Category Archives: Governmental Interference

Elections have Conseqences

Posted on by

Elections, and actions, have consequences. Missouri is suffering under those consequences as more and more revelations are uncovered about the illegal release of confidential information to the FedGov—in particular, to the DHS and the IRS.

The first case of individual data being illegally collected was disclosed when the Department of Revenue, through their licensing bureau, refused to issue a CCW permit. The DoR has been collecting and scanning private documents and forwarding that information out of state in violation of Missouri law.

One CCW applicant refused to submit the requested documents. The Dor refused to issue the permit—although the DoR has no legal authority to refuse a permit once it has been approved by the county’s Sheriff! That applicant sued the DoR and a Judge issued the Injuction prohibiting the DoR from collecting any further data pending the resolution of the suit.

Jay Nixon initially denied the accusations. However, later, in testimony before the state legislature, the DoR confirmed they did collect private information as they have been accused. A Missouri Judge granted an injunction to block the DoR from collecting private data from Missouri’s citizens.

Today, new allegations broke about illegal actions by the Nixon administration. By Missouri law, personal information of the state’s CCW holders is confidential. That data is held by the DoR and can only be released for criminal investigations—individual information. The Missouri Highway Patrol admitted this week it had requested the complete CCW database from the DoR, twice, and had sent that information to the IRS. Again, in violation of Missouri law.

Highway patrol gave feds Missouri weapon permits data

JEFFERSON CITY – The Missouri State Highway Patrol has twice turned over the entire list of Missouri concealed weapon permit holders to federal authorities, most recently in January, Sen. Kurt Schaefer said Wednesday.

Questioning in the Senate Appropriations Committee revealed that on two occasions, in November 2011 and again in January, the patrol asked for and received the full list from the state Division of Motor Vehicle and Driver Licensing. Schaefer later met in his office with Col. Ron Replogle, superintendent of the patrol.

After the meeting, he said Replogle had given him sketchy details about turning over the list, enough to raise many more questions. Testimony from Department of Revenue officials revealed that the list of 185,000 names had been put online in one instance and given to the patrol on a disc in January.

Schaefer has been investigating a new driver licensing system. He and the committee grilled the revenue officials for several hours in the morning and again at midday before they admitted the list had been copied. The investigation was triggered by fears that concealed weapons data was being shared with federal authorities.

Under Missouri law, the names of concealed weapon permit holders are confidential. The only place in Missouri where the names of all concealed carry permit holders is stored is among driver license records. Permit holders have a special mark on their licenses indicating they have been granted the privilege of carrying a gun.

The list was given to the Social Security Administration Office of Inspector General, Schaefer said he was told.

“Apparently from what I understand, they wanted to match up anyone who had a mental diagnosis or disability with also having a concealed carry license,” Schaefer said. “What I am told is there is no written request for that information.”

Chris Koster, Missouri’s Attorney General, whose office is administratively under the Governor, has not, so far, investigated these violations of state law despite numerous request for him to do so.

What has all this to do with today’s post title? It’s the fact that Jax Nixon and Chris Koster was re-elected to office by a large margin last November. Does anyone truly believe if either, or both of them had lost that election, that the heads of the DoR, the DMV and the Highway Patrol would still be in office? If Ed Martin had beaten Koster last November, I guarantee that all three agency heads would be under investigation. If Nixon had lost his election, all three agency heads would be under suspension pending the results of that investigation.

But—neither lost and now we have a massive cover-up by Nixon’s department heads. Those are the consequences of that election. The voter’s action in that election has lead directly to this situation. Yes, elections have consequences.

Facebook

A whiff of secession

Posted on by

The subject of secession has been popular since the election. I think there is a secession petition filed on the White House website from every state. Several states, like Texas, have reached that magic 25,000 signatures.

Does that mean Texas will secede? No. The petitions are meaningless gestures. There are others, however, who are serious about secession. Catalonia, for example…a segment of Spain.

Separatists winning in Catalonia, Spain: early results

BARCELONA, Spain | Sun Nov 25, 2012 6:43pm EST

(Reuters) – Four separatist parties in Spain’s Catalonia looked set to win a majority in regional elections on Sunday, partial results showed, but the main one was on course to lose some seats, possibly undermining its bid to call an independence referendum.

