Pierce for Senate

THANK YOU

2006-05-05T10:16:00.000-04:00

THANK YOU. That is all I have left to offer to the many who supported my campaign to challenge a two term incumbent senator for the opportunity to represent the people of Ohio. So many offered help and so many provided it over the last ten months, and believe me it was greatly appreciated. It was a daunting task from the start, but one I felt was necessary and one for which I have no regrets for undertaking.

To all those who offered encouragement at the many meetings, Lincoln Day Dinners, and individual chats, I say thank you. To all those who passed my name and website to others, I say thank you. To those who helped with yard signs and at the polls, I say thank you. And, to those who gave financial support, I say thank you.

My most heart felt appreciation goes to those whose gallant efforts to inform the citizenry of Ohio that a choice did exist in spite of the main stream media’s refusal to acknowledge a contested primary. The blog support and the talent of those who write them were greatly appreciated. I only hope and pray that someday people will realize the contribution they are making to our society and the voids they fill created by the laziness or hidden agenda of the main stream media we used to rely upon for a complete news package.

Jan and I were out of town on Wednesday as we watched our daughter, Mary, present and defend her final studio project prior to her receipt of a Master’s degree in Architecture at Washington University in St. Louis. It was a fast trip there and back again, but it gave us tremendous joy to witness her completion of a dream which began as an 8th grader so many years ago.

I spent the Thursday after the election pouring through the final numbers, reading emails from many people offering their disappointments, and phoning a number of others who had helped so much and left messages of their own. But the hardest part for me was the gut wrenching feeling that nothing is going to change - the status quo will continue, and the Nation we leave for our children and future generations will continue to flounder.

I am determined to find a way to continue to speak out in the name of common sense and entice the populace to take a pro-active interest in government rather than a passive “I give up” approach. We must re-engage our citizenry or risk losing a “government of the people, by the people, and for the people.” Please help me find that way and help me deliver that message – future generations are counting on us.

Again, I thank you and I hope we may stay in touch.

Sincerely,

Bill

Final Thoughts

2006-05-01T20:08:00.000-04:00

Ten months ago I began my efforts to challenge a two term incumbent senator for the Republican nomination. Although tiring at times, it has been a complete joy to have traveled the great State of Ohio and meet the diverse people who live here. The geography is as distinct as the people. My only regret is that I did not start out with a digital camera to take pictures of the all the county courthouses and their surroundings I have seen – they are simply magnificent.

You have seen a good deal of writings concerning my philosophy and principles through the emails you have received or the links offered below. When added to my website, blogs, and video, I have attempted to provide the clearest picture possible. I pray that I have succeeded.

I have thoroughly enjoyed meeting so many people across the State and having philosophical discussions concerning the role of government, the GOP, and the legacy we are leaving to future generations of Americans. It has been a great pleasure, and it is why I have made the commitment to continue the process should I receive the nomination and be elected in the November General Election.

Having met nearly all of the Republican County Chairs and many Central/Executive Committees, I have offered my commitment to be in each county – large or small – at least two times a year for my full term in office. One of visits will be a town hall meeting so we can engage the citizenry of Ohio in taking an active roll in government. We must succeed or we will deny the prayer President Lincoln gave at Gettysburg when he said, “that this Nation, under God, shall have a rebirth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall never perish from the earth.”

Should I be given the opportunity to serve you in the Senate, Janet will remain a 4th grade teacher in Lebanon, which means our home will remain in Ohio. We will not relocate to the Washington area. I will be home in Ohio each and every weekend and that makes my continuing contact with you very possible.

I thank you taking the interest in my campaign and I ask for your support tomorrow and in the future. Together we can foster a change and put our Nation back on the correct path to greatness for future generations to enjoy.

Sincerely,

William G. Pierce, P.E.

Another Time of Choosing

2006-04-30T21:48:00.000-04:00

Our Founding Fathers were citizen legislators; men and women who considered governing a privilege. They did not come from bastions of Political Science. They did not feel that governing was their right; they considered it a privilege. They came, did their job, and went home. They did not consider government a career, but an act of service. We have a man running for Senate right now who is of that same mold...a teacher, a businessman, a man with a servant’s heart. I am talking about Bill Pierce.

As a lifelong conservative born in the late 1970s, my benchmark for service and patriotism is Ronald Reagan. He called our nation a shining city on a hill, referring to what James Winthrop said almost 400 years ago when the Pilgrims landed. President Reagan believed that so long as we were faithful stewards, that city would remain shining. Bill Pierce was among the first in southwest Ohio to join Reagan’s revolution, heading up the Warren County campaign for The Gipper when he was not the favorite. Bill was right on it then, he is right on it now.

Bill Pierce wants to go to Washington to serve, to lead, not to be led. He wants to get things done, not dither and dawdle while resources crumble, as the incumbent does. He is not about gaining a reputation, but about building the nation. Bill Pierce has worked as an entrepreneur, an engineer, a small businessman, and as an educator. He has been out in the trenches, not in the ivory towers of Washington or corporate America.

Bill Pierce has lived in this state for over 30 years. I, for one, believe that each state is different. This is a man who is an open book, on his past, on his present, on his future. He is right up front in talking about his beliefs, even when they may not be popular with some. He has been frank, and direct when answering questions.

I urge you, as a fellow American, as a teacher, as a pastor, and as a member of the Brown County GOP Central Committee…I ask you to vote for Bill Pierce for US Senate on May 2nd. Reignite the torch of Government by, of and for the people.

God bless you all, and God bless America!

Sincerely,

Mark E. Garbett, Jr.

Review of a Campaign of Principles

2006-04-29T20:21:00.000-04:00

With your help, we can replace the liberal ideals, liberal philosophy, and most importantly the liberal votes which Senator DeWine has exhibited over the past eleven years with our shared conservative principles, to:

Protect and Defend the Sanctity of Life. I oppose abortion in all cases with the rare exception of protecting the life of the mother when the decision must be made as to which life will be saved. I also oppose human cloning;

Protect Traditional Marriage. I feel that marriage is a sacred bond between one man and one woman and that states should not be forced to recognize same-sex unions.

Protect and Defend the Constitution. As your Senator, you have my solemn word I will protect and defend the Constitution with special assurances to protect America’s “first freedom” – the 2nd Amendment;

Less taxes and less regulation. Let’s renew the Reagan Revolution and free the spirit of American enterprise. We must make permanent the tax cuts enacted earlier and revise the Tax Code, and stay the hands of unelected federal bureaucrats who hamper small business creation and

Reign in federal spending. Pork, earmarks, uncontrolled growth in entitlement programs, and unnecessary spending will enslave our children into an intolerable level of debt. I will join Senators Coburn, Ensign, and DeMint to form a foursome of former small business owners who understand the need to balance the budget to reverse the fiscal “bad habits” of the past;

Develop a real national energy program. America needs to be energy independent and will require the policy and the political will to make this happen. Developing all our natural resources will be required, including drilling in ANWR;

Work to form a coalition to dismantle the Department of Education. We must eliminate federal mandates and return education to State and local control – it is what the Constitution demands. Thirty years of a Secretary of Education in the President’s Cabinet, a Department of Education, a lot of money, and mandates have failed to reverse the trend of a failing public school system;

Secure border and control illegal immigration. A country that does not protect its borders will soon disappear. Our nation, built upon a foundation of the rule of law, must ensure that all laws are enforced or anarchy will reign – and, that applies to illegal immigrants and the businesses who employ them. Add the real threat of terrorism and there are plenty of reasons to secure our borders;

Address the crisis in the Judiciary. I will work to expose and correct the imbalanced case load versus staffing issues in the judiciary, and ensure that the President’s judicial nominations receive their “day in court” without delay by filibusters, which result in more vacant seats on the bench – justice not served is justice denied; and

Enact tort reform. We must eliminate frivolous lawsuits that benefit nobody other than the lawyers;

Finally - I do not, nor will I ever, subscribe to today’s prevailing attitude that Massachusetts and New York have sole patent rights for out-spoken Senators. I will speak out about the issues listed above and I will not hesitate to challenge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who work against our “common sense” approach to these critical issues.

The positions listed above are but a few of my central concerns. You may have noticed that Senator Mike DeWine supports the first one, recently began to support the second, and has either voted against one or more of the remaining OR not concerned himself with any of these “big” issues. I can and will do much better, but I need your help on Tuesday, May 2nd.

William G. Pierce, P.E.

Carnival of the Pierce Bloggers 3

2006-04-28T14:45:00.000-04:00

Welcome to the third installment of the Carnival of the Pierce Bloggers.

Return of the Conservatives:

DeWine's Public attack of Rumsfeld

BizzyBlog:

Mike DeWine Stabs Rumsfeld in the Back

Pierce-ing Posts 042706

Porkopolis Pre-Election Question of the Day for Mike DeWine

Weapons of Mass Discussion:

The Cynic's Tale

NixGuy:

DeWine Increase Gas $$$

DeWine in Unexpected Re-election Fight

Porkopolis:

Et tu DeWine

DeWine’s Public Attack of Rumsfeld was Wrong!

