The High Cost of Washington’s Price Manipulation Policy

December 8th, 2008

www.aynrandcenter.org

The High Cost of Washington’s Price Manipulation Policy
Want to eliminate the glut of homes? Don’t give the government more power–open the borders to immigration.

By Yaron Brook and Don Watkins

For decades Washington has been manipulating prices to encourage homeownership and “steer” the economy. To “incentivize” you to buy a house, it made mortgage payments tax deductible, largely exempted homes from capital gains taxes, and created Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. After the stock market tumbled in 2001 and 2002, Washington established a policy of artificially low interest rates that created the illusion of cheap credit; leery of the stock market, and looking for someplace else to put all this easy money, Americans began buying homes in droves.

But eventually the drug-induced high of artificial credit wore off, and out-of-whack housing prices plummeted, sparking the financial crisis. What was Washington’s response? It ramped up its price manipulation policy, injecting us with a new round of “easy money” amphetamine:  Bush doled out “stimulus” checks, the Treasury began funneling billions into banks, and the Fed started frantically slashing interest rates. And, we are told, this is only the beginning. A new dose of bailouts, interest rate cuts, and “stimulus” giveaways is just around the corner.

Maybe it’s time for a new approach. How about we start thinking of ways to address this crisis by getting the government out of the business of price manipulation–and let prices, from home values to interest rates, be determined by people’s free choices and the law of supply and demand?

This will require some unconventional thinking–and here’s a suggestion to get us started: free up the housing market by freeing up immigration. That’s bound to be controversial, but indulge us for a moment.

Right now the housing market is in disarray. Too many homes built for our current population has sent prices spiraling downward, and millions of homeowners, stuck with mortgages they can’t afford and houses they can’t unload, are facing foreclosure. Meanwhile, there are millions of peaceful people around the globe eager to bring their wealth, talent, and ambition to this country, but can’t because Washington forcibly prevents them from immigrating.

This government-enforced cap on the number of potential home-buyers is just another instance of price manipulation. Imagine if the number of annual immigrants increased from around 650,000 a year to, say, five million. Virtually overnight we would see money pour into the American real estate market, as millions of new businessmen and workers bought and rented homes. Not only would this eliminate the oversupply of houses, we would enjoy the broader economic benefits of welcoming legions of highly skilled and motivated individuals into the American economy.

You might be thinking, “Won’t this lead to lower wages or unemployment at a time when we can least afford it?” The history of this country attests to the fact that, in the long run, immigration fosters economic growth. Even in the short run, however, the effect on wages and employment is an open question–it depends on how much capital and entrepreneurial acumen the new immigrants bring and create.

There are many other simple measures we could take to roll back the government’s manipulation of prices. For instance, we could eliminate restrictions on bank ownership, which coercively limit how much capital banks can raise.

Besides such quick, immediate steps to end government price distortions, we need a long-term strategy to eliminate all government policies that manipulate prices. We need to eliminate the countless regulatory shackles on financial institutions, which distort market forces and encourage reckless actions. We need to put an end to the government’s crusade to encourage homeownership through Fannie and Freddie, the Community Reinvestment Act, tax code manipulation, and many other avenues. Above all, we need to end the government’s ability to set interest rates and create inflationary booms–and their inevitable busts–by phasing out the Federal Reserve and allowing the United States to return to a gold standard.

These would be radical reforms, to be sure–but that’s because the government has been radically expanding its price manipulation policies for the better part of a century. We’re seeing where that path leads. It’s time to start moving in a new direction.

Yaron Brook is the president of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights. Don Watkins is a writer at the Ayn Rand Center. The Ayn Rand Center is a division of the Ayn Rand Institute and promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of “Atlas Shrugged” and “The Fountainhead.”

Posted in Socialism | No Comments »

Stop Blaming Capitalism for Government Failures

November 14th, 2008

www.aynrandcenter.org

Stop Blaming Capitalism for Government Failures

By Yaron Brook and Don Watkins

Speaking of the financial crisis, French president Nicolas Sarkozy recently said, “Laissez-faire is finished. The all-powerful market that always knows best is finished.”

Sarkozy was echoing the views of many, including president-elect Obama, who assume that the financial crisis was caused by free markets–by “unbridled greed” unleashed by decades of deregulation and a “hands off” approach to the economy. And given this premise, the solution, they say, is obvious. To solve this crisis and prevent another one, we need a heavy dose of Uncle Sam’s elixir: government intervention. Whether it’s more bailouts, stricter regulation, a new round of nationalizations, or some other scheme, the only question since day one has been how, not whether, government is going to intervene.