With half of votes counted, the ruling Convergence and Union alliance, or CiU, was winning 48 seats in the 135-seat local parliament, well down from its current 62 seats.

The separatist Republican Left, or ERC, was winning 20 seats, with two other smaller separatist parties taking a total of 16 seats, giving the four parties 60 percent between them.

Regional President Artur Mas, of CiU, had campaigned on a pledge to hold a referendum on independence, in response to a resurgent separatist movement among Catalans who are frustrated with Spain in a deep economic crisis.

Opinion polls had forecast that CiU would retain 62 or more seats in the local Parliament and that all four separatist parties would have more than two-thirds of the seats. Neither of those projections was met as the results began to come in.

Without the psychological backing of a two-thirds majority, analysts have said, it may be hard for Mas to defy the constitution and the central government in Madrid and try to hold a referendum.

Our experiment with secession failed 150 years ago. Other attempts around the world such as the Ukraine and Belarus has succeeded, albeit not without some blood being shed.

The talk in the US about secession has been just that—talk. The state of the nation, the economy, federal interference, the overall feeling of governmental tyranny, hasn’t yet reached the level where secession is being seriously discussed.

Yet.

There are some opinions that it could be done…by Texas, for instance. Texas has always had an independent streak. It, and California, were Republics before merging with the United States. The Republic of California was a joke. A side show, really, by a few Americans at the beginning of the War with Mexico in 1846. The Republic of Texas, however, existed for a number of years before succumbing to debt and internal divisions.

There are some today who think Texas could bring it off this time.

Secession, y’all: Why Texas can pull it off

Bob Smiley, Author, “Don’t Mess with Travis”

When Thomas Dunne published Don’t Mess with Travis in May — my comedic political novel about a freewheeling Texas governor who becomes fed up with a Constitution-stomping president and decides to secede — I knew I had landed on something relevant. I didn’t know it was this relevant.

As of writing, the Texas petition to peacefully “withdraw” from the United States via the White House’s open petition webpage is up to 62,481 signatures, on its way to tripling the required names needed to trigger a response from the Obama administration. No doubt Texas’s desire to break free is a source of amusement inside a White House that has mastered the art of belittling the opinions of its challengers, but there is one not-so-small problem here: Texas could pull it off.

Here’s why:

–Resources. Texas currently sits on one-quarter of the nation’s oil reserves and one-third of the nation’s natural gas reserves. Even more, fully 95% of the country receives its oil and gas courtesy of pipelines that originate within Texas. This is what one might call leverage.

–The Texas Economy. This is well documented but worth repeating. In the last decade, even with the Great Recession, Texas has expanded by one million jobs. One million. That’s more than every other state … combined. Because of its friendly business climate, Texas is home to more Fortune 500 companies than anywhere else. If Texas were its own country, it would have the thirteenth-highest GDP in the world, just behind Canada and Russia. Or think about it this way: For every dollar Texas taxpayers send to Washington, they currently get only about 80 cents back. Theoretically, they could transfer those funds to the state’s coffers and still give every Texan a 20 percent tax cut.

–Utilities. Texas is the only state with its own power grid. Developed over the course of the last 100 years, the Texas grid covers the majority of the state and is fully state controlled. Translation: Texans could rest assured that the federal government doesn’t have the power — literally — to turn off their lights.

–Defense. While no match for Uncle Sam’s firepower, Texas does have a significant defense presence, namely in the Texas State Guard (which answers only to the governor), the Texas National Guard, the Air Guard and the legendary Texas Rangers. Texas is also home to two of the nation’s largest military bases — Fort Hood and Fort Bliss — and being able to control those two installations is nothing to sniff at. But let’s not forget the firepower of the citizenry itself. There’s a reason burglars don’t waste their time in Texas.

–History. Texas has done this before. Twice, actually. First in 1836, when it seceded from Mexico and became an independent country. Second in 1861, when it joined the Confederacy. And while the South did lose the Civil War, it didn’t lose it in Texas. In fact, by the end of 1864, the North didn’t have one square foot of Texas soil under its control despite many attempts. Even a full month after Robert E. Lee surrendered at the Appomattox Court House Texas was still fighting. Texans love their state and they love a fight. That is a lethal combination.

