A full scale war has been waged upon the American way of life.   The perpetrators are a class of citizens who believe that it is the end of the world, as we know it.  Unless, of course, we abdicate our liberties and subject ourselves to their will.  Who are these people?   Why, the environmentalist crowd, naturally.   Conservatives and moderates understand the obligation we have, as humans, to be responsible stewards of the planet.   This obligation includes basic things like picking up after yourself, taking care of your personal property, and respecting public parks and lands.   However, we do not advocate increasing regulations and costs of energy use as an effective or appropriate means of combating “global warming,” “global cooling,” or “climate change.” (Whichever trend happens to be fashionable at the moment).

The enviro-elites strongly disagree with our somewhat laissez-faire approach to environmentalism.   In fact, it enrages them so much that they are perfectly willing to bypass the traditional, democratic decision-making process in order to enact their desired legislation.   In the words of Thomas Friedman, supporter of all things eco-friendly, and columnist for the New York Times:

“There is only one thing worse than one-party autocracy, and that is one-party democracy, which is what we have in America today. One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks.  But when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today, it can also have great advantages.  That one party can just impose the politically difficult but critically important policies needed to move a society forward in the 21st century.  It is not an accident that China is committed to overtaking us in electric cars, solar power, energy efficiency, batteries, nuclear power and wind power.”

Apparently in order to get up to par, we must emulate China.   Yes, China.   Although vastly improved from what it once was, this one-party autocracy is responsible for a reported 45 MILLION Chinese citizens who starved to death on its watch; a one-party autocracy that thought it should have ultimate power over citizens to do what it surely deemed to be “critically important” in order to move their country forward.  In fact, leader Mao Zedong called his initiative, “The Great Leap Forward.”  An important question to ask ourselves is:  Who exactly gets to decide what qualifies as a “reasonably enlightened group of people?

The 111th Congress, with a current approval rating of 13% (an all time low), cannot be such an “enlightened group of people,” could it? They did pass the much desired cap-and-trade bill for the environmental lobbyists on June 26, 2009 in the US House of Representatives (by a slim margin of 219-212), though it is still up for debate in the Senate.   This bill, officially named “The American Clean Energy and Security Act,” or “The Waxman-Markey Bill,” aims to reduce carbon emissions that allegedly cause global warming.   Heavy regulations and taxes will be imposed upon any company that produces or uses energy.  Such a broad scope encompasses all of business since everybody uses energy and electricity.  In a properly functioning market, these costs are not absorbed by the producer alone.  In order for the producer to remain financially viable he is forced to pass on most, if not all, of these costs to you, the consumer.   The new, preferred source of energy would come from clean (yet incredibly unreliable and inefficient) sources such as wind or solar power.   President Obama is on record saying things about how he would “bankrupt” the coal industry or that, “Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”

Skyrocketing electricity prices and bankrupted industries are not the only items we would have to worry about.   Let’s take a look at how the economy overall may be affected if a cap and trade bill were to become federal law.   Many of the facts below were found in the book Power Grab by Christopher Horner, unless otherwise noted.   I highly recommend a thorough reading of Power Grab, if you have the time.

• Based on a study by Dr. Robert Peltier, editor-in-chief of Power magazine, he deduced that an extremely optimistic estimate for replacing current energy demands with off-shore wind power would require 334,462 wind turbines or, “In other words, the entire east coast would have wind turbines…located every half mile and 93 turbines deep (over 30 miles) out to sea.”

• In a study by scientist Arthur Robinson, in Environment & Climate News, he noted that: To produce the equivalent of our energy needs using solar power it would cost at least $30 TRILLION.   Solar panels would necessarily have to cover 70,000 square miles covering land the size of Maryland, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Connecticut, Delaware, Rhode Island, and Washington D.C…..combined.

• The estimated cost per family for “cap and trade” related expenses is $1,700-$3,100 per year.

• Based upon findings in the UK, there has been a dramatic spike in wintertime deaths of the elderly, who can no longer afford to heat their homes due to a 700% increase in electrical prices there.

• In Spain (one of the enviro-elite’s idols), for every “green” job that was created, 2.2 jobs were lost in the private sector.

• Millions of people would lose their jobs under the proposed “Waxman-Markey,” cap and trade bill. See chart below for estimates.

