End the Fed Rally Nov 22 Posted by greatscott

Posted 11/15/09 Last updated 11/17/09

Dear Fellow Wisconsin C4L members, On Sunday, November 22, 2009 from 12 PM to 3:30 PM there will be a End the Fed Rally/Protest in Chicago.  The protest starts at Chicago's Heald Square  at 1:00 PM, but the organizers are asking us to be there at 12 Noon if possible.  Probabably will depnd on the weather.  We'll gather at Heald Square , which is on the south side of the Chicago River and north of Wacker Drive , between State and Wabash . Assemble between noon and 1:00pm. If you get close it should be easy to spot  -- there's a statue of George Washington and a couple other financiers of the Revolutionary War (see http://chicago-outdoor-sculptures.blogspot.com/2007/11/heald-square-monument.html). For those into GPS, the specific coordinates are lat. 41.887216 long. -87.626878. I'll post a Google Earth shot of the square.

We have a route planned that will take us past the major media outlets and the most popular downtown shopping areas, before finishing up at the seat of evil. I'm still working on the speaker list. I have some confirmed, and am working on seeing if I can attract any special surprises. Fliers will be updated with the starting location and time, and we'll get them posted.

If you're bringing literature, DVDs, etc., great! If you're thinking about bringing brochures, magazines, DVDs, etc., please don't just think about it -- do it. The number of people we'll be exposed to will be well into the thousands. Also, continue to forward invites to the event around. Bring your cameras and videocams too, let's get lots of pictures and videos.

If you arrive late, our route will take us into Millennium Park probably around 2:00pm. If you go to meet us in Millennium Park at 2:00pm and we aren't there, it's because we haven't gotten there yet. If you're driving, you'll see a number of parking lots and self-park lots scattered around downtown. If I read the signs right, parking is $14 for 12 hours on weekends.

I have a van setup to drive from Appleton to Milwaukee (picking up more passengers in Milwaukee) to Chicago that will cost approximately $35.00 and $30.00 for Milwaukee travelers.  We will leave Appleton around 8:30 AM and arrive in Chicago around 12 Noon.  We will depart Chicago at Approximately 3:30 and arrive in Appleton around 7:00 PM with a stop in Milwaukee.

If you are interested, please email me at scott.hamilton49@yahoo.com or leave me a reply in this post.  I hope to see many of you at the event.  For more infoormation, go to http://endthefedusa.ning.com/events/end-the-fed-chicago

Scott Hamilton

Wisconsin C4L Newsletter 10/26/2009 Posted by ToddWelch

Posted 10/28/09 Last updated 10/28/09

Tenth Amendment and Resolutions


Mike Rothfeld (Grassroots activist trainer) provided his take on Tenth Amendment resolutions.  Basically, he stated that:

1.  A resolution is a waste of time because it doesn't affect law or use of funds.
2.  A resolution can actually be dangerous because it allows politicians to sign something that doesn't affect law, but that they can use to crow about, and then blatantly ignore.
3.  Inserting tenth amendment language into legislation that affects law can be effective (for example, the recent Dangerous ID and Animal ID legislation).

Here's a good example of 10th Amendment legislation with teeth....

"_blank">http://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/Legis/PN/Public/btCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&
amp;sessYr=2009&sessInd=0&billBody=H&billTyp=B&billNbr=2053&pn=28
29.


Local Groups

We would like to compile a list of active local Wisconsin C4L groups so that we can create a directory on the C4L Wisconsin site, if you are a part of a local Wisconsin C4L group please send me as much information as possible (Location, Group Name, Website, Email, Phone, Activities, # of members, etc) to: Todd.Welch@CampaignforLiberty.com

With this information we will all be able to more easily find local chapters where we live and work together as a group!

Faxing Legislators

Would you like to be able to fax your legislators to get them information that you think is pertinent or just to let them know what you think? http://faxzero.com/ allows for two free faxes a day, lets use this service to the best of its ability to convey or stances.

New York Special Election

There are three candidates in the race: A Republican, a Democrat and a Conservative Party candidate.

Although the voting will take place in New York, this race is very relevant to us here in Wisconsin, as this election could set the tone for the type of candidates for the 2010 election.

The backgrounds of the three candidates in this race can be found here: http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=26874

Facebook

Join the Wisconsin C4L facebook group at: http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/group.php?gid=127941343411

Things Which Should Be Legal In Wisconsin Posted by Greg L

Posted 10/27/09 Last updated 10/27/09

  Medical Marijuana. On October 19th the Federal Justice Department finally declared an end to the policy of going after doctors who prescribe medicinal marijuana in states where it is legal. Let's take advantage of this rare case of state rights not being trumped by an overzealous federal government. Marijuana has many possible medicinal uses including the treatment of: Alzheimer's, anorexia, arthritis, cachexia, cancer, Crohn's disease, epilepsy, glaucoma, HIV/AIDS, migraine's, ...

What good has come from not allowing the use of marijuana? Let's get one thing straight - Medicinal Marijuana is not toking up!! This involves taking a pill or capsule with extract the same as other vitamins or supplement.

This is a chance for Wisconsin to take a step in it's advancement of health care and make a statement for state sovereignty with one action.

  Education Vouchers.  The voucher system should be expanded statewide. Where used the demand far exceeds the number of vouchers provided. Why are the futures of our children left to a lottery? Why is the program not opened to anyone who wants in? How can anyone claim that they are for better schools if they oppose vouchers?

Let's call a spade a spade. Anyone who supports WEAC or votes for WEAC endorsed candidates is for dumbing down our populace. Let's stop opposing vouchers just because a union believes every child deserves an overpaid teacher even in areas where they fail to graduate 50% of the students. Let's stop accepting a virtual monopoly that underachievers. Let's take a stand for giving our children every possible opportunity to overcome ignorance. Let's support the schools who do succeed in graduating educated students.

  Distilling Your Own Spirits.  It is legal to make personal use wine and beer at home, but not spirits.  Why not?  It's a legal product, it can be made safely.  This is not just Nanny state regulation. This is not just corporate welfare forcing us to buy from big alcohol. This is a slap in the face of self sufficiency and rugged individualism.

  Smoking.  This is a prime case of the government treating adults as children.  If one person owns a business, another person wants to patronize that business, and the owner allows the patron to smoke, what is the problem?  Non-smokers can get off of their tender oversensitve ass and choose a different place in which to dine, drink and be entertained?  I know I can make that grown-up decision.  Can you? 

The owner of a private establishment to decide whether they will or won't allow smoking on their premise. The customer, can voice their opinion with their wallet. If the support is their they can go smoking, non-smoking, or have separate smoking and non-smoking sections.

  Serve Alcohol Responsibly at a Restaurant.  Vito J. Congine, Jr. made news when he started flying his American flag upside down outside his property in Crivitz. Vito plans to open an Italian restaurant. In addition to pasta menu plans include beer and wine. Despite thinking he had everything in order his petition for a liquor license was initially denied.
The number of liquor licenses a municipality can hand out are limited. It is based on population. It no way factors in market demand, how responsible those who have or want one are, or how responsible the citizens of that municipality are.

These limits make the issuing and review of liquor licenses very political. This is wrong.
If a tavern violates noise ordinances, waters down their drinks, allows patrons to drive drunk, engage in fights, or other illegal actions then fine them. If they refuse to conform and have repeat offenses shut them down. But, don't declare them guilty before they even open for business.