And the issue is wider than the financial crisis. Millions of Americans don’t have health insurance? Well, says Obama, that’s because we’ve left the health-care system to the free market. The solution: a complete government takeover of medicine. A few companies engaged in accounting fraud? It must be because we didn’t impose enough regulations on businessmen. The solution: rein in corporations with Sarbanes-Oxley.

But while capitalism may be a convenient scapegoat, it did not cause any of these problems. Indeed, whatever one wishes to call the unruly mixture of freedom and government controls that made up our economic and political system during the last three decades, one cannot call it capitalism.

Take a step back. In the lead up to the “Reagan Revolution,” the explosive growth of government during the ’60s and ’70s had left the American economy in disarray. A crushing tax burden, runaway inflation, brutal unemployment, and economic stagnation had Americans looking for an alternative. That’s what Reagan offered, denouncing big government and promising a new “morning in America.”

Under Reagan, some taxes were reduced, inflation was subdued, a few regulations were relaxed–and the economy roared back to life. But while markets were able to function to a greater degree than in the immediate past, the regulatory and welfare state remained largely untouched, with government spending continuing to increase, as well as some taxes. Later administrations were even worse. Bush Jr., often laughably called a champion of free markets, presided over massive new governmental controls like Sarbanes-Oxley and massive new welfare programs like the prescription drug benefit.

None of this is consistent with capitalism. As the economic system that fully recognizes and protects individual rights, including the right to private property, capitalism means, in Ayn Rand’s words, “the abolition of any and all forms of government intervention in production and trade, the separation of State and Economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of Church and State.” Laissez-faire means laissez-faire: no welfare state entitlements, no Federal Reserve monetary manipulation, no regulatory bullying, no controls, no government interference in the economy. The government’s job under capitalism is single but crucial: to protect individual rights from violation by force or fraud.

America came closest to this system in the latter half of the nineteenth century. The result was an unprecedented explosion of wealth creation and consequent rise in the standard of living. Even now, when the fading remnants of capitalism are badly crippled by endless controls, we see that the freest countries–those which retain the most capitalist elements–have the highest standard of living.

Why then should capitalism take the blame today–when capitalism doesn’t even exist? Consider the current crisis. The causes are complex, but the driving force is clearly government intervention: the Fed keeping interest rates below the rate of inflation, thus encouraging people to borrow and providing the impetus for a housing bubble; the Community Reinvestment Act, which forces banks to lend money to low-income and poor-credit households; the creation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with government-guaranteed debt leading to artificially low mortgage rates and the illusion that the financial instruments created by bundling them are low risk; government-licensed rating agencies, which gave AAA ratings to mortgage-backed securities, creating a false sense of confidence; deposit insurance and the “too big to fail” doctrine, whose bailout promises have created huge distortions in incentives and risk-taking throughout the financial system; and so on. In the face of this long list, who can say with a straight face that the housing and financial markets were frontiers of “cowboy capitalism”?

This is just the latest example of a pattern that has been going on since the rise of capitalism: capitalism is blamed for the ills of government intervention–and then even more government intervention is proposed as the cure. The Great Depression? Despite massive evidence that the Federal Reserve’s and other government policies were responsible for the crash and the inability of the economy to recover, it was laissez-faire that was blamed. Consequently, in the aftermath, the government’s power over the economy was not curtailed but dramatically expanded. Or what about the energy crisis of the 1970s? Despite compelling evidence that it was brought on by monetary inflation exacerbated by the abandonment of the remnants of the gold standard, and made worse by prices controls, “greedy” oil companies were blamed. The prescribed “solution” was for the government to exert even more control.

It’s time to stop blaming capitalism for the sins of government intervention, and give true laissez-faire a chance. Now that would be a change we could we believe in.

Yaron Brook is the president of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights. Don Watkins is a writer at the Ayn Rand Center. The Ayn Rand Center is a division of the Ayn Rand Institute and promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of “Atlas Shrugged” and “The Fountainhead.”

Posted in Socialism | No Comments »

Nationalization Is Theft

November 7th, 2008

www.aynrandcenter.org

Nationalization Is Theft
Venezuela, Russia, and other countries that nationalize natural resources are violating private property rights.

By Thomas A. Bowden

For years, the Canadian operator of a huge Venezuelan gold project known as Las Cristinas has been seeking an environmental permit to start digging. Well, Crystallex International Corporation can stop waiting–the mine is being nationalized as part of dictator Hugo Chavez’s long-running program of socialist takeovers. “This mine will be seized and managed by a state administration” with help from the Russians, said Mining Minister Rodolfo Sanz.

It’s not surprising that a brute like Chavez would want to grab the 16.9 million ounces of gold estimated to lie buried in the Las Cristinas reserve. But what’s more puzzling is why–when gold mines, oil rigs and refineries worth billions of dollars are nationalized by regimes such as Venezuela and Russia–the ousted companies can muster no moral indignation, only tight-lipped damage appraisal.

