved the most controversial item for last: Downtown will always have an image problem as long as there are large numbers homeless roaming the streets. When I refer to the ‘homeless’ I’m not talking abut families who are without shelter because a breadwinner lost her job. Folks like these respond well to temporary assistance and can get back on their feet. I’m talking about those who’ve become habituated to life on the street and who suffer from mental illness, substance abuse problems or both. Having worked in and around Downtown, and as someone who lives in Riverside, I can tell you that the homeless have an affect on the neighborhoods they inhabit. While we need to be thoughtful and compassionate, encouraging the homeless to relocate from Downtown is just good policy.

Carl Sandburg, American poet and biographer of Abraham Lincoln

————————————-——————-————————————-——————

One of the most disappointing aspects of year one in the age of Obama has been listening to those who believe that America’s demise is both imminent and inevitable.

I could not disagree more.

In fact, I believe America is entering a period of renewal and that the Tea Party movement, a genuine grassroots phenomenon that arose almost spontaneously as a reaction to an overreaching political class, is proof of this.

But the Tea Party movement is more than just a response to government excess. As it gained strength, it became a forceful proponent of the basic principles and beliefs that have traditionally sustained the conservative movement in America. Ironically, these are the same principles and beliefs that until recently had informed the thinking of nearly every influential leader in the Republican Party.

Conservatives inside and outside the Tea Party movement will have the opportunity to lead in this renewal if they can clearly articulate their core beliefs to the American people.

The following is how I would explain those core beliefs:

A Statement of the 10 Guiding Principles of the Conservative Movement

• Conservatives believe in the Constitution and that every member of Congress should be guided by it when deciding on any piece of legislation. While the Supreme Court may be the final arbiter, we believe there would be fewer cases brought before it if those who legislate were more respectful of the Constitution in the first place. Faithfulness to the Constitution is essential for sustaining the American experiment and preserving our freedoms.
• Conservatives believe in the principle of limited government. The federal government has become a large and intrusive force that asserts the right to exercise almost unlimited power. The widespread belief among some in Congress that the federal government has the right to force individuals to buy health insurance is evidence enough that government has overstepped its bounds.
• Conservatives believe the current level of government spending is excessive and unsustainable. We believe spending on the nonessential is no longer an option and that placing a burden of oppressive debt on future generations is immoral. Our elected officials must be guided by fiscal restraint, strict budget discipline and spending priorities that emphasize what’s essential. Tough decisions will have to be made if we are to restore the nation to financial health.
• Conservatives believe that our tax system must be fundamentally reformed and that the tax burden must be reduced. We believe that poorly conceived tax policy discourages investment, punishes productive citizens and crushes American families. A comprehensive and well conceived overhaul of our tax system is the surest path to an enduring prosperity.
• Conservatives believe in individual freedom and personal responsibility. We believe that people have the right to make their own choices in life and that these choices will ultimately determine success or failure. While we recognize the need to help those who are unable to provide for themselves, no amount of government assistance will ever be enough to transform any adult who is unwilling behave responsibility. A truly compassionate society understands that dependence destroys personal freedom and insists that the able bodied take responsibility for their own lives.
• Conservatives believe that economic justice can only be achieved by a free people, engaged in free enterprise, working to meet the needs of a free market; it cannot be achieved through income redistribution, legislative fiat or the dictates of a command economy. Free market entrepreneurship is the foundation of our prosperity; property rights and the rule of law are its cornerstones.
• Conservatives believe that the first duty of government is to ensure public safety and to provide for a strong national defense. America has enemies who would harm us. If we ignore them, we do so at our peril. We believe that threats to our security must be dealt with directly; complacency is an invitation to another 9-11.
• Conservatives believe that energy independence is vital to our national security and to our economic well being. We believe the only energy sources we can rely on are those that have already proven themselves economically and technologically. As the rest of the world moves forward, the United States cannot allow itself to be held back by those who advocate for a radical and unproven restructuring of our energy economy.
• Conservatives believe in American exceptionalism and that the United States has been a force for good in the modern world. This is not a claim of perfection, nor is it an assertion of any special right; it is simply to acknowledge that in a world where genuine freedom is a rarity, the United States has played an essential role in advancing the basic human rights of all men. No nation in history has had more responsibility thrust upon it and no nation has shouldered that responsibility so well.
• Conservatives believe in the sanctity of human life, in the dignity of every human being and in the power of the human spirit to rise above the circumstances of daily life in the search for life’s eternal truths. Conservatives see “great days possible to men and women of will and vision.”

As silly as his questions were, I answered them with logic, facts and a dose of good fun.

Now it’s my turn.

