The Elephant in the Room
Congressman Brian Mast, speaking at the Abacoa chapter meeting on Monday, confronted his critics and doubled down on his call for age limits and the ban on the sale of “gas operated, semi automatic” rifles, such as the AR-15 and AK-47. (Actually that definition probably applies to many of rifles sold that are not single shot bolt action devices.)
In an attempt to guide the audience down the path of his thinking, he asked a series of questions, starting with “who would keep the gun laws as they are?” (most raised their hands.) Very few agreed with “expanding background checks”, “raising age limits”, or banning other categories of equipment, but there was support for restrictions based on mental health. He referenced the “national firearms act”, in place since the 30’s that bans the retail sale of automatic weapons, and argued most don’t think that infringes on the second amendment.
A self described owner of many firearms himself, who grew up around weapons and was trained in the military, Congressman Mast supports the usual gun rights position that guns are tools and you don’t blame the tool for the action of the wielder. That said, he does object to the “lethality” of semi-automatic rifles in the hands of the mentally defective, and believes that the sale of these weapons should be stopped “at least for a while”, while we figure it all out.
Banning the sale of the AR-15 and the like would obviously lead to banning the possession of such of course, and by some counts there are over 3 million AR-15 variants in the hands of American citizens, who are almost entirely law-abiding. That, presumably is part of “figuring it all out”.
While Brian also touched on other topics, such as his support for the tax cuts, opposition to the omnibus spending bill, opposition to sugar subsidies (controversial in Florida), and his initiative to open a Congressional office in the VA hospital.
He also deflected criticism he has received from low conservative “scores” from Heritage Action and Freedomworks. Heritage assigned him 46% on their “key votes” where the average house Republican is at 64%. Freedomworks has him at 49%.
“I wasn’t elected to represent Heritage Action” was his defense, and suggested that he supports President Trump in areas where these organizations do not.
To be fair, the scoring is somewhat one dimensional and a vote is not always what it seems. Your really have to look at the votes and decide for yourself. Heritage Action dinged him for example, for reauthorizing the CHIP program and supporting FAA reauthorization without the privatization they wanted. Most bills have pros and cons, and there is room for interpretation.
During the Q&A, most focused on his position on guns. Teri Hughes lit into him for blaming guns for Parkland, even though there were so many governmental failures that did not adequately deal with the shooter before hand.
Then Linda Wummer asked the question many of us were thinking – how are you going to win your base back and get re-elected? Many people in the room have been strong fans of the Congressman, worked for him in 2016, and have defended him against critics since he was elected. His current difficulties are self-inflicted. Calling for a gun ban is tilting at windmills – it is not likely to happen, and there is no upside to proposing one (if you are a conservative).
Brian is now facing a primary challenge from Mark Freeman and Dave Cummings – something that would have not have happened without this stumble. The Democrats have Lauren Baer and Pam Kieth – neither likely to draw many Republican votes, but in this narrow R+4 district, turnout in November will be key.
Politicians always break your heart at some point, and Brian has broken many over the last few months. This seat is too important to lose over a single issue though, and we have to put on our big-boy pants and consider the big picture. If you disagree with Brian only on the gun control proposal, it is painful but not likely to make a substantive difference in the debate that has already moved on. Consider what losing this seat to a Democrat will do to the Trump agenda, and maybe you will choose the pragmatic course.
Red Meat from an Ag Commissioner Candidate
“Americans come first in America” – that was the message from Agriculture Commissioner candidate Colonel Mike McCalister this week at Abacoa.
Delivering a fiery speech that touched on all the “hot buttons” – guns, the Constitution, standing for the anthem, respect for the flag, “In God we Trust”, and fighting the “new world order liberals”, the Colonel said very little about Agriculture or the job he is running for, but the crowd loved it.
On church and state he said “We are one nation under God … and we’re going to stay that way!” To immigrants, legal or otherwise, his advice was “Assimilate, not Agitate!”.
Touching on the spirit of the founders who were both smart and brave, he stressed our American Heritage and teaching about the Constitution, which some officials, even judges act as if it doesn’t exist.
His remarks were not very different than those he delivered in past campaigns (Governor in 2010, Senate in 2012), but as then, he was well received by the audience.
On his current campaign, he pointed out that the Agriculture Commissioner oversees many things, particularly Consumer Services. Although he had a long military career, his degree is in Earth Sciences, and he currently operates a palm tree farm. He sees diseases (citrus greening, etc), labor availability and water as priorities.
Ending with a quote from Ronald Reagan, he reminded us that we are still “the shining city on the hill” and that “our best days are ahead of us.”
Also at the meeting were CD18 primary candidates Dave Cummings and Mark Freeman who tried to explain why they think Brian Mast should not have a second term.
We also heard from Dr. Robert Katz, Executive Director of America Resurgent, a veteran’s support group. This group is putting on a benefit for disabled veterans in September called “Tipping Point 2018”. Check out their website for more information.
Vote NO on PBG Ballot Questions !!
On March 13, there will be a Palm Beach Gardens Election with four ballot questions related to the city charter. There are no candidates on the ballot this year.
These questions, if passed, will have the effect of seriously weakening the term limits that we so dearly won in 2014.
You may have heard there is controversy about misleading wording on some of the questions, and a city resident has filed a lawsuit to challenge the language as dishonest. If the lawsuit is successful, voters will be told that the results will not count. It is too late to change the questions and absentee ballots have already been mailed.
It is difficult to tell from the ballot language what a yes or no vote really means, but here is our synopsis:
A YES on question 1 replaces much of the charter language to “clean it up” and bring it into line with state law. It also drops the requirement for city manager annual review, lets him (or her) live outside the city, throws out the votes for a candidate when they drop out of a race late, removes the requirement for charter reviews and many other things that go beyond “fixup”. Because there are so many substantive changes under the false guide of “fixup”, we urge you to VOTE NO ON 1.