  Open a Neighborhood Bar.   On TV in the 90's Cheer's was portrayed as a typical neighborhood bar in Boston where "everybody knew your name". That romanticized notion of a local watering hole is going extinct. Bars are being forced into entertainment districts.
Not only is the price of a night out driven up by artificially limiting the number of liquor licenses issued, but is driven up further when establishments are forced into high rent areas. No longer having a bar on just down the street one can walk to we a greater number of people having to drive to the bar and then choosing to drive home. One can not say they are opposed to drunk driving when they remove drinking establishments from residential neighborhoods.

At the old local tavern the patrons were from the neighborhood. The bartenders knew who the drunks, bullies, and hustlers were. They also needed to know how to control them or they risked seeing people go somewhere else.

The best way to promote responsible drinking is to have it take place where everybody knows your name and will hold you responsible for your actions.

  Buzzed Driving.  A current advertising campaign says buzzed driving is drunk driving. That may the case according to current drunk driving laws but there is a difference.

Different people have different tolerances. Most people are not drunk and can and do drive safely with a BAC of .08%. Many people who believe they have been drinking responsibly are actually above the legal limit. By having a BAC which is too low we are turning otherwise responsible individuals into criminals. When it is too easy to break a law it becomes trivial. When breaking the law is common place the negative social connotation goes away. There is little outrage when our elected leaders like Peg Lautenschlager,  and Jeff Wood get pulled over, in Jeff Wood's case again and again.

Wisconsin legislature is debating toughening drunk driving laws. I am all for this if they are applied to people who are actually drunk. This used to be defined as a BAC of .10%. Before that it was .12%. I would say that we move back to .12%, a point where most people can responsibly have a few drinks without having to worry about getting put in jail, a point where law enforcement efforts can be focused on people who are more likely to actually be impaired and dangerous.

  Give Legal Advice. We all give legal advise, it's hard not to. But, legally only a member of the state bar association may do so. The bar association is not alone in limiting competition.

The Wisconsin Dietetic Association has put forward the Wisconsin Dietitians Licensing Bill (SB115). This would limit the issuing of diet and nutrition advice to those who have been trained and certified as registered dietitian's by the American Dietetic Association.

  Running a Small Business Without Government Approval.  This is a catch-all to keep this list from going on too long.

Bureaucrats will tell you business licenses serve to protect the public, by making sure the a practitioner has the skills and competence necessary to do their job. This is only a small percentage. Most business licensing serves two purposes.  To collect taxes and to push one business person around to the benefit of another business person the politician likes better.

How much government regulation do we need for Tom's Snow Removal, Dick's Plumbing , or Harry's Barber Shop?  It's not like any of these people are performing open heart surgery. It snow's Tom plows my drive I pay him, my toilet backs up Dick snakes it out I pay him, my hair gets a little long Harry gives me a haircut where my sideburns are different lengths, by bangs a crooked, and the back half of my head is shaved bare so I wear hat, wait till it grows back, and find a different barber.

A return to normalcy...a recovery from job losses and bankruptcy story Posted by MarkStrand4Liberty

Posted 10/27/09

I'm happy to report that things are finally starting to look brighter in my personal life. It has been one year since my wife and I moved out of our (really, Wells Fargo owned it while we attempted to make payments) home. I have learned and grown so much in the last year. I learned that buying a home with zero down is never a good idea, especially when the home you buy needs repairs and you have decent credit but zero savings. Losing a lower management position at the local grocery store didn't help either. Neither did having 2 new vehicles with 6 year loans and vehicle payments over $850 a month. Hey, at least we were buying American and not paying any interest. I think my wife and I were caught up in what a lot of other Americans were, impressing people that could care less, and spending more than we were making because it was the thing to do.

My wife also lost her position at the local hospital, and has been under-employed since then. That was in May of 2008. I was unemployed from April 2007 until July 2007, then underemployed (I was lucky to work 10 hours a week until May!) from January 2008 until June 2008. We literally lost everything we had worked for last October when we filed for bankruptcy.

We are people that always paid our bills on time until it was no longer possible. I think a lot of people are in a similar position. We have received a lot of greif about filing bankruptcy and putting the burden of our debts on other consumers. It was a decision that has kept me awake at night. I sleep much better now, and have learned many valuable lessons that I am now teaching to my kids.

The American Dream of having it all and paying for it as you go is no longer a dream, it's a nightmare, especially when you're faced with job changes. I'm thankful that my wife and I are young enough to recover from our losses. She has returned to college, and I plan on returning to better solidify our prospects of advancement, once we have all recovered from "the Great Recession." My dream now is to live within our means, use credit only as an absolute last resort instead of a way of life, and to go without unless and until we can pay cash. Eventually, I would like to see our state government do the same, as well as our Federal Government.

When I hear people say that the US is the richest country in the world and we can afford it, I laugh. When does spending the most (on credit) make anyone wealthy? When companies claim to make a profit, is it a cash profit or a credit profit? Does printing more money mean you have more money or does it mean that you have less purchasing power? If you give someone a minimum wage increase of 100% over a decade and you have struggled to get to where you are and not received the same 100% increase in pay over a decade, does that make goods and services more or less expensive?  How can a person get ahead and save when everything is taxed to the hilt and inflation is rampant. Doesn't anyone else notice these things? These are questions I am requiring my representatives too think about before voting on legislation that makes the middle class and working class into the second class of America.

Counting Snouts Posted by tnerenz

Posted 10/04/09

http://timnerenz.com/content/counting-snouts

In my speech at the AFP Town Hall Meetings in August, I used the phrase "snouts in the trough" to describe trial lawyers and malpractice insurers.  An apology is owed; no, not to them, but to all the other snouts who were not given their due.

When I go to see my doctor, he spends a few minutes with me reviewing my vitals, asking how I feel, and renewing my prescriptions.  If I paid him $15 cash, he could earn over $300,000 at that rate; and I would cut my cost of health care by 80%.  We would both be happy. 

Michael Moore, if you are reading this, that is how capitalism works: a voluntary exchange makes both parties happy and everyone else minds their own business.  But that's not how health care works.  Oh, no.  There are a few more snouts in the trough and it is everybody else's business.  Let's count snouts.

Just in case I might sue him (aforementioned trial lawyer and malpractice snouts), he sends me for some lab work (snout), and the results go to medical records (snout), then on to billing (snout) and to someone who writes me a letter with the results (snout).  It contains some pamphlets on healthy living (snout) and a customer service response card (snout) so the clinic director can know if I am happy.   

The bill for the lab work is sent (snout) to my claims processor (snout), who runs it by their fraud detectors (snout) and then checks the discount (snout) and in-network status (snout).  If the claim is denied, then we repeat this loop several times (snoutis pluralis) until all the coding and paperwork is just so.  

Then it goes to their payable department (snout), and they send a check to the receivable clerk (snout) at the clinic, and they send me a statement (snout) showing my bill was partially paid.  My claims processor also produces an explanation of benefits (snout) that I can't understand, and mails it (snout) to me.  Once in a while, they send me a card (snout) to see if I'm happy.  Ecstatic; thanks for asking. 

The claims processor then sends a bill (snout) to my Flex benefits administrator (snout) for the amount of the co-pay that my claims processor doesn't pay.  The Flex people check my balance (snout) and send me a check (snout).  The clinic sends me another bill (snout) for the balance and I send them a check.  They process that check (snout) and send me a statement (snout) that the bill is paid.

Are you still with me?  Our snout count is up to 26 if the claim goes through perfectly on the first pass, which doesn't happen very often anymore.  But remember, that is just for the lab work I didn't need in the first place.  Now we have to process the original office visit bill.  No comment cards or healthy newsletter, so we only need to add 21 snouts; that puts us to 47.  But wait, there's more.

