Is this what we expect of our federal government?

Today I tuned in to CSPAN and saw that the House was "debating" HR 3117 known by the title, "Permanent Electronic Duck Stamp Act of 2011." Below is the initial bill as it appears on line.

My comments are included at the end of the bill.

HR 3117 IH

112th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 3117

To grant the Secretary of the Interior permanent authority to authorize States to issue electronic duck stamps, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

October 6, 2011

Mr. WITTMAN (for himself and Mr. KIND) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources

A BILL

To grant the Secretary of the Interior permanent authority to authorize States to issue electronic duck stamps, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘Permanent Electronic Duck Stamp Act of 2011’.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:

(1) ACTUAL STAMP- The term ‘actual stamp’ means a Federal migratory-bird hunting and conservation stamp required under the Act of March 16, 1934 (16 U.S.C. 718a et seq.) (popularly known as the ‘Duck Stamp Act’), that is printed on paper and sold through a means in use immediately before the date of enactment of this Act.

(2) AUTOMATED LICENSING SYSTEM-

(A) IN GENERAL- The term ‘automated licensing system’ means an electronic, computerized licensing system used by a State fish and wildlife agency to issue hunting, fishing, and other associated licenses and products.

(B) INCLUSION- The term ‘automated licensing system’ includes a point-of-sale, Internet, or telephonic system used for a purpose described in subparagraph (A).

(3) ELECTRONIC STAMP- The term ‘electronic stamp’ means an electronic version of an actual stamp that--

(A) is a unique identifier for the individual to whom it is issued;

(B) can be printed on paper;

(C) is issued through a State automated licensing system that is authorized, under State law and by the Secretary under this Act, to issue electronic stamps;

(D) is compatible with the hunting licensing system of the State that issues the electronic stamp; and

(E) is described in the State application approved by the Secretary under section 4(b).

(4) SECRETARY- The term ‘Secretary’ means the Secretary of the Interior.

SEC. 3. AUTHORITY TO ISSUE ELECTRONIC DUCK STAMPS.

(a) In General- The Secretary may authorize any State to issue electronic stamps in accordance with this Act.

(b) Consultation- The Secretary shall implement this section in consultation with State management agencies.

SEC. 4. STATE APPLICATION.

(a) Approval of Application Required- The Secretary may not authorize a State to issue electronic stamps under this Act unless the Secretary has received and approved an application submitted by the State in accordance with this section.

(b) Contents of Application- The Secretary may not approve a State application unless the application contains--

(1) a description of the format of the electronic stamp that the State will issue under this Act, including identifying features of the licensee that will be specified on the stamp;

(2) a description of any fee the State will charge for issuance of an electronic stamp;

(3) a description of the process the State will use to account for and transfer to the Secretary the amounts collected by the State that are required to be transferred to the Secretary under the program;

(4) the manner by which the State will transmit electronic stamp customer data to the Secretary;

(5) the manner by which actual stamps will be delivered;

(6) the policies and procedures under which the State will issue duplicate electronic stamps; and

(7) such other policies, procedures, and information as may be reasonably required by the Secretary.

(c) Publication of Deadlines, Eligibility Requirements, and Selection Criteria- Not later than 30 days before the date on which the Secretary begins accepting applications under this section, the Secretary shall publish--

(1) deadlines for submission of applications;

(2) eligibility requirements for submitting applications; and

(3) criteria for approving applications.

SEC. 5. STATE OBLIGATIONS AND AUTHORITIES.

(a) Delivery of Actual Stamp- The Secretary shall require that each individual to whom a State sells an electronic stamp under this Act shall receive an actual stamp--

(1) by not later than the date on which the electronic stamp expires under section 6(c); and

(2) in a manner agreed upon by the State and Secretary.

(b) Collection and Transfer of Electronic Stamp Revenue and Customer Information-

(1) REQUIREMENT TO TRANSMIT- The Secretary shall require each State authorized to issue electronic stamps to collect and submit to the Secretary in accordance with this section--

(A) the first name, last name, and complete mailing address of each individual that purchases an electronic stamp from the State;

(B) the face value amount of each electronic stamp sold by the State; and

(C) the amount of the Federal portion of any fee required by the agreement for each stamp sold.

(2) TIME OF TRANSMITTAL- The Secretary shall require the submission under paragraph (1) to be made with respect to sales of electronic stamps by a State occurring in a month--

(A) by not later than the 15th day of the subsequent month; or

(B) as otherwise specified in the application of the State approved by the Secretary under section 4.

(3) ADDITIONAL FEES NOT AFFECTED- This section shall not apply to the State portion of any fee collected by a State under subsection (c).

(c) Electronic Stamp Issuance Fee- A State authorized to issue electronic stamps may charge a reasonable fee to cover costs incurred by the State and the Department of the Interior in issuing electronic stamps under this Act, including costs of delivery of actual stamps.

(d) Duplicate Electronic Stamps- A State authorized to issue electronic stamps may issue a duplicate electronic stamp to replace an electronic stamp issued by the State that is lost or damaged.

(e) Limitation on Authority To Require Purchase of State License- A State may not require that an individual purchase a State hunting license as a condition of issuing an electronic stamp under this Act.

