Liberty Rambles

Tyranny or Good Government?

larrygamble — Fri, 01 Apr 2011 05:05:08 +0000

I read with interest about Dept of Natural Resources (DNR) prosecutor turned challenger for Wisconsin Supreme Court and her persecution of a 80 year old man for not planting the right kind of grasses on his property. It seems Jefferson County farmer Wayne Hensler, according to court records, owned some property in Lake Mills which suffered some erosion over the last six years. His property was sending runoff into nearby Rock Lake which was breaking state environmental laws.

The DNR, under Kloppenburg, gave him several years to fix the problem and he refused to do. Then, he was fined for ignoring the order to repair the problem. After that, the DNR re-seeded the area to stop the runoff, but Hensler promptly plowed it up. This time he was fined for the cost of the planting and ordered to re-plant the work. Once again, Hensler refused to be told what to do on his own property. As a result of Kloppenburg’s actions against him, a judge sent him to jail for five days shortly after he got out of the hospital and ordered the fine confiscated from his bank account.

Is this governmental tyranny or just the government taking action for the general welfare of the land?

My next example comes from South Carolina. In 2007, Sen. Darrell Jackson saw what he described as a horrifying experience. He pulled up next to a car at a Wal-Mart and he saw a woman puffing away on a cigarette with a child strapped in the back seat. That prompted Sen. Jackson to author a bill to stop smoking in cars when young children are present. It’s failed to pass twice already but it’s being revived again this year.

This time, the bill says if children are young enough to need to be in a child safety seat, then the air to breathe inside a vehicle should be smoke free.

According to Rep. Joan Brady, R-Columbia, “The child is a victim. They really are held captive in a car.”

The penalty is a $25 civil fine, which local governments can’t tack fees onto, and it won’t be reported to insurance companies.

Already, four states and Puerto Rico limit smoking in cars. In 2006, laws took effect in Arkansas and Louisiana, in Puerto Rico followed suit in 2007, then California and Maine in 2008. They all differ widely on the punishment and when the children are old enough for drivers to light up smoke. It ranges from 6 years old in Arkansas to 18 in California, according to the Washington-based Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids and American Lung Association.

Is this a case it really is best for the 18 year old children or is the government meddling into our private lives again?

Of course, we should discuss those seat belt laws along with the mandatory enforcement provisions that came courtesy of the federal government coercing states with threats of withhold transportation funds.

Let’s not forget about the zealous enforcement of car seat laws to protect the children. A few years ago, Washington DC police used roadblocks to stop drivers and make random checks. In 2000 an Arkansas judge made an example of a woman who strapped her three year old into the back seat of her car with just the car’s factory equipped seat belt. She was fined $125 dollars and ordered to write an obituary for her daughter.

Again, tyranny or simply good government watching out for our general welfare?

I didn’t mention that some car seats now have an expiration date just like a gallon of milk. Yep, they do and it might prevent you from getting to re-use a seat with another child. In some states, there are car seat inspection centers where they can either refuse to install an expired seat or they can confiscate that old car seat.

Just a bit to think about the next time you hear of a ground breaking new bill. It might be good idea to ask what are the unintended consequences of that new law.

Oil of Your Life

larrygamble — Thu, 24 Mar 2011 21:34:49 +0000

Take an inventory of everything in your life and in your home… then think about how many of those items that you rely on daily are made from plastics. Modern plastics and synthetic items are most likely petroleum-based.

If you are not sure, the list will surprise you. Oil does more than turn an internal combustion engine. Oil makes our modern, civilized life what it is today. Without oil, life as we know it would not be… like we know it.

Until conducting this inventory, most people are rarely able to grasp the scope of how dependent we are on petroleum-based products are in our everyday lives. With unrest in the Middle East and rising gas prices, we hear calls for weaning ourselves off of oil. But, that is easier said than done. Oil has crept into nearly everything we touch.

Before you start contemplating the new Chevy Volt and thinking you will reduce our dependency on oil, think again and think much broader. Many of the electronic controllers and even many parts are petroleum based. Oil is about more than just Miles Per Gallon.

I Found this list found on Ranken-energy.com; they make a nice listing that shows some of the 6000 products based on petroleum derivatives. Out of a 42 gallon barrel of oil, we only produce only 19 gallons of gasoline.

The rest of it, 23 gallons are used to produce:

Solvents Diesel Fuel Motor Oil Bearing Grease

Nylon Polyester Plastics Styrofoam

Ink Floor Wax Ballpoint Pens Football Cleats

Upholstery Sweaters Boats Synthetic Rubber

Bicycle Tires Car Bodies Nail Polish Fishing lures

Dresses Tires Golf Bags Plastic Wood

Cassettes Dishwashers Tool Boxes Petroleum Jelly

Helmets Caulking Shoe Polish Transparent Tape

CD Player Antiseptics Curtains Faucet Washers

Clothesline Soap Purses Food Preservatives

Basketballs Shoes Dashboards Vitamin Capsules

Cortisone Deodorant Footballs Antihistamines

Putty Dyes Panty Hose Refrigerant

Percolators Life Jackets Liners Rubbing Alcohol

Skis Televisions Rugs Electrical Tape

Tool Racks Epoxy Glue Paint Car Battery Cases

Mops Slacks Umbrellas Insect Repellent

Oil Filters Yarn Fertilizers Hair Coloring

Roofing Lipstick Linoleum Toilet Seats

Fishing Rods Speakers Glycerin Denture Adhesive

Insecticides Refrigerant Boats Ice Cube Trays

Perfumes Dice Rope Electric Blankets

Candles Trash Bags Wheels Tennis Rackets

Shampoo Asprin Luggage Rubber Cement

Fishing Boots House Paint Water Pipes Hand Lotion

Roller Skates Surf Boards Paint Rollers Shower Curtains

Guitar Strings Glasses Antifreeze Football Helmets

Awnings Eyeglasses Clothes Toothbrushes

Ice Chests Footballs Combs CD’s & DVD’s

Paint Brushes Detergents Vaporizers Balloons

Sun Glasses Tents Heart Valves Crayons

Parachutes Telephones Enamel Pillows

Dishes Cameras Anesthetics Cell Phones

Artificial Turf Artificial limbs Bandages Dentures

Model Cars Folding Doors Hair Curlers Cold cream

Movie film Drinking Cups Fan Belts Contact lenses

iPhone/iPod Golf Balls Ammonia Shaving Cream

Refrigerators Toothpaste Memory Foam MP3 Players

Your Policital Activity

larrygamble — Sun, 20 Mar 2011 14:20:16 +0000

I’m re-posting this one because the message is clear and I agree with the reasoning (obviously or why I would re-post). Happy reading.

Unstoppable? Our Runaway Union Trains

3/20/11

USA Today Photos

Libertarians do not agree to the letter on many issues, but our core belief centers around what is known as the Zero AGGRESSION Principle–that physical force against persons or property, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property is wrong.

