For over a year I have been blogging at David Carlson Politics. I have finally made the switch to wordpress. One of the options I had was to try to migrate all my posts to the other blog, but I would have lost all the pictures and possibly comments. I decided it was time for a fresh start, and I plan on leaving David Carlson Politics up indefinitely if you would like to view my older posts.
I will now be blogging daily at The Liberty Blogger.
Please visit, comment, and give me feedback on this new site. Thank you for all the comments, discussions, and support you have given me over the past year and please join me on this new venture.
-David Carlson
Friday, July 31, 2009
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Cash for Clunkers = Redistribution of Wealth
Obama didn't lie when he said he wanted to "spread the wealth." The Car Allowance Rebate System, which almost everyone in America knows of as "Cash for Clunkers" is nothing more than a redistribution of wealth. Being disguised as a necessary and even "creative" way to spur economic growth in our nation is actually nothing more than a big scam with underlying motives.
This program allows qualified buyers to receive a $3,500 or $4,500 voucher towards the purchase of a new car. There is approximately $875 million in federal funds allocated to the program. Here are my objections to such a ridiculous program:
1) Government picks winners and losers
Let's say I bought a new car earlier this year, scrapping my old car. How come I didn't get federal funds to help subsidize my purchase? How come a few months later my neighbor received federal funding, just because their car lasted a few extra months? Simply put, the government is choosing winners and losers based on timing of automobile purchases. How does this make sense?
2) Artificial Demand
Of course there are individuals who would be purchasing new cars anyway, but there will definitely be a number of individuals who buy a new car sooner than they need to. This is not market-based demand, but artificial demand created by the federal government. Call me a skeptic, but isn't Obama's credibility going to be padded if GM sales increase? A quick growth just months after he "fixed" the failing company? Hmmmm....
3) The real goal: get higher mileage vehicles on the road
"The program is designed to...put safer, cleaner and more fuel-efficient vehicles on the nation's roadways."
Translation: We are using federal dollars to put cars with higher gas mileage on the road, one of the goals of the green movement. I have no trouble with the environmentalists...except when they try to push their agenda through government thereby forcing everyone else to comply. This is clearly taxpayer dollars being used to enforce a green agenda.
My friend's car was 2 mpg over the 18 mpg standard, so he didn't qualify. Would a new car be safer than his older car? Absolutely. But sure enough, in reality the goal is to force people to buy hybrids and fuel-efficient cars, even if that is not specifically what they want.
Interestingly, the government wants to push fuel-efficient standards in the United States to unthinkable levels in the near future. All because of global warming, which many in America are skeptical about. Sure enough, even if they don't agree that global warming is a threat, they will be forced to comply with the majority's decision.
Ultimately what it comes down to in my opinion, is whether or not this is a proper role of the Federal government. Picking winners and losers, stimulating artificial demand, and advancing a mandatory green agenda just doesn't meet my standard of a "necessary role" of government.
This program allows qualified buyers to receive a $3,500 or $4,500 voucher towards the purchase of a new car. There is approximately $875 million in federal funds allocated to the program. Here are my objections to such a ridiculous program:
1) Government picks winners and losers
Let's say I bought a new car earlier this year, scrapping my old car. How come I didn't get federal funds to help subsidize my purchase? How come a few months later my neighbor received federal funding, just because their car lasted a few extra months? Simply put, the government is choosing winners and losers based on timing of automobile purchases. How does this make sense?
2) Artificial Demand
Of course there are individuals who would be purchasing new cars anyway, but there will definitely be a number of individuals who buy a new car sooner than they need to. This is not market-based demand, but artificial demand created by the federal government. Call me a skeptic, but isn't Obama's credibility going to be padded if GM sales increase? A quick growth just months after he "fixed" the failing company? Hmmmm....
3) The real goal: get higher mileage vehicles on the road
"The program is designed to...put safer, cleaner and more fuel-efficient vehicles on the nation's roadways."