The reason, in a nutshell, is that resources like gold and petroleum in their natural state are universally regarded as public property that cannot be extracted by private companies except with government permission, revocable at will. “Venezuela will not accept that foreign organizations tell them what to do with their own resources,” said a local journalist recently.

But unexploited natural resources are unowned, not publicly owned. Ownership–the legal right to use and dispose of material resources–cannot exist until someone actually brings those resources under human control. A dictator cannot, by decree, bring hidden gold or oil deposits to the surface. Only the knowledge and effort of entrepreneurs, engineers and drillers can transform that hidden potential into actual wealth. Ownership is the law’s recognition that those particular producers deserve the legal right–as against every person on earth who didn’t tap that potential–to control the wealth they created.

Consider that Arabs wandered for centuries across desert sands that concealed vast petroleum deposits, but it was Western investors who actually made Middle Eastern petroleum valuable. These companies searched for many years in a vast wilderness, moving in frustration from one dry hole to another, risking utter failure and financial ruin. Eventually, by virtue of their ingenuity, courage and perseverance, world markets were flooded with oil that Middle Eastern governments should have deemed private property–100% private.

Instead, those governments muscled in, claiming public ownership based on nothing but their sovereignty over the geographical areas where oil deposits happened to reside. First through royalties, then by extorted royalty increases, and finally by outright nationalization, the descendants of nomads whose meager possessions fit on a camel’s back could now build palaces, buy airplanes and fund terrorism from the seemingly endless profits generated by Western technology and ingenuity.

But all this was a perversion of sovereignty. After all, why are states entrusted with exclusive power to use force within their borders? There’s only one legitimate reason: to protect individual rights, including property rights. Just as a bodyguard’s task is protecting clients from physical attacks, a government’s function is safeguarding people and property against criminals and foreign invaders.

Sovereignty exists to protect private property, not to destroy it. A bodyguard who claimed to own his client’s house, cars and jewelry would be immediately fired. Yet governments that claim to own all natural resources within their borders get a free pass, as if ownership could be conjured from the barrel of a gun.

Today, nationalization is endorsed not only by third world thugs but by the United Nations, which–with America’s full agreement–declared in 1962 that the “sovereign right of every State to dispose of its wealth and natural resources” is “recognized as overriding purely individual or private interests.” Even the victims agree. Said one CEO: “We do not see the issue of nationalization as a violation of the law but as a right of a government.”

This is why power-grasping dictators like Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez and Russia’s Vladimir Putin can claim moral authority to treat foreign investors the way they treat their own citizens–as cattle to be herded, milked or slaughtered for society’s sake. Thus when ExxonMobil recently dared to dispute the pittance Venezuela offered in payment for seized assets, Chavez denounced “those bandits of ExxonMobil,” absurdly declaring they “will never rob us again.”

Nationalization, stripped of all rationalization, is naked theft. A blow for justice will be struck by the first public figure to denounce it as such. In the meantime, companies like Crystallex will continue to be bullied by dictators who know exactly how much they can get away with.

Thomas A. Bowden is an analyst at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights. Mr. Bowden is a former lawyer and law school instructor who practiced for twenty years in Baltimore, Maryland. The Ayn Rand Center is a division of the Ayn Rand Institute and promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of “Atlas Shrugged” and “The Fountainhead.”

Posted in Socialism | No Comments »

PRESIDENT ELECT OBAMA!

November 4th, 2008

“That’s one small step for mankind, one GIANT leap toward socialism!”

Posted in Election 2008 | No Comments »

Let Them Fail

October 31st, 2008

Let Them Fail

By Amit Ghate

Everywhere today politicians are blaring that they must save America’s financial institutions, alleging catastrophic risk to the economy were any to fail. Paulson and the entire Bush administration, in a discernible panic, are now pouring $700 billion into the big banks, having already bailed out AIG, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Bear Stearns to the tune of $300 billion.

Capitalism doesn’t work, they declare, but fortunately the government is here to rescue us.

Sadly, they have it all backwards. The credit crisis is just more evidence that whenever the government supplants the free market and attempts to “manage,” i.e., control, the economy–disaster ensues.

Overlooked here is that in a free market business failures are not just normal, they’re crucial for the best products and ideas to emerge. Most restaurants fail in their first three years because customers have other preferences. Many mom-and-pop grocers go out of business because Walmart offers better selection and lower prices. Even whole industries–think typewriters, 8-tracks and horses and buggies–vanish because new inventions and competitors arise.

None of these failures are a problem, nor do they threaten the system. On the contrary, they are an inherent part of the progress which only capitalism makes possible.

So why would failures in the financial industry be any different?