Yes, Texas could make a go of it as an independent nation…if the U.S. would let it go peacefully. But let’s be realistic. That won’t happen. Obama and the libs need Texas. They need the taxes from Texas and they cannot allow the precedent of secession to be successful. Alone, Texas cannot withstand the power of the federal government.

Yes, there has been a number of pieces of fiction where secession succeeded. A more likely outcome would be something like that in Tom Kratman’s A State of Disobedience. The scenario at the beginning of Kratman’s book is eerily like that we find ourselves today.

If secession is to succeed, it must be by a coalition of states. Single states would not have sufficient power and defensive forces to win against the FedGov.

Like I said above, we’re not at that state yet and I pray we never find ourselves with that choice as our only option. The United States will not dissolve peacefully.

Why, then, are we discussing it? Because the credible threat of secession may force changes within the FedGov to resolve some of the differences between us, who revere the constitution and personal liberty and the statists who lust for power of government over people. Secession, then, is a tool—a last resort tool to be used to coerce the government to mend its ways and to restore some of our freedom.

It is a dangerous tactic. If secession is threatened, our options limited to two choices if we don’t get the concessions we demand: knuckle under to the FedGov or secede. Know then that with secession comes civil war because the FedGov needs us more than we need them.

When you hear talk of secession or participate in it, be aware of what you truly mean. There are consequences of such actions.

Facebook

Whispers from the Internet

Posted on by

Unless you’re a listener of Mark Levin, you probably haven’t heard this bit of news. Levin’s Landmark Legal Foundation is suing the EPA to acquire documents concerning pending regulation, post-election, and whether those regulations are politically biased.

Conservative talker Mark Levin’s legal arm sues EPA

12:28 AM 10/25/2012

Conservative radio talk show host Mark Levin’s legal group is suing the Environmental Protection Agency to obtain documents pertaining to the regulations the agency plans to implement after the election.

Levin’s law firm, the Landmark Legal Foundation, filed the lawsuit in federal court this week, seeking a court order directing the EPA to preserve and produce all records related to the agency’s regulatory plans after the presidential election.

The suit argues that news stories and political observers have indicated the EPA is “intentionally delaying the issuance of controversial new regulations until after the November election” with the possibility that “a) the Obama Administration is improperly politicizing EPA activities; b) EPA officials are attempting to shield their true policy goals from the public; and/or c) EPA officials themselves are putting partisan interests above the public welfare.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/25/conservative-talker-mark-levins-legal-arm-sues-epa/#ixzz2AK91q6TL

One of the things Levin wants to establish is a pattern of behavior by the EPA of malfeasance and political manipulation of regulations to support a leftist agenda. Levine filed a request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOA) and the EPA denied the request.

Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Inhofe, ranking member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, released a report last week on the regulations he expects the EPA will implement after the election. The senator told The Daily Caller that he appreciated the [Landmark Legal Foundation] challenge to the agency. — The Dailycaller.

The EPA has been a rogue agency for years, progressively getting worse with each administration. It’s time for the EPA to go and it’s legitimate functions absorbed into another department like the Department of the Interior.

***

The democrats have been caught instructing people how to vote fraudulently. The individual is the son of Virginia democrat congressman Jim Moran. Moran’s son is also Moran’s campaign manager.

James O’Keefe video leads to resignation of Patrick Moran from father’s campaign

1:39 AM 10/25/2012

Democratic Rep. Jim Moran’s son, Patrick Moran, has resigned from his father’s campaign after apparently advising an undercover Project Veritas reporter on how to commit voter fraud.

“Effective immediately, I have resigned from the Moran for Congress campaign,” Patrick Moran said in a statement to TPM.

Conservative activist James O’Keefe released the damning video that led to Moran’s resignation earlier Wednesday.

“There will be a lot of voter protection,” Moran explains to the reporter in the video. “So, if they just have — you know just the utility bill or bank statement — bank statement would obviously be tough — but, they can fake a utility bill with ease.”

“You have to forge it,” Moran says, referring to the utility bill required to pose as a registered voter.

Watch the undercover video:

Moran told the undercover reporter that an attorney from either the Obama campaign or the Democratic National Committee would defend him if things went bad.

Voter fraud: it’s what democrats do.