Translation: We are using federal dollars to put cars with higher gas mileage on the road, one of the goals of the green movement. I have no trouble with the environmentalists...except when they try to push their agenda through government thereby forcing everyone else to comply. This is clearly taxpayer dollars being used to enforce a green agenda.
My friend's car was 2 mpg over the 18 mpg standard, so he didn't qualify. Would a new car be safer than his older car? Absolutely. But sure enough, in reality the goal is to force people to buy hybrids and fuel-efficient cars, even if that is not specifically what they want.
Interestingly, the government wants to push fuel-efficient standards in the United States to unthinkable levels in the near future. All because of global warming, which many in America are skeptical about. Sure enough, even if they don't agree that global warming is a threat, they will be forced to comply with the majority's decision.
Ultimately what it comes down to in my opinion, is whether or not this is a proper role of the Federal government. Picking winners and losers, stimulating artificial demand, and advancing a mandatory green agenda just doesn't meet my standard of a "necessary role" of government.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Collin Peterson Won't Conduct Town Halls
The truth is out as to why Minnesota 7th district representative Collin Peterson won't conduct town halls with his constituents:
“Twenty-five percent of my people believe the Pentagon and Rumsfeld were responsible for taking the twin towers down,” said Rep. Collin Peterson, a Democrat who represents a conservative Republican district in Minnesota. “That’s why I don’t do town meetings.”
So apparently Representative Peterson believes that about 1 out of 4 of his constituents believe the 9/11 was an inside job. I would be interested in seeing what poll he got this information from, but that isn't the most striking part of this quote. What really is astounding is that he refuses to conduct town halls because he believes 1 in 4 of his constituents are "conspiracy" believers.
Personally, I don't understand his reasoning. If this fact was true, would his constituents ask questions about it? Yes. Would he need to give a lengthy rebuttal to their claims? No. What about the other 75%? Plus, why should he not have town halls because he disagrees with constituents about a certain theory? I believe representatives should be ready to serve their people. It's mighty hard to represent people you refuse to have town hall meetings with where constituents can openly voice their opinions. He knows people will show up to the town halls who otherwise would not interact with him (via telephone, mail, etc.). This is just a cop out for someone who doesn't want to have to directly answer to constituents.
He is a very conservative "blue dog" Democrat who voted against cap and trade and the stimulus bill. I applaud him for those votes, but the point I am trying to make is that representatives should be in constant communication with constituents, regardless of their views. Town halls are the least he could do.
Monday, July 27, 2009
USA to Asia: You Save too Much!
Apparently savings is a bad thing. Patrick Barta wrote a very left-leaning article titled Asian Nations Revisit Safety Net in Effort to Bolster Spending. Apparently because Western nations have bloated social welfare programs that encourage spending (hey, if you lose your job there is always unemployment and welfare, right?) Asian nations should do the same. Why? To increase domestic consumption, of course.
Just look at this quote by Barta:
"Partly as a result, Asians tend to save more and spend less of their income than their counterparts in the West. That contributed to the global imbalances that are one cause of the current world recession: U.S. consumers went deep into debt to finance consumption while Asians socked away money and relied on exports to Western consumers.
Social-welfare programs are one way of addressing those imbalances. The idea is that if Asian consumers have more confidence in their governments to take care of them in times of trouble, they will be more willing to spend today, igniting new demand for consumer goods and leaving the world economy less dependent on Western shoppers."
In fact, countries like China have positioned themselves beautifully for the "demise" of the West which will occur with the free fall of the U.S. dollar. Imagine this scenario: China realizes all this debt they have been constantly purchasing from the United States is dang near worthless (which it is). Then, they decide they are not going to buy worthless paper U.S. debt. Okay Okay then what? Well, the dollars that China has in reserves starts getting shipped back into the U.S. This adds to our already stifling inflation, and diminishes our purchasing power. At the same time the yuan (and many other currencies) gain on the dollar, increasing China's purchasing power.