The ZAP applies to individuals, groups, and nations. That’s why you’ll find most libertarians ardent interventionists in regards to foreign policy and outspoken critics of the Nanny State.

With this axiom in place, I want to assure you that libertarians are not against labor or business, but we are for freedom…the freedom to work and prosper, the freedom to own property and profit from it, and always–the freedom to choose.

First, you own yourself, but you do not own your job. You enter into a contract with business owners, and you are paid for services rendered or skills performed. In other words, you are selling your labor. In a free society, you have a right to sell it to whomever you please. Conversely, buyers have a right to choose what they need from the labor market, and adjust their numbers of workers according to profit/loss.

A job is NOT your right, but the pursuit of one is (if that brings “happiness” and personal gain). As a member of the human community, you should expect a safe working environment, fair hours, and the ability to negotiate for reasonable wages and benefits. Contracts must be mutually beneficial, and entered into devoid of coercion and fraud.

Libertarians are not against unionism; that is, workers banding together for a common cause to improve work conditions and status. Free Association is another important tenet of true liberty. No one should tell you whom you can or cannot associate with in society.

Collectives only become a detriment to freedom when they rise up to assert themselves as superior to other groups, lobby for government intervention (legal rights), buy politicians to improve their status, and resort to strong-arming.

Unfortunately, this bullying behavior is a stubborn stain on union history in America, and the situation in Wisconsin is no exception. Formed on the premise to prevent the big man from taking advantage of the little guy, the roles are now reversed.

But let’s discuss the private sector first.

Thomas E. Woods, Jr. tells us how labor laws in this country once operated on the principles of freedom of contract and association.

In the 1920s, a laborer was perfectly free to reject any offer of compensation that an employer might make to him, and an employer was likewise entitled to reject any offer made by a laborer. An employee was free to withhold his labor services if unsatisfied with his employer’s terms; likewise, a group of laborers jointly exercising this individual right were permitted to do so. No one, however, was allowed to prevent individuals who wished to work from exercising their right to do so.Strikers — like anyone else — were forbidden to interfere with consumers’ right to shop where they liked. And strikes could not obstruct suppliers from making deliveries, since to do so would again violate the rights of others. Finally, since the employer’s plant was private property, the employer had the absolute right to decide who would be permitted to enter, and complete strangers who wished to enter for the purpose of agitating his employees could be lawfully excluded altogether.” Read the rest of the “The Forgotten Facts of American Labor History” and discover when things began to change.

Labor unions would have you believe that their movement brought us shorter workweeks, safer working conditions, and better wages, but not so. Actually, capitalism is responsible for these improvements.

The shorter work week is entirely a capitalist invention. As capital investment caused the marginal productivity of labor to increase over time, less labor was required to produce the same levels of output. As competition became more intense, many employers competed for the best employees by offering both better pay and shorter hours. Those who did not offer shorter work weeks were compelled by the forces of competition to offer higher compensating wages or become uncompetitive in the labor market.Capitalistic competition is also why “child labor” has all but disappeared, despite unionist claims to the contrary. Young people originally left the farms to work in harsh factory conditions because it was a matter of survival for them and their families. But as workers became better paid—thanks to capital investment and subsequent productivity improvements—more and more people could afford to keep their children at home and in school.Union-backed legislation prohibiting child labor came after the decline in child labor had already begun. Moreover, child labor laws have always been protectionist and aimed at depriving young people of the opportunity to work. Since child labor sometimes competes with unionized labor, unions have long sought to use the power of the state to deprive young people of the right to work.

Unions also boast of having championed safety regulation by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) over the past three decades. The American workplace has indeed become safer over the past century, but this was also due to the forces of competitive capitalism, not union-backed regulation.

An unsafe or dangerous workplace is costly to employers because they must pay a compensating difference (higher wage) to attract workers. Employers therefore have a powerful financial interest in improving workplace safety, especially in manufacturing industries where wages often comprise the majority of total costs. In addition, employers must bear the costs of lost work, retraining new employees, and government-imposed workman’s compensation whenever there is an accident on the job. Not to mention the threat of lawsuits.

Investments in technology, from air-conditioned farm tractors to the robots used in automobile factories, have also made the American workplace safer. But unions have often opposed such technology with the Luddite argument that it “destroys jobs.”

The regulation of business by the EPA, OSHA, FTC, DOE, and hundreds of other federal, state, and local government bureaucracies constitutes an effective tax on capital investment that makes such investment less profitable. Less capital investment causes a decline in the growth of labor productivity, which in turn slows down the growth of wages and living standards.

In addition, slower productivity leads to a slower growth of output in the economy, which causes prices to be higher than they otherwise would be; and fewer new products are invented and marketed. All of these things are harmful to the economic well-being of the very people labor unions claim to “represent.” (Incredibly, there are some economists who argue that unions are good for productivity. But if that were true, corporations would be recruiting them instead of spending millions trying to avoid unionization.)

Ludwig von Mises also pointed out that as business becomes more heavily regulated, business decisions are based more and more on compliance with governmental edicts than on profit-making. American labor unions continue to call for more regulation of business because, in order for them to survive, they must convince workers—and society—that “the company is the enemy.” That’s why, as Mises noted, union propaganda has always been anticapitalistic. Workers supposedly need to be protected from “the enemy” by labor unions.

However, the substitution of bureaucratic compliance for profit-making decisions reduces profitability, usually with little or no benefit to anyone from the regulations being complied with. The end result is once again a reduction in the profitability of investment, and subsequently less investment takes place. Wages are stunted, thanks to self-defeating unionist propaganda. The well-paid union officials may keep their jobs and their perks by perpetuating such propaganda, but they are harming the very people who pay the dues which are used to pay their own salaries.” Thomas J. Dilorenzo, The Union Myth

Thus, in keeping with the principles of freedom, business owners should be at liberty to employ union and non-union employees at their discretion, and maintain a right to recognize, or refuse to recognize, a union as the collective bargaining agent of some, or all, of its employees.In principle, an individual should also have the freedom to contract an employment package with the company on his own terms.

Again, in sticking to the principles of freedom, unions should not be allowed to force others on the job into the union (called a closed shop), force dues from non-union employees (agency shop), harass other employees, or attempt to block their access onto company property during a strike.Workers have the right to organize boycotts. Still, boycotts or strikes do not justify the initiation of violence in any form against anyone. The government should not force employees back to work, either.No one disputes that labor unions served an important purpose in the burgeoning industrial age in our country, which redefined how we work. Union supporters have perpetrated many myths about oppressive working conditions in factories, but they fail to make an accurate comparison to life before the industrial revolution in a predominately agrarian society–the long, grueling hours for all family members, hardships, and unpredictable returns.

