Op-Ed:  My reason for not accepting government money is a letter dated Feb 4, 1974, the year I graduated from medical school. My father, who owned a small contracting business, thumb-tacked it over his desk, to remind him not to bid on government jobs.
 
The letter from Russ Plumbing Company, one of his best subcontractors, reads as follows:
 
“According to your government, the powers that be have decided that we have exceeded our allowable profits in 1972 at the rate of 1/13th of 1%.

“Consequently, we have consented, under the Voluntary Compliance Agreement, to reimburse a total of $789, the amount involved, to our 1972 Contractors. We have endeavored to prorate this amount as equitably as possible.
 
“May we take this opportunity to mention that although we have shown a net loss for the fiscal year 1973, it does not have any bearing on the above decision.
 
“Enclosed herewith please find a check to cover the amount due you.”
 
A check for $17.90, which my father never cashed, was attached.
 
Russ had been the low bidder on a government job—which he finished satisfactorily, on time, for the agreed-upon price. Things went unusually well, so he made more profit than expected. The government decided that he had made too much, and not only demanded a refund but also decided to audit all his private contracts. Auditors swarmed over his office. Productive work was shut down. Russ, who was a good plumber, a hard worker, and a decent, honest man, was ruined.
 
Where did the government get the authority to pass judgment on how much profit a plumber was allowed to earn? Apparently, it just assumed the power and proceeded to exercise it.
 
I posted a copy of Russ’s letter on my wall also, and never accepted a government check after I stopped working for the Veterans Administration and went into private practice. Until 1990, many of my patients filed their own Medicare claims. Since then, the doctor has had to file the claims, even if they are “unassigned” so that the patient receives the check. His signature on the claim means that the doctor agrees to abide by all the rules, of which there are more than 100,000 pages. These include coding requirements and price controls.
 
Russ got off easy. If a doctor gets overpaid, even through unintentional error, he may have to refund three times the amount, plus pay a civil monetary penalty. That used to be $10,000 per item, recently increased to $11,000, and in the new law to $50,000. Then there can be serious prison time.
 
As executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Inc. (AAPS), I have met an office manager who spent one year in a county jail over the definition of—“office visit.” I have talked to doctors whose office or home was invaded by a SWAT team that pointed guns at patients or terrified children. One doctor’s home was ransacked by government agents searching for medical records in shoeboxes. Doctors have spent years in prison, with murderers, over disputes involving less than 1% of their billings. At least half a dozen have attempted or committed suicide after their lives were torn apart by “fraud” prosecutions. These were real doctors, who worked long hours caring for seriously sick patients. Their families are impoverished too—bank accounts, houses, cars, retirement accounts all seized. A few dollars from an “unnecessary” treatment could taint all assets and subject them to forfeiture.
 
Most doctors still think this only happens to “bad apples”— newspaper smears help give that impression.  Still, many doctors, instead of studying about new treatments, are signing up for “compliance” courses to minimize the damages from bounty-hunting auditors.
 
When doctors begin to understand that much of the projected half-trillion dollars in Medicare “savings” is expected to come from assets accumulated by doctors over decades of hard toil, we are likely to see a mass exodus, especially of older doctors in solo practice, who seem to be the prime targets.
 
With fewer doctors, there will be less work done, and thus more savings [so the government would suggest].
 
Russ was just a plumber, and he got flushed. What can doctors expect, now that they are public enemy #1?

For more information on government healthcare from a doctor’s perspective, click here.

Op-Ed:  In the 1920s, when my Canadian-born Irish Catholic grandfather (Bruce Arthur McGuigan) came to Chicago to find work, scattered shop windows still bore signs instructing, “No Irish need apply.”  In discussions about immigration, I often ask fellow conservatives:  What if you were a Mexican with a wife and children, willing and able to work hard, living in Mexico today with its drug wars and social chaos and collapsing culture?  If you sought a better life for those you love, what would you do?  Would you stay Mexico, or find a way to get to America?

Even fans of Oklahoma’s House Bill 1804 say: “I’d go to America.”