China realizes that it doesn't NEED Americans to consume their goods. Instead they start consuming more goods, as the price of goods lowers with less American demand. They no longer artificially prop up our consumer nation, and now take part in the fruits of their labor. This newfound prosperity they have gained allows them to have more money to spend domestically, instead of worthless U.S. debt.
So I'm sorry, Patrick, but no you don't create massive government welfare programs to allow for irrational spending. It's because of people who think like you that we are in the worst economic position in our history. Yes, Asian countries will be able to spend more on consumer items, but not to "lessen dependency" on Western shoppers. It will be because they can afford to spend money on consumer items while Western nations (particularly the U.S.) have to deal with a currency crisis on top of all the trillions and trillions we owe to our creditors and the debt we have accumulated or will be on the hook for in the future.
The scarier thing is that the people who are going to "talk economics" with China this week, really have no understanding of what is headed our way.
Just look at this quote by Barta:
"Partly as a result, Asians tend to save more and spend less of their income than their counterparts in the West. That contributed to the global imbalances that are one cause of the current world recession: U.S. consumers went deep into debt to finance consumption while Asians socked away money and relied on exports to Western consumers.
Social-welfare programs are one way of addressing those imbalances. The idea is that if Asian consumers have more confidence in their governments to take care of them in times of trouble, they will be more willing to spend today, igniting new demand for consumer goods and leaving the world economy less dependent on Western shoppers."
In fact, countries like China have positioned themselves beautifully for the "demise" of the West which will occur with the free fall of the U.S. dollar. Imagine this scenario: China realizes all this debt they have been constantly purchasing from the United States is dang near worthless (which it is). Then, they decide they are not going to buy worthless paper U.S. debt. Okay Okay then what? Well, the dollars that China has in reserves starts getting shipped back into the U.S. This adds to our already stifling inflation, and diminishes our purchasing power. At the same time the yuan (and many other currencies) gain on the dollar, increasing China's purchasing power.
China realizes that it doesn't NEED Americans to consume their goods. Instead they start consuming more goods, as the price of goods lowers with less American demand. They no longer artificially prop up our consumer nation, and now take part in the fruits of their labor. This newfound prosperity they have gained allows them to have more money to spend domestically, instead of worthless U.S. debt.
So I'm sorry, Patrick, but no you don't create massive government welfare programs to allow for irrational spending. It's because of people who think like you that we are in the worst economic position in our history. Yes, Asian countries will be able to spend more on consumer items, but not to "lessen dependency" on Western shoppers. It will be because they can afford to spend money on consumer items while Western nations (particularly the U.S.) have to deal with a currency crisis on top of all the trillions and trillions we owe to our creditors and the debt we have accumulated or will be on the hook for in the future.
The scarier thing is that the people who are going to "talk economics" with China this week, really have no understanding of what is headed our way.
The Fair Tax
This weekend I finished The FairTax Book by Neal Boortz and Congressman John Linder. This book was another one of those books that really changed the way I look at a certain political issue. In this case, it was taxation. I already supported drastically changing the U.S. tax code to either a flat-rate income tax or a flat tax on consumption, but I lacked a workable plan. Well, apparently these two men have already developed such a plan which is a 133 page bill, HR 25.
The Fair Tax is a flat, one-time tax on products at the retail level. After reading this book, their plan makes so much sense it will almost make you angry that we still have a policy of taxation that is economically wasteful and discourages saving! I don't want to go into too much detail, but the tax would actually cause prices to be about the same. How could this be so? Because corporations pass on their tax burdens to consumers. How so? Read the book, its short and you won't regret it.
The thing that I find most intriguing about this plan is that the most quick retort to a flat consumption task is that it puts a higher tax burden on the poor. With their plan, the tax burden is totally lifted from families living below the poverty line. Every head of household would get what they call a "prebate" which covers the tax payments up to the poverty line. So, if the poverty line is drawn at $20,000, every family would receive $4,600 to cover the tax liabilities up to the poverty line. This avoids making anyone pay taxes on basic necessities.