We are self-insured at my company, so there is no obscene profit of an insurance company to factor in to our snout count.  But we do have a benefits specialist (snout), a health coach (snout), and people in HR (snout) who help me straighten out my wrongly denied claims. And we pay consultants (snout) who pay other consultants (snout) to advise us on how to set all this up in compliance with the government's (that is a whole new trough) regulations for self-insured plans.   

And then of course we have accountants (snout) who count our health care beans, and a law firm on retainer (snout) to help us stay in compliance with the government (I already did them) regulators and HEPA law.  Bear in mind that those other firms with a snout in the trough also had their own accountants and lawyers and consultants and IT guys that could be added into the count - but that would be piling on.

And all of those snouts have to go to diversity training, and some pay union dues, and they go off to conferences where they learn the latest snout stuff, and if they work for the government they have too many holidays, vacation days, personal days, sick days, and work-at-home (yeah,, sure) days to keep track of.  So they are out there just a-snorting and a-grunting and shaking the flies off their fat muddy backs even when they are not processing my bill.

By my count, that's 54 snouts in the trough, not including the government snout factory that regulates all and mandates half of this insanity.  God forbid an MD and a Ph.D. could manage to exchange $15 on our own; no, we need 54 cubicle jockeys a-heppin' us to get it wrong.  

And that, my friends, is what is wrong with health care.  That is all that is wrong with health care.   

That is how you turn a simple $15 exchange that any two crack-heads can accomplish unaided into a $175 cluster-grunt that takes 54 people with college degrees 6 months to get completed. And we make fun of crack-heads? 

How about that public option/single payer idea? That just replaces my claims processor's private sector snouts with government snouts.  And if you think the GS-8 at HHS oinks more efficiently than the Anthem contractors over there in Bangalore, then you are probably one of those crack-heads I have newfound respect for.  Plus they retire at 50, so we have to count double to pay for the pensioners.

Are they fixing any of this up there in Congress?  Nope.  Those guys are just vibrating in place trying to finagle a way to stick that $175 bill to somebody that doesn't vote. When they are all done, it will be $350 and my grandkids will pay. There is not one snout coming out in any version of any Congressional reform bill.

These guys are all out of their minds. They had their chance this year to enact real health care reform; we get our chance again next November.

Vote Libertarian.  Vote for Tim, Not Tammy.

Tim Nerenz is the Libertarian Party Candidate for U.S. House of Representatives from Wisconsin's 2nd District. To support Dr. Tim's campaign, please visit the campaign website at www.timnerenz.com.

Quit Talking Stupid Posted by tnerenz

Posted 10/04/09 Last updated 10/27/09

http://timnerenz.com/content/quit-talking-stupid

 
Are you willing to pay $24,762 every year so that everyone gets health care? Then let's quit talking stupid.  
 
There are 105 million people who work in the private sector - that is where all the money comes from.  We spend $2.6 trillion each year on health care, so do the math: that's $24,762 each if everybody pays their fair share.
 
If we include public sector workers, the share drops to just under $20,000. I know we pay their salaries, so it doesn't change anything, but it would be fun to see university professors and Congressmen put their own money where their mouth is for once.  
   
It is nonsense to keep talking about coverage, access, and rights as if health care were free air.  Rosa Parks sought access to a seat in the front of the bus; she did not demand that the guy in seat 12A pay for it, and she did not call him a racist for thinking they should each buy their own. 
 
No, Ms. Parks did not talk stupid, like our leaders do. How can we possibly expand coverage to 47 million more people without adding a single doctor, and not have longer waits for appointments? That is talking stupid.
 
How can we possibly cover all those additional people without increasing taxes or increasing the deficit? That is talking stupid.
 
How can we say the 10-year "cost" of reform will stay under one trillion dollars by simply delaying enactment of the bill's provisions for the first four years and counting zeros in the total?  That is talking stupid.
 
How can we say there won't be a board that decides what treatment you will receive under "public option" when it is already written into the legislation? That is talking stupid.
 
And when President Obama still insists again this week, "no one is talking about cutting Medicare" after the House Bill already cut it by $218 billion and the Senate is proposing $377 billion, he is really talking stupid.
 
But we Americans are not stupid; we are pretty smart.  We know there is no free lunch. We don't live on Planet Delusion, and we know stupid talk when we hear it. 
 
That's why the most recent Rasmussen Poll shows 56% of Americans now oppose the Democrats' Health Care Reform plan - including a stunning 72% of independent voters. Only 24% of Americans believe it will make health care better, and only 22% of Americans believe Congress even knows what they will be voting on.
 
But none of that will matter. Congress will vote for something stupid that we don't want, they haven't read, and wouldn't understand if they did. They don't care about your health or your wealth; this is merely a way to reward campaign donors by churning out another earmark-laden porkfest. Quit calling it reform. 
 
If Congress is not going to address the underlying causes that drive unnecessary cost - too much regulation, paperwork, and red tape - then all that matters is who pays, and that question is ridiculously simple: should we each buy our own health care, or should we each buy each others'?  
 
Proponents of universal health care like this bumper sticker: "you should not go broke just because you get sick".  That would be a great ad pitch for an insurance company, but it is a silly moral premise. Who should go broke, then? Or should doctors and nurses and lab techs and billing clerks all have to work as slaves for no pay, so that nobody does?
 
Here is an improved, quit-talking-stupid version: "you should not go broke just because I get sick". Treatment of a serious deadly illness can quickly run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. If I am diagnosed tomorrow with one of these, and I don't have insurance to cover it, then one of us is going to go broke - that's how it works down here on Planet Earth, Tammy.
 
Why should that be you, and not me? That is what Congress is proposing, only they will probably beat me to the punch and make you broke before I get sick.
 
In Europe, they have universal health care. They also earn 29% less than we do, and they pay twice the payroll tax we do - 30% with no upper limit. And they pay higher income tax than we do, and they pay a VAT tax that we don't. So their disposable income is half of ours on average, and their unemployment rate is double. President Obama forgot to tell you about that stuff when he was bragging up how old they are in Denmark. 
 
So how about it - are you willing to take a 50% pay cut so the government can run health care? Is it worth living half-broke your whole life just to squeeze out an extra year or two warehoused in a government home at the end of it?   Not me.
 
So let's quit talking stupid about health care - and start talking seriously about real health care reform that will turn loose the power of market competition and give us all better health care choices at far lower costs.
 
 
Tim Nerenz is the Libertarian Party Candidate for U.S. House of Representatives from Wisconsin's 2nd District. To support Dr. Tim's campaign, please visit the campaign website at www.timnerenz.com

"Audit the Fed" gets fair and thoughtful consideration in the media Posted by Matt Phillips

Posted 09/30/09

It's right here in the Chicago Tribune folks! I hear more and more about it all the time, from sources other than C4L. We're doing our jobs!

Please answer the poll question on the left hand side of the screen. The results are already overwhelmingly on the side of an audit, but let's really hammer it home.

Keep up the great work!

Will Ohio Nullify National Health Care? Posted by Michael Boldin

Posted 09/30/09

Following the lead of Arizona, Florida, and Michigan, in recent weeks legislators from Louisiana and Georgia announced that they were planning on introducing resolutions for State Constitutional Amendments that would allow the people of those states to effectively opt-out of any future national health care plan.

And now, Ohio joins them.

According to our friends at OhioFreeState.com, Ohio State Senators Grendell and Jones have introduced Senate Joint Resolution & (SJR7).

The resolution proposes:

"to enact Section 43 of Article II of the Constitution of the State of Ohio to prohibit a law or rule from compelling a person, employer, or health care provider to participate in a health care system."