2006-04-28T08:56:00.000-04:00

Senator Mike DeWine (R-OH) was wrong to lash out at Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld over his management of the War on Terrorism in a Washington interview earlier this week. We must learn from the past and that includes learning from our past mistakes, but obviously Senator DeWine missed those history lessons from Vietnam.

In his interview with Salon's Walter Shapiro, DeWine stated that “Rumsfeld has made some very serious mistakes….Very serious mistakes. I think history will judge him very harshly.” He followed that with, “[c]learly not enough troops going in [to Iraq]. That was the biggest mistake. And a lot of mistakes would be covered under that.”

The lessons not learned by DeWine come from the 1962 to 1974 era when politicians in Washington tried micro-managing and second guessing the military. Without a day spent in a military uniform and without membership on the U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services, Senator Mike DeWine has become a critic of the nuances of our War on Terrorism. To make matters worse, he felt compelled to make his views public.

Discussion and disagreement is fine, but the participants must choose their venues carefully. For Mike DeWine to disagree with Rumsfeld’s management of the War is all right, but to do so publicly does nothing more than “aid and abet” the enemy – a lesson he should have learned from Vietnam. Our enemies look for that public discord and when they find it within the same Party they become heartened even more.

Senator DeWine could not have expected to achieve any strategic military benefit from his public criticism of Rumsfeld, nor could he have expected any change in the direction of the efforts. However, he likely expected that his attack would distance himself from the Administration in a mistaken attempt to make himself appear more attractive to Ohio voters for the November general election should he pass the primary next week. His actions fall clearly within the classification of pandering. To pander for votes at the expense of our efforts to succeed in our War on Terrorism, to aid and abet our enemies, and to further put our troops in harm’s way is simply shameful of a sitting United States Senator.

William G. Pierce, P.E.

On DeWine's Record of Spending

2006-04-27T19:04:00.000-04:00

I am troubled by recent campaign literature in which Senator DeWine stakes his bid for re-nomination on the monies he has brought to the State as it perpetuates the belief that our government has an endless supply of financial resources to be distributed among the populace. It took six years for the national debt to grow from $5 to $6 trillion, two years to increase from $6 to $7 trillion, and only one year to surpass the threshold of $8 trillion.

I encourage you to visit the “Press Release” section of Senator DeWine’s Senatorial website because it shows ~~more than 410~~ nearly 400 entries (UPDATE: a number of these entries have dropped off since this was originally written - MATT) in the last 50 weeks which boast of the grants flowing into our State from federal coffers. As you look through the listing, ask yourself if it represents the responsibilities our founding fathers envisioned of a central government – and, I think you will agree it does not.

Now consider who is paying this extravagant bill. Mike DeWine is not, and neither are any current taxpayers. The fact is that it has been “charged” to your account, your children’s account, and your children’s children’s account. For the foreseeable future, Americans will be making interest only payments while leaving the principal amount for some future generation to pay.

Today, interest payments on the national debt total more than $26 billion per month, and represent the third largest expenditure in the federal budget – soon to be number two. China owns $448 billion of this debt and its benefit in our economy is growing at an annual rate of more than 15% per year. That means American taxpayers are making interest only payments to the Communist government to the tune of $2.5 to $3 billion per month – and it is growing. Also note that China’s military budget is also growing at a rate of 15% per year.

The legacy we are leaving for future generations is a legacy of extravagance. It will be necessary, and possible, to explain to future generations that the War on Terrorism and Homeland Security required great financial resources. On the other hand, it will be quite difficult to explain to them that the debt burden they carry was created to build two “bridges to nowhere” in Alaska, to assist families in the purchase of digital converter boxes for better TV reception, to keep the price of milk constant, and the myriad of other items which fall under the category of wasteful spending. Congressional spending far removed from the Constitutional requirement of “common Defense and general Welfare of the United States.”

The culture of extravagant spending must cease; and simple, every day business practices of balancing expenses to revenues must become the norm. Businesses and our own personal family budgets require it and government should be no different. But it is not going to happen until “we the people …” demand it to happen, and that is only going to be accomplished when Americans let their voices be heard at the voting booth.

It is for that reason I ask that you support my candidacy to the U.S. Senate. I would welcome the opportunity to join a threesome of first term maverick Senators – Coburn (OK), DeMint (SC), and Ensign (NV) – all of whom are entrepreneurs and small business owners, and have pushed back against the “old guard” with the belief that our Nation’s business must be conducted differently for a prosperous and secure future. They have stopped “pork” from being added to Katrina relief funds, changed Senate rules to highlight “pork” buried in legislation, and have challenged the Senate leadership to end the culture of extravagant spending. My added voice and efforts will certainly energize the much needed change.

William G. Pierce, P.E.

Cleveland Town Hall on Pierce

2006-04-27T07:45:00.000-04:00

(Source)

Bill has a great story, and there are a lot of people who are gravitating to his message. He still has a tough battle in the primary, but with incumbant dissatisfaction running at a fever pitch, I’m sure Senator DeWine hears some footsteps in the distance.

Read the whole thing.

The Crisis in the Federal Judiciary

2006-04-24T13:26:00.000-04:00

As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Mike DeWine is aware that no new federal appeal positions have been created since 1990, but there has been a 34% increase in caseload. As caseloads increase the time to read the volumes of briefs becomes scarce and federal judges rely on the law clerks to summarize the documents for them. BUT that simple transfer of power has grave ramifications. The federal court system is relying on the ability of entry level attorneys, to properly comprehend, evaluate, and summarize mountains of citations to case law, codes of legal procedures, and the importance of the material facts of the case. Given the weight of a decision coming out of our federal judiciary, which is a very tall order for any first or second year attorney to fill.

Now add the fact that there are currently 55 vacancies listed on the federal bench and there can be little doubt that our system of justice is suffering. Congress does not understand that point, or simply doesn’t care as long as political mileage can be made over the inherent haggling in the confirmation process.

The culpability of the Congress continues with the budget process:

It appears Congress will approve a 4.7 percent increase over the $4.88 billion appropriation received in FY 2003. Due to fixed mandatory expenses such as judicial salaries and rents paid for federal courthouses, it would require a 7.3 percent increase just to stay even. The Judicial Branch may have to release employees and make other spending cuts as a result. (Link

Please remember that the Judiciary's budget represents about 2 tenths of 1% percent of the overall federal expenditures. The difference between the Judiciary’s requested 7.3% and the expected Congressional approval of 4.7% is approximately $125 million dollars. Now compare the number with the identified “pork barrel” spending of our Congress in the same year:

This year's total reveals that Congress porked out at record levels. The cost of these projects in fiscal 2003 was $22.5 billion. (Link)

Congress does not find the need to fully fund our Judiciary or create the needed judgeships to handle the burgeoning caseload, but certainly can find the moneys necessary to send the pork home in an effort to buy votes. The “pork barrel” funding for FY2003 was more than 187 times the amount Congress denied our Federal Judiciary.

The shortfall represents a loss not for a single government agency BUT one complete branch of government established by our Constitution. A complete branch of government charged with being the guardians of the Constitution because their rulings protect individual rights and liberties guaranteed by that important document. The federal courts are to interpret and apply the law to resolve disputes, but can’t do so properly if the workload must be pushed down to un-appointed and relatively inexperienced law clerks.

Since our legal structure is based upon the logic of the English common law system, a basic feature is the doctrine of precedent under which judges use the legal principles established in earlier cases to decide new cases that have similar facts and raise similar legal issues. If law clerks are summarizing for our appointed federal judges and insert their own bias into the summary, established case law becomes flawed and future rulings are based upon the judgment originated by non-appointed, non-confirmed law clerks. The impact on our daily lives by Federal case law requires that “we the people …” demand a better judiciary.

Congress is demonstrating contempt for our legal system. Not only do they fail to fill vacancies on a timely basis and fail to increase the judgeships to match the increasing caseload, but they fail to provide the necessary funding so Congress can promote their own individual “pet” projects. Justice is not being served, and as a result justice is not being delivered – Mike DeWine knows it, yet fails to speak out.

William G. Pierce, P.E.

Carnival of the Pierce Bloggers 2

2006-04-21T12:45:00.000-04:00

BizzyBlog:

Let's Stop Mike DeWine's Election Clock

Quote of the Day: OpinionJournal.com (and Its Relevance to Ohio US Senate GOP Primary Campaign)

That Columbus Dispatch Article on Ohio’s US Senate Challengers

NixGuy:

Warrior or Diploma?

Weapons of Mass Discussion:

Enquirer Shows Up for Senate Race

Transcript: Pierce on Cunningham

Bill Pierce: Its About Service

Porkopolis:

Hugh Hewitt argues that a 50-50 Senate is possible with DeWine as a casualty

4/23 UPDATE:

Porkopolis:

DeWine: Mining for Coal in Ohio O.K.; But don't drill for any oil in ANWR!