Henry Ford is famous for reforms, such as increased wages and shorter working hours. In 1914, the minimum wage was $2.34 a day. He began to pay workers $5 a day (equivalent to $110 today). Chronic turnover ceased, and the best mechanics in Detroit headed over to Ford. As a result, productivity increased.

Ford also brought us the 40-hour workweek. He explains why it was implemented:

“We have,” he said, “decided upon and at once put into effect through all the branches of our industries the five day week. Hereafter there will be no more work with us on Saturdays and Sundays. These will be free days, but the men, according to merit, will receive the same pay equivalent as for a full six day week. A day will continue to be eight hours, with no overtime.

“The country is ready for the five day week. It is bound to come through all industry. In adopting it ourselves, we are putting it into effect in about fifty industries, for we are coal miners, iron miners, lumbermen, and so on. The short week is bound to come, because without it the country will not be able to absorb its production and stay prosperous.

“The harder we crowd business for time, the more efficient it becomes. The more well-paid leisure workmen get, the greater become their wants. These wants soon become needs. Well-managed business pays high wages and sells at low prices. Its workmen have the leisure to enjoy life and the wherewithal with which to finance that enjoyment.

“The industry of this country could not long exist if factories generally went back to the ten hour day, because the people would not have the time to consume the goods produced. For instance, a workman would have little use for an automobile if he had to be in the shops from dawn until dusk. And that would react in countless directions, for the automobile, by enabling people to get about quickly and easily, gives them a chance to find out what is going on in the world-which leads them to a larger life that requires more food, more and better goods, more books, more music — more of everything. The benefits of travel are not confined to those who can take an expensive foreign trip. There is more to learn in this country than there is abroad.

“Just as the eight hour day opened our way to prosperity, so the five day week will open our way to a still greater prosperity.

“The eight hour day law to-day only confirms what industry had already discovered, If it were otherwise, then the law would make for poverty instead of for wealth. A man cannot be paid a wage in excess of his production. In the old days, before we had management and power, a man had to work through a long day in order to get a bare living.

“Now the long day would retard both production and consumption. At the present time the fixing by law of a an five day week would be unwise, because industry is not ready for it, but a great part of industry is ready, and within a comparatively short time I believe the practice will be so general in industry that it be made universal.

“It is high time to rid ourselves of the notion that leisure for workmen is either ‘lost time’ or a class privilege.

“Nature fixed the first limits of labor, need the next, man’s inhumanity to man had something to do with it for a long time, but now we may say that economic law will finish the job.

“Management must keep pace with this new demand — and it will. It is the intersection of power and machinery in the hands of management which has made the shorter day and the shorter week possible. That is a fact which it is well not to forget.”

(Source: Henry Ford: “Why I Favor Five Days’ Work With Six Days’ Pay”, by Samuel Crowther, World’s Work, October, 1926 pp. 613-616)

Labor unions today function too much like our out-of-control government. The Founders of this country envisioned a government to protect the rights of their citizens in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and the pursuit of property. In other words, it was supposed to step in only when inherent rights were threatened or contractual agreements needed arbitration.

Our government has become a nasty bully, stopping at nothing to ensure its own, elite interests while usurping the Constitution and brazenly restricting the freedoms of the American people. Bureaucratic abuses are on the rise, as the media reports daily on corruption, cover ups, and pay-offs.

Now, substitute the word “union” for government. Clearly, unions no longer exist to simply protect workers’ basic rights. They have become national bastions of greed and political power that revel in privileged immunity from prosecution, even if they order their members to commit violence.

Therefore, I am convinced that a Right-to-Work concept is the only view compatible with individual liberty that honors the freedoms of association and right to property. Currently, the U.S. has 22 “Right to Work” states.

Indeed, government interference, with its complex set of laws, coupled with mafia-like unions and their bosses, have crippled the American economy and the once-coveted dream of entrepreneurship.

Thomas E. Woods cites a startling report: “The damage that unions have inflicted on the economy in recent American history is actually far greater than anyone might guess. In a study published jointly in late 2002 by the National Legal and Policy Center and the John M. Olin Institute for Employment Practice and Policy, economists Richard Vedder and Lowell Gallaway of Ohio University calculated that labor unions have cost the American economy a whopping $50 trillion over the past 50 years alone.That is not a misprint. “The deadweight economic losses are not one-shot impacts on the economy,” the study explains. “What our simulations reveal is the powerful effect of the compounding over more than half a century of what appears at first to be small annual effects.”Not surprisingly, the study did find that unionized labor earned wages 15 percent higher than those of their nonunion counterparts, but it also found that wages in general suffered dramatically as a result of an economy that is 30 to 40 percent smaller than it would have been in the absence of labor unionism.

Many libertarians support a free market, called “laissez-faire” capitalism. In French it means, ‘Leave it alone”. We believe the government should stay totally out of business–from regulatory agencies to labor laws to bail outs.

A free market, driven by consumer needs in a competitive environment, is self-regulating and adjusting. It places a merit demand upon the worker and a reward demand upon the employer in order to keep reliable, competent people. The consumer, not the government, is the check on quality control that pressures both sides to provide an excellent, affordable product/service or risk failure.

Real risks are natural components for a healthy, unhindered economy. Government bailouts (safety nets) discourage personal responsibility (the “Too Big to Fail” mentality). Bailouts artificially prop up the economy. People are lulled into thinking they avoided a disaster; but in truth, they only delayed it.

The market doesn’t have to flow in boom/bust cycles; such extremes are caused by what Murray Rothbard called “loose money and credit” generated by the Fed and distributed through the Central Banking system. But the quicker you let the economy fall, the quicker it rebounds to full recovery.

No, the U.S. does not have a free market. We don’t even have true capitalism, but corporatism, which is the deformed offspring of big business and big government. It distorts the economy with protectionism and taxation. For a better understanding of the difference between capitalism and corporatism, read here.

So, back to how unions fit into all of this. Until we have a truly free market where government will not, cannot hinder or assist the marketplace, private sector unions will continue to bed down with prostituting politicians who sell their favors to the highest bidder. In return, the unions get government legislation on federal and state levels that keep them strong, companies weak, and the taxpayers broke.

It is no secret that Henry Ford hated unions. He was convinced that the workers were too influenced by powerful, politically motivated bosses who would end up doing more harm than good. While the union philosophy was to restrict productivity as a way to foster employment, Ford believed productivity was the means to economic prosperity.

Although gains in productivity would obviously make some jobs obsolete, Ford saw that expansive, economic growth would create new jobs within the company and its supporting businesses. He claimed that smart managers would do right by their employees in order to profit, and eventually, enough good managers would create a strong socio-economic system that shut out bad managers and bad unions.