Those Mexicans who come here are for the most part apt descendents of the English who fled religious wars four hundred years ago, Jews who fled pogroms in the Eighteenth Century, Irish who fled the Potato famine and English oppression, former slaves who came from the Old South to towns like Langston and Boley in the late 1860s, and Vietnamese who got on boats after the fall of Saigon and came eventually to MidTown Oklahoma City.

My home state, traditionally one of the most welcoming places in the world, sent a powerful message when our Legislature passed, and Gov. Brad Henry signed, House Bill 1804. Whether or not the interpretation was fair, the message many took from the debate was: “No Mexicans need apply.”

Mexicans I know work hard and work well. At night, the men go home to their wives. The wives care for the children, and often work outside the home as well. On Sundays, these folks go to Church, kids in tow.  Some of them got here the same way Irish Americans used to get here. They snuck in.

Immigration policy presents a classic tension between liberty and law. I wish that rather than H.B. 1804, Oklahomans had chosen the way of liberty.

This year at the Capitol, legislation that passed the House of Representatives (House Bill 3384) would have required public schools to determine the immigration status of the parents of students in state schools.

The proposed statute was contrary to a 1982 U.S. Supreme Court decision requiring public schools to provide an education to all comers.  That case  slapped down a Texas law designed to withhold money from educating children whose parents were not “legally admitted” to the U. S.

House fiscal staff estimated the mandate would have cost the state about $100,000 a year.  When the bill got to Senate Appropriations Chairman Mike Johnson of Kingfisher, he treated it the same way he’s treating all other unfunded mandates in this year. He didn’t give it a hearing. Works for me.

Aside from moral concerns, political nuggets lead me to admonish all of us, including conservatives, to exercise greater wisdom on immigration policy.

Marco Rubio is running to become Florida’s next U.S. Senator.  He is favored to deprive incumbent Republican Governor Charlie Crist of the GOP nomination for that job in Washington.  Tom Coburn supports Mr. Rubio, who is leading Crist 57% to 28% in the latest Rasmussen poll.

Rubio is getting dusted up over a Republican party spending issue that also touches an ally of Crist’s, but seems like to survive. Things are so bad for Crist that he may run as an independent.

Rubio makes “closed border” noises, as do most conservative Republicans these days.  Still, all things being equal, if I were in Florida I’d set aside my moderation on immigration per se and support Mr. Rubio.

On April 7, Christopher Ruddy of Newsmax.com reported on a recent visit with the Republican governor of Puerto Rico. The first elected GOP chief executive there since 1969, Luis Fortuno won with by 11% in 2008.

The island went strongly to Republicans at the top and in the Legislature — in the same year Barack Obama easily won on the mainland and Democrats solidified control of Congress.  Puerto Ricans were angry about state spending and out-of-control public employee benefits.

To make the point perfectly clear, Rubio, Fortuno and their supporters are pretty good evidence that Democrats cannot take Hispanic support for granted – and that Republicans are foolish to ignore the growing clout and the healthy leavening influence that comes with affirmation and inclusion of immigrants and their children.

If none of the above focuses the mind, how about this: By 2060, 30% of all Americans will be Hispanics (or Latinos, as some prefer). Many of those folks will have been born in Mexico or be the children of Mexicans.

Where does the foregoing lead?

Wall Street Journal editorial writer Jason Riley argues against those who, in the name of conservatism, advocate for an even more restrictive immigration system. Speaking at the University of Oklahoma’s Immigration in the Heartland Conference, he maintained, “The case for open borders is pretty simple.  It’s not an argument for erasing the border, for ending U.S. sovereignty or creating one North American government or any other such nonsense.  Rather, it’s an argument for letting the free market, the law of supply and demand, dictate the level of immigration.”

Scott Carter of The Journal Record, an Oklahoma City business newspaper, reported Riley’s belief that many recent decisions in the immigration arena have been arbitrary and similar to “exercises in Soviet-style central planning.” Riley observed, “We have thriving markets in document fraud and human smuggling. We have dead bodies in the Arizona desert and, of course, we have 11-, 12-million plus illegal immigrants in the country.”