Right on the Right:

Bill Pierce Update

On the Filibuster and the Gang of 14

2006-04-20T20:28:00.000-04:00

Last May, a group of Senators dubbed the “Gang of 14” (of which Senator Mike DeWine was one) arrived at a compromise to avoid a filibuster showdown on several judicial nominations and the exercise of the “nuclear option.” The option was to allow for a simple majority of 50 senators to end a filibuster concerning presidential nominations rather than require the current 60 votes. The compromise ended the filibuster on three nominees so confirmation was apparent, continued the filibuster on two other conservative nominees thereby rejecting them without a Senate vote, and promised to use the filibuster tactics only in “extraordinary circumstances” – of course, the term extraordinary circumstances was not defined.

By any degree of common sense, and in reality, the filibuster to delay the President’s nominations is a direct attack on the Constitution, wherein it states in Article II – Section 2 “[The President] … by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, … , Judges of the Supreme Court, ….” By filibustering, and thereby not giving the President an “up or down” vote, the Senate is being derelict in one of its perfunctory responsibilities outlined in the Constitution.

It is one thing to filibuster a piece of legislation which has no Constitutional guarantee to passage or rejection, it is quite another issue to use the process to avoid a time honored Constitutional requirement of “advice and consent” whereby the nominee is either confirmed or rejected. In addition, filibustering leaves the judicial position unfilled and burdens the rest of the court system which in turn impacts the serving of justice to “we the people ….”

In essence, what Senator Mike DeWine and his 13 colleagues held onto with the compromise was their ability not to perform their Constitutional duty.

William G. Pierce, P.E.

On ANWR and Energy

2006-04-19T17:50:00.000-04:00

I suggest that Congress immediately authorize exploratory drilling to determine the real quantity of oil and natural gas reserves exist in the Coastal Plain. Most geologists agree that the potential may rival or exceed the initial reserves at Prudhoe Bay, but we will not know until beneath the surface exploration is accomplished. At the same time, plans should be developed and initiated to build the base field and connect to the trans-Alaskan pipeline 50 miles to the west.

If the sub-surface exploration indicates the reserves are far greater than anticipated and a significant impact can be made on the amount of imported oil, then drilling should begin immediately. On the other hand if the exploration supports the current predictions or less, then the drilling operation should be built and the equipment maintained while the Coastal Plain reserves are capped and held as part of our nation’s Strategic Petroleum Reserves (SPR).

The SPR was created by 1975 Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), primarily to counter a severe supply interruption. The goal was to establish a billion barrel reserve with the authorization to permit a removal rate (physical restraints) of 4.4 million barrels a day. While the daily consumption of oil has grown more than 50% in the last thirty years, the capacity of the SPR has not changed at all.

Senator Mike DeWine has voted against drilling in ANWR four times and has failed to offer any alternatives. Had he been our Senator in the mid-1970’s when the same debate was being waged, while using the same arguments, over Prudhoe Bay and the trans-Alaskan pipeline would never have been built. The result? A 20% loss in today’s domestic oil production, and the Caribou heard would be smaller because they have actually flourished due to the food supplies which grow under the pipeline.

The Administration, in collaboration with Congress, must develop a truly viable and meaningful energy policy. One that is driven towards a reduction in oil imports and ultimately to energy independence. Special interests groups, their agendas, and their influence peddling must be set aside so America can re-shape its energy requirements and fight for “independence” once again – this battle is no less important than the one waged for independence two hundred and thirty years ago.

We need to establish a national goal of energy conservation and the development of new, efficient, and clean forms of energy. As President Kennedy inspired the nation in 1962 to land a man on the moon and return him home safely by the end of the decade, we must do the same today with regard to energy. Modern computers, rocket engines with the required thrust capabilities, and the other technology required to reach the dream in 1969 were not yet conceived when JFK rallied Americans around something which seemed impossible.

Our President and Congress must inspire the genius of “free enterprise” and mix in a good dose of government support and incentives to create a long term solution to an immediate and long term need while creating a national goal of energy independence within the next ten years. We will not be required to start with a blank slate as we did in 1962. A number of passive systems (solar and wind) exist, which will become more economically feasible as the competition for a barrel of oil heats up and prices increase. The technology to increase battery life and reduce physical size has made great strides, which will allow coal burning and nuclear power plants to replace oil. Automobiles designed to operate on biofuels, some on a blend of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline, are scheduled to come online in 2006. Fusion technology is in its infancy, but so were computers in 1962.

Let us stop the bickering over drilling for oil in ANWR, establish specific goals, and then permit the potential oil and gas reserves in the Coastal Plains to support America’s drive to prosperity, security, and energy independence. Future generations will thank us and we likely will leave the world a better place in which to live.

There is simply no option – lets get it done AND soon!

William G. Pierce, P.E.

Illegal Immigration – Part II : Work Program or Amnesty?

2006-04-16T09:30:00.000-04:00

The House and the Senate disagree even more when it comes to handling the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants currently in the United States. House Bill HR 4437 enforces the current laws prohibiting the hiring of illegal immigrants and adds significant penalties to the businesses found to be violating statutes created more than twenty years ago. “This legislation will demand that people follow the law and be held accountable for their actions,” Congressman Sensenbrenner, the Bill’s author, said.

The result of the House Bill will be the removal of job opportunities, welfare and health care benefits, driver’s licenses, and educational benefits for all illegal immigrants. And, it will add significant penalties for those involved in human smuggling. It does not address the issue that individuals sent home would be able to re-enter legally to obtain a work visa, but the concept has certainly been supported by House members responsible for writing and passing the Bill.

On the other hand, the legislation sent to the floor of the Senate by the Judiciary Committee, with the approval of Senator Mike DeWine, two other Republicans, and the Committee’s entire Democratic delegation (including Senator Ted Kennedy), does not discuss controlling the border and offers a “work program” leading to American citizenship in the future. Careful not to use the “a” word, the Judiciary Committee must have felt that Americans would not see through their thinly veiled attempt to accomplish just that – amnesty for people who have broken our Nation’s law and then rewarding them with citizenship.

Some versions discussed in the Senate would allow the illegal immigrants work in the U.S. for a specified number of years and then be required to go back to their homeland. First, how cruel would it be to permit people to become assimilated into the fabric of our society – develop friends and relationships in our communities, neighborhoods, schools, and churches while benefiting from our public services and health care – and then tell them they must leave because the sands in the clock have run out? Second, do you really expect that anyone in our government will seek out these individuals and families in six to eight years and force them to leave? I believe we all realize that will not happen and the result will be another form of amnesty.

The United States operates under the “rule of law” as a means to keep an orderly society for the benefit of all her citizenry, and that rule of law begins to apply with the first step on our soil. If illegal entry is the basis of one’s presence in the country, then it has been clearly established that rules/statutes/laws mean nothing if they impede the individual’s own desires. If such an attitude becomes prevalent, then anarchy will surely follow and the fabric of our society will be destroyed.

I applaud the House for recognizing the difficult decisions that needed to be made and taking the required action. I abhor the Senate’s flagrent attempt to pander to a specific group rather than enforce the immigration and work laws which were enacted many, many years ago by representatives of “we the people….”

William G. Pierce, P.E.

Carnival of the Pierce Bloggers

2006-04-14T14:00:00.000-04:00

NixGuy tells us why he's voting for Pierce.

Porkopolis says Pierce is the fiscal conservative in this race.

Chuckoblog chimes in...

BizzyBlog reminds us to donate to the campaign and issues his formal endorsement of Bill.

NixGuy responds to the question, "Why undercut DeWine now?"

Matt at WMD gives us 20 Reasons to Vote Pierce.

Mark at WMD says now is the time and this is the hour.

ALSO, don't miss this interview with Right on the Right.

Pierce on Cunningham

2006-04-13T19:15:00.000-04:00

Bill will be appearing on the Bill Cunningham Show on WLW tomorrow at 12:30PM.

UPDATE: A transcript and audio of the interview can be found here.

Illegal Immigration – Part I : Border Patrol

2006-04-13T19:00:00.000-04:00

I spoke with a construction contractor in Butler County this evening who informed me that he has lost seven projects so far this year because he has been underbid by contractors relying on illegal immigrants. He told me he could not possibly get his labor costs to match ($6 to $8 per hour versus $20 to $25 per hour for an experienced carpenter). Along with the loss of jobs to Americans and legal immigrants, the cost of our inability to control the borders and enforce our laws has come as a very heavy burden to our public services, health care facilities, and educational programs at the local, county, and State levels; and jeopardizes the efforts put into Homeland Security.

The illegal immigration issue must be broken into two components – controlling the border and then what to do with the individuals currently in the country without the proper documentation. The House Bill, HR 4437 - Border Protection, Antiterrorism and Illegal Immigration Act provides great deal specifics as to what must be done to protect our borders. But, it begins with a listing of the Congress’s observations:

(a) Findings- Congress finds the following:

(1) A primary duty of the Federal Government is to secure the homeland and ensure the safety of United States citizens and lawful residents.

(2) As a result of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, perpetrated by al Qaida terrorists on United States soil, the United States is engaged in a Global War on Terrorism.

(3) According to the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, up to 15 of the 9/11 hijackers could have been intercepted or deported through more diligent enforcement of immigration laws.

(4) Four years after those attacks, there is still a failure to secure the borders of the United States against illegal entry.

(5) The failure to enforce immigration laws in the interior of the United States means that illegal aliens face little or no risk of apprehension or removal once they are in the country.