Ford believed the UAW (The United Automobile Workers Union) was out to ruin his business, and he was the last automaker in Detroit to hold out against them, despite now-famous violence, work disruptions, and bitter stalemates. He was ready to close down the company, but his wife Clara threatened to leave him if he did. She said it was wrong to deny their son and grandsons their places in the Ford dynasty.

Almost overnight, Ford Motor Company struck a deal with the UAW and contracted terms more favorable to the union than any other automaker. (sources: Charles E. Sorensen with Samuel T. Williamson, My Forty Years with Ford, 1956, and Henry Ford with Samuel Crowther, My Life and Work, 1922)

We’re all familiar with the auto company bailouts that earned GM the nickname “Government Motors”. Back in 2006, George Reisman was just one of the economists sounding the alarm. His article, “Where Would General Motors Be Without the United Automobile Workers Union?” reported these alarming facts:

“Over a year ago (2007), The Cincinnati Enquirer reported that “the United Auto Workers contract costs GM $2,500 for each car sold.”

GM had to pay…”a ransom to its UAW workers of up to $140,000 per man, just to get them to quit and take their hands out of its pockets.“

GM had “healthcare obligations that accounted for more than $1,600 of the cost of every vehicle it produced.”

In 2008, GM had pension obligations that left it with a net worth of minus $16 billion.

No one listened, and the taxpayers were forced by the government to pick up the bandits’ tab. Our children and future generations will have to live under the crushing debt. Now, after the big rescue I ask…

What has changed so that this atrocity doesn’t happen again?

The companies, unions, and government’s ménage à trois is tighter than ever, and it’s back to business as usual.

Interestingly, union membership in the private sector is now at 6.9%–the lowest since the 1930s. But union membership in the public sector–government-owned, supported or regulated organizations–is 36.2% of the American workforce. It is expanding in size and employee benefits–even as other Americans face chronic high unemployment (8.9% as of 2/2011) under the shadow of another Depression.

Public employees earned benefits worth an average of $13.38 an hour in December 2008, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) says. Private-sector workers got $7.98 an hour.

Overall, total compensation for state and local workers was $39.25 an hour — $11.90 more than in private business. In 2007, the gap in wages and benefits was $11.31.

The gap has been expanding because of the increasing value of public employee benefits. In one year, government benefits rose three times more than those in the private sector did: up 69 cents an hour for civil servants, 23 cents for private workers.

Note that federal employees in 2008 made on average almost $8,000 more than their private-sector counterparts. When you add in benefits, the gap spreads to about $30,000. (USA Today)

At least union workers in the private sector realize they are negotiating for limited, speculative resources based on what consumers are willing to pay.

If the wage/benefit package is too high and profits too low, the company will go out of business; therefore, this reality makes the unions more willing to strike an agreement.

But public sector employees work for the government; it doesn’t have any competitors. Its “customers” (American citizens) are enslaved to its services from the cradle to the grave, and it has no plans to go out of business!

Public unions can therefore contribute money to the campaigns of sympathetic politicians, make unreasonable demands, and then get their pocketed cronies in government to raise taxes to cover the costs. Powerful lobbyists ensure that public jobs are protected, regardless of economic conditions or performance of the worker.

For example, just look at what it takes to “fire” a teacher in the Chicago school system: (thanks to the Chicago Tribune and Reason Magazine) See larger image here.

Scenarios are similar all over America.

Now, let me assure you I am NOT against unions in principle, nor am I against those who join them to seek advocacy for just working conditions, wages, and retirement benefits in both sectors.

But can we locate a common denominator in all union problems, private and public? Yes. It’s the U.S. government.

Americans suffer across the board. First, as consumers, we pay higher prices for often mediocre goods, thanks to private sector unions. Then, as taxpayers, we are forced by the government to provide a living for its employees that exceed that of the average citizen, thanks to public sector unions.

I can’t blame people for wanting to position themselves for the best benefits possible–that’s pretty much the “American way”. But it loses its luster when it’s no longer a product hashed out of rugged individualism and mutual respect, but ignoble concessions to the scare tactics of a labor gang.

Unionism wouldn’t be a problem if “we, the people” had maintained our vigilant watch on freedom’s wall. Liberty is a dangerous thing, for it requires us to know the difference between what to courageously allow at risk and what to avoid at all costs.

Today, I believe we’ve confused the two concepts and human rights and liberties are in grave danger–not from without, but within. It’s simple: we either make choices that benefit the individual or the group…choices that result in greater slavery or freedom.

Therefore, if we have to point just one finger, let’s aim it at the government. Get it and its damaging interference out of the market and its labor, where neither business nor workers can court powerful, third-party favors. Make public unions and governments answer directly to the taxpayers!

We must slash the size of Leviathan on federal and state levels, thereby reducing the need for so many employees. (Private industry can deliver legitimate services much better…services not outsourced by the government, but INSTEAD of the government, such as a private postal service.)

Strengthen and deregulate the market; weaken and regulate the government.

I favor a return to a confederacy of states patterned after our original Constitution, The Articles of Confederation. (I have an extensive series on this site as to why I believe it is a superior way to govern that prohibits many of the abuses we have today.)

But big changes require small steps; and any reforms that reduce the State and restore individual liberties are good.

End collective bargaining for public sector employees, and return real, decision-making power back to the original employers of government–the taxpayers. We must call for genuine citizen legislatures, not professional ones.We would do well to heed Switzerland’s federalistic concept of direct democracy–similar to the Articles of Confederation–that runs on vibrant input from the people while safeguarding against a “tyranny of the majority”.In case you haven’t noticed, our constitutional republic no longer exists. A form of government is not sacrosanct, particularly if the governing powers make a mockery of it every day and throw tokens–like national voting–to the naive to keep them happy.

If promoting a return to a confederacy of states akin to the Articles of Confederation scares you, then at least, get to really know your representatives and refuse to send union and big government patsies to state legislatures and Congress.

Demand competent management from your government and call leaders into accountability for spending. Insist they pay bills with extra money, not add a new program or promise (which is why the states can’t pay employee pensions now).

If they don’t, vote with your feet, if possible. Distance yourself as much as you can from dependency upon the state and its agencies. Take the initiative to save on your own and invest in hard money, such as gold and silver.

We’ve forfeited our power as consumers and taxpayers to brigands, and they’re getting away with it. Government can’t very well stop the train of union abuses when it’s guilty by association. You know politicians won’t, because they want their cut of the loot. And these companies? They’re behind the controls at gunpoint!The runaway train is headed smack into our children’s future, domestic peace and prosperity.Who can arrest it? The American people who cherish individual liberty, and despise the ruinous mentality of a mob.

Political Influence and Money

larrygamble — Wed, 16 Mar 2011 15:21:27 +0000

Want to know the truth, follow the money.

We hear throughout the various media channels about “the evil corporations” or that the Koch Brothers or George Soros are behind all the political problems in America today.