Requiring companies to obtain permits in order to emit greenhouse gases will lead to the rise of “carbon oligarchs,” as described in the Editorial section of The Washington Times: “The bill is reminiscent of the voucher systems used by former communist states to “privatize” industries formerly owned by the state.  The vouchers quickly accumulated in the hands of a few connected power brokers who became instant billionaires.  Under cap-and-trade, we will soon see the rise of the carbon oligarchs.  These people will make vast fortunes on this legislation by trading influence and rule-making that benefits them at the expense of the rest of us.  These energy brokers and carbon-offset middlemen will produce nothing and make no contributions to society but will become rich based on political preference and other insider influence.”   Just how much money could there be at stake in this scheme?   Take a look below at the staggering numbers. (The Red State format does not show the entire chart- just click on it to see the full image and numbers)

Current percentages of US energy sources are: 49% coal, 19.4% nuclear, 21.5% natural gas, 6% dams, 0.5% wind/solar and 3.6% from other sources.   The obvious problems with wind and solar energy are that they are entirely uncontrollable by humans.   Relying on sun and wind for your energy needs is not economically feasible, so all of these turbines would also need “back-up” power supplies- aka the trusty, tried and true coal or nuclear sources.  This, naturally, induces a dual investment upon both types of energy.   Basically, relying on wind and solar for energy is both financially reckless and logically defunct.  Fred Barnes, editor of The Weekly Standard, elaborates on this view by writing:  “To think that wind and solar or other alternative fuels can fill the energy gap requires a belief in what Adriel Bettelheim of Congressional Quarterly has called the “Tinkerbell effect,” as in Peter Pan.  It consists of believing something will happen just because you wish it would.”

Basically, relying on wind and solar for energy is both financially reckless and logically defunct.

Global warming has caused a worldwide hysteria the past decade.   It also, coincidentally, has become a multi-billion dollar industry.   It is remarkable to hear the lengths to which people will go these days, thinking that their actions can save the planet.  Women in Europe and elsewhere have sterilized themselves because babies are not “eco-friendly.”   In just one example, Toni Vernelli proudly proclaims, “Having children is selfish.  It’s all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet,” says Toni, 35. “Every person who is born uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees and produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of over-population.”

One fact that never seems to surface among environmentalists is that the largest contributor of greenhouse gases is actually…water vapor.  As in, natural moisture in the air, or clouds?  Yep.  In fact, water vapor accounts for a full 95% of the greenhouse gas effect.   But, I suppose it is harder to demonize (or monetize) the clouds.  Cars, and other such advancements of Western civilization, make easier, more profitable targets.   For a closer look at some of the numbers and factors of greenhouse gases, check out this link.

But, I suppose it is harder to demonize (or monetize) the clouds.  Cars, and other such advancements of Western civilization, make easier, more profitable targets.

Thanks to revelations brought about in the “Climategate” documents, we now have proof that a substantial amount of the evidence for global warming has been fabricated or doctored, with inconvenient information being blatantly omitted.   A succinct, but telling, overview was discussed in the UK’s Telegraph. After a hacker got into the computer system of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Center, over 1,000 emails and 72 documents were spread across the internet.   In these emails, “scientists” talk openly about how their data was not turning out how they wanted it to.   So, they altered it to fit their, and the enviro-elite’s, agenda.   For example, one scientist wrote, “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”  Hmmm, hide the decline?   How can there be bonafide global warming if your evidence actually found a decline in temperature?

The American people are starting to wake up to the largest scientific scam known to date.   They demand real answers, not fabricated evidence from so-called scientists or phony-baloney talking points from politicians.   The new Congress must act swiftly to terminate any legislation attempting to regulate and tax carbon emissions.  Also, the EPA must be kept in check and accountable- not permitted to fine and regulate without true oversight.  Access to abundant, reasonably priced energy is one of the greatest sources of freedom and independence there is.   Limiting access to energy by mandating scarcity, and increasing costs, will harm America immensely- and it must be stopped.

A breath of fresh air came blasting out of a Virginia Federal Court this past Monday.  In his ruling Judge Henry Hudson (pictured in thumbnail) concludes that the requirement for citizens to buy insurance (the “individual mandate” or “Minimum Essential Coverage Provision” portions of Obamacare) is unconstitutional.  In his judicial review he states that the individual mandate cannot be justified under the Commerce Clause, or the Necessary and Proper Clause, or the General Welfare Clause.  An excellent summary of the case can be found on The Wall Street Journal’s law blog.

Judge Hudson explains that:

“A thorough survey of pertinent constitutional case law has yielded no reported decisions from any federal appellate courts extending the Commerce Clause or General Welfare Clause to encompass regulation of a person’s decision not to purchase a product, notwithstanding its effect on interstate commerce or role in a global regulatory scheme. The unchecked expansion of congressional power to the limits suggested by the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision would invite unbridled exercise of federal police powers.”

In other words: Neither the government nor Congress nor any other entity can require an individual to buy a product.  Period.  It doesn’t matter if that product is health insurance, electric cars, laundry detergent, scotch tape or broccoli.  To give this kind of power away is unwise and imprudent.  It would most certainly expand the realm of issues the government would seek to gain ultimate control over.  At the end of the day, who should have the final say over what you do or what you buy (so long as it is legal and presents no undue harm to others): Yourself, who clearly knows how to best judge your own situation, or the government, who does nothing efficiently except writing parking tickets?

Thank you, Judge Hudson.  You just made my week.

The Obama administration has already started filing appeals to this ruling, still believing that the mandate will be upheld in higher courts.  Be looking for a massive Supreme Court case on this issue in the near future.  But for now, I will take the small victory.