(6) If illegal aliens can enter and remain in the United States with impunity, so, too, can terrorists enter and remain while they plan, rehearse, and then carry out their attacks.

(7) The failure to control and to prevent illegal immigration into the United States increases the likelihood that terrorists will succeed in launching catastrophic or harmful attacks on United States soil.

(8) There are numerous immigration laws that are currently not being enforced.

(9) Law enforcement officers are often discouraged from enforcing the law by superiors.

The House Bill correctly identifies that the first step must be the establishment of a policy and procedure to secure our borders against further unimpeded flow of illegal immigrants into our country. Within 18 months of passage, HR 4437 requires “the Secretary of Homeland Security shall take all actions the Secretary determines necessary and appropriate to achieve and maintain operational control over the entire international land and maritime borders of the United States.” It specifies the use of a combination of personnel, technology, and physical infrastructure enhancements to achieve the operational control of our borders. In this section, the term `operational control' means the prevention of all unlawful entries into the United States, including entries by terrorists, other unlawful aliens, instruments of terrorism, narcotics, and other contraband.

Most unfortunately, the Senate took another approach. It ignored the need to control the border and end the flow of more illegal immigrants into the country, and instead focused on a policy to handle the estimated 12 million undocumented people currently in America. Amnesty became the plan (more in Part II), but with no restrictions on the flow across the border it will be a never ending problem and encourage many more to follow. Even the most uninformed among us can clearly see the need to close the door during the winter months OR let the cold air inside. Why can’t our elected representatives in the United States Senate do the same?

William G. Pierce, P.E.

Questions

2006-03-12T16:41:00.000-05:00

Two questions which beg for answers:

1. At the Preble County Endorsement meeting earlier this month, David Smith was asked whether he has ever run for political office before, and where. His response was that he had run for the Special 2nd Congressional District Election in Ohio (2005) last summer. No mention was made of his congressional races in Utah (2002) and Tennessee (2004).

He was then asked how long he has lived in Ohio, and he responded with the fact that he works for Procter & Gamble and they move people around a lot. That answer leads the questioner to assume that Ohio is, and always has been, his "home" base, rather than the factual reply of 1 year.

QUESTION: If the Central Committee of a Republican County Party does not deserve the benefit of a straight forward response to a simple question, how can all the voters expect more if he were to be elected?

2. Based on his acknowledged political background originally posted on his website and written in letters he sent to county Republican Party Chairs:

QUESTION: If he should be the lone challenger to Mike DeWine in the May primary, and the nominee to challenge Sherrod Brown in the general election, how will be respond to the charge that he is a "carpetbagger" when both men unleash millions of dollars in TV commercials leveling the charge based on his factual history?

We have to stop beating around the bush on this issue - it is real, and DeWine and Brown will certainly use it. It is not mud-slinging nor is it "miss-information," it is documented history David Smith needs to address. Otherwise, he is setting up the false expectations of he being a sole challenger to DeWine in the primary, or a completely disastrous run on the part of Republicans trying to ensure Brown does not get into office should he, David Smith, be the Republican nominee.

William G. Pierce

Meet the Bloggers

2006-03-09T09:22:00.000-05:00

Podcasts of Bill Pierce's interview with Meet the Bloggers are available from the MTB site here. Transcripts are in progress and are expected to be released soon.

News Release: Preble County

2006-03-04T13:41:00.000-05:00

The Preble County Republican Central Committee met Thursday for purposes of endorsing candidates for the Ohio United States Senate race. All four of the announced candidates were invited to attend to present their views and to stand for questions. All candidates and / or their representatives were present .

The elected Central Committee men and women, after hearing the positions voted for their choice. In accordance with the rules, requiring a 70% majority to endorse, ballots were cast. The first ballot round failed to produce a majority, so the two candidates with he highest vote totals were presented on a second ballot. William Pierce and Incumbent Senator DeWine deadlocked, each with 50% of the votes.

The Pierce campaign considered this a victory, "To have won the endorsement would have been wonderful, but to battle a two term incumbent to a dead even tie, is a victory. We do not have a large paid staff or millions in the bank, but hard work and a message that resonates with the people, could carry the day."

Following the meeting, Pierce attempted to thank all the Central Committee members for their work and serious consideration, explaining that these are the people who turn out the vote for the Republican candidates, year in and year out.

News Release: Knox County Endorsement

2006-01-27T16:10:00.000-05:00

William Pierce was endorsed for the U. S. Senate by the Knox County Republican Central Committee on Thursday evening. Pierce received more than the required 66% of the total votes cast by the elected precinct committee men and women on the second ballot.

Incumbent Senator Mike DeWine failed to obtain another county endorsement, Pierce carried the majority in Clermont County being deemed as "Highly Qualified" at their meeting of just over one week ago.

The Pierce campaign team was exuberant, having won the only two County endorsement meetings to date. "Our Message is resonating with the heart of the Republican Party, the elected precinct committee men and women," Pierce commented, "these are the people who, year after year, turn out the Republican votes and win elections. I am very grateful to them for their support and confidence."

In other contested races, no candidate received the required 66%, so no endorsement was made. The Central committee will advise the Republican voters in Knox County of their decision and recommendations.

Roger Gillespie
Campaign Manager
Pierce for Senate Committee
513-239-2793
www.pierceforsenate.com

A Call to Action

2006-01-24T17:55:00.000-05:00

Shortly before the Christmas recess the Senate passed a 774 page budget bill, the contents of which are just now starting to surface. Once again the Senate has acted with good intentions, but has done so while taking liberties with the Constitution and at the expense of fiscal prudence.

The Senate approved a five year, $3.75 billion dollar initiative to provide $750 to $1300 grants to low income freshman and sophomores in college who have completed a “rigorous secondary program of study.” It will also afford larger amounts to juniors and seniors majoring in math, science, and other critical fields.

Trouble begins with the definition of “rigorous study.” It will require someone, or some organization, to identify the qualifiers of a rigorous study program, and then it will require a significant organization to evaluate the curriculum in the nation’s 18,000 high schools. Who would that person or organization be? The answer is obvious – Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings and the federal bureaucrats in the Department of Education.

The clear result will be the establishment of a “national curriculum” - another Washington mandate, unfunded too, settled on States and local school boards across the nation by federal bureaucrats harboring not in the classroom but rather in the sterile offices far removed from the students they seek to guide.

The assault on the Constitution evolves around the Tenth Amendment which says:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Article 1 – Sections 8 through 10 clearly delineates the roles and responsibilities of a central government and the restrictions placed on the States. Education is never mentioned, meaning it is not the role of a central government, nor is the responsibility to educate denied to the States. Given that public education was not identified as a role of the federal government, it is “reserved to the States respectfully, or to the people” and we the people must lay claim to it or stand to be further divorced from a responsibility so critical to our children and future generations.

President Carter created the Department of Education in the late 1970’s because of the perception that public education was slipping. We have now had nearly thirty years of a federal agency attempting to redirect the path to quality education, but I do not believe it has changed any perceptions of public education at all. We must look to remove this federal bureaucracy from the equation, and return school operations and curriculum to the States and local school boards.

Another problem surfaces with the expenditure of $3.75 billion dollars at a time when our Nation is engaged in a War on Terrorism and faced with continued budget deficits year after year. Since the federal coffers do not have the funds to cover the $3.75 billion, the expenditure will simply be added to our mounting national debt which currently stands at $8.1 trillion. You and I will pay the interest on these borrowed funds, as will our children and the generations to follow.

Some day in the future some hapless generation of American taxpayers will be forced to finally pay the principal amount our Senate is so generous on committing today. But that time will come long after this 5 year initiative is over and forgotten.

The Senate’s initiative is aimed at supporting students majoring in math, science, and other critical fields to support the technical needs our Nation’s businesses require to remain competitive in our global economy. As a benefit to business, let the benefactors support the initiative through grants and scholarships rather than the overstretched federal budget.

To date, the well intended measure has only passed the approval of the Senate, and awaits review by the House when it returns. It is time “we the people …” have our voices heard, and that the message we send says that we do not support the continued federal interference with our local schools. Furthermore, we expect our elected representatives – public servants – to manage our Nation’s finances as we must manage our own, which means deficit spending must cease.

Abraham Lincoln said a prayer at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania that “this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish from the earth.” I ask you to join me in calling on the House to reject the Senate’s initiative to further direct the precious responsibility to educate our children into the hands of federal bureaucrats far removed from the day to day operations of our schools, and to reject the commitment to additional deficit spending.

William G. Pierce, P.E.

On DeWine's Record of Spending

2006-01-23T08:30:00.000-05:00

There was a Warren County Central Committee meeting in Lebanon last week that had nearly 100 in attendance. I had an opportunity to speak and the response was very, very favorable. Along with the introduction, I spoke of my positions regarding small business, education, and the national debt.

I told the group that I was troubled by recent campaign literature in which Senator DeWine stakes his bid for re-nomination on the monies he has brought to the State as it perpetuates the belief that our government has an endless supply of financial resources to be distributed among the populace. The premise is simply not true. It took six years for the national debt to grow from $5 to $6 trillion, two years to increase from $6 to $7 trillion, and only one year to surpass the threshold of $8 trillion.