Typically, the answer given is also the one used to rationalize the creation of the Federal Reserve, the FDIC, the FSLIC and any number of other government agencies and regulations intended to “manage” the banking system: financial firms carry systemic risks for the nation’s economy and therefore can’t be allowed to fail. As evidence, bank failures from 1870 to 1913 (pre-Fed) are cited, followed by the assertion that their number was simply “unacceptable.”

But every business forms part of the economic system and thus has “systemic” impact. If Microsoft were to fail, thousands of suppliers, customers, and workers would be affected, as would their customers, suppliers, workers, etc. Yet this would be no reason to bail them out. We know that new businesses would arise to fill the void, better for having learned from Microsoft’s mistakes.

And as a historical fact, the U.S. economy during the period 1870 to 1913 grew significantly faster than it did after the Fed was established. True, there were many bank failures in this period, but there were also many business failures in general: banks were actually less likely to fail than were other businesses. The number of bank failures speaks to the dynamism of the period, not to anything fragile in the financial system. Precisely because market mechanisms were permitted to work, depositors, creditors and counterparties all kept a close eye on banks, monitoring leverage and withdrawing funds at the first sign of problems.

When the free market functions–and failure is allowed–people become viscerally aware of risk, with the result that they voluntarily assume less of it.

Conversely, when the government tries to “manage” the economy–when the consequences of risky behavior are shifted from self-interested actors to taxpayers, as was done by the creation of the Fed and its various insurance programs, or when weak financial firms are propped up rather than being allowed to fail–people take on risks they would not otherwise. Banks are less careful, depositors no longer evaluate their institutions, and risks are concealed and amplified until they become catastrophic.

So pre-Fed we had runs on banks, some undoubtedly severe–but with the Fed we’ve had the Great Depression, the S&L meltdown and now perhaps the greatest worldwide credit crisis ever.

An analogy may be helpful here. Historically certain types of forests naturally experienced frequent, but small, wildfires. Because their frequency kept deadwood at a minimum, the fires never grew into large conflagrations. However, when government forestry services instituted fire suppression policies, they eliminated most small fires, but caused deadwood and other fuel to accumulate. When at last a fire came that could not be suppressed, it grew into a devastating inferno.

Learning from their errors, forestry services have abandoned fire suppression policies.

It’s time for our government to do likewise. First, by immediately abandoning its bailout binge, and then by phasing out all of the economic controls by which it attempts to “manage” the financial system–from the FDIC to the Federal Reserve itself. Nothing less can reestablish the freedom essential for a sound and vibrant economy.

Amit Ghate is a guest writer for the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights. The Ayn Rand Center is a division of the Ayn Rand Institute and promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of “Atlas Shrugged” and “The Fountainhead.”

Copyright © 2008 Ayn Rand® Center for Individual Rights. All rights reserved.

Posted in Socialism | No Comments »

Bye, Bye, Biden

September 24th, 2008

Bye, Bye, Biden

By: Bill Wyldfyre

A little while ago, before the Republican Convention I predicted that McCain would select Sarah Palin as VP.  Well, actually I had Sarah as one of two possible choices.  Now, weeks later, I have another prediction, and funny enough, it is about another VP candidate…Joe Biden.

Unless you have been hiding under a rock, or unless you get your news only from ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, the New York Times, LA Times, etc. you have probably heard about the Biden Blunders.  The politically correct media would call then gaffes but blunders is a much better word, and thanks to Biden’s Blunders, I am now 100% convinced that before October 15th Joe Biden will not be Obama’s VP running mate, it will be Hillary Clinton.

Lets look at the blunders quickly, we have the McCain email blunder, the no clean coal blunder, the Franklin Roosevelt/TV/Depression blunder, and the FannieMae/FreddieMac blunder, and the every so funny the stand up for us blunder.  There are more, but these blunders make me wonder, how a person with 36 years of experience in the Senate can screw up so badly….unless, of course, he was doing it on purpose.

Lets put this in context, 36 years, that is at least 3 wars, about 7 or so presidents, a boat load of local and national elections, hell that is even 5 to 6 reincarnations of the rock band KISS for crying out loud!  One with think that if you were in a public speaking arena for 36 years you would know enough not to make these serious blunders, unless, there was a method to your madness.

I predict that sometime in October, after the VP debates, Obama will come to the forefront, and regretfully say that Joe Biden will not be his running mate and one of the two reasons will be given:

1) Obama had to FIRE Biden for his continuous errors, and he will claim that he alone is the true agent for change and in changing his pick for VP he will be the man who can make the tough decisions and show true judgment.  To which case, he will then announce Hillary Clinton to the role of VP.

2) Some mysterious medical malady will strike Biden so that he basically takes himself out of the race.  Obama will give a fond farewell to Biden and then announce Hillary Clinton as his new running mate.