Just the other day, a friend was critical of the corporate influence during a gentlemanly debate we had regarding corporate versus non-profit political giving. That short conversation sparked me to do some research.

I wanted to know who are the heaviest of the Heavy Hitters in Political Influence peddling. In Wisconsin we have many social groups calling for boycotts of businesses to show solidarity with the public sector unions. That also caused me to wonder even more what the corporate and non-profit political giving landscape looks like.

I found a list of 140 Heavy Hitters which represents… over TWO BILLION Dollars in influence peddling… actually it is $2,180,149,543 that was donated between 1989 – 2010.

Of that, Total Corporate giving was under ONE Billion dollars at… $977,695,616 which I did some light computing work to separate out the dollars between the DEM and GOP sides.

The Corporate giving was fairly, evenly split with nearly HALF BILLION dollars going to each side. For the DEMS, it represented… $428,649,739 in contributions and the GOP got slightly more with them getting… $549,045,877. That is only a 120 million difference or about 12%.

Then, when looking at the Non-Profit sector, that giving was over $1.1 Billion and heavily skewed towards giving to the Democrats. From this sector, the DEM giving was a mighty… $864,430,502 and the GOP getting a paltry… $309,560,300. That is a huge 47% difference.

Of these two… Corporate giving most closely represents the last election DEM 43% and GOP 56%. Yet, Non-Profit giving is heavily skewed at 86% DEM and 23% GOP.

It sure looks like the corporate donations are getting a bad rap. If anything, the way the corporate donations split between DEM and GOP… they look more like fence sitters who are trying to keep everyone happy by giving money to both sides.

Back to the union organized boycott in Wisconsin…

I wonder if the liberals who are protesting and boycotting are ready to drop their “iPhone” plans now that we can plainly see how AT&T (#2 Heavy Hitter) and VERIZON (#34 Heavy Hitter) give more to the GOP.

Then, there are the liberal Real Estate agents that I saw on the boycott support list, do they know their National Association of Realtors (#4 Heavy Hitter) gives more to the GOP than the DEM?

We know how the liberals love to bash Goldman Sachs (#5 Heavy Hitter)… but look how much more Goldman Sachs give to DEMS versus GOP. This looks like they are trying to kill the goose that lays their golden eggs.

Lastly, there is wildly vilified Koch Industries. The vitriol spewed their way seems hardly deserved when you see that they only gave $11 Million total and only rank number 84 on the list of 140 Heavy Hitters.

As Tom Cruise said in the movie Jerry Maguire: “Show me the Money” so here it is in a compacted table. Now, we can see just how evil those corporation are.

Total	$2,180,149,543	100%

Total Corp	$977,695,616	46%
DEM	$428,649,739	44%
GOP	$549,045,877	56%

Total Non-Profit	$1,173,990,803	54%
DEM	$864,430,502	74%
GOP	$309,560,300	26%

Reference: www.opensecrets.org

Total	$2,180,149,543

Total Corp	$977,695,616	0.4485
DEM	$428,649,739	0.4384
GOP	$549,045,877	0.5616

Total NP	$1,173,990,803	0.5385
DEM	$864,430,502	0.7363
GOP	$309,560,300	0.2637

Who’s Astroturf Now?

larrygamble — Wed, 09 Mar 2011 18:10:03 +0000

Funding from national Democratic Party organizations, funding by George Soros backed organizations and funding by Unions on the national level; these are the combined Democrat resources coming to bear on the eight GOP state Senators in Wisconsin.

It’s all in the giant squeeze play to nullify the results of the November 2nd election.

These are the same groups who called the members, of the genuine grass roots efforts, of conservative citizens… Astroturf. Maybe, they didn’t like the way this grass roots movement borrowed Tea Party from the famous 1773 event in Boston Harbor (and the 1774 one in Charleston Harbor that was less famous).

Can anyone else see that the pot is now calling the kettle black? In 2009 and 2010, concerned and like minded citizens formed local “Patriot Groups.” There are some national groups like Tea Party Patriots, American Majority and Sam Adams Alliance to name a few. There are even more of the independent, local groups that popped up like weeds around the state. Local groups like Wisconsin GrandSons of Liberty, Rock River Patriots, and Fox Valley Initiative to name just a few of the nearly 100 groups around the state. These groups reflected the true composition of the state and they these local groups weren’t bankrolled by those phantom billionaires. They are genuine, concerned citizens and patriots.

Yet with relatively few national organizations providing leadership, these people rallied and formed their own local groups to keep the movement going. They are the real thing, not Astroturf.

Now, we see the real Astroturf rolling out. These national groups are sending a message their minority is in control and the majority of Wisconsinites must kowtow to their progressive or socialistic, mantras and ideology. News reports today say that the Brad Traverse Group in Washington DC is seeking to hire people to to canvas recall petitions in Wisconsin. That is not genuine and it definitely fits the definition of… Astroturf.

As usual, these folks are the loud minority and they ignore the facts and truth. The current noise is coming from the unionize segment of the 175-thousand, state government employees in Wisconsin. This same group is acting as if they are some sort of disadvantaged group. Through the privilege of collective bargaining, most middle income, government employees are not disadvantaged and certainly not impoverished. These are a couple gems they get to enjoy like no other employee (union or otherwise):

1. Sick Leave Stacking – this is practice where an employee can call in sick for their assigned shift then later call back and volunteer for a later shift. The result, they collect sick pay for the initial shift plus Over Time for the volunteered shift. This is a great perk, 2.5x pay for a single day’s work.

2. Government Union Insurance – the WEA Trust is the health insurance arm of the teachers union, many school districts got themselves bargained into it exclusively. The big problem, the pricing is not competitive with comparable plans available on the open market. A typical family plan cost 10k to 15k more via WEA Trust. Taxpayer effect; a district with 2,000 teachers could be over paying by as much as $20 to $25 Million dollars for the district insurance plan.

What happened to the idea that government employees and elected officials at all levels are supposed to be jealously guarding the tax dollars to prevent unnecessary costs, expenses and abuses? The government employee unions figured out they can use the political system to make amazing gains in public sector wages and benefits. Now that they got caught with their hands in the proverbial cookie jar; they claim making changes is now a civil rights issue to deflect attention from the real issue of fiscal malfeasance.

A common liberal tactic is to launch a dis-informational press release on an issue and the conservatives typically lose a whole day generating a rebuttal.

A few classic ones of late:

1. Gov. Walker plans to kill your dog.

2. Government employees will have to pay 100% of pensions and health insurance.

3. Republicans bolts the Capitol windows shut.

4. Rep. Mark Pocan (D) claims that the $3.6 Billion dollar shortfall estimate is false.

With all this disinformation out there, it’s no wonder people have trouble finding the truth.