A candidate running against an incumbent usually does not direct the voters to visit the opponent’s official government website, but I encouraged them to visit the “Press Release” section of Senator DeWine’s website because it shows more than 410 entries in the last 50 weeks which flaunt the grants flowing into our State from federal coffers. I ask that you do the same, and as you look through the listing, ask yourself if it represents the responsibilities our founding fathers envisioned of a central government. I think you will agree it does not.

I do agree with the Senator that the average of 8 new grants per week represents a very impressive number, but I ask that you consider who is paying this extravagant bill. Mike DeWine has not, and neither have any current taxpayers. The fact is that it has been “charged” to your account, your children’s account, and your children’s children’s account. For the foreseeable future, Americans will be making interest only payments while leaving the principal amount for some future generation to pay. At the meeting the other evening, I saw a lot on nodding heads in agreement - I think people are fed up with pork.

Today, interest payments on the national debt total more than $26 billion per month, and represent the third largest expenditure in the federal budget – soon to be number two. China owns $448 billion of this debt and its benefit in our economy is growing at an annual rate of more than 15% per year. That means American taxpayers are making interest only payments to the Communist government to the tune of $2.5 to $3 billion per month – and it is growing. Furthermore, future generations will continue to face this debt until Congress can control its spending habits, pass a balanced budget, and use surplus revenues to pay down the debt rather than continue the practice of buying votes at the expense of our national security.

The legacy we are leaving for future generations is a legacy of extravagance. It will be necessary, and possible, to explain to future generations that the War on Terrorism and Homeland Security required great financial resources. On the other hand, it will be quite difficult to explain to them that the debt burden they carry was created to build two “bridges to nowhere” in Alaska, to assist families in the purchase of digital converter boxes for better TV reception, to keep the price of milk constant, and the myriad of other items which fall under the category of wasteful spending. Congressional spending far removed from the Constitutional requirement of “common Defense and general Welfare of the United States.”

The culture of extravagant spending must cease; and simple, every day business practices of balancing expenses to revenues must become the norm. Businesses and our own personal family budgets require it and government should be no different. But it is not going to happen until “we the people …” demand it to happen, and that is only going to be accomplished when Americans let their voices be heard at the voting booth.

On the Wednesday before Christmas, the US Senate passed, after Vice-President Cheney’s tie-breaking vote, a $39.7 billion dollar budget reduction bill which must be viewed as a very small, albeit a very necessary, down payment in fiscal responsibility. The actual bill included a $30 billion in reduced spending and nearly $10 billion dollar in new revenues. Had it been a single year’s reduction it would have been far more noteworthy, but the budget reductions are spread over a five year period.

As impressive as that number may seem, it is insignificant when compared to the overall national federal budget of $2.5 trillion or $2,500 billion dollars. Suddenly $6 billion out of $2,500 billion is not quite such an accomplishment. In personal terms, which are always easier to wrap our minds around, the numbers become truly unimpressive. For a family with a $50,000 annual income, a budget reduction of $120 per year is an equivalent accomplishment. That is $10 per month – not much more than a movie ticket for one patron.

Senator Mike DeWine was one of five Republican Senators to vote against the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. His stated reasoning was “[t]his bill was, unfortunately, very detrimental to poor children with regard to health care.” He went on to cite cuts in funding for child support enforcement, foster care, and Medicaid health insurance for the poor.

In reality, the $30 billion reduction out of a projected $14.3 trillion (or $14,300 billion) in federal spending over the next five years amounts to less than one-half of one percent. And, it is only a one-half of one percent reduction in the current 5.4% rate of growth – not a cut from current spending levels.

It is for that reason I ask that you support my candidacy to the U.S. Senate. I would welcome the opportunity to join a threesome of new maverick Senators – Coburn (OK), DeMint (SC), and Ensign (NV) – all of whom are entrepreneurs and small business owners, and have push back against the “old guard” with the belief that our Nation’s business must be conducted differently for a prosperous and secure future. They have stopped “pork” from being added to Katrina relief funds, changed Senate rules to highlight “pork” buried in legislation, and have challenged the Senate leadership to end the culture of extravagant spending. My added voice and efforts would certainly energize the much needed change.

William G. Pierce

On Clermont County

2006-01-19T21:58:00.000-05:00

News Release:

The Clermont County Republican Central Committee met Wednesday night to consider their endorsement of candidates seeking nomination for public office in the May 2 primary.

The 125 elected precinct committee men and women require a minimum of 75 votes to receive their endorsement to the people who reside in the State's 7th most populated county. Any candidate receiving 56 or more votes received a "highly qualified" designation and recommendation.

Mr. William Pierce, challenger to current Ohio Senator Mike DeWine received the "highly qualified" designation, narrowly missing the coveted endorsement. Senator Mike DeWine DID NOT receive the endorsement, as some observers have predicted, further he did not receive enough votes to obtain the highly qualified designation. DeWine, in Clermont County Wednesday morning, sent a letter asking to receive the endorsement but stated he would not be available for the meeting due to other obligations.

The Pierce supporters were buoyed by the evening’s events, feeling this was just the start of getting subsequent endorsements. Pierce has spent the last five months traveling the State with a crowded agenda of meetings with key party members and Republican workers. His supporters feel his message is resonating with the mainstream party and community leaders and that he embodies the basic Republican principles that are cherished by the majority. "Boy, this is really big...the Bandwagon is beginning to roll" one of his supporters exclaimed upon hearing the news.

Pierce For Senate Committee
Roger Gillespie, Campaign Manager
www.pierceforsenate.com

On the Alito Hearings

2006-01-12T15:30:00.000-05:00

I marvel at the personal restraint and decorum I see in Congress as members on both sides of the aisle argue their convictions, which at times seem light years apart. As they discuss and debate the merits of legislation our elected officials address each other kindly with a good dose of respect; and very, very rarely engage in personal attacks.

Recently, key senators have shown they afford that respect only to their colleagues within the halls of the Senate and have adopted an “anything goes” policy towards other government officials. Few Americans could have escaped the barrage of media reports before the holidays wherein Democratic Senators leveled direct charges of lying against President Bush, Vice-President Cheney, and the Secretaries of State Powell and Rice. Their claims, without documentation and proof, were that the Administration lied about WMD and the intelligence reports regarding the threat of Saddam Hussein.

Now they have turned their personal attacks on Judge Samuel Alito during the nomination hearings. The demagoguery of one particular senator stands far beyond all others. Senator Ted Kennedy’s viscous attacks in an attempt to paint Judge Alito as a bigot, unworthy of membership on the U.S. Supreme Court, is completely contrary to the position taken by the American Bar Association which identified him as highly qualified. Please keep in mind that his Democratic colleague, Senator Chuck Schumer, stated repeatedly during the Ginsburg and Breyer hearings that the ABA’s position is the “gold standard” of recommendations.

I listened in amazement when Senator Kennedy questioned Judge Alito as to whether he read (not wrote, but read) a specific article written in a newsletter 20 years earlier, and then raised the same question for four more subsequent newsletters. At that point, Senator Kennedy said Judge Alito’s answers did not “add up.” I view such a statement as a half a step short of saying the Judge lied during his hearings.

Senator Kennedy has held his legislative position since 1962 when he was sworn in with the same oath Judge Alito will take after confirmation process is complete. The oath Senator Kennedy has taken 7 times and Judge Alito has taken numerous times in his career requires them to uphold the U.S. Constitution and to defend the country against all enemies, foreign or domestic.

If Senator Kennedy feels Judge Alito’s history 20 to 30 years earlier, as a student at Princeton and an alumnus, is so critically important to suggest that the Judge is lying, then maybe the Senator should be asked why he was expelled from Harvard two times during his tenure as a student before he begins his next term in office. If the Senator feels every single detail of Judge Alito’s background is critical to his ability to carry out his obligations under the oath to defend the Constitution, then Senator Kennedy should be prepared to answer questions concerning a driving accident he had after a party in 1969 because his accounting of the incident did not “add up.” After all, why should we hold one “public servant” to a different standard than another?

Senator Kennedy must recognize that the decorum he affords his colleagues in the Senate must be extended to others in government. Disagreement may well be in order and is certainly a critical aspect of a democratic society, but his despicable practice of smearing a man (Bork, Thomas, and now Alito) with vile innuendoes is simply unwarranted, unprofessional, and contrary to ideals “we the people …” expect of our Senators.

Once before I have quoted the time honored words of Senator Margaret Chase Smith, and they are worthy of repeating once again:

“I am not proud of the way the Senate has been a publicity platform for irresponsible sensationalism … I want to see our Nation recapture the strength and unity it once had when we fought our enemies instead of ourselves.”

And to that I add, … Amen.

William G. Pierce

Why Run?

2006-01-08T22:00:00.000-05:00

Twice last week I was told by members of the Republican Party in two counties that representatives of the DeWine senatorial staff (one being State Director Barbara Schenck) had met with them to discuss my candidacy. Both were told that my challenge of Senator DeWine is merely a vendetta due to a labor and tax issue which affected my engineering consulting firm in the 1990’s.