Riley argues for a guest worker program, saying it would “reduce illegal immigration.” He advocates for free people and free markets. Riley said America needs a “free and flexible labor market. No self-respecting free-market conservative would ever dream of supporting laws that interrupt the free movement of goods and services across the borders. But when it comes to the laws that hamper the free movement of the worker who produces those goods and services, too many conservatives abandon their free-market principles.”

My grandfather ultimately settled in Michigan’s upper peninsula. He worked a lifetime at a paper mill, joined the union local, and raised a large family. In his latter years, he was the quintessential Ronald Reagan Democrat. To Bruce Arthur McGuigan, Reagan was the joyful face of the modern Republican Party.

In Florida, the sunny face of the Republicans is a man who embraces America’s immigrant heritage (and is an example of it), defends market principles, and has drawn both disenchanted conservatives and a far share of moderates to his campaign. In Puerto Rico, the party’s face belongs to a disciplined executive pursuing pro-market conservative policies.

Who is the face of the Oklahoma Republican party, at least when the issue is immigration? Hint: It is not a sunny face.

I kind of like the Mexicans, and the Cubans. Several years ago, when I worked with former Commissioner of Labor Brenda Reneau, we stopped in at a newspaper in western Oklahoma (hint: it’s west of El Reno).

On the verge of holding hearings on illegal immigration, Reneau sought the editor’s input. After some fairly stereotypical anti-immigrant rhetoric, he concluded: “Hell, the Mexicans are good people. If it wasn’t for them, we’d be Class 2A (in high school sports).”

I wish Oklahoma would embrace those who even if they might have skirted the edges to get here, have gone on to work hard, obey the laws and try to find a place for themselves and their families.

They remind me of another bunch who crossed the line before they were supposed to do so. They almost never had the piece of paper they were supposed to have that authorized them to come to what many of them considered the promised land, Oklahoma.

I guess you could say they cheated, those Sooners, in 1889, and 1893, and maybe a few other times. But in this land, we found a way to forgive them, and not to hold their sins against their children.

Yeah, I’m an Oklahoma State University graduate, but here it comes. Let the Sunshine in. Boomer Sooner.

 

---

About the author: An independent writer based in Oklahoma City, Pat McGuigan is editor of CapitolBeatOK (www.capitolbeatok.com), senior editor of The City Sentinel and a contributing editor for Tulsa Today (www.tulsatoday.com). This essay first appeared in the El Reno Tribune (Sunday, April 25, 2010).

Recent statements of mine regarding an Oklahoma militia have been misrepresented, taken out of context and are badly misunderstood.  I have stated that the formation of and participation in, an Oklahoma militia is legal based on both federal and state law.

However, remarks I made in historical context were inaccurately reported as my personal opinion. Specifically, historical speculation about the frame of mind of the Founding Fathers as they wrote the Constitution was reported as if it were my deeply held belief.  Then these misrepresentations were used to distort my true beliefs, while implying that I have violent intentions.

So let me set the facts straight about my beliefs on dealing with the federal government, the role of a militia in Oklahoma, and how best to effect change in government.

Both the First and Second Amendments of the U.S. Constitution protect individual participation in a militia.  Membership in such a group is a form of self-expression, so our right to free speech comes into focus.  The Second Amendment states, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."  Our Founding Fathers were suspicious of big, centralized government.  However, nobody can mistake this statement as some sort of right to insurrection.

The fact is that Oklahoma state law already establishes and provides for, an "unorganized militia" as an officially recognized part of Oklahoma military forces.

§44-41. Composition of Militia – Classes.

The Militia of the State of Oklahoma shall be divided into three (3) classes: The National Guard, the Oklahoma State Guard, and the Unorganized Militia.

23. "State military forces" means the National Guard of the state, as defined in Title 32, United States Code, the organized naval militia of the state, and any other military force organized under the Constitution and laws of the state to include the unorganized militia (the state defense force when not in a status subjecting them to exclusive jurisdiction under Chapter 47 of Title 10, United States Code).

These statutes are not part of overlooked or arcane law. The legislature has rewritten this section numerous times over decades, most recently in 2007.