I do not believe that Biden will be gone until after he debates Palin.  I think that if Biden cannot or even drive Palin into the ground he will be gone and Hillary will come in.  Biden must embarrass Palin in the debates for him to keep his position, wining is not enough, he will have to basically make Palin look like the fool that we all saw on Saturday Night Live.

There will be no way that Biden will be gone before the debate because; the Democrats do not want Hillary to debate Palin.  There are many reasons for this, one of which is if Palin came off good against Clinton, it will be like David losing to Goliath but in the battle giving Goliath a huge black eye, thus earning a symbolic victory. Another reason why Hillary would not debate Palin because of the simple fact that a very large amount of people still don’t like Hillary and despite what we hear in the MSM Palin is VERY likeable and she relates better to the true American female than Hillary does.

The fall out from the bye, bye, Biden scenario is this.  Obama really had only one major decision as a presidential candidate, the running mate selection.  This is not like when he voted present over 130 times, this was a bona fide decision that Obama had to make.  However, when Biden goes bye, bye, it will be like Obama hit the “Do Over” button, making his one and only decision null and void.

Sounds to me, the common working man of the world, that if my prediction comes true and if McCain does not jump all over Obama for his “judgment” then we will have 4 years of Obama do overs….that is if Hillary allows Obama to remain president.

Posted in Election 2008 | No Comments »

The GOP State Convention from the eyes of a “newbie”

June 1st, 2008

The GOP State Convention from the eyes of a “newbie”