Let me set the record straight – my candidacy has nothing to do with a vendetta. My candidacy has everything to do with providing Ohioans with the opportunity to elect an outspoken, pro-active conservative who will stand firm for the Republican ideals of limited government. My disagreement with Senator DeWine on a number of critical issues facing the Nation is no more a vendetta than the individual who plans to vote for a challenger because of opposing views on filibustering judicial nominees, the 2nd Amendment, and the votes cast recently on drilling in ANWR and reducing the budget.

Was the Senator’s non-reaction to my plea for help correcting a double standard the US Department of Labor created bothersome to me? As a member of the Senate Labor Committee with oversight responsibilities, of course it was and still is troubling. The matter involved the creation of flextime for public employees while prohibiting the same for private sector employees in spite of an acknowledged Congressional mandate and a Supreme Court ruling calling for parity under the FLSA. Businesses across the country are still vulnerable to an attack by the DoL for offering a flextime policy to their employees which mirrors the one government employees enjoy.

It is for that reason, among a great many of other examples I have seen and heard about, that I seek to be elected as the US Senator from Ohio so I can offer my constituents and small business the support and protection they need from the obstructions established by federal bureaucrats and their obtrusive behavior. Federal bureaucrats, like all Americans, are most interested in bettering their careers; BUT the public servants do not concern themselves with ramifications of their actions on a business and its employees 1500 miles away. I will engage my time and efforts on reviving the oversight role and responsibility of the Senate.

My campaign is also built upon my out-spoken beliefs in a number of other issues:

* Permanent tax reduction to continue stimulating growth, as well as simplification of the tax code;

* Elimination of pork, and developing a real reduction in federal spending;

* Unburdening small business by reducing the surge of stifling new rules and regulations promulgated by federal bureaucrats;

* Eliminating Washington’s micro-management of education and mandates which have failed over the last 30 years to reverse the tide of a declining public educational system;

* Encouraging real dialogue in Washington to solve the problems of illegal immigration, border security, and Social Security;

* Ensuring that the President’s judicial nominations receive their “day in court” without delay by filibusters, which result in vacant seats on the bench – justice not served is justice denied;

* Enacting tort reform to eliminate frivolous lawsuits that benefit nobody except the lawyers; and

* Winning the War on Terror. While Ted Kennedy and John Kerry call for the abandonment of the Iraqi people, I will pro-actively and steadfastly support the President’s Plan for Victory and the protection of democracy around the world.

As our Nation is hampered by special interest groups and their longtime bond with career politicians, I seek this nomination in the spirit of the ideals established by our forefathers – that our country will be led by citizen legislators who have experienced the real world of business and the obtrusiveness of an unhindered and bloated government.

As I have traveled across Ohio and have met the Republican Party Chairs in each county, I have made the promise that I will not attack Mike DeWine the man, Mike DeWine the family man, nor will I challenge him on ethical, moral, of character values. I will stick strictly to the important issues facing our Nation, and the ones Ohioans want to hear discussed. I ask Senator DeWine to instruct his staff to do the same.

William G. Pierce

American Conservative Union on Pierce

2006-01-03T21:30:00.000-05:00

Tim Holloway, writing for the American Conservative Union Foundation, had this to say about Bill Pierce:

Bill Pierce, teacher, engineer and entrepreneur has recently announced his candidacy to challenge DeWine for the Republican Senatorial primary in Ohio. Pierce is friendly and engaging and his passion for governmental reform and a return to governance as intended by our constitution resonates with his every word. Pierce’s experiences as a business owner and his run-in’s with the Department of Labor demonstrate how detrimental government interference in the free market can be to the small business owner. On the issues, Pierce is solidly conservative. Local conservative groups are asking for meetings with Pierce and are anxious to support him and there is also evidence that county level Republican leaders are realizing that it may be time to move on from Dewine and support a true conservative like Pierce.

Learn more about Bill Pierce's positions on a variety of topics on the Issues page of the campaign website and keep checking this blog for more commentary.

Right Angle Poll

2006-01-03T11:52:00.000-05:00

Please vote for Bill Pierce in Right Angle blog's poll for Republican candidates for the US Senate. The poll can be found in the right sidebar here.

On ANWR and Energy

2006-01-01T19:00:00.000-05:00

It is time to put the rhetoric aside and talk seriously about Artic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) - the history, current debate, risks, needs, and the vision for a national energy policy. The Senate's recent filibuster of a Defense Appropriation Bill because oil exploration was added to the legislation brought the issue to the forefront once again. Senator Mike DeWine's vote (one of two Republican Senators) against cloture of the filibuster was instrumental in the rejection of the plan to open ANWR to oil exploration and drilling.

For a little bit of history, the Eisenhower Administration signed a Public Order establishing the 8.9 million acre Alaska National Wildlife Range for "...the purpose of preserving unique wildlife, wilderness and recreational values...." In 1980, President Carter expanded the area to 18 million acres, renamed it the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, designated 8 million acres as wilderness, and called for wildlife studies and an oil and gas assessment of 1.5 million acres of the Refuge coastal plain.

As a result of the authorization to assess the oil reserves of the area, surface geological investigations, aeromagnetic surveys, and two winter seismic surveys (in 1983-84 and 1984-85) determined that a the potential of 10 billion barrels of oil may exist. The resource evaluation, conducted by the Department of Interior, was released in 1987 and recommended that Congress open the Coastal Plain for oil and gas exploration and development. In 1995, Congress voted to proceed with drilling by attaching the authorization to a federal budget bill, but President Clinton vetoed the bill which cancelled any plans for exploration and development. The debate continues today.

The area in question involves a very small portion on the ANWR Coastal Plain, comprising 1.5 million acres on the northern coast of Alaska and less than 50 miles from the Prudhoe Bay Oil Field which has been operating since the mid 70's. Because of new technology, the base field will incorporate less than 2000 acres or 0.01% of ANWR's 18 million acres and have an underground reach of a 4 mile radius.

More than 75% of Alaskans support exploration and drilling in the Coastal Plain area; but more importantly, so do the only inhabitants of the area. NIBY (not in my backyard) is not the attitude of the residents of Kaktovik, the only people living on the Coastal Plain of ANWR. The Inupiat people of the North Slope have called the Arctic their home for thousands of years, and Former Mayor Benjamin P. Nageak says:

I was taught by my father to respect the land and its resources because our very life depends on them. But we are both the same in our dependence on the resources found on our lands. For my father, it was the food he hunted to feed his family. I also use the land to hunt food for my family. But the oil beneath the surface of ANWR can also provide jobs, schools and a thriving economy for my people.

In 1969, when oil was first discovered on our lands, those fears were foremost in our minds as we fought for self-determination in order to be able to protect our resources. Since then, we have had over twenty years of working with the oil industry here. We enacted strict regulations to protect our land and the oil companies have consistently met the standards we imposed.

ANWR holds resources that can be extracted safely with care and concern for the entire eco-system it encompasses. The Inupiat people, working through the North Slope Borough, will act in the same careful, caring and cautious manner we always have when dealing with our lands and the seas.

We have the greatest stake possible in seeing that any and all development is done in such a way as to keep this land safe. Because it is our world. It is where we live. It holds the remains of our ancestors. It holds the future of our children.

Opponents of exploration and drilling contend that the 10 billion barrels of oil, and the daily production of 1 million barrels/day it could reasonably produce, are insignificant compared to the imported 13 million barrels/day to satisfy America's daily consumption of 21 million barrels of oil. The numbers can be extrapolated to show that the percentage of oil imported on a daily basis would fall from 61.9% to 57.1% at today's usage rate. Consequently, the argument continues that the benefit of drilling in ANWR is not worth the potential harm to the eco-system.

I suggest that Congress immediately authorize exploratory drilling to determine the real quantity of oil and natural gas reserves exist in the Coastal Plain. Most geologists agree that the potential may rival or exceed the initial reserves at Prudhoe Bay, but we will not know until beneath the surface exploration is accomplished. At the same time, plans should be developed and initiated to build the base field and connect to the trans-Alaskan pipeline 50 miles to the west.

If the sub-surface exploration indicates the reserves are far greater than anticipated and a significant impact can be made on the amount of imported oil, then drilling should begin immediately. On the other hand if the exploration supports the current predictions, then the drilling operation should be built and the equipment maintained while the Coastal Plain reserves are capped and held as part of our nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserves (SPR).

The SPR was created by 1975 Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), primarily to counter a severe supply interruption. The goal was to establish a billion barrel reserve with the authorization to permit a removal rate (physical restraints) of 4.4 million barrels a day. In the mid 70's the US consumption rate was 14.7 million barrels/day so the removal rate allowed for the reserves to meet 30% of the country?s needs for 7 to 8 weeks. However, at today's consumption rate, the SPR provides only 20% of the needs, or 5 weeks if the original 30% of supply was met. A lower quantified amount of ANWR reserves which would not significantly impact the amount of imported oil could wisely supplement the Strategic Petroleum Reserves for future emergencies.