Here are my five questions for Sen. Menendez. I’ll admit they’re not really wedge questions (there more like wedgie questions: designed to irritate) but they’re just the kind the American people would like him to answer:

Q1: Huh? What the heck are you people thinking of? How dare you monopolize the nation’s agenda with so-called health care “reform” and a cap and trade scheme designed to cripple our economy?! There’s a very bad recession on! Knock it off and get back to work. (I admit that this is both a question and a directive, so feel free to extemporize.)

Q2: Please expand on your answer from above until you can explain yourself to the satisfaction of working Americans (and those Americans who’d like to work if there were any new jobs being created).

Q3: Over here on the right we’ve decided that it should be illegal to teach anyone, especially those bound for the Ivey League, to count past one trillion. Do you agree?

Q4: Let’s assume you guys “fix” health care, cut carbon emissions by 50% and reform the Bowl Championship Series. What good will it do when Iran has the bomb and decides that Biloxi, Mississippi (gambling, you know) is an affront to Islam?

Q5: Have you ever met a payroll? Meeting a payroll week in and week out – one with benefits attached – is a grind. Actually, it’s more than a grind; it’s a life altering experience. I know. I’ve met over 500 payrolls. It changes you and makes you appreciate what’s actually involved in the process of “job creation”. If you’ve never met a payroll I suggest you take a sabbatical from Congress and start a business. You will find it challenging, rewarding and the best educational experience you’ve ever had. By running a business you’ll learn how the world really works, not how you think it should work sitting on a well upholstered chair in the halls of Congress.

Q6: Special bonus question to test your knowledge of the government’s ability to get things done: How many students did the US Department of Education educate last year? Answer: None! Sorry Bob, but this was a trick question. Students are taught in local schools run by local school boards with hard working teachers who actually do the heavy lifting. There may be room for improvement, but I can assure you the improvement will not come from some Washington bureaucrat. The point I’m making is this: Spending money and producing a result are two different things.

Frankly, Bob, you should have seen that one coming.

You guys never learn.

Notice I said he’s decided to “talk” about job creation. That’s because talk is all he’s good at.

Here’s the rub: President Obama doesn’t know the first thing about job creation because he’s never worked in the private sector or met a payroll. If he had any meaningful business experience, or if he understood basic economics, he’d know why his policies have failed to create any new jobs and why his legislative agenda has actually discouraged job growth.

Allow me to explain:

1. Business investment drives job creation.

Jobs are created when businesses expand or when new businesses are created. But growing or starting a business requires an investment.

The cost of the investment – and the cost of hiring employees – must be covered by the increased revenues the investment is expected to generate and, of necessity, must produce a marginal rate of return sufficient to justify any risk.

If the investment can’t drive this level of revenue then it’s not an investment, it’s just an expense.

2. Business climate drives investment.

All business investment involves risk. That’s why business owners are constantly gauging the shifting winds of the business climate. If they see things getting better they’re more likely to take a risk and invest money in their businesses. If they think things will only get worse they’ll stop taking risks altogether.

Health care reform, cap and trade, card check and increased taxes are all guaranteed to drive up costs and threaten profits. They make investing in a business much riskier.

For a business owner the calculation is simply this: “With all these additional costs to contend with, why should I invest in creating a new job when the investment might not produce a return or might actually cause me to lose money?”

With Mr. Obama in the White House most business owners do not expect things to get better any time soon. In fact, most business owners I talk to expect things to get worse if the President gets his agenda through Congress. To put it bluntly, Mr. Obama is scaring the heck out of business owners.

Here it is in a nutshell: In this environment business owners are either unable to accurately calculate risk or they view the potential risk associated with any new business investment as excessive.

That’s why there will be little or no job growth in the months (and maybe years) ahead.

I thought you’d like to know.

Sen. Bob Menendez and his “Wedge” Questions for Republicans: Asked and Answered

New Jersey Senator Bob Menendez, who heads the Democrat Senatorial Campaign Committee and is tasked with preserving the Democrat’s hegemony in the upper chamber, has two important challenges in 2010.

First, to protect Democrats, he must successfully defend those seats currently held by his party, many of which are now seen as likely Republican pick ups;

Second, to protect himself, he must successfully invent strategies that will allow him to deflect the blame when he fails.

Toward this end, the sage of Hoboken has issued a memo to Democrats advising them to frame their opponents in ways he believes are likely to drive important constituencies away from Republicans. It’s the kind of strategy that, if ignored, will allow Senator Menendez the I-told-you-so moment he’ll need when his candidates fail to connect with voters.

Menendez, operating from the predicate assumption that the right is largely populated with extremists and that any Republican who aligns with conservatives would be anathema to swing voters, advises Democrats to frame their opponents with a series of damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t “wedge” questions designed to create a divide between Republican voting blocks. If a Republican candidate answers ‘no’ to any of the questions drafted by Menendez, campaign officials are instructed “to make [the Republican’s] primary opponent or conservative activists know it.”