So undeniably, a militia in Oklahoma is not only legal – it already exists as a matter of fact.

No, Oklahoma does not need to activate the unorganized militia.  If we ever do, it certainly won’t be to invade Washington, D.C.  In fact, Oklahoma’s unorganized militia is prohibited from operating outside the state.

I do plan to fight what I consider to be an over-reaching federal government, but I will do it with the Constitutional tools provided by the framers.  For years, I have advocated adherence to the 10th Amendment as a weapon against big government.

As a legislator for much of the last decade I have routinely proposed new law.  When enough of my Senate colleagues agree with me laws are changed or enacted, peacefully.  Yet, this week, some people seem convinced that I would abandon the democratic process to wage actual war on the federal government which is simply bizarre.

I was saddened that some in the anti-militia crowd can be as irrational and violent as those they condemn.  As this story developed over the week, I received as many as a half-dozen death threats, not only directed at me but at my family as well.  One unpleasant person said they would only be satisfied when I am swinging from a tree.  Hopefully, the thought was fleeting.  The threats were forwarded to the OSBI for investigation.

Tulsa Today is the oldest independent online news service anywhere and we have and will defend that claim.  The point of publication is clear communications on issues of common concern and there can be no greater concern this day than the future of America.  Today Tulsa patriots will gather in downtown and at Expo Square to share strength, encourage, demonstrate and meet new friends.  Together we will renew America.  You are invited.

Since 1996, I have owned and published TulsaToday.com and last week began The David Arnett Show on KRMG.  This site works with that regional broadcast powerhouse on Am 740 and FM 102.3 news talk KRMG each Saturday from 4 to 6 pm.  You have a role to play in this entire media effort. 

I have been a journalist for over twenty-five years, but most regular readers here know that story.  Writing is different from radio and while I have never been a fan of the personal pronoun in print, the radio show is opinion, humor, and satire – on public issues.  Just imagine the mass of things we can say.  We will speak truth to power without regard to station.  

As I am asking for your help, it is only fair that I outline some basic positions here as we will, over the weeks, discuss it on KRMG.  I believe that the old Left/Right debate wrong.  Both are just parallel rails of the same track on government control.  The real question is Individual vs. Collective.  Socialists, Progressives, Statists, Marxists … whatever.  They believe government control from the top down can build a social utopia.  They lie.  There is no proof in history supporting their claim – no Liberty in liberal and no progress in progressive.  America built greatness from the ground up – free men in a free market without the crushing burden of massive taxation and excessive regulation.  History proves this is the correct path for all mankind.

Our government has failed.  Congress specifically has, by their massive deficit spending and stupid corruption failed to protect and maintain the value of the currency as they are required to do by Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. 

They further fail in the effort to apply the "Commerce Clause" to the recently passed Health control bill.  That mostly unread collection of socialist fantasy, corruption and special interest is not Constitutional on it’s face – government cannot force free people to buy any specific private product for any reason.  The Constitution is the only thing that unites the many states and our union will continue to fracture (see so-called Health Care litigation) if not repaired.  

I need your help to fix America and protect our greater community.  Global economy is a myth.  All real economy is regional and Tulsa is a regional city in the heart of America – the Cosmopolitan Capital of Indian Territory and the home of Okie Attitude that lives free and speaks truth regardless what others may think or say or do.  We don’t stop.  We don’t quit.  We are free people.  The tyranny of political correctness ends here.

The current congress and the administration have destroyed the Democrat Party by turning it so far left that our Bill of Rights is now at risk.  They invent duplicitous names like “Net Neutrality” which in planned application is an evil nothing less than the control of all mass communications in America.  That can not be allowed.

Tuesday at the Republican Women’s Club of Tulsa County four candidates for Oklahoma Governor spoke and any one of those would serve with honor.  The two lesser known candidates Robert Hubbard and Roger Jackson are good men but not greatly experienced or well funded for this campaign.  Of the two leading candidates, U.S. Rep. Mary Fallin and State Sen. Randy Brogdon, Fallin is the most experienced and widely respected for her conservative service over many years.  (For more more on Fallin vs. Brogdon, click here.)