This plan makes complete sense to me. If it sounds like something that interests you, then I would recommend reading The FairTax Book. Eliminating ALL current taxes, including the IRS (since they wouldn't be needed), and implamenting a 133 page tax code I'm on board, are you?
John Linder with the 133 page FairTax Legislation compared to the current tax code.
The Fair Tax is a flat, one-time tax on products at the retail level. After reading this book, their plan makes so much sense it will almost make you angry that we still have a policy of taxation that is economically wasteful and discourages saving! I don't want to go into too much detail, but the tax would actually cause prices to be about the same. How could this be so? Because corporations pass on their tax burdens to consumers. How so? Read the book, its short and you won't regret it.
The thing that I find most intriguing about this plan is that the most quick retort to a flat consumption task is that it puts a higher tax burden on the poor. With their plan, the tax burden is totally lifted from families living below the poverty line. Every head of household would get what they call a "prebate" which covers the tax payments up to the poverty line. So, if the poverty line is drawn at $20,000, every family would receive $4,600 to cover the tax liabilities up to the poverty line. This avoids making anyone pay taxes on basic necessities.
This plan makes complete sense to me. If it sounds like something that interests you, then I would recommend reading The FairTax Book. Eliminating ALL current taxes, including the IRS (since they wouldn't be needed), and implamenting a 133 page tax code I'm on board, are you?
John Linder with the 133 page FairTax Legislation compared to the current tax code.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Free State Project Featured on Yahoo News
If you have been following the liberty movement as closely as I have, you surely have heard of the Free State Project. If you have not, as my friend Hiro used to say, it's actually very simple. A bunch of libertarians move to New Hampshire and try to change the political nature of NH's politics. For example, it would create the most limited state government in the nation, as well as stand up to the federal government under the banner of the tenth amendment.
This project was started a few years ago, but today it gained national attention with this article being posted on front page of Yahoo News. I hope one day I can contribute to this movement in one way or another. They have some great people working on this project and I hope that New Hampshire does transform under the tireless work of the Free State Project participants.
How to Contact Your Representative...Effectively
As many of you know I have been interning at Michele Bachmann's Congressional office this summer. One part of our jobs is to help with the phones. Many people call to give opinions about an issue or about something they want her to do or look into. The problem is, most people do this wrong or ineffectively.
First of all, don't get me wrong. I think everyone should let their Congressman and Senators know what they think. Unfortunately, many people who actually follow through and contact them, do it totally ineffectively. So here are some ground rules if you want to have your opinion count:
1) DO NOT, I repeat, DO NOT call Senators or Congressmen who do not represent you. You are wasting their time (well, not theirs but their staffs time) which might be your goal, but you are totally wasting YOUR own time. You really think that your opinion REALLY matters to them in the end? Why should it? Please, this is a total waste of time. Do not do it.
2) DO contact your representative in the House of Reps, and both Senators. All three represent you. Unless you make your opinion known, how do you expect them to know what you think?
3) Snail Mail, Phone, Email. In that order. Mail is very effective because there isn't as much of it anymore, therefore the fact you took the time to actually send a letter stating your opinion makes them value your opinion more. Second, a phone call can be very effective (more on that below) if you do it properly. An email is better than nothing, and very easy to do so at least doing that should help.
4) Letter's should be short and to the point, and very respectful (even if you totally disagree with prior policies they have taken). Remember, if you show respect they will respect your opinion. Emails should be the same way. Read this email I sent to Al Franken a week ago. I disagree with most of what he will probably do as a Senator, but at least he knows where I stand and I showed respect.
5) Phone Calls should be short and respectful. Know what you want to get across before you call. The more you ramble the less will actually be written down and communicated. Be ready to give your name, phone number, and city. Again, if you are not a constituent your opinion is worth 1/10 of a constituents, so don't waste your time.