Unemployment benefits have come to the forefront of headline news this week.   In order to secure the extension of the Bush tax cuts for everyone (at all income levels), Democrats insisted on yet another extension of unemployment benefits- a full 13 additional months on top of the 26-98 weeks worth some people have already received.  If this extension is approved, it will be the sixth time since June of 2008 that Congress has extended the time deadline.   Most proponents of the perpetual extension of unemployment benefits insist that it is the only compassionate thing to do.  To cut anyone off of the government payroll is not something America should even consider since it would be so barbaric.   But, if this trend continues, we can just look across the Atlantic to our mother country, England, or any nation in the European Union and see what dismal financial future lies ahead.

Iain Duncan Smith, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in England, denounced their current culture of dependence on welfare and unemployment benefits by saying, “In prosperous times, this dependency culture would be unsustainable.  Today it is a national crisis.”  According to government statistics, 1.5 million people in England have been unemployed and sucking the unemployment fund dry for 9 out of the past 10 years, even though millions of jobs were created during that same period of time.  What England is discovering, and what America will be forced to learn, is that what starts out as a safety net for people between jobs has actually turned into a relaxing hammock for a substantial number of citizens. England is now going forward with a plan to drastically reduce the amount of state-funded benefits that are dished out to the public. These reforms are aimed at encouraging citizens to re-enter the workforce and providing fire under their feet to get people moving as quickly as possible. England will save an estimated 500 million pounds a year on administrative costs and an additional 1 billion pounds on the reduction of fraud and error that come with their benefits system.   Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg said the reforms were designed to exemplify the true nature and spirit of the welfare state.  He said: “Nearly 70 years ago its architect, the great Liberal William Beveridge, imagined a system that gave people protection from cradle to grave – but not one that would act as a crutch every day in between. Beveridge’s dream has been distorted. Today’s system discourages self reliance, it disincentives work, it condemns the most disadvantaged in our society to a life on benefits.

Another example of the “benefits culture” gone wild comes from France.  A professor of mine, who grew up primarily in France but has lived all around the world, told my class one day about his French cousin.  His cousin had lost his job back in the late 1990′s, so the French government offered him unemployment compensation.  He gladly took it and then soon realized that he actually made more money on benefits.  Now, 15 some years later, a well-bodied and still young man has never worked another day in his life.  Instead, he travels the world and relaxes in the French countryside.  But don’t worry, the French government has him covered!

For some supplemental insight of the current state of affairs in England, Daniel Hannan, member of the British Parliament, is a great resource.  Below is a 35 minute interview with him by Stanford University’s “Hoover Institution.”

While England and Europe are reigning in their unemployment benefits and welfare states, America is expanding her own.   Hardly anybody is against helping out people truly in need or those down on their luck for a temporary amount of time.   But the question America faces is how much and how long should the government aid its citizens?   At what point does the protection of the state turn into a crutch?  In America today, people are eligible for up to almost 2 years (99 weeks, to be exact) of unemployment payments with the possibility that additional 13 months as a condition in the proposed tax compromise between Republicans and Democrats.   The United States is obviously in a recession with unemployment rates at 9.8%, double what the ideal rate is.   Most economists pinpoint the ideal rate of unemployment around 4 or 5% since there is always going to be people between jobs or switching careers, or industries that are gradually fading out (think of typewriter companies in the 1990′s when the computer market started to catch fire).

But what seems like a “free” benefit from the federal government is, of course, not free at all.  Unemployment compensation is largely paid out of the pockets of American businesses, big and small.   We must remember that any money the government “gives” out in the form of a “benefit” had to first be taken away from someone else in the form of a tax.  In case you are curious, you can calculate your household’s share towards paying out these benefits by clicking here.

Footing the bill for most of these benefits are employers who pay state and federal taxes on a percentage of wages paid out to each employee.   However in some areas of the country, unemployment insurance premiums paid by employers have doubled, tripled or even more in the past year.   Greg Howard, owner of McCabe’s Tavern in Colorado Springs, told the Colorado Springs Gazette his bill spiked a whopping 600 percent. “It’s enough to T you off a little bit,” Howard told the newspaper. “The dollar amount isn’t tremendous, but it’s going up six times.” Michelle Malkin wrote this week about a small painting contractor whose first quarter unemployment insurance went up from $1,000 to $6500 in 3 years. She explained that, “It’s killing us! How can we hire additional employees? This is a big increase in addition to the health insurance annual increases, etc. We had to reduce our employees’ wages by 10 percent this year, and who knows when we will be able to bump them back up?” Unfortunately, it is extremely difficult, if not borderline impossible for any business to budget effectively when they are always unsure of what they will have to pay out in unemployment insurance premiums.