Recently Americans saw a spike in gasoline prices due to the interuption of production by Hurricane Katrina, and the Department of Energy tapped the SPR in an effort to stabilize the market. I suggest that the spike was minor in comparsion to the effects the "law of supply and demand" will create on the price of a barrel of oil as China continues on the path of industrialization and begins to compete on the world market for energy sources.

The Administration, in colaboration with Congress, must develop a truly viable and meaningful energy policy. One that is driven towards a reduction in oil imports and ultimately to energy independence. Special interests groups, their agendas, and their influence peddling must be set aside so America can re-shape its energy requirements and fight for "independence" once again = this battle is no less important than the one waged two hundered and thirty years ago.

We need to establish a national goal of energy conservation and the development of new, efficient, and clean forms of energy. As President Kennedy inspired the nation in 1962 to land a man on the moon and return him home safely by the end of the decade, we must do the same today with regard to energy. Modern computers, rocket engines with the required thrust capabilitiues, and the other technolgy required to reach the dream in 1969 were not yet conceived when JFK rallied Americans around something which seemed impossible.

Our President and Congress must inspire the genius of "free enterprise" and mix in a good dose of government support and incentives to create a long term solution to an immediate and long term need while creating a national goal of energy independence within the next ten years. We will not be required to start with a blank slate as we did in 1962. A number of passive systems (solar and wind) exist, which will become more economically feasible as the competition for a barrel of oil heats up and prices increase. The technology to increase battery life and reduce physical size has made great strides, which will allow coal burning and nuclear power plants to replace oil. Automobiles designed to operate on biofuels, some on a blend of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline, are scheduled to come online in 2006. Fusion technology is in its infancy, but so were computers in 1962.

Let us stop the bickering over drilling for oil in ANWR, establish specific goals, and then permit the potential oil and gas reserves in the Coastal Plains to support America's drive to prosperity, security, and energy independence. Future generations will thank us and we likely will leave the world a better place in which to live.

There is simply no option - lets get it done AND soon!

William G. Pierce

Additional Resources:

Fusion Industry

Fusion Power

Technology Development

1/3 Update:

Right Angle Blog read this piece and says:

The challenger to Mike DeWine is looking smarter and smarter everyday.

Thank you, Right Angle.

1/5 Update: Reworked paragraph 11.

About the Budget, Part 2

2005-12-28T21:30:00.000-05:00

During the Reagan Revolution, the goal was to cut the size of government and control the growth of spending. It was as perplexing then as it is now to understand how a reduction in the growth of a program could be deemed a “cut” in spending.

If $6 billion was spent on a specific re-occurring program in FY 2005 and it had seen 7% increases in the past, it has become expected to see an appropriation of $6.42 billion in FY 2006. If a reduction in growth were to take affect, the appropriation might be $6.3 billion dollars representing a 5% increase for the next fiscal year rather than the usual 7%. Either way the program received an increase - $300 million rather than $420 million.

What was frustrating to many conservatives at the time was that the liberal point of view reported the change as a “cut” in spending which afforded them the opportunity to decry the “mean spirited” changes as having a negative effect on the poor and disadvantage. In reality, the needy did see an increase in spending from one fiscal year to the next – it simply was not as large an increase as desired.

Senator Mike DeWine fell into the same pattern Wednesday as he was one of five Senators to vote against the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. His stated reasoning was “[t]his bill was, unfortunately, very detrimental to poor children with regard to health care.” He went on to cite cuts in funding for child support enforcement, foster care, and Medicaid health insurance for the poor.

In reality, the $30 billion reduction out of a projected $14.3 trillion (or $14,300 billion) in federal spending over the next five years amounts to less than one-half of one percent. And, it is only a one-half of one percent reduction in the current 5.4% rate of growth – not a cut from current spending levels.

If Senator DeWine was so concerned about the perception of “cuts” and the effects of the Deficit Reduction Act, why didn’t he speak out about the $3 billion in new special interest spending?

In the last two months, Senator DeWine has co-sponsored three new spending bills (one a long term entitlement program with unreported cost projections) with his colleagues (Kennedy, Durbin, and Schumer) without any hint or suggestion of a corresponding reduction in spending elsewhere. He has voted to increase the spending on two “bridges to nowhere” in Alaska before they were stricken from the Transportation Bill (but, the $500 million still goes to Alaska to spend on “other” transportation projects), and voted twice to keep “pork” buried in legislation rather than highlighting it in the Conference Reports.

It appears Senator DeWine, a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, does not understand that Congress’s free spending binges are not without consequences. The short term budget deficits lead to long term debt which will burden our children and our children’s children.

It will be necessary and possible to explain to future generations that the War on Terrorism and Homeland Security required great financial resources. On the other hand, it will be quite difficult to explain to them that the debt burden they carry was created to build two “bridges to nowhere”, digital converter boxes for better TV reception, keep the price of milk constant, and the myriad of other items which fall under the category of wasteful spending. Congressional spending far, far removed from the Constitutional requirement of “common Defense and general Welfare of the United States.”

William G. Pierce

Addendum: Highlights of the Budget Bill

About the Budget, Part 1

2005-12-24T00:25:00.000-05:00

On Wednesday the US Senate passed, after Vice-President Cheney’s tie-breaking vote, a $39.7 billion dollar budget reduction bill which must be viewed as a very small, albeit a very necessary, down payment in fiscal responsibility. The actual bill included a $30 billion in reduced spending and near $10 billion dollar in new revenues. Had it been a single year’s reduction it would have been far more noteworthy, but the budget reductions are spread over a five year period.

As noted in an earlier piece:

As impressive as that number may seem, it is insignificant when compared to the overall national federal budget of $2.5 trillion or $2,500 billion dollars. Suddenly $6 billion out of $2,500 billion is not quite such an accomplishment.

In personal terms, which are always easier to wrap our minds around, the numbers become truly unimpressive. For a family with a $50,000 annual income, a budget reduction of $120 per year is an equivalent accomplishment. That is a less than $10 per month – not much more than a movie ticket for one patron.

Congress must begin to look at budgets and spending patterns much more seriously. Even with this herald achievement, the Senate included in this bill new special interest spending totaling more than $3 billion dollars. First responders will get $1 billion in grants for new equipment and training, $156 million for a national alert system, $43.5 million for a fully enhanced 911 emergency system, $75 million to help low-power television stations upgrade to digital TV standards, and $30 million to help New York City's DTV transition.

The bill extends for two years a $1 billion dollar subsidy to milk farmers should the price of milk drop below a certain level. And finally, the bill includes $1.5 billion for digital converter boxes to accommodate 20 million homes when the country’s broadcasters complete the transition from analog signals to digital transmission by February 17, 2009 the date approved by the Senate.

Article I - Section 8 of the United States Constitution charges the Congress with the responsibility to “… provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States…” and to “… make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution ….” Other than $156 million for a national alert system, Congress must explain how and why all the remaining expenditures fit the role and responsibility of a federal government that is $8 trillion in debt and engaged in a war on terrorism.

Non-military and non-homeland security spending has increased more that $303 billion during the 2001 to 2005 fiscal years and has been instrumental in the increase of the national debt from $6 trillion to $8 trillion in the last three years. Now add to that, the Medicare drug benefit which has been estimated at $724 billion dollars over the next 10 years and you begin to see that the Nation’s finances are woefully out of control.

Interest must be paid on all of this deficit spending and it currently stands as the third largest expenditure in our fiscal budget. At $26 billion a month and growing quickly, it soon will be the second largest budget item and it represents non-discretionary interest only payments. That means future generations will be burdened with similar interest payments while attempting to pay down the debt load our free-spending Congress has created with the concurrence of “we the people…” through our silence.

It is far beyond the time for the American public to demand change in how our government operates. At a time when our Nation is hampered by special interest groups and their long time bond with career politicians, “we the people …” must reclaim Abraham Lincoln’s vision that this government “of the people, by the people, and for the people” will have a re-birth.

The citizens must speak out and reclaim their vision of America; which is far, far different than the special interest groups and the politicians who partner with them. We must start by telling Congress that the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 is only a down payment towards true fiscal responsibility, tough decisions lie ahead, and we expect our political leaders to follow through with the management role we have entrusted to them.

William G. Pierce

12/28 Update: Added link in the eighth paragraph.

On the Filibuster

2005-12-04T17:31:00.000-05:00

They called it the “nuclear option”; I call it a “mistake.”

The filibuster, a procedure used to delay or block legislative action, is neither a process defined in the Constitution or in Robert’s Rules of Order. It is, however, covered by the Standing Rules of the Senate which govern the day to day operations of the legislative body. Historically, the filibuster was used only to delay or block legislation, but in recent years it has evolved into a tactic to impeded nominations the President has made to a Cabinet level position or the judiciary, at the Supreme Court or appellate court level. Cloture is the term used to close a filibuster and bring the issue to a vote, and it takes 60 of the 100 Senators to activate the end of debate.