by BillWyldfyre on Political Gravitas Forums
As I write this, the day after the Minnesota State GOP Convention, I wonder, really, what was accomplished?  I am a newbie, driven by the need to get involved because I feel that conservatism has been left in the dust by the rinos of the Republican Party.
I hate to say that, I hate to put down a party that I have chosen, over the Democrat party.  I come from a diehard Democrat party, I am the only conservative in my family and I am constantly told how I am on the wrong side of politics.   These past few days, at the convention, at times, I wondered if I was on the wrong side.
This article will bring up three issues, which I feel need to be taken into consideration.  First I will discuss the selection of delegates to the national convention, then the treatment of the Ron Paul supporters, and then finally, the overall abrasiveness of the ruling body of the convention.
Issue One:
Election of delegates to the national convention is a challenging process.  It starts down in the BPOUs and then continues in the state.  What surprised me was that people put effort into running for the national delegate role, made signs, and followed the rules and then a “committee” made the decision to put the person they like the best on the ballot.
Now, I understand that there should be some ruling body that selects qualifications.  That is a given and should not be discussed.  However, once a person is seen as someone who is qualified their name should be on the ballot.  Does it matter if that person has given big cash to the party?  Donated hours and hours of time volunteering?  Stuffed a million envelopes?  Stroked this person’s ego or that person’s ego?  Since when does being a conservative republican mean that you have to work for a party that does not always follow conservative dictates?
A flier was given at the start of the convention on the “Minnesota Conservative Team Delegate” and Tim Pawlenty and Norm Coleman were listed as conservative.  Now, I have nothing but respect for Tim and Norm, but to call them conservative is not appropriate.  I will support both men and I believe that all who read this should as well, however, the fact is, they are on the wrong side of many issues.
There were 14 spots open.  We had a number of delegates to choose from, but many people who had conservative credentials were not allowed to speak, or even to be on the ballot due to the simple fact that they did not get to Rochester on Thursday the 29th and meet before the committee.  Some tried to call in their meeting.  I do not know the reasons for this, but when they protested at the microphones they expressed how telephone meetings were adamantly forbidden like the apple in the Garden of Eden by members of the committee.  I can accept this, it seems logical right?  However, Tim Pawlenty, and Norm Coleman did not meet with the committee face to face according to committee rules.  Ok, let’s take the names out of this a minute, I don’t care if it is Tim Pawlenty, Norm Coleman, or Tim Taylor and Norm from Cheers, rules are rules.  If some people are denied the chance to be on the ballot because of rules then so should others who have “special favor.”
I will not sit here and point out a major flaw in principal without giving a way this could have been handled.  If the committee before the ballot had made an announcement that stated that Tim Pawlenty was unable to attend the face to face meeting due to very important business which required his attention and it was the decision of the committee that due to his unique position he was given an exception to the rules, then I would be satisfied and the principals would not be in argument.
There was a lady, I forget her name, but she explained at the microphone why Tim Pawlenty was not able to make the personal meeting.  My heart goes to her, and I hope she and her husband get what they need.  Tim was 100% correct in working with them and solving their issue.
The same could have been said for Norm, although I do not know of why he did not attend the personal meeting.
The final word on this issue is we are a party of principal.  Once we give up principal to let someone special break the rules, then principal becomes worthless.  This is one of the many reasons why the elephant has changed into the rino.
Issue Two:
Before I talk about the Ron Paul supporters, let me first state that I am a Fred-Head.  I think we made a serious mistake and that Thompson would take us where we as a country need to be.  However, I have thrown my support, reluctantly to McCain as a firewall against Obama.
With that said, the Ron Paul movement has created excitement in the party.  Young people have gotten involved, money has been raised, principals have been challenged, and to be honest, the party has taken on life that it has not had in a long time.
So, why are the Republicans working so hard to “piss” and “dismiss” all Ron Paul supporters.  When there were challenges to the constitution at the microphone at the convention, people openly insulted and attacked people who support Ron Paul.  Ok, Ron Paul is wrong on some issues, ok, but come on; we are a party of ideas, of principal.  Give the Ron Paul supporters respect, just because they are not from the stuffy good old boys network.   Ladies and gentlemen, let me say that the stuffy old boys’ network, it cannot last forever.  We need these young people, we need these fresh new ideas and we need to look at the Republican party and what better way to look at it with people who are supporting a conservative ideal but who have the energy and the passion of a liberal radical!  If the enemy is fighting with machine guns, you cannot fight back with spears, you have to fight passion with passion and let’s face it, and the Ron Paul group has passion.
Now for you Ron Paul supporters you to need to make a few concessions.  I encourage you to continue with the party, don’t break away.  Get more involved, work within the BPOUs, and get involved.  Support McCain as much as possible but do not give up.  Although Ron Paul will not win, there will be other opportunities and other chances.  You all are the future of the party, we need you.
Issue Three:
The ruling body of the convention was abrasive.  I will not hide here, my apologies to those of you whom I might offend, and to be fair I will not mention names.
First off, literature.  It was made as a motion from the floor that all literature that did not meet the rules was to be removed and the people who distributed the literature removed from the convention.  Now, this was not the ruling body, but they endorsed the idea.
However, here is a little remembered fact.  The literature was distributed early in the morning; the rules were not adopted and accepted until about an hour and a half after the proposed convention starting time. Now I don’t know law, but I know a few things, like Ex Post Facto.   An ex post facto law is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences of acts committed or the legal status of facts and relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law. Basically, if the fliers were not violating the rules when they were distributed, and then the rules were adopted and approved of (which it is possible that they could have been turned down because they were voted upon) then the fliers get ex post facto status.
Of course, I have to admit, the fliers were against the Ron Paul people, which goes back to the second issue.  There were two fliers that came out against Ron Paul and his supporters that did not meet the rules.
Second, while debating the Constitution Committee Report, Article IV Delegation of Power, Section Two Organization, a change was proposed that would give the State Executive Committee (SEC) the right to determine that if a BPOU was not fulfilling its responsibilities the SEC has authority to take all actions it deems necessary or proper to fulfill the BPOU’s responsibilities.  This was met with great contention.
There were a number of BPOU leaders who did not like the idea of the SEC controlling via the change in the report.  One BPOU leader, again I do not want to give names, was adamant against the change.  It was then that the leader, one of the chairs of the convention (I do not want to mention names) came to the microphone on the floor and openly attacked the BPOU leader on a personal level, stating that he did not do this or he did not do that.  This argument was subjective and should have been ruled out of order, but it was allowed.  Again, if we do not stand by principal…
The abrasiveness was seen in many other examples, of shutting down discussion, debates, and points of information and so on and so forth.  We are Republicans; we are determined to live by a standard that needs to be maintained.  Our ruling bodies need to be shining examples of this.
To wrap this up, the convention was a success.  I do have faith in Tim Pawlenty and Norm Coleman; however, I have more faith in the candidates for congress:
Brian Davis 1st district:  Excellent credentials, strong leader and willing to fight.  I had the chance to meet him and he has tremendous potential.
Erik Paulsen 3rd district: He did not speak but I have seen him before, although he comes from the rino Ramstad camp, he has potential as well.
Ed Matthews 4th district: Excellent candidate a CPA and Lawyer!  His loud proclamation that he will DRILL IN ANWAR was all I needed to hear.
Glen Menze 7th district: He is going up against a 16 time incumbent who only does the minimum amount of work needed to get elected.  However, I feel that Glen has the ticked that will work.
Barb Davis White 5th district: She stole the show in my book.  This passionate woman will not only kick Keith Ellis in the pants, she will dismantle MoveOn and all the rest of the libs who back him.
When I give my contributions, I will give to Barb and Ed first, but then the rest of the ticket.   We have some good people, let’s get them in.
Well that ends my first State GOP convention.  I would write for hours, and maybe I will…in another article.