With the permitted time to draw unemployment benefits approaching 3 years, the United States must sit back and seriously think about how much further they will let this continue.   Free market thinking economists keep shouting that unemployment benefits are not the way out of a recession.   Sometimes, in order to recover, the current labor markets have to clear and balance out (meaning perhaps even higher unemployment for a brief time) before true forward progress can be made.   We have seen, through Europe, what the future holds for expanding the “benefits culture”- an ever-increasing segment of society that prefers to take much more out of the government than they ever contributed; a people that would rather be idle and mediocre than aspire to greatness.

Note:  This is the 4th segment in my 10-part blog series found here.

There is perhaps no bigger scam in the federal budget than Social Security. Since its inception, Social Security has grown into a bigger and bigger Ponzi scheme. Take, for example, the first recipient of Social Security, Ida May Fuller of Ludlow, Vermont. She paid a total of $24.75 into the Social Security System. The first Social Security check she received was for $22.54 and after her second check, Fuller already had received more than she ever contributed. She lived to be 100 and collected a total of $22,888.92 which is approximately 92,000% more than she contributed to the Social Security trust. Any system with numbers like these is unsustainable. How did we get to this point? What can be done to rectify the horrid financial situation the United States finds itself in now?

The Social Security Act of 1935 was signed into law by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt as one of his New Deal programs. Originally, the fund was designed for only the elderly, widowed, and unemployed. As any government program evolves, more and more people want in and they begin demanding their piece of the pie- and then they demand increasingly bigger pieces of the pie, as well. Something that most people forget is that Social Security was never designed to be the sole income for retired seniors; it was to provide a safety net to assure that the elderly would not suffer in poverty while unable to work their way out of it. Whatever good intentions were there initially for the Social Security system, were lost over the years because it gave people an excuse to not properly plan for their futures, and for the government to be reckless with the taxpayers dollars. As Dinesh D’Souza writes, “The involvement of the state has utterly stripped the transaction of its moral value, even though the result is exactly the same…When the state exceeds its proper function, when it moves outside its sphere, it invades the domain of the citizens, depriving us of both freedom and responsibility.”

One important trick behind Social Security is that it is considered to be a “mandatory spending program” by the government. This is because of how the system operates: When the Social Security system was created, just two items were considered. First, who would be eligible for the benefits (which is a perpetually increasing number of people) and second, what formula would be used to calculate the amount of benefits a person would receive. From there on out, Social Security has essentially run on auto-pilot. The budget for Social Security on any given year is not up for Congressional approval (like “discretionary spending” is) because it is the nation’s demographics that determine how much money will be paid out. So, our elected officials have no power to change the system unless they enact specific legislation to do so- something which no politician has dared to do. Social Security has often been called, “The Third Rail of Politics” because attempting to do anything with it (other than increase benefits) means political suicide for any politician. But it doesn’t have to be that way. Perhaps if more Americans familiarize themselves with the facts and how dire our situation is, they will beg their elected officials to do something about the Social Security disaster before it is too late.

One fact that should concern every American is this: If we do nothing to rearrange our current entitlement system, by 2052, every single dollar of federal revenue will go towards paying out benefits for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. The United States will not even be able to pay the interest on our accumulated debt much less anything else like national defense, public park system, infrastructure improvements, and so forth.

It is true that the Social Security Trust has run a surplus for many years. This is because in the beginning (1950 and earlier), there were 16 workers to support each retiree through the payroll taxes (FICA) collected. Now there are just 3 workers for each retiree, and when all of the baby boomers retire, we will be lucky to have 2 workers to each retiree. In raw numbers, the number of people receiving Social Security benefits in 1940 was 220,000 people. This increased to 47 million by 2004 and will reach an astonishing 84 million by 2030. The big problem is that in the surplus years, the excess money did not sit in a magical account, waiting for its day to be spent be the deserving people that contributed. What the government has done is something that, in the private sector, would be called downright fraud- counting money twice The technical explanation is that surplus has been invested in special series, non-marketable U.S.Government bonds, meaning that the Social Security Trust Fund indirectly finances part of the federal government’s deficit spending. Or, in simpler terms, the federal government spent the surplus and stuck a bunch of IOU’s into the Social Security Trust Fund. The brilliant, late economist Milton Friedman put the scenario into perspective quite well when he said:

“To preserve the fiction that Social Security is insurance, federal government interest-bearing bonds of a corresponding amount have been deposited in a so-called trust fund. That is, one branch of the government, the Treasury, has given an interest-bearing IOU to another branch of, the Social Security Administration. Each year thereafter, the Treasury gives the Social Security Administration additional IOUs to cover the interest due. The only way that the Treasury can redeem its debt to the Social Security Administration is to borrow the money from the public, run a surplus in its other activities or have the Federal Reserve print the money- the same alternatives that would be open to it to pay Social Security benefits if there were no trust fund. But the accounting sleight-of-hand of a bogus trust fund is counted on to conceal this fact from a gullible public.”