If passed by the Ohio legislature, the proposal will go directly to Ohio voters for their approval:

If adopted by a majority of the electors voting on this proposal at a special election held February 2, 2010, Section 43 of Article II of the Constitution of the State of Ohio shall take effect immediately.

The resolution in Arizona (HCR2014) has already passed both the House and Senate, and in 2010, Arizona voters will be the final voice on their proposed Constitutional Amendment.

In Florida and Michigan, similar resolutions have been introduced, but have yet to have formal hearing or debates.

Legislators in GA and LA announced that they'll be introducing similar resolutions in the 2010 legislative session. And sources close to the Tenth Amendment Center indicate that more than 15 states will do the same in 2010.

Click here to read the full text of SJR7

Should Wisconsin C4L support "Bring the Guard Home" - Assembly Bill 203 Posted by ToddWelch

Posted 09/22/09

Fellow C4Lers,

I have been contacted by Steve Burns, Program Director of Wisconsin Network for Peace and Justice.  He has ask that we support the Assembly Bill 203 to stop the illegal deployment of the Wisconsin National guard to Iraq.  You can find out more information about the Wisconsin campaign here... with a list of endorsing organizations here...

I would like to put this to a vote by our members to determne if this is something that we would like to support, please vote in the poll here and voice your opinion in the comments.  I will leave this poll open for one week.  We will need 2/3's of votes to go towards supporting the "Bring the Guard Home" if we are going to support it.

18 Means 18 Posted by tnerenz

Posted 09/22/09 Last updated 09/22/09

http://timnerenz.com/content/18-means-18

It is wrong for the government to deny rights of seniors solely on the basis of their age; equally wrong for juniors, sophomores, and freshmen.

There is no principled reason to deny adults the right to choose for themselves whether to drink alcohol or not. This is a matter of personal preference and belief.

Rights aren't rationed out like some annuity over time; we were endowed with all of them at birth. They are held in trust for us by our parents or guardians until we reach the age of consent, and the age of consent is 18.

The federal government imposed a drinking ban on 18-20 year-olds through an extortion scheme of the lowest kind in the 1980s. It required states to adopt a 21 year old drinking age or be cut off from federal highway funds. Age discrimination has been the policy of both the Democrats and the Republicans ever since.

Think for a moment what message this sends to our young adults. Their first interaction with their government as vested citizens is to have their rights taken away through an unconstitutional encroachment of the federal government over state sovereignty. Goodbye civics class; hello mob rule.

Liberty denied should not be the first consequence of citizenship. So this will be the first bill I introduce as Congressman from Wisconsin's 2nd District - the Universal Age of Consent bill.

Now, before the blissfully inebriated students in section O at Camp Randall break into chants of "Tim, Not Tammy", let me say this: don't think I am a champion of 18-year-old drinking, because I'm not. I am a champion of 18-year-old Liberty. Don't vote for me so you can drink; vote for me so you can choose for yourself how you will live.

And that is really what this all about; the idea that you don't have to ask permission to live.

It is difficult to imagine now that we were once a nation that lived by that simple proposition. We were proudly independent; our demand of government was to be left alone, not to be taken care of. Our Declaration of Independence insisted upon the right of the individual to pursue happiness; not to be immunized from the consequences of our pursuits.

Libertarians believe that each of us has sole dominion over our persons and property, and that any voluntary exchange between individuals is just. We believe that any act of force or fraud that interferes with voluntary exchange is unjust, including prohibitions on adult alcohol purchases by the State.

Vote Libertarian. Vote for Tim, Not Tammy.

Tim Nerenz is the Libertarian Party Candidate for U.S. House of Representatives from Wisconsin's 2nd District. To support Dr. Tim's campaign, please visit the campaign website at www.timnerenz.com.

From Right Street Writer: A Story Posted by gerirutzen

Posted 09/22/09 Last updated 09/17/09

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE <!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:"Cambria Math"; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:1; mso-generic-font-family:roman; mso-font-format:other; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:0 0 0 0 0 0;} @font-face {font-family:Calibri; panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:swiss; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-1610611985 1073750139 0 0 159 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; mso-default-props:yes; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> <!--[if gte mso 10]> <!--[endif]-->

A story:

Once upon a time there lived a giant. The giant had massive strength, determination and ingenuity. The giant worked hard and prospered. He accumulated great wealth. He generously shared his abundance with those in need and those who were suffering.  And he was happy to do it.

The giant’s neighbors saw him prosper and they were jealous. They said to the giant that even though the giant had been very generous, they had less than him. He owed it to them to give more. It is only fair, they said. The giant could easily afford to share, so he gave more. And he was happy to do it.

The giant continued to prosper. The more he gave to others, the more he prospered. Jealousy burned in the hearts of his neighbors. The neighbors said to the giant that even though the giant had been very generous, there were still those who had less than him. He owed it to them to give more.  It is for equality, they said. After all, not everyone was a giant or had the ability of a giant. The giant could easily afford to share, so he gave more. And he was happy to do it.

Times changed. The giant had to work harder, but he continued to prosper. Jealousy consumed his neighbors. The neighbors said to the giant that times were tough and there were many more suffering and had less than him. He owed it to them to give even more. It is for the children, they said. The giant could still afford to share, so he gave more. And he was happy to do it.

The giant worked much harder. He worked from sunrise to sunset. He became very tired. The neighbors said to the giant that they would help him. They said they would distribute his abundance to those in need for him so he could rest. They assured him the abundance would be given fairly, equally, for the children. The giant agreed to allow the neighbors to help him. And the giant went to sleep.

The neighbors had become rich and lazy because of the giant’s generosity, but jealousy burned inside of them as if it was a fire. The neighbors conspired to steal the remainder of the giant’s wealth. The neighbors realized the giant would have to be enslaved because of his massive strength, determination and ingenuity.

As the giant slept, the neighbors silently began to bind him hand and foot in shackles. Then the giant awoke. He saw that he was being bound. He was filled with rage. He summoned all of his strength, determination and ingenuity and threw off the shackles. He stood up. He raised his gigantic foot and crushed the thieves.

There are two morals to this story. The first moral is: When progressive liberal socialists claim to want fairness, equality, for the children, their real motive is to benefit themselves. The second moral is: Don’t anger a sleeping giant.

Wisconsin AJR 51 Posted by cjallis

Posted 09/08/09 Last updated 09/07/09

   We citizens of the great state of Wisconsin need state sovereignty Now! The majority of people in wisconsin are conservatives, who believe in the constitution. Just because Madison, Milwaukee, Green Bay, doesn't mean they should represent what the rest of us believe in.

AJR 51

2009 - 2010 LEGISLATURE

2009 ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION 51

May 8, 2009 

 Introduced by Representatives:

 Nygren, Vos, Kerkman, Vukmir,
Gunderson, Kestell, Strachota, Kramer, Meyer, Roth, Pridemore, Mursau,
Kaufert, Newcomer, Bies, Friske, Gundrum, Nass, Tauchen, Townsend,
Knodl, Petersen, Ballweg, Lothian, LeMahieu and M. Williams,
cosponsored by Senators Leibham, Lazich, S. Fitzgerald, Grothman, A. Lasee,
Darling, Kedzie and Schultz.

Referred to Committee on State Affairs and
Homeland Security.

Relating to: state sovereignty.

Contact your local State Senator and Representative

and urge them to cosponsor this bill.

Laissez-faire and public education Posted by Bill O. Rights

Posted 09/08/09

LIBERTARIAN ARGUMENT FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION

Adam Smith, the Father of Modern Economics and the philosopher that popularized the laissez-faire philosophy, wrote in "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations" that the state should have minimal involvement in the economy, not no involvement. And he wrote that one area where the state should be involved in the economy is with the provision of a basic education for its people.