SEC. 6. ELECTRONIC STAMP REQUIREMENTS; RECOGNITION OF ELECTRONIC STAMP.

(a) Stamp Requirements- The Secretary shall require an electronic stamp issued by a State under this Act--

(1) to have the same format as any other license, validation, or privilege the State issues under the automated licensing system of the State; and

(2) to specify identifying features of the licensee that are adequate to enable Federal, State, and other law enforcement officers to identify the holder.

(b) Recognition of Electronic Stamp- Any electronic stamp issued by a State under this Act shall, during the effective period of the electronic stamp--

(1) bestow upon the licensee the same privileges as are bestowed by an actual stamp;

(2) be recognized nationally as a valid Federal migratory bird hunting and conservation stamp; and

(3) authorize the licensee to hunt migratory waterfowl in any other State, in accordance with the laws of the other State governing that hunting.

(c) Duration- An electronic stamp issued by a State under the pilot program shall be valid for a period agreed to by the State and the Secretary, which shall not exceed 45 days.

SEC. 7. TERMINATION OF STATE PARTICIPATION.

The authority of a State to issue electronic stamps under this Act may be terminated--

(1) by the Secretary, if the Secretary--

(A) finds that the State has violated any of the terms of the application of the State approved by the Secretary under section 4; and

(B) provides to the State written notice of the termination by not later than the date that is 30 days before the date of termination; or

(2) by the State, by providing written notice to the Secretary by not later than the date that is 30 days before the termination date.

Back in 2005, a similar House Resolution included the following brief history of the program.

The Congress finds the following:

(1) On March 16, 1934, the Congress passed and President Roosevelt signed the Act popularly known as the Duck Stamp Act (16 U.S.C. 718a et seq.), which requires all migratory waterfowl hunters 16 years of age or older to buy a Federal migratory bird hunting and conservation stamp annually.

(2) The Federal Duck Stamp program has become one of the most popular and successful conservation programs ever initiated. Because of it, our country again is teeming with migratory waterfowl and other wildlife that benefits from the wetland habitats.

(3) Today, 1.7 million migratory bird hunting and conservation stamps are sold each year. As of 2003, such stamps have generated more than $600,000,000 in revenue that has been used to preserve over 5 million acres of migratory waterfowl habitat in the United States. Many of the more than 540 national wildlife refuges have been paid for all or in part with such revenue.

In 1934, the first "duck stamp" cost $1.00, today a 2011 duck stamp costs $15.00. Most of this money ($25,000,000.00 est. this year) goes to the Department of the Interior, for wetland acquisition for waterfowl sanctuaries. There are other Duck Stamps issued by various groups to raise money for their cause, but the stamp in this law is required for all bird hunters.

I am all for conservation, and the hunters I know are for conservation as well, but what bothers me is that the federal government is telling the states what to do and how to do it. Our Congress is directing each state to do this, and that means that each state (that allows bird hunting) must have people who are dedicated to running this program and seeing that the Federal government gets the money.

Question: If a state didn't participate in the Duck Stamp program what could the federal government do?

Can Not Think of Politics

It is a new year, a special year. It is leap year, yet again. It is the year of the summer Olympics. And there will be an election, in case you didn't know. Do we really need 18 months of politics to elect a dysfunctional federal government?

Quiz

In doing some research on our Constitution for the entry below, I came across an interesting bit of trivia. Well, interesting to me. One of the following three signed the Constitution of the United States of America, which one?

George Washington
Thomas Jefferson
Benjamin Franklin

The answer can be found here.

Government?

I have been thinking about this for some time, and I am not sure I know the answer.

But I believe a lot of politicians don't have an answer either. So, here are some of my thoughts, right off the top of my head, balding as it might be.

What is the purpose of government?
Why do we have so many governments?
Do we really need all these governments, and their continuous law making?

After much consideration, I have decided that government is an extension of the feudal system that evolved in Europe. Government has evolved from the system of kings, lords, knights, priests, bishops and such. We, the common citizen, are surfs of course.

We have a federal government because we had to replace King George with something. We, the 13 colonies, needed to unite for common defense. In creating this replacement, the framers took on a number of other tasks for the federal government; among them being the issuing of money, and the control of interstate commerce.

We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

This is the preamble to our constitution. The document is four, handwritten, pages long, and lays the foundation for our government, all three branches. Yes the pages are quite large, but still, hand written. It contains just 4,500 words.

Let's compare that to a recent federal law passed by both houses of Congress and signed by our President. Public law 111-148, March 23, 2010. Depending on formating, it contains between 906 and 2197 pages with somewhere between 384,000 and 418,000 words. (I am not sure how you count all those numbers in this law.)

The title of this Federal Law is "The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act." The Table of Contents for this law runs 12 pages; thats three times longer than the Constitution!

Did any legislator read the whole thing? How many people are employed, full-time, to interpret what it says? Do you know what it says? How many people will be employed to enforce it? Do you know what it is going to do to your life? Why does it take 4 years to go into full effect? The Constitution went into effect as soon as 8 states ratified it. Maybe four years is how long Congress thought it would take us to take cover, or maybe it had to do with elections in 2012. Perhaps it is the amount of time needed to set up a new federal bureaucracy to manage it, and budget for the operations an maintenance of that bureaucracy.