Using these surpluses also had the effect of making general federal debt appear “smaller” than it really was, year after year. It is estimated that Social Security only has enough assets to pay benefits through 2018. After that, either the system will be entirely bankrupt, or payroll taxes must be increased.

The wrongful assumption in the whole Social Security debate is that individual people cannot be trusted to save for their own retirement. What should be done is the complete elimination of the system for young people (say, anyone under the age of 45). Anyone who is currently receiving benefits ought not to lose them, of course. But for those of us still young enough to save for retirement, we should be allowed to opt out of the system- no money deducted from our paychecks now, so there is no obligation for the government to pay for us later. Sure there will be a few people who squander their money and do not save enough for retirement but, as Thomas Sowell says in his book, Dismantling America, “There is no reason why other people should lose the right to make decisions for themselves because some people make questionable decisions.” Those over a specified age could continue to pay into the system, if they choose, and still be able to redeem benefits.

There are a plethora of options when it comes to restructuring (or even eliminating) the Social Security Administration.  But doing nothing will absolutely lead to the financial ruin of America.  And faster than anyone realizes.

(This is the third segment from a 10 part series on my personal blog)

In Greek mythology Achilles was the strongest and bravest warrior of his time.   When he was born, his mother, Thetis, dipped him in the River Styx which had the power to make a person invincible.  However, there was one remaining weakness on his body- the spot above his heel that his mother had held him by while dipping him in that sacred river.  Even though the rest of his body was fierce and indestructible, his enemies eventually figured out this weakness.  They used this knowledge to kill him by shooting an arrow into what is now called his, “Achilles heel.”  Since then, an Achilles heel has been defined as a weakness that could potentially become fatal.   Although the origin of the term referred to a physical vulnerability in the tendon connecting the lower leg and heel, today it is also used metaphorically to describe specific attributes or traits that can lead to a tragic downfall of a person, group, business, or even a country.

American businesses are, in a sense, much like Achilles. Entrepreneurs have the freedom to start up a business doing practically anything they want because America is a strong nation that encourages this kind of creativity and ingenuity.  Once companies are established and have a loyal customer base, they can remain strong so long as they stay competitive and are constantly looking for more ways to deliver the best products and services available.  However, these businesses still face a very threatening Achilles heel that threatens their very survival- federal regulations.

Now, just to be clear, regulations having to do directly with safety and common sense things do not pose a threat to business.  In fact, these are extremely valuable things.  But the truth is, most companies would adopt these regulations regardless of whether or not the government enforced them.  Why?  If a company has a lousy or unsafe product, consumers will either refuse to purchase it, which puts the company out of business, or sue the company into bankruptcy.  The focus of this segment will be on the overreaching and absurd regulations that impede and sometimes prohibit the progress, success, and profits of business.

Think about some noteworthy facts:

• The Code of Federal Regulations, which lists all existing regulations, made it to an astounding 163,333 pages in 2009.
• The Federal Register, which reports any changes in federal regulations of businesses, is currently 68,598 pages long
• Compliance with all of these regulations cost an estimated $1.75 trillion, more than what all Americans combined pay in federal income taxes.
• Each household’s “tab” for regulation expenses? $15,000 or, about the same as what most people pay for housing each year.
• There are more than 50 federal agencies in charge of overseeing regulation that vary from the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service to the EPA to the Bureau of Customs.
• The number of federal regulators has tripled over the past 50 years in order to keep up with the ballooning size of the government.  During the President George W. Bush’s administration, a whooping 91,000 staff members were added to federal regulating agencies and bureaus.

Something must be done to control this beast.  Each new regulation places additional stumbling blocks and costs more time and money to both businesses and consumers.   When a group of 13-year old boys are turned into the cops for selling cupcakes without a government regulated license, or the price for obtaining a license to operate a single taxi in New York City has jumped to $600,000, you know things have gone way too far.  Instead of looking for ways to ease the pains of business, the Obama administration now has a firm record for doing just the opposite.

Don't you even think about making some money on the side by selling cupcakes. Unless, of course, you apply for a permit first!

Here are just a few examples:

• In the new health care reform bill, there is a certain regulation that has caused uproar amongst businesses.  This is known as the “1099 Provision.” It requires companies to do an IRS report for every transaction they make over $600 which, for any decent size company, happens to be a lot.  Clearly, this places an  unnecessary burden upon employers costing additional time and money- time and money that could be used to hire more people, perhaps.
• First Lady Michelle Obama wants to make a legacy of fighting obesity by reminding us all that, “Dessert is not a right.” Some cities like Boston, New York and San Francisco have begun banning the sale of soda or high-calorie snacks on city property.  These regulations, no doubt, have a negative effect on all companies that used to sell their products there.  Not to mention limiting the personal choice of individuals on whether or not they want to consume such things.
• The government is now looking to update all ADA requirements (Americans with Disabilities Act) so that businesses and cyberspace are more compliant.  These new proposals go far beyond the original, much needed, regulations such as wheelchair ramps.  New regulations would require things such as mounting screens on the backs of chairs in movie theaters that would enable deaf people to read the movie’s captions.  No exact cost for all of these proposed regulations has been announced, but it has been estimated to be at least several hundred million dollars.
• In the proposed Food Modernization Act, the Federal Department of Agriculture (yet another federal regulatory agency) would expand its influence by being able to dictate how and what farmers grow on their fields.  New regulations and more oversight would, of course, mean more costs for inspections, and more staffers added to the government payroll.