Recently, the issue has gained national attention as numerous nominations by President Bush to the federal courts were being stalled by Senate filibustering. In an attempt to remove the roadblock, the Republican leadership announced that they were ready to invoke the “nuclear option” which would change the Senate rules to allow a simple majority (50 of the 100 Senators) to shut down a filibuster. Mistake: – in our society the word “nuclear” seldom carries a good connotation. Even in “nuclear radiation” for a cancer treatment it is thought of as a destructive procedure wherein the cancerous cells will be destroyed. By referring to the rule change as a “nuclear option” the Republican Leadership afforded the critics to “spin” the change into one which would directly attack the Constitution and the pillars of the Senate’s heritage.

In May of this year, a group of Senators dubbed the “Gang of 14” (of which Senator Mike DeWine was one) arrived at a compromise to avoid a filibuster showdown on several judicial nominations and the exercise of the “nuclear option”. The compromise ended the filibuster on three nominees so confirmation was apparent, continued the filibuster on two other nominees thereby rejecting them without a Senate vote, and promised to use the filibuster tactics only in “extraordinary circumstances” – of course, the term extraordinary circumstances was not defined.

By any degree of “common sense” and in reality, the filibuster to delay the President’s nominations is the direct attack on the Constitution, wherein it states in Article II – Section 2 “[The President] … by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, … , Judges of the supreme Court, ….” By filibustering, and thereby not giving the President an “up or down” vote, the Senate is being derelict in one of its perfunctory duties outlined in the Constitution. It was one thing to filibuster a piece of legislation which has no Constitutional guarantee to passage or rejection, it is quite another issue to use the process to avoid a time honored Constitutional requirement of “advice and consent” whereby the nominee is either confirmed or rejected. In addition, filibustering leaves the judicial position unfilled and burdens the rest of the court system which in turn impacts the serving of justice to “we the people ….”

The interesting aspect to all of this is that a precedent to change the Standing Rules of the Senate has been established before, but it has been termed the “Constitutional Option” rather than the “nuclear option” because the changes have the support of the Constitution. Article I – Section 5 states “Each House may determine the Rules of Proceedings ….” By each “House” it is meant the House of Representatives and the Senate for each and every session of Congress. In 1977, '79, '80 and '87, Senator Robert Byrd, the Senate Majority Leader, four times invoked rule changes similar in nature to the proposed changes this year BUT he did them under the guise of a “Constitutional Option” which did not afford the opposition the “spin” that the Constitution was being violated.

Senator Bryd’s history of rule changes are a contrasting view to what he said at the press conference announcing the “Gang of 14” compromise. Byrd, the chamber's most senior lawmaker, applauded the group of 14 and said:

"We have lifted ourselves above politics, and we have signed this document in the interests of the United States Senate, in the interest of freedom of speech, freedom of debate and freedom to dissent in the United States Senate."

Time will tell how enduring the comprise will be, but I beg to differ with Senator Byrd. The compromise did not lift the Senate above politics, considering his use of rule changes in the past, it smacks of just that – politics as usual. He can report that it is the interest of “freedom to dissent in the United States Senate”, but it is at the expense of the Senates responsibilities of advice and consent laid out by the United States Constitution. It is a disappointment to me that seven Senators supported this political power struggle and that the Republican leadership in the Senate accepted it.

William G. Pierce

Around the Blogosphere

2005-12-01T16:30:00.000-05:00

Steven J. Kelso of A Face Made for Radio... wrote about the Pierce for Senate campaign recently. Here is a taste:

Mr. Pierce is a pro-life Republican who also strongly supports the entire Bill of Rights -- including the Second Amendment.
...
Should conservatives sit back and let DeWine lose to a Democrat? It appears that Phil Burress, president of Cincinnati-based Citizens for Community Values, would be more than happy to see DeWine lose. I don't blame him; I have many of the same impulses.
...
My first and strongest impulse is to vote for Pierce in the primaries and even write his name in if DeWine prevails

Thanks, Steven!

About the National Debt

2005-11-25T11:00:00.000-05:00

On October 18th the national debt passed another milestone as it transgressed $8 trillion dollars, but equally important is the rate at which it is increasing. It took six years for the national debt to increase from $5 to $6 trillion dollars, two years to grow from $6 to $7 trillion, and a single year to top the newest threshold of $8,000,000,000,000.

Just as “we the people…” must pay monthly interest and principal payments on our personal or family debt, our government must do nearly the same – it makes monthly interest payments only. The payments currently amount to $26 billion per month, do not reduce the debt at all, and represent the third largest item in the federal budget.

The payments are classified as a non-discretionary budget item because there is no discretion (option) as to whether to make the payments or not – they must be made, and made prior to any other item including national defense. Since we are not buying down the debt, it will remain for our children and our children’s children. They will have to continue making interest payments on the debt their parents created while trying to develop a plan to reduce the principal at the same time. There will be precious little discretion for them to fund important needs, issues and emergencies, natural or man-made that will undoubtedly surface in the years to come.

What is most shocking is that Communist China owns $448 billion dollars of that debt load and it is growing at a rate of 15% per year. Even though we won the Cold War against the Communists in the early 1990’s, our elected officials have been selling our soul back to them in order to finance their uncontrolled spending habits in order to ingratiate voters and secure their re-election.

Both the House and the Senate have heard the message that “we the people …” are concerned about the uncontrolled spending and the ever increasing national debt. In response, the Senate has extolled their virtues by voting for a ">$35 billion dollar reduction in the federal budget, while the House has passed a $50 billion dollar curtailment. Now they have to negotiate on one of the numbers or something in between the two.

Americans must understand that neither group has done anything worthy of boasting. In real numbers they have accomplished nothing. The proposed reductions are spread over a five year period; consequently, the yearly reduction is in the range of $7 to $10 billion. As impressive as that number may seem, it is insignificant when compared to the overall national federal budget of $2.5 trillion or $2,500 billion dollars. Suddenly $7 to $10 billion out of $2,500 billion is not quite such an accomplishment.

In personal terms, which are always easier to wrap our minds around, the numbers become truly unimpressive. For a family with a $50,000 annual income, a budget reduction of $140 to $200 per year is an equivalent accomplishment. That is a less than $20 per month – one trip for a family of four to a fast food restaurant.

It should be obvious that in spite of their feelings of success, our representatives have not adequately addressed the out of control federal budget as it increases the national debt. Either they have lost touch with the value of money or they have attempted to overly impress all Americans with a purely ceremonial exercise in futility. In reality, they have done nothing of substance to achieve the goal of a balance budget, not to speak of an actual reduction in the debt legacy we will leave for future generations.

“We the people …” must require our elected officials, the managers of our government, to make real and significant reductions in both the federal budget and the national debt. It will require a great deal of pressure on our part, and many tough decisions on theirs. Maybe they should begin by re-reading the United States Constitution to regain our fore-fathers plans as to the role and responsibilities of a central government.

William G. Pierce

11/29 Update: Added links to the fifth paragraph.

Happy Thanksgiving

2005-11-24T09:30:00.000-05:00

Have a safe and special holiday giving thanks.

About the War

2005-11-21T20:45:00.000-05:00

I met with a Republican County Chairman the other day, and along with my candidacy, we discussed the current charges that President Bush lied about the Iraqi intelligence which led us into war. He was pleased that the Administration was finally speaking out against the Democratic war of words, but I felt otherwise. It is my position that the President should stay above the fray and refuse to play the politics of gutter diplomacy.

On the other hand the Republicans in the Senate, including the two from Ohio, should be the ones to respond to the baseless charges. Their silence is shameful. The charges bring discredit to the Administration, lower public approval, demoralize the troops, and, in my opinion, aids and abets the enemy. If true, the Administration must be held accountable; but, if false the charges must be positively refuted and those proclaiming them should be censored. Just as they say lying about intelligence reports is completely unacceptable, lying to bring discredit to the Administration and mislead the American public is equally unacceptable.

Americans must look at games being played and understand the stakes. Numerous Democrats have used the “I” word – impeachment - with the attempt to suggest the President’s actions were deceitful and worthy of the Constitutional powers utilized only twice in our Nation’s history. Let’s face the facts that if evidence existed the process would already be under way, and the fact that it is not means that evidence has yet to be found. Consequently, the critics must cease and desist. To do otherwise is a discredit to our troops in the field and to honesty and integrity the American people expect and deserve. Maybe it is the reason that Congress has a lower approval rating that the President some seek to discredit.

An over-riding concern in the entire ruckus is the attempt by the left to recreate the sins of the past. I will assume it is not intentional, but their attempt to micro-manage the military with establishing troop withdrawal plans is reminiscent of the 88th through the 93rd Congress’s attempt to manage the Vietnam War. In time, we learned that it was best for the politicians and federal bureaucrats to leave war time strategy to the United States military – the most professional fighting force the world has ever seen.

Discussion and debate are necessary actions in a democracy, but the current rhetoric without cause by the outspoken critics of the Administration bring discredit to the ideal government we seek to showcase to the world. Congress must remember the time honored words of the late Senator Margaret Chase Smith who said “I am not proud of the way the Senate has been a publicity platform for irresponsible sensationalism … I want to see our Nation recapture the strength and unity it once had when we fought our enemies instead of ourselves.” We the people … want to see that strength and unity as well.

William G. Pierce

Welcome

2005-11-21T19:30:00.000-05:00

Welcome to the Pierce for Senate blog. Visit the campaign site by clicking here.