Well, one thing I know is that over all, given the time to prepare, Medical insurance costs are going up, and benefits are going down. I have just recently been informed that Walgreen's Drug Stores will not be accepting my Drug Prescription Plan starting next year. Do you remember what happened when Congress passed a law to "protect" us from those unscrupulous credit card companies?

What were they thinking?

It seems to me that for years now, since the early 1990s, America has not been working to make America a great country, or world leader in economics.

Big government and big business have not been working to make this country better, stronger, or a world leader. Look at all the companies that have left America, because they could make more money with their factories outside the United States. Are these not American companies making products for Americans?

Once you start closing the factories and laying off workers who do you think is going to buy your product? Unemployed Americans? Why does China hold more American debt than any other country? Must be that they have the money to lend. Where did they get it, from the Chinese people? Maybe they got it from us every time we buy something that says, "Made in China."

We are buying oil from the middle east to drive our cars made in Mexico. Meanwhile, the government is requiring Americans to buy light bulbs made in China.

Why are Mexicans trying to get into this country? They have most of our jobs now.

From the web site, mexicotoday.org

With an Increase in Mexican Investment, Mexican Manufacturing Rates Are Growing

Fri, 2011-06-24

With manufacturing rates rapidly rising since last year, Mexico is fast-becoming a world-leader of the manufacturing business. In 2010, Mexican manufacturing rates jumped up to 2.261 million vehicles, a staggering 50 percent increase from 2009. Fast-forward to May of this year, May alone yields a five-month boost for Mexico exports. As reported by the Mexican Association of the Automotive Industry, Mexico produced more than 213,000 cars in May and saw a 21.3 percent increase in exports.

Poor people want to get rich, rich people want to get richer. Politicians want to get re-elected. Everyone wants the good life, but who defines that life? CEO's want bigger profits. Labor unions want more wages, everyone wants a free lunch. There is no free lunch.

Have I mentioned Education?

When I was in my Masters program, I took some classes on statistics. These weren't so much classes on how to make statistics, but on how to interpret them. With statistics, you can prove just about anything. Let's look at America's "failing education system." Supposedly, we are failing our students when we compare America with other countries. Well, what are we comparing?

Most countries, have different education systems and goals than we do. Lets look at some areas where there are differences.

First, and most obvious, is language. How can you compare tests in different languages? Are the tests on the same material? Are the answers to the questions given the same degree of difficulty? What is expected of the student in the answer? In the SATs, students in America are allowed to use calculators on the math sections. ( I don't know what they do in China.) When I took my college entrance exam we didn't have calculators. Are today's test questions the same as the test I took? Has math changed that much? Are we testing the use of calculators or knowledge of math principles?

Second, different countries have different systems. The concept of the same eduction for every student is not universal. In Germany, students take different educational tracts after the elementary grades 1-4. Better students take more advanced courses and different subjects. Many countries have selective schools based upon student performance and expectations. In America equal opportunity has been confused with the same education for all. We have taken ability out of the equation. We assume that everyone should have the same education. Why? When I was a student in a rural community, farm management was an option, wood and metal shop was an option, typing was an option. Everyone didn't have to take and pass a math test to get out of high school. Take 1000 people at random and give them a test. Now take 1000 people who ranked in the top 1/2 of their sixth grade class and give them the test. Which group will perform better? What are the odds?

Third is size. It should be obvious that the size of the population will create a lower average. Without looking up actual numbers, If a country has 1,000,000 students and another has 10,000 students the odds are the test group with one million will have a lower average, but that group will also have more high scores.

If you are reading or hearing about America's dismal performance in an educational test as compared to other countries, consider:

1. What are they comparing, top scores or average scores?
2. What is the test group size for each country?
3. Did the tests cover the same content?
   
4. Where all test groups of comparable students as to age, type of school?
5. What is the countries mandatory educational requirement?

When people say our educational system is failing, then perhaps we need to change the system and not fire the teachers.

If we want top scores, then only let the top scores go to school.

If we want a balanced education for all children in America regardless of capability, life goals, language and citizenship then we must accept that the average education will be less than maximum possible performance of the best. I am not saying that the best won't do better, just not their maximum. I am not saying all children don't deserve and education, just that they should have the education that meets their needs.

I say, give every child the opportunity, but don't keep them in something that is beyond their ability until they just drop out. Give them the education that will give them productive, meaningful, happy lives. We aren't all rocket scientist. I know I'm not one.

More from our First President

It seems to me that Washington had an almost Nostradamus-like quality in his farewell address. In the quote below, he warns of the political parties becoming too powerful in our Federal Government.

Oh George if you could see us now!

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally. This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but in those of the popular form it is seen in its greatest rankness and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and the duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true— and in governments of a monarchical cast patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest instead of warming it should consume.

It seems to me that Washington knew what power political parties could attain, and what they could do to our system of government. I leave you with this question. Is our federal government a government of the people or a government of the parties?