Unfortunately, neither President Obama nor his top advisors and aides have any authentic private sector experience.  His administration has been seriously scrutinized for this, especially recently in light of the midterm elections.  Working for the government and running a business are two very different things.  In a business, there is a bottom line.  In the government, you can print more money or borrow from future generations not even born yet.  If those tactics were used by companies it would be called fraud.  The real world and the world in which our federal government prefers to live are on opposite ends of the spectrum.  Because of innovation in technology, businesses have been able to do more things with less and cheaper.  The trend for them has been decentralization.  The federal government, however, is constantly seeking more power by increasing their influence in anything from education to the environment, creating another bureaucracy to deal with and clean up an existing bureaucracy, appointing “czars” to oversee everything, and trying to centralize all aspects of private life.  It doesn’t take a nuclear physicist to realize why this ends up becoming a complicated and outrageously expensive mess.

Government is meant to be an objective referee for business, not a tyrannical dictator.  What needs to be done is a total analysis of all existing regulations.  The group that is given this task should not be one of those “bipartisan committees” filled with current or former lawmakers.  It must consist of businessmen and woman, not those who spent their entire lives in Washington D.C. and do not actually know to efficiently run a company.  Our economy will continue to stagnate while innovation is stifled, and efficiency crushed due to the perpetually expanding federal red tape.  The freedom-robbing of excessive regulation must end.

Final memo to the federal government: Quit stabbing our Achilles heel or it will kill us.  Promise.

(This is the second segment in a 10-part series from my personal blog.)

Back in 1869, the Knights of Labor was founded as America’s first organized labor union. During this time, workers were experiencing a decrease in pay along with a decrease in quality of working conditions. Meanwhile, the industrial revolution was booming making captains of industry, like John D. Rockefeller, very wealthy men. The founding of labor unions was certainly justifiable, and the right thing to do. At the beginning the union members requested reasonable things such as child labor laws, the standard 40 hour work week, and a safe working environment. Upon President John F. Kennedy’s “Executive Order 10988” in 1962, federal workers became eligible to form unions, marking the beginning of a whole new identity of unions.

Compare those modest beginnings with the typical labor unions of today: Public sector unions have been fiercely criticized over the past year. In a study by the Kellogg School of Management, public pensions have an estimated $3 trillion in unfunded liabilities. To make matters worse, in an updated study just released in October of this year, Kellogg found that cities and counties across the nation plop an additional $574 billion onto that already massive debt. How could this have happened? Studies over the past decade (like the recent one in USA Today) have consistently shown that federal public employees, when you include benefits, make more than twice the amount of private sector workers.

An enormous disparity occurs between the pensions offered to the public employees versus the typical pensions received by private sector employees. The public pensions are so out-of-line that they require 2-3 private sector workers to pay for the benefits of one public sector retiree. A further detriment to unions is how their pay scale works: Workers are given raises based upon seniority, not measured results or hard work- such a practice would never happen in a private run business or enterprise. For example, young promising teachers that have not been tenured (aka not fully protected by the teacher’s union) are the first teachers cut during a budget crisis even if their talent far exceeds that of a tenured teacher. In a time when private sector union membership is at low not seen since the 1930’s, memberships in public sector unions continue to increase. In the United States today, a mere 7% of private sector employees are unionized as compared to 37% (and growing) of public sector employees. There is a simple reason why the private industries have been decreasing in union memberships over the past few decades: The free market.

When unions continuously make excessive demands on their employers, it drives up the costs of the company which are then passed on to the consumers. Take, for example, car companies. For decades, GM and Chrysler have been unable to compete with foreign auto makers because the foreign companies can make better quality cars at lower cost due to the fact that they are not on they hook for outrageous employee benefits. In the UAW (United Auto Workers, car union) handbook, there are over 5,000 pages of rules and regulations and if just one is violated, it can shut down the whole assembly line, greatly reducing efficiency and therefore competitiveness by American auto workers. These American car companies were in such rotten financial shape that the federal government literally bailed them out. Most of the time the federal government is not going to bail a company out so typically, those companies that are no longer competitive in the marketplace go under, hence why private companies continue to decline in union membership. On the flip side, think about the government. Here, there is no competition. When public sector unions get together to negotiate for even higher salaries or increased benefits, who to they consult with? Politicians.