The comic book narrative of conservatism that informs Democrat thinking, and that is the basis for the wedge-question strategy, is so perfectly consistent with the left’s misreading of the electorate that I hope Democrats fixate on every bit of wisdom that emanates from the oracle of East Orange.

My advice to Republicans is to play rope-a-dope with their Democrat opponents by answering the questions the only way that makes sense: With truth, candor and a dose of good humor.

With that in mind, the following are the five “wedge” questions offered up Bob Menendez, the Garden State guru, along with how I think Republicans should answer when asked:

Q: Do you believe that Barack Obama is a U.S. citizen?

A:  Of course President Obama is a US citizen!  He’s as American as apple pie, provided the apple pie comes with a US birth certificate. If he weren’t a US citizen – naturally born – he couldn’t serve as President. Haven’t you read the Constitution, Bob? Frankly, I don’t get this one. What’s with the Democrat’s obsession with President Obama’s citizenship? If you ask me, you people are starting to sound a bit weird.

By the way, Bob, here’s a question for you: Do you agree with the 35% of Democrats who according to one recent poll believe that George Bush knew about 9/11 before it happened?

Q: Do you think the 10th Amendment bars Congress from issuing regulations like minimum health care coverage standards?

A: This question is deliberately vague. What do you mean by “minimum health coverage standards”?

Do you mean does the 10^th Amendment prohibit the Federal Government from enacting an “individual mandate” whereby every American would be forced to buy health insurance even if they don’t want it? If that’s what you mean then the answer is no, I don’t think the 10th Amendment prohibits it. I THINK THE WHOLE CONSTITUION AND EVERYTHING WE’VE EVER STOOD FOR AS A COUNTRY PROHIBITS IT.  If the Federal Government can order me to buy health insurance, it can order me to eat tofu, paint my house yellow and buy the first season of Jersey Shore on DVD. When conservatives talk about government overstepping its bounds, this is precisely the kind of thing they have in mind.

If by “minimum health coverage standards” you mean using your Health Choices Czar to dictate what kind of health insurance coverage constitutes a minimum acceptable level of benefits, then you would need to create a class of federally chartered health insurance carriers who would have to dance to your tune. Even if you did, you would still be obliged to allow the individual states to regulate health insurance within their own borders and, if you were smart, would allow those companies operating under state supervision to sell insurance across state lines if they chose to.

Q: Do you think programs like Social Security and Medicare represent socialism and should never have been created in the first place?

A: Bob, Bob, Bob. Were you absent the day they taught the New Deal back in high school? Did you sleep through the Johnson administration?

Social Security and Medicare were sold to the American people as actuarially sound insurance programs. The pitch was that premiums, collected over a lifetime, would pay for benefits upon retirement. But in case haven’t heard, Bob, Social Security and Medicare are not actuarially sound. They’re giant Ponzi schemes, the kind Bernie Madoff could only dream of. Social Security and Medicare are what highly paid accounting types would call – and I swear I’m not making this up – BANKRUPT. Between them they’re sporting over $80 trillion in unfunded liabilities. Medicare will have exhausted its trust fund accounts by 2017.

Question for Bob: Don’t you think it would be wise to fix Medicare a before you “fix” health care, or is your plan for helping Medicare beneficiaries to just kick the can down the road for a few more years?

Q: Do you think President Obama is a socialist?

A: I thought he was a Democrat? You mean there’s a difference? Just kidding, Bob.

President Obama has never worked in the private sector, has never met a payroll, created a job or provided a fringe benefit. He’s is an acolyte of Saul Alinsky and in his book, Dreams of My Father, confessed that he gravitated toward the Marxist professors when he was in college. He’s friends with Bill Ayers, sat in church for 20 years listening to liberation theologist Jeremiah Wright and would rather spread the wealth than create it. He bought himself two car companies, wants to re-order one sixth of the American economy (health care) so that government makes all the key decisions and he thinks you cure recessions by growing government and raising taxes. But to answer your question, no, I don’t think he’s a socialist.

Q: Do you think America should return to a gold standard?

A: Good grief. I had no idea there was enough gold anywhere in the world to back all the dollars we’ve been printing! What America should return to is sound economic policy capable of supporting a strong dollar. Frankly, I don’t care what we back the dollar with: licorice, lima beans or Taco Bell coupons. For all I care we could back the dollar with used radiator parts. What I care about at this point in time isn’t a golden dollar, it’s a strong dollar; a dollar that holds its value because it’s issued by a government committed to strict budget discipline and common sense economics.

There’s an axiom in politics that says you never interrupt an opponent when he’s in the process of destroying himself.

I think I’ll heed that advise and close with this:

Great strategy, Bob! Keep up the good work!