Posted in Election 2008 | 1 Comment »

Letter to Star Tribune: Anarchy at the RNC Convention

March 26th, 2008

By BillWyldfyre

Dear Star Tribune,

I normally don’t write to you, I have found your paper and website to be extremely biased, however, this time I feel I need to say something. I am very concerned about a local group that wants to disrupt the Republican National Committee in September.

I am a law abiding citizen, and I am a Conservative Republican and yes one can be both. I read articles about a certain protest group, which I will not name because they do not deserve print space, buying taser weapons to attack citizens with at the RNC convention in September.

Being the kind of citizen who likes to be informed I went to their website and read the rhetoric and I found myself sick to my stomach. This group is “An anarchist / anti-authoritarian organizing body preparing for the 2008 Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minnesota.”

Their goal is to use their freedom to assemble in order to protest the Republicans, which is legal and appropriate. Where the danger here is, they want to harm other people from peacefully assembling, only under a different philosophy, in September, and that is not legal and not right. To put it simply, they want to use their rights to infringe on the rights of others, but yet, they call for anarchy?

“An anarchist/anti-authoritarian organizing body” I wonder if this group knows what that means? Anarchy is defined as “a: absence of government b: a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c: utopian societies of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government.”

I really wonder if this group that wants to disrupt the RNC Convention really wants anarchy? The government is what makes life possible in the USA, so to have complete anarchy means, we would be completely without government. This means that if someone wanted to dump pollution in Lake Calhoun, they could without penalty because there would be no government to stop them.

Let’s continue this line of thinking shall we?

If someone wanted to shoot people randomly on the street, they could because there would be no government to stop them.

If someone wanted to smoke in a public restaurant they could because there would be no government to stop them.

If you used your freedom of speech someone could kill you, harm you or imprison you without a trail or anything because, there are no laws in an anarchy.

If someone wanted to simply wanted to lock you away, they could in an anarchy.

If someone wanted to kill abortion doctors…well that is ok in anarchy.

If someone wanted to break into your home and rape you or a family member…that is ok in anarchy.

If someone wanted to oppress people because of race, sexual orientation or gender…that is ok in anarchy.

In true anarchy anything can happen at any time, or not happen, for example, without government, who would protect the environment? The government has ISO 14001 that governs the Environmental Management System “Organizations of all kinds are increasingly concerned with achieving and demonstrating sound environmental performance by controlling the impacts of their activities, products and services on the environment, consistent with their environmental policy and objectives. They do so in the context of increasingly stringent legislation, the development of economic policies and other measures that foster environmental protection, and increased concern expressed by interested parties about environmental matters and sustainable development.” (ISO 14001)

With anarchy, all regulations will be gone. Of course the corporations will be gone too, so things like, food, clothing, homes, electricity, heal care items, etc will also be gone.

Think about it, with true anarchy the government regulations that protect us with medical advances, like ISO 14385, or 21 CFR 820, which govern medical devices, like stints used for heart patients, or even machinery like CPAP machines, or even the common band aid, would not exist. You could not get flu shots, or even take an aspirin because the FDA would not exist either.

There would be no research of Stem Cells for example, of course, who cares right? With anarchy we could just simply kill people who got any disease because there would be no consequences if we did right?

With anarchy there would be no welfare, or social security because to be a true anarchy there would be no taxes, or money, or legal tender of any kind. You would have to either make your own stuff, or you would have to steal from others.

How about national healthcare? Well, with no regulations to keep health care honest, why even bother. Doctors could do anything they wanted, if you came in for a broken leg, you could find yourself missing a kidney because healthy kidneys are needed and could be sold, or traded. Doctors would not even want to do things like birth a baby, or maybe they would in order to sell the child into slavery, the possibilities are endless with anarchy.

Do you see the picture I am trying to paint here? These people who want to disrupt the RNC convention are mad; I understand, appreciate and respect their anger. They are against what the Republican Party is for…or are they? Truth is what they promote as a freedom of government or authority is very close to one of the many pillars of the Conservative movement. Conservatives want smaller government, we want less government interference, and we want government out of our daily lives, stealing our money and taking our property. We want government to be a necessity but not a burden on us. We want the freedom to live how we want to live, to say what we want to say and not to be condemned because we want to have a bar that smokers can go to without fear of a fine or penalty of the all powerful government.

Yet, these people, these anarchists, want tasers so they can add to the size of government and go further and further from anarchy. More tasers/weapons will mean more government policies, more government regulations, more restrictions, and of course more government people on hand during the RNC in St. Paul. Is that really what the anarchists want? Granted, they want to disrupt the Republican convention in St. Paul, they want to use their freedom to assemble to get out their message. However, isn’t the freedom of speech listed in the Constitution of the United States? Would this freedom be allowed in an anarchy.