Consider a few inconvenient facts: Labor union dues are a huge factor in donations for an election cycle. Of the top 5 contributors to the 2010 elections, unions claimed 3 of those spots. The #1 big spender on the 2010 midterm elections happened to be: The American Federation of State, County, and Municpal Employees (AFSCME) with $87.5 million in donations to Democratic campaigns. All 3 of these powerful labor unions had a mission of electing Democrats to office with a sum total of $171.5 million to spend. The other 2 big donors were groups such as American Crossroads aimed at electing Republicans with a sum total of $140 million to spend. So, when public sector labor unions sit across the table to negotiate contracts with politicians, often times it is with politicians that they helped finance into office. These politicians are eager to help out their friends who helped them win their elections so the two sides can easily come to a mutually beneficial agreement. All the while the group that is actually footing the bill for all expenses incurred by these labor unions is never included in the actual negotiations: the taxpayers. It seems odd and certainly corrupt that the public sector unions, the so-called “public servants,” are organizing to financially screw over, well, the public.

Although the recession has cost a net loss of jobs to state and local government jobs, 198,000 new federal government jobs have been added since January of 2008 due to the stimulus package. Meanwhile, the private sector has lost close to 8 million jobs.  Perhaps in securing and boosting employment by the government, the powers in charge are buying off and baiting a loyal constituency? It seem more than plausible because all the evidence certainly leads to an indictment of the corrupt and disfunctional “union” between unions and the Democrat Party.

Many states on the brink of bankruptcy (California, New York, New Jersey, Michigan, etc.) have only remained solvent because of funds from the stimulus package which will soon run out. These states will continue to hold their hands out wide, looking for more money, until they are taught a lesson in financial responsibility. What needs to happen is for the US House of Representatives to make a procedure for states to declare bankruptcy. Yes, bankruptcy. Just like when individuals or businesses over-commit and live far beyond their means, states, too, should have a process by which they can essentially “start over.” When a business declares bankruptcy, it therefore is no longer bound to union contracts and can reorganize as it sees fit. In this case, instead of having a system where a unionized public sector employee can contribute a mere $62,000 over their working lifetime to their pension fund, but then withdraw $1.6 million from the state pension fund (like in New Jersey), states could redefine pensions to be comparable with private sector pensions: What you withdraw later largely depends on what you put in over the course of your working years, with a little help from your employer. This is known as a defined contribution plan used by practically every private firm for their employees. The only segment of society who viciously refuse to switch to this model are the current public sector employees who operate on a defined benefit pension plan that completely rips off taxpayers. As Dick Morris says, “This measure will return our state and local governments to the sovereignty of the people and take them away from the “thugocracy” of public-employee unions…We may, at long last, have a way to liberate our nation from the domination of those who should be our public servants but who often are our union masters.”

Making this kind of procedure a binding law will be the first of many fights that will happen between lawmakers and labor unions. The end goal must be the dismantling of all public sector unions. Public union employees are being paid twice the going rate of labor and the average taxpayer has had enough. If this dismantling does not happen, eventually the United States will begin to look like Europe: Riots in the street about the retirement age in France, an entirely bankrupt nation like Greece, drastic government spending cuts causing protests in all countries from England to Austria. In America, there is still time to save our republic but we must act now. Otherwise the United States, along with Europe, will be destroyed from within because of squandering their wealth and not acting prudently to remedy their dire situation soon enough, much like the Roman Empire.

This is the first segment in a 10 part blog series from www.alyssakaeding.com

We all have had roommates at some point in our lives.  Sometimes those roommates turn out to be our best friends, and other times the can be our greatest headaches.  Living with another person is a continuous system of trial and error. If you end up with a particular roommate whose personality severely clashes with your own, typically you part ways and seek a better match.  In America, we have the freedom to associate with and live with whomever we choose, right?

Wrong!  A woman in Grand Rapids, Michigan is learning this the hard way.  Last July she posted a sign on her church bulletin board, requesting a Christian roommate.  Somebody clearly looking for trouble, brought this to the attention of the Fair Housing Center of West Michigan and now a civil rights complaint has been filed against her.  The reason?   According to the Fair Housing Center of West Michigan, “The ad expresses an illegal preference for a Christian roommate, thus excluding people of other faiths…It is a violation to make, print or publish a discriminatory statement. There are no exceptions to that.”

Another roommate situation, gone bad. Bet they wish they could swap roommates, huh?

The First Amendment of the Constitution protects freedom of assembly, which is largely attributed to be the defense of the freedom of association.  Both freedom of speech and freedom of religion have also been cited in court cases as evidence for freedom of association.   Human relationships are voluntary contracts where each person decides with whom he wishes to associate with and this includes the right for a person to decide who they want to have as a roommate.   The accusation against this woman was that by announcing a distinct preference for a certain type of roommate, she was spoiling the chances for anyone of a different religious faith to live with her.   However, the argument can be made that this woman is now being denied her own rights to associate with whom she chooses.   It is evident that her personal preferences are being stolen from her because they are are less important than the agenda of the Fair Housing Center of West Michigan.