Facebook

Friday Follies for July 27, 2012

Posted on by

It’s been a hot week here at Casa Crucis.  Outside temps have been 100°+ until yesterday when it only reached 97. It’s been hot, too, for another reason. Our A/C is acting up and last night croaked completely. There’s a new coil (under warranty, Thank You) on order but it won’t arrive until Monday.  In the mean time it’s…sweat ‘n drip. 

Our cats are spending more and more time downstairs keeping me company. There’s noting more disconcerting to be writing and have a cat bump your elbow with her head. I expect we’ll spend a lot of time out this weekend in cooler climes.

***

I was scrolling through the Washington Times this morning and glimpsed the mug of John McCain (Spit!) next to an article. John McCain, like Obama, is a prophet. Whatever he favors, do the opposite. Usually. In this case, McCain is right.

The subject of the article is a bill before Congress to regulate utilities, about water and power providers. I can speak about telecommunications providers.

Telecoms employe hundreds, thousands across the entire industry, to secure their networks. They build monitors and watch-dog systems across the entirety of their company. From core, backbone switches, to the doors on remote, unmanned facilities, it’s all secured. Every equipment building from the smallest to the larges had wet and dry, fire, smoke and heat alarms.  It the fan quits on a single server waaaay down at the bottom of the server stack, it will be noticed.

Telecom security rivals and often is more secure than those used by the military and the federal government.  Just who do you think provides those secure military and governmental networks? From the telecom companies and usually via lowest bid.

The danger to secure systems is not the system, it’s the user. I remember an incident a number of years ago, it may have been pre-911 but the example still stands. A government manager wanted to work at home outside of the usual hours. He had a direct line to his office that by-passed the building’s switch-board. It wasn’t an uncommon situation where someone needed to connect with outside networks or the internet.

This manage installed a modem into his office PC and connected it to his outside line. When he got home he would dial into his office, connect to his office server and continue working.  His office server also had access to a number of restricted databases including some confidential documents that were being examined.

A routine security scan of the phone lines picked up the answer tone of the modem. The manager’s password was easily hacked and they security team found they had access to a number of restricted databases.  The manager was immediately fired and may have faced  charges.

The bottom line to all this is that telecoms, and I suspect the other utility providers, already have excellent security. If they didn’t, you wouldn’t hear about all the attempted break-ins that were countered.

Now the government wants to get theirs fingers in the security business. We all know what happens when the government gets involved. Right, noting good.

Senate to take up securing U.S. telecom, power, water

Measure faces opposition from business, GOP leaders

By Shaun Waterman – The Washington Times, Thursday, July 26, 2012

The Senate on Thursday agreed to debate a long-delayed bill to secure the nation’s power grid, water supply and telecommunications system from cyberattack by hackers or foreign enemies.

The Cybersecurity Act of 2012 has supporters from both parties, but it is unclear whether it will garner enough votes to pass in the face of opposition from Republican and business leaders.

They oppose provisions of the proposed law that would give the Department of Homeland Security authority to set standards for computer security at thousands of private facilities such as power stations and oil refineries.

“In its present form,” said Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican, “the bill before us would do more harm than … anything else.”

Mr. McCain is one of a number of Republican committee chairmen who backed an alternative proposal, which would make security standards purely voluntary.

After Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, promised to allow an open amendments process, the Senate voted 84-11 to proceed to debate.

The open amendments process means that opponents of the Cybersecurity Act will have a chance to offer their alternative bill as a substitute, and that the chamber gets to vote on replacing or striking the most contentious provisions of the proposed law.

Several Democrats said they would offer amendments strengthening privacy protections in the bill.

The bill’s backers, led by Sens. Joe Lieberman, Connecticut independent, and Susan M. Collins, Maine Republican, said they had already made major concessions to their critics in the latest draft of the bill.

The changes were “very substantial,” Ms. Collins said. “This shows a willingness to adopt changes. We’re still open to changes.”

The new version of the bill offers market-based incentives, such as liability protection, to owners of vital infrastructure who voluntarily agree to meet government-defined cybersecurity standards.

But the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, one of the bill’s most vehement opponents, was urging a “no” vote, even on the revised bill Thursday.

Rest assured, if the government gets involved, they’ll screw it up and endanger us all.

***

Rasmussen just released some end-of-the-week polls. Obama and dems continue to slide, Romney and the ‘Pubs rise. I’d say its nice to end the week on a positive note if it weren’t from the gravity of the situation.