So, before you donate money to the disrupt the RNC Convention cause, or show up in September with your taser and your anarchist idea think about what you have and enjoy in this country and remember that you are protected under the laws of this country…if there were no laws, nobody would be protected at all, and your voice could easily be silenced with no repercussions at all.

Posted in Election 2008 | 2 Comments »

What is the cause for the rise in health care?

March 17th, 2008

What is the cause for the rise in health care costs?

I have asked the same question for years. Without looking through a Google search and finding experts opinions, let’s ask ourselves why.

The median age of our population:

The baby boomer’s are getting older. It seems reasonable that an aging population would also consume more health care needs. The aged are more prone to cancer, diabetes, kidney disease and the pharmaceuticals that would palliate these conditions.

Our litigious society:

We hear on an almost daily basis, about some jury awarding fantastic amounts of money for some kind of lawsuit. We have created a great incentive for litigation. One of the biggest fields in this regard is the medical industry. It seems reasonable to assume that malpractice and litigation expenses to manufactures of drugs and medical devices also drive up costs and must be a huge factor in raising medical expenses.

This also contributes to over regulation by the FDA, which causes extensive research and development expenses and delays deployment of new drug therapies techniques and mechanisms, which in turn causes us to be more sick than we needed to be, and in turn, be a more expensive patient to treat. I won’t get into the over testing waste done to mitigate any possible litigation.

Picking up the tab for Socialism in other countries:

Most other governments around the world mandate the price of pharmaceuticals and cap the fees medical professionals can charge, leaving both with meager profits. So, in a capitalist market, we are charged more than we should be, to make up for the losses due to socialism around the world.

This also leads to less money for research and development of life saving products and drugs.

Illegal Aliens:

On a daily basis, an unknown number of illegal aliens enter our country from all parts of the world; unchecked for parasites and disease and having no money for health care.

Our collective altruistic response is to not only house them, feed them and employ them, but also take care of their medical needs by passing laws that say emergency rooms must take care of anyone regardless of ability to pay.

We pay a heavy price for illegals, not only socially with increased costs on our school, legal and social services systems, but also in unpaid medical expenses that have shut down hospitals on the souther border states.
Also the re-introduction of medical maladies long thought eradicated from our modern society. Such as increased tuberculosis, e coli breakouts in our food networks and bed bugs.

High Tech Medicine:

Our modern medicine is a combination of the best scientists, engineers and cutting edge high tech firms. We are able to do things this decade that only a few years ago was thought impossible, yet we complain when our insurance bill goes up a few bucks a month.

State and Federal Regulation:

It is almost impossible to capture the scope and depth of one of the largest expenses. Vast amounts of money is spent keeping up with the compliance of both state and federal laws.

Massive banks of lawyers hold down litigation. Research and development is hindered. FDA overview of new drugs, mechanisms and procedures cost countless lives and cost billions in lost revenue.

State and Federal laws mandates tying the hands of insurance companies to react to market forces, cost the all of use the ability to purchase cheaper more narrow insurance coverage.

Posted in Health Care | No Comments »

The Right To Death

March 12th, 2008

With Dr. Jack Kevorkian back in the news, and the death of my Mother still fresh in my heart, I will tell you what I think. This maybe controversial, but I am going to put it out here.

I believe that I have not only the right to the pursuit of happiness, but also the right as part of my pursuit to choose to end my life when I see fit.

My Mother passed away in November and although she had a very good five years of fighting cancer, the last month on her life was frightening, painful, embarrassing and sad.

I had a long conversation with one of the hospice nurses that had been taking care of my Mom, for the last four months or so. I suggested to her that I thought society was barbaric, by not letting my Mom or you and I, have the option to end our lives mercifully, and with dignity. She agreed with me, but first said, “don’t tell anyone this but….”

Jack Kevorkian, may be a weirdo, a freak, maybe a ghoul, but he is the only one in America standing up for you and I having the ability for a planned end of our lives. I will not let a disease put me through some horrible end, I choose to end it myself thank you.

My kids saw Gramma Barb, one last time during her week on passing away. My daughter was pretty shaken by this, we all were. It also was a time for my brother and sister to spend time together. Anyway, I promised my daughter Caitlyn, that she would never see Dad (me), like that. I told her that if I got really bad, with a disease, I would put myself to sleep like we put our pets to sleep, and feel no pain. I think that made her feel better.

In case you are wondering, it would be from carbon monoxide poisoning. It’s the only thing that under our current law, I could do myself with dignity and without pain. And no I don’t have a death wish, and I am not suicidal.   Smiley

What do you think? Don’t be shy, you can please tell me what you really think.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Our Rights | 1 Comment »

« Older Entries