As much as I love abstract philosophy, what really draws me to libertarianism is how well it works. One great aspect of the libertarian view on economics is how business-like it is. One thing a business must do in order to preserve and improve itself is invest. By spending tax dollars on education and thus ensuring that most people can receive an education, the state is performing an investment, which was Adam Smith's argument in "The Wealth of Nations."
Former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. once said that he did not mind paying taxes, because they are the cost of society. However, I do mind paying taxes that are excessive or that are wasted. But arguing that the current system of public education is wasteful is not an argument against this tax money being used--it is an argument against the way the current public education system is structured and operated. The current public education system in the U.S. does have many significant flaws, but this does not mean that we should abolish it, despite some flawed libertarian arguments, below.

One flawed, seemingly libertarian argument against public education is that a system of public education supposedly necessarily means that education is a right. However, this is not the case. True, the state is not obligated to use taxes to fund public education, and it would be obligated to do so if education were a right. However, a "right to an education" would mandate the provision of an education, which would not only entail forcing people to pay for this education through taxes (which is morally permissible), but it would also entail forcing people to supply an education, which would amount to involuntary servitude (which is not morally permissible). Since no one has a right for anyone to be mandated to be an involuntary servant, no such "right to an education" can exist.

Although the state has no obligation to fund public education, the state does have the power to use tax money to fund public education if it so chooses. And on this point, some libertarians may disagree. A common argument is that the U.S. Constitution does not mention "education" at all, which is true. However, Article 1, Section 8 gives Congress the "Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to...provide for the... general Welfare of the United States." Education most certainly falls under "welfare" because levels of education have a strong positive correlation with levels of welfare, or well-being. Increasing one's level of education greatly decreases one's chances of living in poverty, being homeless, lacking adequate health care and failing to meet all other basic necessities of life.

A second flawed, seemingly libertarian argument against public education is that this system itself is immoral because it necessarily relies on taxation, which is supposedly always immoral. This argument's underlying premise is that the state should not be able to exercise force--which is how it levies taxes--because this type of use of force (i.e., the initiation of force) is immoral, regardless of who or what is exercising this force. Granted, the initiation of arbitrary force is always immoral. However, taxation should not fall under this category of force.

Seeing as libertarians often and rightfully invoke the wisdom of the Founding Fathers, I ought to remind my fellow libertarians that the Founding Fathers were not opposed to taxation per se--they were opposed to taxation without representation, which is the morally relevant category of force (i.e., arbitrary force). When a state taxes people that do not have any power over deciding which people comprise this state, then the state is immorally exercising force over these unrepresented people by forcing them to pay taxes. This taxation is arbitrary because it is not based on decisions made by legislators that represent the people's wishes. Taxation with representation is not an arbitrary use of force, because the legislators' decisions regarding taxation now have to be based on good reason (i.e., not arbitrary) in order to comply with the people's wishes, since the legislators are mere representatives of the people's wishes. One may argue that the current U.S. government is not really representative of the people and thus we are being taxed without being represented. However, this is an argument against our structure of federal government, not against the taxation itself. If we could somehow make our federal government representative, such as by increasing the size of Congress, then this taxation would be moral again.

A third flawed, seemingly libertarian argument against public education is that public education is inherently inferior to private education, or that it is inherently flawed or inefficient. Some libertarians use the strong reasoning that the free market is self-correcting. However, this is generally true, but not always. For example, consider a relatively remote community that has two high schools, both private. The first school is good but still offers an education inferior in quality to the education offered at the second school, so the parents of some students at the first school use their freedom of choice, due to operating in a free market of schools, to transfer their children to the better second school.

Now, one way in which the free market is "self-correcting" is that this first school will attempt to fire its worst teachers and hire good teachers to replace the bad ones. Of course, the school will want to do this because of the pressure exerted on it by its dropping revenue caused by losing students to the second school. However, because the first school's revenues are declining, it has less means of enticing good teachers to apply for jobs there that will replace the bad teachers. The good prospective teachers will instead apply at the second school, which needs more teachers due to its expanding number of students, because it uses its recently higher level of revenue to offer a higher salary for entry-level teachers than the amount offered by the first school.

As more students leave the first school, its revenue is reduced. It may try to offset its loss of revenue by raising its tuition, but this would just convince even more parents to send their children to the second school, which not only provides a better education but now may do so at a lower cost. The first school will now either keep its bad teachers, which will hurt its business, or it will fire its bad teachers despite not being able to replace them, which will increase its average class size, hurting its business. It could even replace its bad teachers with other bad teachers, which wouldn't help its business.

Certainly, one reason that free market is self-correcting is because bad businesses fail and go out of business. Eventually, the first school goes out of business because it could not compete with the second school. Over the course of this competition, the second school has had new classrooms constructed in order to meet its growing student body. Sure, these students got a better education as a result of going to the second school, which has better teachers on average than the first school, but they also had to pay the costs of this construction, since this construction was paid for by the school, which gets much of its revenue from tuition. Furthermore, the students that originally attended the first school did so because of its closer proximity to their homes. An added cost of transferring school was longer drives to school. Granted, the benefit of a better education was worth the costs of the construction costs and the longer drives.

However, these students could have gotten an education at the first school as good as the one offered at the second school, without having to pay for any construction or longer drives, if the first school had gotten better teachers. However, by the time the first school noticed it was falling behind the second school, it was too late to regain its footing. Had these two high schools been public, the first school would have been given the resources necessary to hire better teachers once it noticed it had a problem with its teachers.

Under this private system, a parent's decision to simply abandon the first school by transferring his or her child to the second school is a much more rational decision than to attempt to help the first school be able to attract new and good teachers, such as by making a monetary donation to the first school, providing it with the revenue necessary to offer new teachers a high salary. The reason for this is based on the "free rider" problem in economics: each parent will realize that he or she should not make a donation to the first school in an attempt to save it because he or she realizes that his or her failure to make a donation will not be substantial enough to determine the fate of the school, so he or she will simply let other families make the donations; and if the school fails, it would have failed even if he or she donated money to it.

The way in which this free-rider problem can be greatly avoided is if these two high schools are public. No one is able to simply get a free ride, because the taxation that funds these schools is compulsory.

A fourth flawed, seemingly libertarian argument against public education is that teachers' unions have a strong presence in public education, public colleges and universities tenure their professors and so on, making it difficult to get rid of a bad teacher or professor. However, although this is not a problem unique to public schools, this does not matter because this argument is a red herring logical fallacy--it is an argument against a system under which bad teachers and professors cannot easily be removed, whether they are employed by a public or private school.

A fifth flawed, seemingly libertarian argument against public education is a slippery slope logical fallacy. Some argue that allowing the government to fund public education sets a dangerous precedent that people can use to argue that the state should provide other services for them that they want, which may be undesirable for society. The reason that this is not a very legitimate fear is because people's education directly relates to their welfare. Some skeptics may try to argue this point by claiming that, for example, ownership of a vehicle directly relates to welfare. That is, a person with a vehicle may generally be less likely to live in poverty, be homeless, go hungry and so on than a person with no vehicle.
However, vehicle ownership is not the variable here. The lurking variable is wealth. Granted, some may claim that wealth is also the lurking variable behind the direct correlation between a person's education and his or her welfare. However, this is not exactly the case. The significance of education is that it is the driving force behind wealth. Owning a vehicle will not increase the vehicle owner's earning potential, but a higher education for this person will.