Presidential Tracking Poll: Friday, July 27, 2012. The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows Mitt Romney attracting 49% of the vote, while President Obama earns support from 44%. Three percent (3%) prefer some other candidate, and four percent (4%) are undecided.

Election 2012: Nevada Senate: Friday, July 27, 2012. Nevada’s U.S. Senate race is little changed this month, with Republican incumbent Dean Heller holding a nine-point lead over his Democratic challenger, Congresswoman Shelley Berkley.

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Nevada Voters shows Heller with 51% support to Berkley’s 42%. Two percent (2%) favor some other candidate in the race, and five percent (5%) are undecided.

Election 2012: Nevada President: Tuesday, July 24, 2012. The presidential race in Nevada is a little tighter this month, with President Obama now leading Mitt Romney by five points in the Silver State.

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Voters in Nevada shows the president drawing 50% of the vote to Romney’s 45%. One percent (1%) prefers some other candidate, and four percent (4%) are undecided.

Remember, Nevada is the state that re-elected Harry Reid and went solidly (due to the unions) to Obama in 2008. If we can believe these polls, and that is always a pertinent question, Nevada has had a dose of reality and has changed.  Maybe. With unions involved, you can’t assume anything.

***

Y’all have a great weekend. Our A.C folks just called. They are getting the part and should arrive around 1:30pm to install it.  Ahhh, coolness!

Facebook

The Imperial Presidency

Posted on by

The term, Imperial Presidency, is not new. I first heard it before many of you were born.  It did not have a positive connotation.

Imperial Presidency is a term that became popular in the 1960s and that served as the title of a 1973 volume by historian Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. to describe the modern presidency of the United States. The author wrote The Imperial Presidency out of two concerns; first that the US Presidency was out of control and second that the Presidency had exceeded the constitutional limits.[1]

It was based on a number of observations. In the 1930s, the President of the United States had few staff, most of them based in the U.S. Capitol, where the President has always had an office. The Oval Office is still used when the president is in the country and not traveling, but is most often used for ceremonial occasions, but, in 19th and early 20th centuries, presidents were more regularly based there with a small staff. However, Franklin D. Roosevelt‘s leadership during the Great Depression and World War II changed the presidency. His leadership in the new age of electronic media, the growth of executive agencies under the New Deal, his Brain Trust advisors, and the creation of the Executive Office of the President in 1939 led to a transformation of the presidency.

The President has a large executive staff who are most often crowded in the West Wing, basement of the White House, or in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, which is beside the White House and used by the Departments of Defense and State. Progressive overcrowding in the West Wing led President Richard Nixon to convert the former presidential swimming pool into a press room. — Wiki.

Dictonary.com has this definition of Imperial Presidency.

imperial presidency 

noun ( sometimes initial capital letters )

a U.S. presidency that is characterized by greater power than the constitution allows.

 

Origin: 1970–75

When Lincoln was in the White House, he had only a small personal staff.  People could, and did, walk into the White House from off the street and ask to meet the President. More often than not, they met Lincoln.

Since Lincoln’s time, Presidential staffs have grown. The “Executive Office” was officially established in 1939 for Franklin Roosevelt to help administer government programs created during his “New Deal” era. Initially, six agencies, including the actual White House staff were included in the Executive Office. During WW2, Office of War Mobilization and Reconversion was added and remains to this day although inactive. More offices were added by Truman and additional offices has been added with every President.

When Obama was elected he added more personnel calling them “Czars” and granting them extraordinary power.

Today, I found this in my mail box.

Matthew Spalding, Ph.D. June 22, 2012 at 9:06 am

The United States was born when rebellious colonists declared their independence from an imperial ruler who had vastly overstepped his bounds. “The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States,” they wrote in their Declaration of Independence.

Today’s presidency lacks the regal air of George III. But imperialism is back, in a big way.

Last week, the Obama Administration’s Department of Homeland Security issued a memorandum instructing U.S. immigration officials to use their “prosecutorial discretion” to create a policy scheme contrary to existing law, designed to implement legislation that Congress hasn’t passed.

…

We can now see before us a persistent pattern of disregard for the powers of the legislative branch in favor of administrative decision-making without—and often in spite of—congressional action.  This violates the spirit—and potentially the letter—of the Constitution’s separation of the legislative and executive powers of Congress and the President.