6) Never threaten. Never threaten or get heated about an issue. Just be polite, state where you sit and obviously how you want the Rep. to vote, give your information, and your done. They know how you feel, and they know if they vote opposite what you want too many times they will lose your vote. No need to state the obvious.
7) Do not expect the person on the other end of the line to answer specific questions. "Why did _____ do this?" "What did ____ mean by this?" It really is a waste of your time, as usually it will be an intern over 50% of the time and the only thing they can state is statements he/she has already made.
8) Don't get upset when you do not get specific answers. Like I said, they can't give you specific answers 98% of the time. Getting upset about it does not help, actually hurts any credibility your opinion had.
So, to sum up, do not call someone who does not represent you. Be extremely polite, concise, and be ready to give your name, number, and city. Never come off as angry and avoid at all costs attacking the representative. If you disagree with something they did, by all means let them know, but do it only in the most respectful way.
Trust me, people impact their representatives. Just make sure your letter/call/email is effective.
First of all, don't get me wrong. I think everyone should let their Congressman and Senators know what they think. Unfortunately, many people who actually follow through and contact them, do it totally ineffectively. So here are some ground rules if you want to have your opinion count:
1) DO NOT, I repeat, DO NOT call Senators or Congressmen who do not represent you. You are wasting their time (well, not theirs but their staffs time) which might be your goal, but you are totally wasting YOUR own time. You really think that your opinion REALLY matters to them in the end? Why should it? Please, this is a total waste of time. Do not do it.
2) DO contact your representative in the House of Reps, and both Senators. All three represent you. Unless you make your opinion known, how do you expect them to know what you think?
3) Snail Mail, Phone, Email. In that order. Mail is very effective because there isn't as much of it anymore, therefore the fact you took the time to actually send a letter stating your opinion makes them value your opinion more. Second, a phone call can be very effective (more on that below) if you do it properly. An email is better than nothing, and very easy to do so at least doing that should help.
4) Letter's should be short and to the point, and very respectful (even if you totally disagree with prior policies they have taken). Remember, if you show respect they will respect your opinion. Emails should be the same way. Read this email I sent to Al Franken a week ago. I disagree with most of what he will probably do as a Senator, but at least he knows where I stand and I showed respect.
5) Phone Calls should be short and respectful. Know what you want to get across before you call. The more you ramble the less will actually be written down and communicated. Be ready to give your name, phone number, and city. Again, if you are not a constituent your opinion is worth 1/10 of a constituents, so don't waste your time.
6) Never threaten. Never threaten or get heated about an issue. Just be polite, state where you sit and obviously how you want the Rep. to vote, give your information, and your done. They know how you feel, and they know if they vote opposite what you want too many times they will lose your vote. No need to state the obvious.
7) Do not expect the person on the other end of the line to answer specific questions. "Why did _____ do this?" "What did ____ mean by this?" It really is a waste of your time, as usually it will be an intern over 50% of the time and the only thing they can state is statements he/she has already made.
8) Don't get upset when you do not get specific answers. Like I said, they can't give you specific answers 98% of the time. Getting upset about it does not help, actually hurts any credibility your opinion had.
So, to sum up, do not call someone who does not represent you. Be extremely polite, concise, and be ready to give your name, number, and city. Never come off as angry and avoid at all costs attacking the representative. If you disagree with something they did, by all means let them know, but do it only in the most respectful way.
Trust me, people impact their representatives. Just make sure your letter/call/email is effective.
Friday, July 24, 2009
Nationalized Health Care Redistributes Wealth
If you support national health care, there is one essential aspect of the program that you must understand. National health care is in essence a redistribution of wealth. Be it wealthy individuals who will take more of a tax hit to pay for the program, or young people who will be required to get health care when they do not want it. It is not possible to make one person better off without making someone worse off. If this health care plan does in fact make many individuals better off, there is someone who is paying the price.