The fact that an educated person makes so much more money on average than an uneducated person--and thus pays much more tax money--should be enough justification for having used tax dollars to educate this person, not to mention that a better-educated person generally commits less crime, is more productive, is more self-reliant, can provide better for a family and so on than a lesser-educated person.

In order to avoid accusations of not providing constructive criticism, I do have some proposals. Decisions over things like hiring and firing teachers, curriculum, funding for schools and so on should be handled at as low of a level as possible. Most of these decisions should be made locally, such as by a popularly-elected school board. However, some action by a state government may be necessary in order to adequately fund some underfunded schools. However, the federal government should stay out of these matters entirely. Its only involvement in education should be providing students with money with which they can pay for school. The number-one reason a qualified student does not go on to schooling beyond high school is because he or she cannot afford it. Investing in the futures of these people is a beneficial investment.

Furthermore, when the federal government gets involved with funding, it tries to take control. If the federal government were to provide schools with much of their funding, it could force a standard curriculum on the schools, full of indoctrination. However, this potential threat is removed if the federal government's funding goes not to the schools, but to the students. Also, federal grant money to students should combine need-based grants and merit-based grants. Of course, need-based grants must also consider merit, especially academic records, in order to avoid making unwise investments on needy yet bad students.

Thou Shall Not Steal Posted by tnerenz

Posted 09/08/09 Last updated 09/08/09

http://timnerenz.com/content/thou-shall-not-steal

There are only two ways to get the money to pay for government: either tax Americans who are living, or steal it from generations of Americans not born yet.

 
Deficit spending is stealing from future generations; in the fiscal year coming to a close this month, we have stolen nearly $2 trillion more of their money, and Congress will take another heaping helping when they pass the 2010 appropriations bills in the upcoming weeks.

 
You don't need a Ph.D. in economics to grasp the issue here: it is wrong to steal money from your kids.

 
If you don't get that, you might as well stop reading now and go knock off a liquor store or beat up a homeless person or whatever it is you do for recreation. I won't be able to fix you; maybe my Pastor Paula could take a crack at it.

 
This year, we will only pay for 58% of what government spends; we will borrow the rest, leaving it to future generations to repay the debt. Are you ok with stealing $5,400 from your grandkids and their grandkids? That is your per capita share of the deficit this year - the amount of spending you did not pay for. No different than driving away from the pump, or skating out on the waitress.

 
To pay for the government we have, each one of us would have to take a 70% hike in every single one of the taxes we pay. Is anyone willing to do that? If not, then the ethical thing to do would be to cut government spending down to what we are willing to pay for ourselves - to cut it almost in half. It is not as difficult as we might think, but the "how to" is another post for another day.

 
We could have (and should have) an honest political debate over how much to tax ourselves and what to spend that money on. People of good will can disagree over the proper scope and role of government in a free society. But we don't have honest debates anymore; we have mindless shouting matches where each side calls the other side evil for thinking differently, and they both tell you someone else will pay for the promises they make to get your vote.

 
The one lie that is evil is the lie of the free lunch; it doesn't matter whether it is democrat or republican baloney between the bread. There is no such a thing; we are stealing our kid's lunch money to buy happy meals for ourselves. That is morally reprehensible - it is shameful when Republicans do it, and it is shameful when Democrats do it, and it is shameful when we let them both do it.

 
The Congressional Budget Office estimates it will take 100 years to pay it back the $24 trillion of debt we will have accumulated by 2019, just 10 years from now. I will be retiring about then, but you young people will still have a lifetime of paying to look forward to, and so will your heirs. Your share will run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Most of your taxes will go to pay interest on the debt. This is what happens when you don't vote.

 
Oblivious to the fact that we can't afford half of the government we have now, the socialists want to impose even more government. It is still a free country, sort of; if they do not think they are being taxed enough, they can write a check to the IRS and pay more. That would be the honorable thing, and I would admire them for it.

 
But they won't - they insist on putting your money where their mouth is.

 
We are tired of other people telling us what to do, what to say, and what to think. We don't need government's permission to live our lives. We have had it with moralizing hypocrites - of both parties - using the power of the state to shove their beliefs down our throats.
 
Government is not our master; it is our servant, our Cabana Boy. The Cabana Boy doesn't tell us what to do. The Cabana boy picks up the cigarette butts; he doesn't tell us we can't smoke on our own private property. So shut up and go fix a bridge, Cabana Boy - and quit stealing my grandchildren's money.

 
Congress is supposed to represent, not to rule; and most certainly not to steal. We need to elect Representatives who understand that. Tammy Baldwin doesn't.

 
Liberty is the absence of government in choice. Tyranny is the absence of choice in government. Choose Liberty. Choose Tim, Not Tammy.
Tim Nerenz is the Libertarian Party Candidate for U.S. House of Representatives from Wisconsin's 2nd District. To support Dr. Tim's campaign, please visit the campaign website at www.timnerenz.com.

Tim Nerenz Health Care Town Hall Speech Posted by tnerenz

Posted 09/03/09

 http://timnerenz.com/content/tim-nerenz-health-care-town-hall-speech

So why are we all wee-weed up about health care?  Because our politicians are forcing us to take sides in a contest between insurance companies and government bureaucrats.  If that were a death match, most of us would be secretly hoping for a tie.   

They are making this way more complicated than it needs to be.

Two years ago, I was wheeled in to Aspirus Hospital in Wausau, Wisconsin, paralyzed on my left side from the waist down.  One day later, a team of neurosurgeons operated, 5 days later I walked out of the hospital, and a week later I was back at work.   It cost less than my wife's car. 

That's what is right about health care in America.   

It took 6 more months to get the billing squared away and everybody paid.  That's what's wrong with Health Care in America.  If our elected representatives were here today to listen I would tell them this: leave the first part alone, fix the second part, and then take the rest of the year off before you screw it up again.   

We pay $2.6 trillion for health care annually in this country. It would take 95% of all taxes collected for the government to provide health care to everyone.  Only $1.4 trillion of that has anything to do with making you healthy or keeping you that way.  The rest goes to the accountants, lawyers, social workers, billing clerks, government drones, jockeys, bureaucrats, actuaries, consultants, hedge fund mangers, claims processors, and benefits specialists - all those nice folks who don't wear rubber gloves when they bend us over.

Here are two changes that Congress could write in one page and pass in a day that would cut out most of that wasted 40%. 1) Indemnify providers against lawsuits in which there is no criminal negligence alleged, and 2) eliminate 3^rd party payer by using Health Savings Accounts to pay providers directly.  That takes two of the biggest snouts out of the trough. 

If we had American health care at 40% less cost, they would be having angry town hall meetings in France.  And that should be the goal of health care reform, to get the French all wee-weed up.   

President Obama promised my employees they could still choose private insurance if we had a public option.  Sadly it won't be up to either of them.  The House Bill levies a payroll tax of 8% on employers who don't provide health care benefits.  That is less than half of the cost of a decent insurance premium; it is a simple business decision to drop coverage and pay the tax.

Businesses don't have the luxury of dealing with the government that is promised, we must confront the one that is practiced.  Don't blame the players when the refs change the rules.

We all know what improves quality, reduces cost, and expands selection - choice and competition.  Markets don't work perfectly, but they work - we can't say the same for government interventions.  What keeps the small town auto mechanic honest? It's not the policeman or the priest - it's the second auto mechanic.

We are supposed to like government health care because the Europeans live longer.  I frankly don't care how old they are in Belgium.  I would rather live free for 79 years than be a slave for 81.  What about you? 