Examples abound:

  • Even though the Democrat-controlled Senate rejected the President’s cap-and-trade plan, his Environmental Protection Agency classified carbon dioxide, the compound that sustains vegetative life, as a pollutant so that it could regulate it under the Clean Air Act.
  • After the Employee Free Choice Act—designed to bolster labor unions’ dwindling membership rolls—was defeated by Congress, the National Labor Relations Board announced a rule that would implement “snap elections” for union representation, limiting employers’ abilities to make their case to workers and virtually guaranteeing a higher rate of unionization at the expense of workplace democracy.
  • After an Internet regulation proposal failed to make it through Congress, the Federal Communications Commission announced that it would regulate the Web anyway, even despite a federal court’s ruling that it had no authority to do so.
  • Although Congress consistently has barred the Department of Education from getting involved in curriculum matters, the Administration has offered waivers for the No Child Left Behind law in exchange for states adopting national education standards, all without congressional authorization.

Worse than the examples shown above is the disregard of the presidential duties. Duties that Obama is refusing to perform.

  • Since it objects to existing federal immigration laws, the Administration has decided to apply those laws selectively and actively prevent the state (like Arizona) from enforcing those laws themselves.
  • Rather than push Congress to repeal federal laws against marijuana use, the Department of Justice (DOJ) simply decided it would no longer enforce those laws.
  • DOJ also has announced that it would stop enforcing the Defense of Marriage Act or defending it from legal challenge rather than seeking legislative recourse. — The Morning Bell.

Now Obama is refusing to release documents to Congress in the Fast ‘n Furious scandal citing Executive Privilege.  That didn’t work with Nixon—as decided by the Supreme Court, nor will it work for Obama. The Supreme Court declared that Nixon could only exclude releasing documents if they related to national security issues and their release could harm the nation. Those exclusions do not apply to the DoJ documents sought by Issa.  In addition, the crime being investigated with Nixon was a simple burglary. The crimes being investigated in Fast ‘n Furious includes the murder of at least two US citizens, one, Brian Terry, a Border Patrol officer killed in the line of duty.

Earlier this year the President crossed the threshold of constitutionality when he gave “recess appointments” to four officials who were subject to Senate confirmation, even though the Senate wasn’t in recess. Gaziano wrote at the time that such appointments “would render the Senate’s advice and consent role to normal appointments almost meaningless. It is a grave constitutional wrong.”

There is no telling where such disregard may go next, but the trend is clear, and it leads further and further away from the constitutional rule of law.

The President has unique and powerful responsibilities in our constitutional system as chief executive officer, head of state, and commander in chief. Those powers do not include the authority to make laws or to decide which laws to enforce and which to ignore. The President – like judges or Members of Congress – takes an oath to uphold the Constitution in carrying out the responsibilities of his office.

Indeed, the President takes a unique oath, pledging he “shall faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States” and “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” We don’t need a new Declaration of Independence, but we do need a President who will defend and vigorously exert his or her legitimate powers, recognizing that those powers are not arbitrary or unlimited. — The Morning Bell.

This unconstitutional seizure of executive power must be stopped. When we remove Obama from office next January, the new Congress and Executive must take steps to insure that no future abuses of power can ever be made by another “Imperial” President.

Facebook

Business Ethics, or…

Posted on by

John Stossel has an interesting column this morning, Keeping Business Honest. The theme of his column is that “business” desire for profits is a good thing.

Instinctively, we look for people’s motives. We need to know whom we can trust and whom we can’t. We’re especially skeptical of business because we know business wants our money.

It took me too long to understand that business’s desire for profit is a good thing. To get our money, businesses — if they can’t look to the government for favors — need to give us what we want. Then they must make continuous improvements and do it better than the competition does.That competition is enough to protect consumers. But that’s not intuitive. It’s intuitive to assume that competition isn’t really consumer protection and that experts at the FDA, FTC, DEA, FCC, CPSC, OSHA and so on must protect us. These experts consult “responsible” businessmen for advice on creating rules to make sure businesses meets minimum “standards.” — Washington Examiner.

The down side is that regulations, created by local, state and federal agencies, intended to “level the playing field” stifle innovation. Under the camouflage of consumer protectionism, licensing and other business restrictions have a tendency to make innovation, business startups and competition difficult. The result is protectionism. the question is, what is being protected.  Stossel provides some examples.