Now that the Wisconsin Senate striped out the fiscal appropriations (and left all the other parts including collecting bargaining privileges in the Budget Repair Bill) and voted for passing it, the state’s unionized government employees are hopping mad. The fleeing 14 Democrat Senators made all sort of excuses for not being in Madison doing their job representing the people. Senators Chris Larson, Lena Taylor, Mark Miller and 7 others were all on MSNCB’s “Ed Show” last night bemoaning the results of their selfish actions. Then, got onto their soapbox about the recall and calling for “changing the faces” in Madison. I guess they need a reminder that on November 2nd, the voters did exactly that with the election and it’s why there is a Republican majority in Madison.

Ultimately, the recall question and Astroturf label comes to a head in the next 75 days. Will the Astroturf led government employees succeed in creating recall elections for the eight Republican state Senators?

I’m calling out to all the conservatives who rallied at the Tea Parties and inundated the the Capitol phone lines to stop KRM-RTA bill, Gov. Doyle’s Vote Reform bill plus the WI Cap and Trade bill. It is, once again, the time for action.

If there is a recall in your area, you need to be active and support the conservative, Republican incumbents. If you want to dis-join the opposition’s efforts, help with the grass roots group’s recall of the Democrat Senators.

If this Astroturf led recall is successful, you have to get out there campaign and vote to return your conservative Senator to Madison.

Thomas Paine reminds us:

“These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.”

“A little matter will move a party, but it must be something great that moves a nation.”

We created the initial movement towards restoring fiscal sanity to the state on Nov. 2nd. We must not sit back for now. It is already time again for real conservative action and countering the real Astroturf that is invading Wisconsin.

The Real Shame in Madison

larrygamble — Mon, 28 Feb 2011 19:33:33 +0000

The voice of the individual echoes loudly and many voices make a much louder noise. Previously, we have seen this with special interest groups. Since 2009, we have heard a new voice. We have heard thousands of grass roots individuals attending Tea Party events around the country where they peacefully exercised their 1st Amendment Right to free speech.

These Tea Party conservatives made a huge impact on November 2nd, 2011. Now that the election is over; as the minority party; the Democrats cannot endure the same treatment that they imposed on Republicans a couple years earlier. In 2009, the Democrat party controlled Legislature rammed through Obamacare on the national level. On the state level, they introduced bills and voted on them with no public hearing and passed a budget bill that needed $3 Billion federal stimulus dollars to be balanced.

Because of the booming voice of the Tea Party movement, several actions that were cornerstones of Wisconsin’s Democrat Party failed to pass. The Tea Party stopped the Wisconsin Cap & Trade bill, stopped a terrible Election Reform bill and stopped two rail systems that would have cost Wisconsinites over $1 Billion dollars. They turned out to vote for candidates who support fiscal responsibility, smaller government and believe governments must abide by Constitutional boundaries. It cost the Democrats.

Now, when faced with being in the minority position, Wisconsin’s Democrat Senators cut and run rather than stand up to try and debate. At least the union members cared enough to go to Madison so their voices could be heard. The grandstanding by the senators is childish, but the rhetoric from the unions is downright scary.

Everything the Tea Party was accused of, these union protesters demonstrated that they are the only real Astroturf. The Tea Party events were attended by thousands of Wisconsinites while tens of thousands protesters in Madison were bused in courtesy of Organizing for America and many unions. In another twist, there are influences from socialist organizations during this protest with rumors of government employees passing out anti-American, anti-Capitalist material. Yes, fine, upstanding union members and government workers handing out pro-Socialist material.

In his blog, Christian Hartsock writes about his adventure attending the protest in Madison and meeting with members of the International Socialist Organization, a Trotsky influenced organization founded in 1976 that strives to co-opt unions, and specifically, impressionable college students.

At “a strategy meeting of theirs in the social studies building of the University of Wisconsin, a meeting titled “From Cairo to Madison: The Global Reemergence of Class Struggle.” The keynote speakers were Phil Gasper, Ph.D, professor emeritus at Notre Dame, Madison Area Technical College dean and editor of the annotated Communist Manifesto, and Mike Imbrogno, executive committee member of AFSCME Local 171 and delegate to the South Central Federation of Labor.

They discussed the need to co-opt the Madison protests into a global struggle against the monolithic culprit — capitalism.”

The government, which employees the public sector union members, is the people or taxpayers. Here we have an AFSCME executive committee member actively participating in an anti-Capitalist meeting with the editor of something as anti-American and anti-Constitutional as the Communist Manifesto. This shows the union protest is turning into a socialist propaganda opportunity.

Peaceful protesting is protected free speech, but the saddest part of all this is not the unions losing some collective bargaining privileges. The real shame is that these kids are being hoodwinked into thinking “This is Democracy” just as they are chanting. I guess none of the teachers, who cut school to attend the rally, ever taught them that the USA is a Representative Republic.

Public Union Strike

larrygamble — Wed, 23 Feb 2011 16:03:46 +0000

The battle over Senate Bill 11 continues, it is what the public union leaders are calling “The Union Busting Bill.” The left’s rhetoric is impressive too. Chants of “This is not Democracy” along with the expected “Kill the Bill” and “Scott Walker Must Go.” I expecially like the one “Elections have Consequences” and now there is a call for a STRIKE if this bill passes.

Looking at that first point, these useful idiots who’ve taken over our state’s capitol building and turned it into a hostel are correct. The USA is not a Democracy. We are are representative REPUBLIC. And, they are correct again when they say “elections have consequences.” That is how we into the budget mess and it’s how we’re going to get out of it. The results of Nov. 2nd, 2011 clearly shows public concern for the debt crisis facing all levels of government.

Wisconsin is ground zero in the citizen’s rise against the spending machine. We have a governor and legislature that are making real changes which has the unions running scared. The highest level union bosses know that limits in Public Sector Unions will impact the lifestyles to which they have become accustomed. For the lower levels, the stewards and employees… they are foot soldiers in this chess game between the Public Sector Unions and the Taxpayers.

In 1947, the Taft-Hartley Act outlawed closed shops where only union members could be hired which lead to union shops where joining the union could be a condition of employment and if you didn’t join then you pay a “fair share” for the benefits you reap from the union’s collective bargaining. Without the monetary support from these compulsive dues, the union would suffer. Standing against several repeal action, this act got ammended in 1959 with the Landrum-Griffin Act that created a “Bill of Rights” for union members to ensure the unions abide by a democratic process with elections, dues increases and more.

That’s funny. In 1959, the government had to step in to prevent the Union Bosses from trampling the members in the same manner they accused business management of trampling the worker. Which begs the question, just what are Public Sector Unions working for now days?

Public Sector or Civil Service employees already enjoy protections that are codified in laws as well as public policy. Why do they need a union when Civil Servants are the most protected class of employees in the nation? It’s nearly impossible to fire them. They typically have generous work rules regarding hours, vacation time and other allowances for time off.