Posted By Tim Nerenz, Ph.D. to 2010: Tim, Not Tammy at 8/28/2009 01:10:00 PM

Obama's Czars Posted by cjallis

Posted 09/03/09 Last updated 08/28/09

1. Afghanistan Czar - Richard Holbrooke

Title: Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan
Salary: unknown
Reports to: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
Appointed: January 2009
Department that might have handled similar issues: State

• Will work with CENTCOM head Gen. David Petraeus to integrate U.S. civilian and military efforts in the region.
• 45 years of experience have made him a fixture of the Democrats' foreign policy establishment.
• Was U.S. ambassador to U.N., 1999-2001
• Brokered the 1995 Dayton Peace Accords in Bosnia
• Also served as Assistant secretary of state, East Asia and the Pacific (1976 to 1980); worked in foreign service (1962 to 1976)

• From 1972 through 1976, was the editor of Foreign Policy magazine.

2. AIDS Czar  - Jeffrey Crowley

Title: Director of the Office of National AIDS Policy
Salary: $102,000
Reports to: President Obama (as part of the Executive Office of the President's Domestic Policy Council)
Appointed: February 2009
Department that might have handled similar issues: Health and Human Services

• Coordinates HIV/AIDS policy domestically and internationally.
• Senior Research Scholar at Georgetown University's Health Policy Institute and a Senior Scholar at the O'Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law, Georgetown University Law Center.
• Was Deputy Executive Director for Programs at the National Association of People with AIDS

• Has Master of Public Health from the Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health

3. Auto Recovery Czar - Ed Montgomery

Title: Director of Recovery for Auto Communities and Workers
Salary: unknown
Reports to: Larry Summers, the president's top economic adviser, and Labor Secretary Hilda Solis
Appointed: March 2009
Department that might have handled similar issues: Labor

• Will work to leverage government resources to support the workers, communities and regions that rely on the American auto industry.
• Was Deputy Secretary and Chief Economist at the Labor Department (1997 to 1998)
• Is Dean of the College of Behavioral and Social Sciences at the University of Maryland (2003 to present)
• Has PhD in economics from Harvard
• In 2008, made $1,200 in political donations, all of which went to Obama's presidential campaign.
• Wife is the granddaughter of a General Motors worker from Portland, Mich.

• Drives a 2000 Lincoln

4. Border Czar  - Alan Bersin

Title: Assistant Secretary for International Affairs and Special Representative for Border Affairs
Salary: unknown
Reports to: Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano
Appointed: April 2009
Agencies that might have handled similar issues: Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)

• Will coordinate all of the department's border security and law-enforcement efforts.
• Essentially had the same job under President Clinton; served as Attorney General Janet Reno's special representative on border issues, a job that he held while retaining the position of U.S. attorney for San Diego.
• This time, boss will be Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, who will expect him to handle illegal immigration and drug violence issues along the Mexican-American border
• Previous experience: Chairman of the San Diego Regional Airport Authority (2006 to 2009); Secretary of Education for California (2005 to 2006); Superintendent of San Diego Public Schools (1998 to 2005); U.S. Attorney for San Diego (1993 to 1998)
• Graduate of Harvard and Yale Law School
• Talking about border security shortly before he was named Clinton border czar in 1995, said he wanted to focus on suspected smugglers of both drugs and people and was not interested in prosecuting "economic migrants."
• Often tied to the 1994 border policy called "Operation Gatekeeper." The policy shifted the U.S. focus from the arresting of immigrants who actually crossed the border to an increased border presence designed to stop border crossing in the first place. When Bersin left the position in 1998, border arrests were on pace for an 18-year low of just more than 200,000. Latino groups complained that Operation Gatekeeper was immoral, saying the program monitored the border near San Diego but simply forced illegal immigrants to other, more dangerous areas.

• Has given more than $50,000 to political campaigns since 1999, almost all of it to Democrats.

5. California Water Czar - David J. Hayes

Title: Deputy Interior Secretary
Salary: unknown
Reports to: Interior Secretary Ken Salazar
Appointed: June 2009
Confirmed by Senate (as Deputy Interior Security): May 20, 2009
Department that might have handled similar issues: Interior

• Charged with coordinating federal agencies to ease California's water shortage
• Graduate of Stanford Law School; clerked for U.S. District Court for the D.C., has been a partner at two big D.C. law firms
• Was deputy interior secretary under Bruce Babbitt during Clinton administration
• From 1993 to 1995, was chairman of the board at the Environmental Law Institute, a non-profit research center.
• As a lobbyist, represented the Southern California Metropolitan Water District in 2001
• In August 2008, wrote a policy report while working at the Progressive Policy Institute accusing the Bush administration of leaving a "damaging legacy" in their natural resource management policies

• Donated $2,300 to Clinton during 2008 campaign; after she withdrew, donated $2,300 to Obama

6. Car Czar - Ron Bloom

NOTE: on July 13, 2009, Bloom took over as head of the Presidential Task Force on the Auto Industry, replacing Steven Rattner

Title: Counselor to the Secretary of the Treasury
Salary: unknown
Reports to: Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and National Economic Council head Larry Summers
Appointed: July 2009
Department that might have handled similar issues: Treasury

• A leader of the White House task force overseeing auto company bailouts; worked on restructuring of General Motors and Chrysler LLC.
• Was special assistant to president of the United Steelworkers union from 1996-Feb 2009
• Has negotiated restructuring deals for more than 50 companies, getting major concessions from unions and companies.
• Was raised in New York in a pro-union family, which included a schoolteacher mother and unionized relatives.
• After working for the Service Employees International Union, got an MBA from Harvard University because he thought unions lacked business smarts, he said in a 1996 interview in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

• From 1985 to 1990, he worked as an investment banker with Lazard Freres & Co., which specializes in mergers, acquisitions and corporate restructuring, before co-founding the investment-banking firm Keilin and Bloom.

7. Central Region Czar - Dennis Ross

Title: Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for the Central Region (encompasses the Middle East, the Gulf, Afghanistan, Pakistan and South Asia)
Salary: unknown
Reports to: National Security Adviser Gen. James L. Jones
Appointed: June 2009
Department that might have handled similar issues: State

• Spent 12 years in the George H.W. Bush and Clinton administrations trying to create a permanent agreement between the governments of Israel and the Palestinian territories
• In 1981, was named to President Ronald Reagan's national security staff as the director of Near East and South Asian Affairs.
• Was director of the State Department's Policy Planning office during President George H. W. Bush's term.
• 1993: appointed to the position of Middle East coordinator, making him the top negotiator for peace between Israel and Palestinian territories

• After he left government in 2000, headed up Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a hawkish think tank with a pro-Israeli bent

8. Climate Czar - Todd Stern

Title: Special Envoy for Climate Change
Salary: unknown
Reports to: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
Appointed: January 2009
Agency or department that might have handled similar issues: Environmental Protection Agency; State

• Responsible for developing international approaches to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.
• Served in the Clinton White House from 1993 to 1999; Was Head of the Initiative on Global Climate Change (1997 to 1999) and Adviser to the Secretary of the Treasury (1999 to 2001)
• As a top aide to President Clinton, helped negotiate the Kyoto and Buenos Aires climate pacts, both of which fell apart partially because of a lack of U.S. support during Bush administration.
• After Bush was elected to office, went to the Wilmer Hale law firm, where he is a partner in the regulatory and government affairs division.
• Was most recently a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress, where he focused on climate change and environmental issues.
• Has written extensively on climate change, and has called on the American government and the international community to take a series of steps to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.
• Supports a national cap-and-trade system that would limit carbon emissions and reduce U.S. dependency on foreign oil

• Has law degree from Harvard

9. Domestic Violence Czar - Lynn Rosenthal

Title: White House adviser on Violence Against Women
Salary: unknown
Reports to: President Obama and Vice President Biden
Appointed: June 2009
Department that might have handled similar issues: Health and Human Services