The tension here involves government mandate versus personal preference.   There is an key distinction though.   The law, as dictated by the government, must never discriminate.  As Jason Lewis said on his radio show, “The law must remain neutral.”   It cannot give preference to one group over another when it comes to issuing justice, employment opportunities, or other protected realms within which the government has legitimate influence.  Individuals, however, are a different. Individuals discriminate everyday.   They discriminate based on logical conclusions such as which kind of bathroom cleaner works best or which brand of flour makes the tastiest cookies or which kind of person would make the ideal spouse for them.   This is called rational discrimination and it is in embedded in everything we decide to do or not to do. When left to their own, most people do not practice irrational discrimination such as refusing to hire minorities or women or committing hate crimes against opposing religions.

Human relationships are voluntary contracts where each person decides with whom he wishes to associate with and this includes the right for a person to decide who they want to have as a roommate.

Yes, in a free society sometimes irrational discrimination exists, but this is more often the exception, rather than the rule.   The question is whether we want to live in a truly free society, even if sometimes people do or say things we do not agree with.   For the woman in Michigan, I hope freedom of association is upheld, and the justice is served.   If citizens are no longer permitted to choose with whom they wish to live with, what is next?  I’m afraid to even ask.

Last week, the 6-month drilling moratorium on the Gulf coast was lifted. However, many people are still upset and not yet back to work. Was this moratorium the best option in the first place? What are the repercussions going forward for the oil industry? Was the President’s drilling moratorium constitutional and thus legal?

First off, let’s start with the basic facts that led to the drilling moratorium. An oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico exploded, leading to the largest oil spill that has ever occurred in our waters. Although it was a terrible accident, and the effects on the ecosystem will need to be monitored for years to come, here is an insightful illustration of just how much oil spilled into the Gulf this past spring:

“If the Gulf was a football stadium, the Gulf of Mexico is the seventh largest body of water in the world, and contains approximately 660 quadrillion gallons of water. That’s 660 with 15 zeros. If the Gulf of Mexico was represented by the Cowboy stadium in Dallas, the largest domed stadium in the world, the amount of oil spilled would be about the size of a 24-ounce can of beer.”

Interesting perspective, isn’t it? What’s even more shocking is the fact that an entire industry was shut down because of one accident. Shutting down a few oils rigs located close to the defective one would have made sense. Additional inspections and evaluations of all working oil rigs would have been acceptable. But placing a moratorium on the entire industry was severely over-reaching and has caused extensive damage to the already struggling economy on the Gulf Coast. This past summer, Governor Bobby Jindal (R-Lousiana), had the opportunity to speak with the President about lifting the moratorium. Check out this video of Governor Jindal explaining the response he received from the President:

The drilling moratorium was put in place by a modern day political trick, known as an executive order. What, you may be wondering, exactly is an executive order? It is very loosely defined two places within the Constitution. The first reference is from Article II, Section 1, Clause 1, and states: “The Executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” The second reference is found in Article II, Section 3, Clause 4, and says: The President must “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” Therefore, the original intent behind an executive order is purely to help uphold and clarify existing laws, not to make policy. Executive orders have also been commonly used as a tool for the president to encourage Congress to take up certain pieces of legislation that have already come before them. In recent years, such as in 1999 under President Clinton, and in both 2001 and 2003 under President Bush, the executive order was used to informally declare war. However, under those circumstances, Congress voted upon and confirmed these executive orders. Back in 1952, President Truman came under assault for abusing the executive order when he ordered that all steel mills should be under federal control. The Supreme Court, in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, ruled President Truman’s executive order unconstitutional because it sought to make policy and control a segment of commerce over which it had no legitimate jurisdiction.

A copy of early Federalist Papers.

Likewise, the executive order requiring a drilling moratorium was brought to court. This time a federal judge in New Orleans lifted the drilling ban citing that it was economically unjustifiable. Normally, this would be the end of the story, but not this time. The administration, specifically the Department of the Interior, ignored the ruling by the court even after an appeals court also held up the ruling. Instead, another drilling moratorium was issued by Interior Secretary Kenneth Salazar in June of 2010: “Based on this ever-growing evidence, I will issue a new order in the coming days that eliminates any doubt that a moratorium is needed, appropriate, and within our authorities.”

The most disturbing aspect of these statements is the blatant disregard for the rule of law and extreme abuse of power. Separation of powers within our government was created for exactly this purpose; to ensure that one branch of the government could not get away with whatever it wanted. The judicial branch attempted to thwart the unconstitutional actions of the executive branch but was entirely shot down and given no respect. In Federalist Paper No. 47, future President James Madison warns that, “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”

Separation of powers within our government was created for exactly this purpose; to ensure that one branch of the government could not get away with whatever it wanted.

The unjustified actions of the Obama administration undermined the integrity of our system of government while denying thousands of Gulf Coast workers their livelihood. As Americans, we must become watchful citizens. The separation of powers is a crucial element to our government which we cannot afford to compromise.