Las Vegas regulators require anyone who wants to start a limousine business to prove his new business is needed and, worse, will not “adversely affect other carriers.” But every new business intends to beat its competitors. That’s the point. Competition is good for us. Las Vegas’ anticompetitive licensing rules mean limo customers pay more.

In Nashville, Tenn., regulators ruled it illegal for a limo to charge less than $45 a ride. One entrepreneur had won customers by charging half that, but the new regulations mean the established car service businesses no longer have to worry about him.

Perhaps Nashville’s and Vegas’ regulators really believe “this is an area where the free market doesn’t work,” as the manager of the Nevada Transportation Services Authority put it. But it’s fishy that charging big fees for licenses just happens to be a very effective shakedown operation. Vegas cab and limousine businesses give “substantial” donations to Vegas-area political candidates, according to the Las Vegas Sun. — Washington Examiner.

Stossel makes an interesting point in that last paragraph.  It has parallels locally.

Up until a month or so ago, my home town had a tax on businesses. It was a one time tax on new businesses who constructed a building for their business or expanded their existing place of business.  Supposedly the tax was to pay for increased use…at that location…of city resources such as street maintenance, water, sewer and power usage.  Basically, infrastructure costs. The tax was not levied if a business moved into an existing structure and did not alter the building beyond the usual interior make-over. No, it was targeted towards new or growing businesses.

The tax created a reluctance of new businesses to come to our city.  From the statement of a former councilman, who was not re-elected to the council after saying, “We don’t need more burger-flipping jobs here.” 

I was present when that statement was made. Shortly thereafter the council repealed the tax.

Was the purpose of the tax to discourage businesses, business startups without the capitalization of a large company, from doing business here? “We want good jobs!” was one reasoning. I would submit that to one without a job, ANY job is a good one, burger-flipping or not. Perhaps the exposure of one purpose of the tax was sufficient to overcome the reluctance of other members on the council who had previously supported the business tax.

That local tax was repealed just before our local city elections. Since then we’ve already seen fruit of the repeal.  Our local Micky-Ds has renovated their building.  Did it add new jobs? Probably not.  Would the tax have applied to the renovation if it had still existed? I don’t know.  But we have other evidence that the lack of the tax is bringing new jobs to town.  Next week we’ll have a ground-breaking on a new Steak ‘n Shake.  The tax would have applied to them because they are building a new presence on an empty lot.

Yep, a new business and a half-dozen or more new jobs. Minimum wage? Probably, but to someone without a job, minimum wage is attractive.  Remember the original purpose of minimum wage: a starting wage to gain experience to allow the worker to build skills useful for acquiring a better job.  It may be those skills are simply coming to work on-time, every-time, and putting in a full-shift.  You’d be amazed how many job-seekers lack those basic skills.

So let’s ask ourselves, what is the purpose of these regulations, these taxes? Are they for consumer protection? Are they to preserve city resources? Or, are they to protect favored cronies or simply to make doing business more difficult?

The economic recovery of our country…post Obama, will be difficult enough without our adding to those difficulties through the imposition of anti-business taxes and regulations. Remember, juvenile unemployment is above 50% in some areas. We need to be pro-business, especially to startups. That is where jobs are created. And burger-flipping frequently is an eye-opener to our young folks just starting or approaching adult life. They need jobs and experience, too.

Facebook

Resistance to Federal takeover of Education building

Posted on by

If you’ve scanned through the Court’s archives, you’ll see a number of post concerning education…or rather the lack of education.  The reason for my interest is that the current educational system is broken.  When a large metropolitan area, say like that of Kansas City, has a school district that has lost its state accreditation, say like Kansas City, and has a 22% illiteracy rate among its high school graduates, say like Kansas City, the educational system is broken.

The Kansas City school district has a liberal social-engineering agenda since the 1970s. Literally, billions of dollars has been spent over the decades on the KC school district will no progress made in the primary purpose of the district—educating the children of Kansas City.

Another questionable federal initiative is the Federal Core State Standards program.  If you read the overview, the goals seem praiseworthy. The program establishes goals by grade for reading, writing, math and social sciences.  On the surface, it seems to be something we could all support.

If that is true, why are states dropping out of the program?