I would rather see Randy Brogdon run for Congress because he is better known in Northeastern Oklahoma.  Those that know him have little doubt that if President Obama’s Chief of Staff Rahn Emanuel stuck a finger in his chest, Brogdon would return it to some Emanuel orifice where the sun doesn’t shine.  (In case you are wondering; assault is any threatening movement toward another person, battery is any threatening physical contact and self-defense is a God given right.)  

America needs more Okie attitude in Washington.  The game is changed.  For years we have sent solid conservative representatives to Washington including, but not limited to Sen. Jim Inhofe and Sen. Tom Coburn.  These are honest courageous men, but primarily peacemakers and consensus builders.  Those days may be over.

Do you agree?  Do you disagree?  Let’s talk.  Let us meet on the open level field of public debate.  You may register free on Tulsa Today and add a comment to any story.  You may call 460-KRMG (460-5764) to add your voice to the only issue based call-in talk show on that station. 

Join me Saturday from 4 to 6 pm.  Or better yet, take time today and join me at the Tea Party event at Expo Square.  I will talk with you in person.  

Again, we must look to our nation and our communities.  We must build our local economy, correct our failed government and insure a better future for our children.  This is the day.  This is the hour.  Let us gather in peace for our most important purpose – the long march to recover America.

 

---

Update:

It was fun.  Diverse, entertaining, patriotic, are just a few of the top of mind impressions from Tulsa’s Tea Party at Expo Square April 15, 2010.  It was good to talk with so many of you during the evening and for those that did not attend, we will be posting a gallery of pictures over the weekend.

The coordinating sponsor was the non-partisan USA Patriots with KRMG as the radio host.  To see video of the event, click here.

As I listened to the wailing and gnashing of teeth by the Oklahoma Municipal League (OML) and its lobbyists about my proposal to end the grocery sales tax, the story of “Chicken Little” came to mind.

OML is a special interest group funded with money from cities and towns (originally collected from you, the taxpayer) to speak out on municipal issues. As sure as the sun rises in the east, you may rest assured that any effort to provide tax relief to residents of cities and towns will draw their ire. 

This was the group that, for years, managed to deny Oklahoma families the back-to-school sales tax holiday. Their argument, just like Chicken Little claiming the sky is falling, was that it would devastate city budgets to provide this modest sales tax relief to families. Facts about such a sales tax holiday just did not matter to this group.

The facts are this: The sales tax holiday actually increased tax collections through increased economic activity; cities and towns are reimbursed for their “lost” sales tax on top of the increased tax collections the sales tax holiday spurred; and, the holiday was called “the most taxpayer-friendly” policy ever enacted by the Legislature.

The sky did not fall; Chicken Little was wrong.

Chicken Little is at it again. OML claims that removing the sales tax on groceries would devastate cities and towns. Again, the facts apparently do not matter.

The bill clearly guarantees cities and counties would be made whole when they can no longer collect the grocery tax. The bill says “revenue shall be apportioned to each municipality, county or authority…equal to the amount of sales tax revenue of such municipality, county or authority exempted” by the bill.

The sky will not fall; Chicken Little is wrong – again.

Further, the measure ensures that ending the grocery sales tax would not further devastate state services. It would take effect only when state revenues recover to pre-recession levels – a level that would ensure vital services would not be cut when the grocery tax ends.

Another troubling presumption OML apparently makes is that the $406 million that would be returned to families once the grocery tax ends simply would disappear from the economy. No, $406 million would remain in local communities, in the pockets of Oklahoma taxpayers.

That money, a quarter-billion dollars of which is sucked out of local and family budgets and sent to the state treasury in Oklahoma City, would remain in local communities. It would be spent in local communities, boosting not only family budgets, but local economies and businesses as well.

The grocery tax is a hurtful, regressive tax that hits average families hardest because it devours a greater percentage of their income than it does for the very wealthy. That is why I have continued my fight to remove the sales tax on groceries, and why – no matter the outcome this year – I will continue this battle so long as I serve in the Senate.