Despite all that, the Union Bosses want more. They are willing to sacrifice the employees so they never show weakness and never back down. At this point, the public sector unions are willing to say anything or do anything perpetuate their scam on the taxpayers.

Lawrence Kudlow has a great article which I am re-posting here with full credit to him.

The Democratic/government-union days of rage in Madison, Wis., are a disgrace. Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan calls it Cairo coming to Madison. But the protesters in Egypt were pro-democracy. The government-union protesters in Madison are anti-democracy — they are trying to prevent a vote in the legislature. In fact, Democratic legislators themselves are fleeing the state so as not to vote on Gov. Scott Walker’s budget cuts.That’s not democracy.

The teachers’ union is going on strike in Milwaukee and elsewhere. They ought to be fired. Think Ronald Reagan PATCO in 1981. Think Calvin Coolidge police strike in 1919.

(The teachers’ union on strike? Wisconsin parents should go on strike against the teachers’ union. A friend e-mailed me to say that the graduation rate in Milwaukee public schools is 46 percent. The graduation rate for African-Americans in Milwaukee public schools is 34 percent. Shouldn’t somebody be protesting that?

Gov. Walker is facing a $3.6 billion budget deficit, and he wants state workers to pay one-half of their pension costs and 12.6 percent of their health benefits. Currently, most state employees pay nothing for their pensions and virtually nothing for their health insurance. That’s an outrage.

Nationwide, state and local government unions have a 45 percent total-compensation advantage over their private-sector counterpart. With high-pay compensation and virtually no benefits co-pay, the politically arrogant unions are bankrupting America — which by some estimates is suffering from $3 trillion in unfunded liabilities.

Exempting police, fire and state troopers, Walker would end collective bargaining over pensions and benefits for the rest. Collective bargaining for wages would still be permitted, but there would be no wage hikes above the consumer price index. Unions could still represent workers, but they could not force employees to pay dues. In exchange for this, Walker promises no furloughs or layoffs.

Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels is also pushing a bill to limit the collective-bargaining rights of teachers for wages and wage-related benefits. Similar proposals are being discussed in Idaho and Tennessee. In Ohio, Gov. John Kasich wants to restrict union rights across the board for all state and local government workers. More generally, both Democratic and Republican governors across the country are taking on the extravagant pay of government unions.

Why? Because taxpayers won’t stand for it anymore.

In an interesting twist on this story, even private unions are revolting against government unions. Private unions pay taxes, too. And they don’t have near the total compensation of the public unions. It’s no wonder they’re fed up.

So, having lost badly in the last election, the government-union Democrats in Wisconsin have taken to the streets. This is a European-style revolt, like those seen in Greece, France and elsewhere. So it becomes greater than just a fiscal issue. It is becoming a law-and-order issue.

President Obama, who keeps telling us he’s a budget cutter, has taken the side of the public unions. House Speaker John Boehner correctly rapped Obama’s knuckles for this. If the state of Wisconsin voters elected a Chris Christie-type governor with a Republican legislature, then it is a local states’ rights issue.

But does President Obama even know that the scope of collective bargaining for federal employees is sharply limited? According to the Manhattan Institute, federal workers are forbidden to collectively bargain for wages or benefits. Instead, pay increases are determined annually through legislation.

Meanwhile, Walker said it would be “wise” for President Obama to keep his attentions on Washington, not Wisconsin. “We’re focused on balancing our budget,” he said in a television interview. “It would be wise for the president and others in Washington to be focused on balancing their budget, which they’re a long ways from doing.”

Amen.

Obama should stay out. And Walker should stand tall and stick to his principles. A nationwide taxpayer revolt against public unions can save the country. Otherwise, the spiraling out-of-control costs of state public-union entitlements will destroy the local fisc, just as surely as the unreformed federal entitlements of Social Security and health care are wrecking our national finances.

— Lawrence Kudlow

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM

Coalition of Other Odd Sorts

larrygamble — Wed, 16 Feb 2011 20:03:18 +0000

Recently, I was talking with some folks who are dedicated to fighting for a specific social issue. They have passion and drive, so the natural question came up. Can our groups work together? I associate with the Tea Party groups and we typically don’t take up social issues as our focus is geared more towards legislative watchdog and fiscal responsibility in government. To my surprise, the answer was no.

This was not completely shocking. But, in the fight against the nanny-state government; I really thought we could work together even if at a distance. Imagine my surprise when I started reading a blog from the 10^th Amendment center when Michael Boldin is highlighting what I had recently experienced.

In my scenario, I was talking with an anti-abortion group. Our common bonding could have been defunding Planned Parenthood. We are fighting what we see as inappropriate government spending while they are battling abortion. Seems like a small battle we could work together on. Maybe another day.

This is the excellent blog posted by Michael Boldin who is the executive director of the 10^th Amendment Center. I don’t consider myself a “Tenther” but I do notice when good blog postings are out. This is the link: http://www.dailynews.com/opinions/ci_17395664 and what follows is the blog.

Michael Boldin: California – a nullifier’s paradise?

By Michael Boldin

Posted: 02/15/2011 04:57:10 PM PST & Updated: 02/15/2011 05:00:32 PM PST
Nullification. The word evokes images of white-haired men with tri-fold hats, holding up signs about the “evils” of Obamacare and socialism.

States around the country are considering laws to reject federal laws on health care, guns, the Environmental Protection Agency regulations and more. The pundits scream “racism,” the legal experts cite the “supremacy clause,” and the entire country – left to right – just might be missing the point.

As executive director of the Tenth Amendment Center, the organization which created the “Health Care Nullification Act” introduced in more than 10 states, I see many people who fit this stereotypical “tenther” image, too.

Whenever I speak at “Nullify Now!” events around the country, the crowd is predominantly these folks. While a few progressives occasionally join the protesters, one doesn’t find too many 20-somethings with Che T-shirts attending such events.

While the rhetoric coming from many on the right these days includes words like “nullification,” and “state sovereignty,” it has been the left, not the right, which has been successful in putting these ideas into practice. And, California has been at the forefront since the beginning.

When Californians voted to approve Proposition 215 to allow medical marijuana, the word “nullification” was not part of the argument, but it most certainly was the result. Opponents often cited the Constitution’s “supremacy clause,” saying the state had no authority to violate federal marijuana laws. But, Californians voted to violate those laws by the millions. And, when the Supreme Court ruled in the 2005 Gonzales v. Raich case that state-level medical marijuana laws were, in essence, illegal, dispensaries around the state didn’t start closing shop.

In fact, by 2005, there were nine other states that had joined California in passing medical marijuana laws. After the supremes told the country that such laws were a big no-no, how many were repealed? Zero. And since then, another five states – most recently, Arizona – have joined up.

Think about that. There are now 15 states actively defying Congress and the Supreme Court – and they’re getting away with it. This, more than anything else, is what nullification is: any action which results in federal law(s) being rendered nearly unenforceable.