A YES on question 2 extends council term limits from the current 2 terms of 3 years (6 total – adopted in 2014) to 3 terms of 3 years (9 total). Since this changes the rules for the current council (who would not be there if not for term limits), a very self-serving move, we urge you to VOTE NO ON 2.
A YES on question 3 allows council members to run again after their term limits are reached if they wait three years. Since this would have the effect of throwing out the 4th District Court of Appeals judgement in the Woods case, which ruled that term limited councilmen cannot run again, we urge you to VOTE NO ON 3.
A YES on question 4 drops the requirement for “majority wins” (50% + 1) in council elections. In a race with 3 or more candidates, the candidate with the most votes wins – even if it is only a small percentage of the votes cast. Since this “Incumbent Protection Act” makes it easier for incumbents with name recognition to split the opposition vote by encouraging a larger field to counter challengers, we urge you to VOTE NO ON 4.
For the actual ballot language see: SAMPLE BALLOT
With no candidates on the ballot it is expected to be a low turnout – perhaps 1000 voters or so. Keep in mind that when term limits were adopted in November 2014 – 20,000 people voted and over 16,000 voted for 2 terms of 3 years. If you think it is unfair for a handful of people to overturn the will of 16,000, then GET OUT AND VOTE ON MARCH 13.
For more information, see: PBGWatch.com
An analysis of the PBG Elections
Rachelle Litt wins the PBG Group 5 runoff
Good turnout for PBG Election
PBG Candidate Forum Videos
PBCTP Co-Hosts Palm Beach Gardens Forum on 2/28
A Prayer for our Nation’s Election
The following has been distributed by the Florida Conference of Catholic Bishops:
While you are reading this prayer, listen to Kate Smith’s rendition of “God Bless America”
O God, we acknowledge You today as Lord,
Not only of individuals, but of nations and governments.
We thank You for the privilege
Of being able to organize ourselves politically
And of knowing that political loyalty
Does not have to mean disloyalty to You.
We thank You for Your law,
Which our Founding Fathers acknowledged
And recognized as higher than any human law.
We thank You for the opportunity that this election year
puts before us,
To exercise our solemn duty not only to vote,
But to influence countless others to vote,
And to vote correctly.
Lord, we pray that Your people may be awakened.
Let them realize that while politics is not their
salvation,
Their response to You requires that they be politically
active.
Awaken Your people to know that they are not called to be
a sect fleeing the world
But rather a community of faith renewing the world.
Awaken them that the same hands lifted up to You in prayer
Are the hands that pull the lever in the voting booth;
That the same eyes that read Your Word
Are the eyes that read the names on the ballot,
And that they do not cease to be Christians
When they enter the voting booth.
Awaken Your people to a commitment to justice,
To the sanctity of marriage and the family,
To the dignity of each individual human life,
And to the truth that human rights begin when Human Lives
Begin,
And not one moment later.
Lord, we rejoice today
That we are citizens of Your kingdom.
May that make us all the more committed
To being faithful citizens on earth.
We ask this through Jesus Christ, our Lord.
Amen.
VOTE NO on the SALES TAX
Shortly, the Economic Council and others will be spending over $200,000 to convince you that the county sales tax should be raised to 7%. You will hear that the infrastructure is crumbling, that the children are sweating in their classrooms with broken air conditioners, that the roads have potholes and the bridges are falling down. You will hear that a sales tax is good because 25% of it will come from tourists, and that tens of thousands of jobs will be created to rebuild those roads and bridges, county buildings, the jail and the parks.
Don’t be fooled. This 17% increase in the sales tax will generate much more revenue than is arguably needed to repair the infrastructure that was neglected by conscious choices of county staff and commission. Over the last 5 years, the ad-valorem budget has grown 33%, yet Engineering and Public Works only saw a 3% growth. At the same time, the Sheriff’s budget grew by 28% and county employees saw 12% in across the board raises (3% / year for 4 years). These conscious choices indicate that those running our county and school system were willing to defer maintenance until a pitch could be made for a new source of revenue.
A bond issue could have funded the critical needs. Instead, they want a sales tax that will generate $2.7B over 10 years whether it is needed or not. Do not doubt that they will spend every penny.
1. A 17% increase in the sales tax is a net tax increase of $270M per year, with no offsets to property taxes.
2. It is regressive and will affect low income residents the hardest.
3. It is not subject to the scrutiny applied to the annual ad-valorem budget.
4. It creates an incentive to purchase outside the county (Both Broward and Martin are at 6%, many internet retailers do not collect sales tax).
5. It is not an “infrastructure maintenance tax” but includes many new capital projects.
6. Unlike an infrastructure bond that would raise just enough money for critical needs, this granular tax generates a specific amount of money, and low priority projects will have to be funded in order to spend it all. Like previous proposals, it is a grab-bag of projects, many of which would never be done without a “must spend” windfall.
7. Charter schools get nothing.
8. Many of the municipalities (PBG, Boca) didn’t want the money.
9. It comes on top of the largest ad-valorem tax haul at the county level in history, up 8.2% over last year and up 33% since 2012. If passed, the 2017 equivalent tax hike would be 18%.
10. Over the last 5 years, the county has consistently underfunded engineering and public works (+3%), while increasing the Sheriff’s budget by 28% and giving across the board raises to employees of 12% (3%/year for 4 years). When the overall ad-valorem budget increased by 33%, engineering saw a total of 3% in 5 years. This was a conscious choice.
Don’t be an enabler!