John Fund of The Wall Street Journal wrote an op-ed for today’s paper, and it seems as though he has a general grasp of this principle. Some, namely young people and small businesses among others, will pick up the tab. It is important to understand the redistributive essence of this bill. President Obama and the Democrats plan could open up a public option and implement universal health care, but at a serious cost. The way I look at it, there are certain preconditions you must believe in order to support this sort of a program:
1) Health Care is a right, and every American should be able to get health care regardless of any outside factors.
2) Those who cannot afford health care are entitled to others funding of their health care. This funding should be forced through government seizure.
I have a serious problem with both of these pre-conditions. First, health care is a responsibility. I do believe in severe circumstances it turns into a right when someone’s life is threatened. This is already worked into the system, a right to life, through the ability to enter an emergency room and receive treatment regardless. Essentially I view health care as a good, not a right. It is a service that is provided through a number of actors including but not limited to doctors, nurses, drug companies, and suppliers of hospital beds and equipment.
How can I as an individual have a right to all this labor and capital investment? I do not, and I should have to pay for these goods and services as anything else. What is worse, I surely do not think that I or anyone else should have our goods seized (notably our cash which we received through productive activities) by the government and redistributed to others who are “entitled” to them. I have no problem subsidizing emergency room visits, but I do have a problem with funding someone’s year-to-year health expenses. How can someone else have a claim to my goods? How can I have a claim to your goods? The government is simply a compilation of individuals, and I believe if I do not have a right to seize your goods in society that government is not above that human standard.
Now if you do believe that health care is ultimately a right and a right that can be met through forced seizure of other’s property then you are beyond the scope of this discussion, and the next thing is to attack me and others for being “cold” and lacking compassion. I believe that some may attack Christians such as myself (okay I don’t believe, I know because I have heard someone call Christian’s “hypocrites” who do not support the health care bill) for taking a stance against universal health care. There is a problem with this attack though. Where in the bible did Jesus advocate using government to redistribute property? Last time I checked he was very anti-government, and ultimately said it is up to us to care for our fellow man. If we weren’t so overburdened with taxes and debt due to the government’s intervention into pretty much every aspect of daily life, maybe, just maybe there would be more money for individuals (voluntarily) to donate to charities on top of cheaper health care? Just a thought.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Medical Marijuana Business Booming in Cali
The medical marijuana business is booming in California.
This phenomenon interests me for two reasons:
1) I am a big advocate of marijuana decriminalization and ultimately legalization
2) I am interested in entrepreneurial topics and activities
There is serious opportunity to make bank as a supplier of medical marijuana in California. Before the Obama Presidency, suppliers were subject to the risk of federal raids despite the fact that they were legally supplying marijuana to patients who have prescriptions from doctors to purchase marijuana for various health conditions. President Obama has put an end to the federal raids, which really don't make sense. This makes it safer for store owners who sell medical marijuana to grow their own plants without risking the bank in the event of a federal raid. This could improve profitability for many of these shops.
This truly is the first step towards legalization of marijuana. As more and more people realize this drug has medical purposes, and that it is far less harmful than alcohol or tobacco (which is the number one cause of cancer in the United States) they will realize it's silly that we imprison people and deprive them of the freedom to choose what they want to do to their own bodies.
What I find striking is that something that has legitimate medical purposes (increases appetite for chemo patients and those who have anorexia to give just one example) which is sometimes used recreational is illegal while tobacco and alcohol is not. To me personally, besides the whole freedom/nanny state argument, this is one of the strongest arguments for legalization which I can't get past. I absolutely respect the position of those who think alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, etc. should ALL be illegal, but it boggles my mind when people say that marijuana should be illegal, yet when confronted with alcohol and tobacco they believe those should still be legal?
Go ahead and have your cigs and alcohol, but don't persecute those who have different drugs of choice. Legalize it and we solve many problems, most the United States created themselves.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
A Good Article about Ron Paul / Fed Audit
This article originally appeared June 30th on Fox News, but it still can be found on the "House" tab under politics news on Fox News. It's a good article that gives an overview of what is going on as far as the effort to audit the Fed, and what different politicians views are on the issue. Quick read as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