When I took a bike ride around my neighborhood in downtown L.A. the other day, I didn’t find a single Drug Enforcement Agent shutting down an arts district grow shop. A recent trip to Venice confirmed my hunch that there are plenty of businesses and individuals openly nullifying federal laws with dispensaries galore. A visit to the Bay Area last fall verified the same.

But yet, how often does one hear a legal scholar or a political pundit spending time and energy on how these pot-dealers and pot-smokers are bringing chaos to America? How often do you hear that this active nullification of federal drug laws is done by people who hate President Obama for being black? I’ll assume you’ve that heard just about as much as I have – never.

Medical marijuana isn’t the only issue where Californians have taken a lead in standing up to the feds. In 2006, when the Congressional Research Service released a report on “sanctuary cities” around the country, California was at the head of the pack, with more major cities on the list than any other state in the country.

Oddly enough, I haven’t heard about Washington, D.C., threatening to withhold highway funds. The national guard hasn’t been sent in to force these cities to comply with federal immigration laws. But yet, that’s what some claim will happen if health care nullification laws are passed today.

I doubt it. If today’s nullification proposals follow in the path of the left’s nullification of federal drug and immigration laws, it’s quite possible we’ll see the same kind of results. The feds backing off.

The real question, of course, is this – will gay marriage advocates in Maine, health care nullification advocates in Idaho, gun rights activists in Oklahoma, and marijuana advocates in California ever realize that they’re actually on the same side?

The State of The Union Redux

larrygamble — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 04:17:09 +0000

On January 27th, 2010, our President gave his first “State of the Union” speech. He also addressed the people with a “Speech to the Joint Session of Congress” right after he took office in 2009. Looking back over a couple statements, President Obama acknowledges where the bounty of American ingenuity lies.

“The answers to our problems don’t lie beyond our reach. They exist in our laboratories and universities; in our fields and our factories; in the imaginations of our entrepreneurs and the pride of the hardest-working people on Earth.”

~ President Barack Obama, 2/24/2009

After making this statement, President Obama went on to ask Congress for a Jobs Bill by President’s Day that would 3.5 Million jobs in two years. This was the infamous “Shovel Ready” Jobs Bill to stimulate the economy and that over “90% of these jobs will be in the private sector – jobs rebuilding our roads and bridges; constructing wind turbines and solar panels; laying broadband and expanding mass transit.”

Now in 2o11, we still have unemployment at 9.4% with an economy that is not growing fast enough to keep pace with the new graduates from high schools, trade schools and colleges entering the workforce. We need 140,000 new jobs a month according to one estimate and currently our economy is only adding about 120,000 new jobs each month.

We should start where most new jobs do –- in small businesses, companies that begin when — (applause) — companies that begin when an entrepreneur — when an entrepreneur takes a chance on a dream, or a worker decides it’s time she became her own boss. Through sheer grit and determination, these companies have weathered the recession and they’re ready to grow.

~ President Barack Obama, 1/27/2010

Yet, in the Health Care Reform bill; it included such business friendly gems as the 1099 requirement for any transactions over $600. By the end of 2010, President Obama sought extension of the Bush Tax Rates. After all, it is the private sector that drives the economy.

The 2011 State of the Union address will be interesting. What new jobs bill or spending bill will the President ask Congress to present to him? Will he call for tax incentives to bring American factory jobs back to America? How about a lifting of moratoriums on oil and coal operations to make the USA more energy self sufficient?

Honestly, I would be somewhat happy with a simple statement that the federal government will reduce spending.

Our government’s public spending is out of control with bloated agencies and entitlement programs.

Come on Mr. President, you said you can do the unpopular things; how about demanding Congress reduce spending?

Same Old New Year’s Economic Problems

larrygamble — Tue, 11 Jan 2011 19:00:21 +0000

During the President’s campaign for office, then candidate Obama exclaimed that “American’s will necessarily have lower their standard of living” and that “energy prices will have to increase.” He went on to say that American’s have been living high on the hog at the expense of the rest of the world.

Those statements sound callous and hint of a government insistent on working against the prosperity of the American people. Our government should be working for us to provide solutions that facilitate personal and business success.

Yet, our government is telling us that everything is just fine. They want us to believe that Consumer Confidence is “A – OK” and Inflation is practically non-existent. But, we need to look at what is going on in the market. Take gasoline, we are above three dollars per gallon. Unemployment is not really changing. The only real change was the way unemployment got measured and that was over a year ago. I started noting shifts at the grocery store too. It will not be long before the cost of fuel will drive transportation costs higher and that will result in price increases to the consumer.

Recently while shopping, I noticed some of the fresh produce shelves in my local market show declining volume of some items. I wanted fresh Asparagus and there was a sign mentioning recent crop failures and supplies were limited. When I needed onions, they were labeled with a sticker from Peru. When our grocery stores have shortages, that is a telling sign.

We are importing staple food items. That alone means there is a transportation cost to get those items from Peru, or where ever, to America. The cost of nearly everything includes some form of fees to cover transportation costs, which means labor and fuel charges. As the fuel prices increase, that causes the overall cost of transportation to increase. Remember in 2008 when gas was $4 a gallon, there were trucking companies going bankrupt trying to pay the fuel bills.

Another aspect of our energy costs that is also affecting food prices is the cost of corn. Field corn for cows and pigs is also ethanol corn. Currently, the price of grain Corn is $6 per bushel, just a couple dollars under the 2008 peak. At those prices, even the Ethanol plants were closing their gates because they could not economically produce their grain ethanol when corn was $8 per bushel. Farmers wait to for market rises to send animals to market. They are waiting for prices to rise to be able to afford the increasing prices of grain.

What is our government’s plan? Our modern, information age depends on affordable energy to fuel the economic machine and supply power for transportation and electrical production. Making energy more expensive is not the right plan unless the whole idea is to make things more expensive for Americans.

In the beginning of this article, I mentioned the rising price of fuel. Today, I read about a leak in the Trans Alaska Oil Pipeline. A leak is bad enough and must be repaired, but the Alaska Oil Pipeline is 33 years old now and it is carrying less than 1/3 of the oil it carried in the 1980’s. It sounds like the Pipeline is a good candidate for infrastructure upgrade. Without the convertible resources of oil, natural gas and Coal, our country is helpless.

Very few citizens are self sufficient as we have piled more people into the cities and away from agrarian pursuits. With all these signals, our government is doing very little to help us. They could resume or even expand oil drilling in the Gulf or within the borders of the USA. That would help ease the oil price situation. Ending ethanol mandates is another way to ease the price pinch on food stuffs. Those corn products would not be diverted to ethanol production and could be ground into corn meal for breads and chips.

Instead, our government appears content to keep onerous regulations, mandates and prohibitions in place. Yes, our government is working against the people and lowering American standard of living.