Rachel Sheffield, May 15, 2012 at 3:30 pm

Alabama has joined a growing number of states opposing the Common Core national education standards.

Last week, the state senate adopted a resolution to “encourage the State Board of Education to take all steps it deems appropriate, including revocation of the adoption of the initiative’s standards if necessary, to retain complete control over Alabama’s academic standards, curriculum, instruction, and testing system.”

This comes at the same time other states are backing away from the standards. Education Week reported earlier this month:

Utah has been surfing the waves of common-standards controversy lately. Now it appears that the standards aren’t the only thing the state is uneasy about. It’s also uneasy about the tests being designed for them.

We are getting word that Utah plans to downgrade its membership in one of the assessment consortia from “governing” to “advisory.” Governing states have voting power on key policy and design questions. They also are committed to using the tests.… Advisory states can sit in on discussions, but have no voting power and do not have to promise to use the tests.

Colorado seems to be similarly queasy. In the last couple of weeks the state board of education rejected a proposal that would have made Colorado a governing partner of one of the consortia developing the Common Core assessments.

And back in February legislators in South Carolina introduced a measure to pull their state out of the Common Core national standards. Governor Nikki Haley likewise publicly expressed her opposition to the standards.

If the standards program is as good as it appears at first glance, why are states dropping out of the program or scaling back their membership and adherence to the program’s initiatives?

 

School-Standards Pushback

 

Conservative Groups Oppose National ‘Common Core’ as an Intrusion on States

 

The Common Core national math and reading standards, adopted by 46 states and the District of Columbia two years ago, are coming under attack from some quarters as a federal intrusion into state education matters.

The voluntary academic standards, which specify what students should know in each grade, were heavily promoted by the Obama administration through its $4.35 billion Race to the Top education-grant competition. States that instituted changes such as common learning goals received bonus points in their applications.

…

…conservative lawmakers and governors in at least five states, including Utah and Alabama, recently have been pushing to back out, or slow down implementation, of Common Core. They worry that adoption of the standards has created a de facto national curriculum that could at some point be extended into more controversial areas such as science.

Critics argue that the standards are weak and could, for example, de-emphasize literature in favor of informational texts, such as technical manuals. They also dislike that the standards postpone teaching algebra until ninth grade from the current eighth grade in many schools.

A study released this year by a researcher at the Brookings Institution think tank projected Common Core will have no effect on student achievement. The study said states with high standards improved their national math and reading scores at the same rate as states with low standards from 2003 to 2009.

But mainly, critics of Common Core object to what they see as the federal government’s involvement in local-school matters.

“The Common Core takes education out of the hands of South Carolina and parents, so we have no control over what happens in the classroom,” said Michael Fair, a Republican state senator who plans to introduce a measure that would bar his state from spending money on activities related to the standards, such as training teachers and purchasing textbooks.

More and more states have plans to either drop-out or oppose in some fashion this federal plan.  They, rightfully so, fear more federal intrusion into the states prerogatives. Education has historically been a local function. The states began to consolidate education at the state level in the last century. Jimmy Carter created a cabinet level Department of Education in 1980.

If the pattern of federal actions continue as they have in other areas, the states will next see federally required curriculum followed by mandatory spending standards. Soon, the states will have no control of education at all.

South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, who took office after the state adopted Common Core, wrote in a letter to Mr. Fair that the state should not “relinquish control of education to the federal government, neither should we cede it to the consensus of other states.” — The Wall Street Journal

The states must wrest education back from the federal government.  The federal success rate is flat at best.  In the article above, one statistic indicated that no progress was made following the standards regardless of the level of funding.  The Kansas City School District is an excellent example that throwing money at a problem does not work.  After forty years of federal oversight and on occasion outright control, the Kansas City School District is a complete failure.  The reading comprehension levels, math proficiency and the results in other measured categories are worse now than they were in 1970.

If the states can gain control of education, the next step must be to wrest local control back from the state.  Let the school districts rise or fall based on their own merits. And, if a district such as Kansas City fails, the parents of that district will respond by voting with their feet to better schools, public or private, start their own schools, or perhaps home school. When Judge Clark took personal control of the Kansas City School District, private schools appeared overnight and many still exist.

It is the parent’s responsibility to educate their children.  If the parents can’t…or won’t educate their children, perhaps they shouldn’t be parents?

Facebook