• Will advise the President and Vice President on domestic violence and sexual assault issues.
• 2000-2006: served as the Executive Director of the National Network to End Domestic Violence
• Was an advocate for the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act in 2000 and 2005 and has assisted states and local communities with implementation of this federal legislation

• Was director of the Florida Coalition Against Domestic Violence

10. Drug Czar  - Gil Kerlikowske

Title: Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy
Salary: unknown
Reports to: President Obama
Appointed: March 2009
Confirmed by Senate: May 7, 2009
Department that might have handled similar issues: Justice

• Directs drug-control policy in the U.S.; is expected to shift drug policy to intervention, treatment and a reduction of problem drug use.
• Was police chief for the city of Seattle from 2000-2009
• Was Deputy Director of the Department of Justice's Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (1998 to 2000); Police Chief for the city of Buffalo (1994 to 1998); Police chief of Fort Pierce, Fla. (N/A to 1994)
• A strong gun-control advocate, urged both the Washington legislature and the U.S. Congress to pass an assault-weapons ban and has worked to close the loophole that doesn't require background checks at gun shows
• 2003: admitted that busting people for personal marijuana possession was not a top priority of the Seattle police department.

• As Seattle police chief, assigned an officer full-time to the drug court, which commuted sentences of drug users who complete medical treatment in lieu of going to jail.

11. Economic Czar  - Paul Volcker

Title: Chairman of the President's Economic Recovery Advisory Board
Salary: Volcker reportedly isn't paid for his advice.
Reports to: President Obama
Appointed: January 2009
Department that might have handled similar issues: Treasury

• Charged with offering independent, nonpartisan information, analysis, and advice to the President as he formulates and implements his plans for economic recovery.
• Some reports say he's been marginalized by Larry Summers.
• Former Federal Reserve chairman (1979-1987)
• Was Undersecretary for Monetary Affairs, Department of the Treasury (1969 to 1974); Deputy Undersecretary for Monetary Affairs, Department of the Treasury (1963 to 1965)

• Gave Obama campaign $2,300 in 2008.

12. Energy and Environment Czar - Carol Browner

Title: Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change
Salary: $172,200
Reports to: President Obama
Appointed: January 2009
Agency that might have handled similar issues: EPA

• Coordinates energy and climate policy, emphasizing regulation and conservation.
• Was Environmental Protection Agency administrator in the Clinton administration (1993-2000)
• Was Florida Secretary of the Environment (1991 to 1993)
• Founded and continues to serve as a principal of The Albright Group LLC, a global strategy firm led by former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. Also a principal of Albright Capital Management, an investment advisory firm that concentrates on emerging markets.
• Worked on the Socialist International's Commission for a Sustainable World Society, which argues that the global community must work collectively to address environmental policies
• Described Bush administration as the "worst environmental administration ever"
• While orchestrating private discussions between the White House and auto industry officials on vehicle fuel efficiency standards, kept the talks as quiet as possible. Mary Nichols, the head of the California Air Resources Board, said, "We put nothing in writing, ever."

• 2003: A federal judge held the Environmental Protection Agency in contempt for destroying computer files during the Clinton administration that had been sought by a conservative legal foundation. U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth also ordered the EPA to pay the Landmark Legal Foundation's legal fees and costs because the agency disobeyed his order to preserve the electronic records of Browner, the former EPA chief.

13. Faith-Based Czar  - Joshua DuBois

Title: Director of the Office of Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships
Salary: $98,000
Reports to: President Obama
Appointed: February 2009
Department that might have handled similar issues: Health and Human Services

• Acts as a liaison between faith and secular community groups and the White House, often partnering with them to tackle social issues. Helps these groups apply for federal grants available to them.
• Is 26 years old
• Has master's in public affairs from Princeton University; served as associate pastor
• Worked for Rep. Rush Holt (D-N.J.) as an intern and then as a fellow for Rep. Charles B. Rangel (DN. Y.).
• Hired as a legislative correspondent in Obama's Senate office in May 2005

• In 2008, at the age of 25, was appointed director of religious affairs for the Obama campaign.

14. Government Performance Czar - Jeffrey Zients

Title: Chief Performance Officer
Salary: unknown
Reports to: Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orzag
Appointed: April 2009
Confirmed by the Senate (as deputy director for management for the OMB): June 19, 2009
Agency that might have handled similar issues: OMB

• Charged with cutting costs and finding best practices throughout government.
• Has never worked in government before
• Was a chief executive and former management consultant
• Was founder of Portfolio Logic (2004 to present); Partner of the Washington Baseball Club (2004 to 2006); CEO of the Advisory Board (1998 to 2004)

• Has donated just over $90,000 to political campaigns since 1999, almost all of which went to Democratic candidates

15. Great Lakes Czar - Cameron Davis

Title: Special advisor to the U.S. EPA overseeing its Great Lakes restoration plan
Salary: unknown
Reports to: Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson
Appointed: June 2009
Agency that might have handled similar issues: Environmental Protection Agency

• Oversees the administration's initiative to restore the Great Lakes' environment.
• President of the Chicago-based environmentalist group Alliance for the Great Lakes
• Was a litigating attorney and served as an adjunct clinical assistant professor of law at the University of Michigan Law School.

• Served with the United Nations Environment Program in Nairobi, Kenya, where he worked on the Montreal Protocol to protect the Earth's ozone layer, and U.S. EPA's Office of Regional Counsel in Chicago.

16. Green Jobs Czar - Van Jones

Title: Special Adviser for Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation at the White House Council on Environmental Quality
Salary: unknown
Reports to: Head of Council on Environmental Quality Nancy Sutley
Appointed: March 2009
Agency or department that might have handled similar issues: Environmental Protection Agency; Labor

• Will focus on environmentally-friendly employment within the administration and boost support for the idea nationwide
• Rose from near obscurity in the Oakland, Calif., grassroots organizing scene to the leader of a national movement to spur the green economy.
• Founded Green For All, an organization focused on creating green jobs in impoverished areas
• Also co-founder of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights and Color of Change, which includes Bay Area PoliceWatch, a group devoted to "protect[ing] the community from police misconduct"
• Published New York Times best-seller The Green Collar Economy: How One Solution Can Fix Our Two Biggest Problems, in October 2008
• Started career as a prison-reform advocate in Oakland, Calif., lobbying for reform of the juvenile justice system and youth-violence prevention programs
• Has law degree from Yale
• 2007: worked on the Green Jobs Act with then-Rep. Hilda Solis (D-Calif.), who co-sponsored the bill in the House
• 1993: was arrested at the Los Angeles riots that followed the acquittal of cops in the Rodney King beating. "I was arrested simply for being a police observer," says Jones, who had just graduated from Yale Law School and was working with the Lawyer's Committee for Civil Rights in San Francisco.
• 1999: was arrested in the 1999 Seattle protests against the World Trade Organization
• Excerpt from a Nov. 2005 interview in the East Bay Express:

Jones had planned to move to Washington, DC, and had already landed a job and an apartment there. But in jail, he said, "I met all these young radical people of color -- I mean really radical, communists and anarchists. And it was, like, 'This is what I need to be a part of.'" Although he already had a plane ticket, he decided to stay in San Francisco. "I spent the next ten years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary." In the months that followed, he let go of any lingering thoughts that he might fit in with the status quo. "I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th, and then the verdicts came down on April 29th," he said. "By August, I was a communist." In 1994, the young activists formed a socialist collective, Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement, or STORM, which held study groups on the theories of Marx and Lenin and dreamed of a multiracial socialist utopia. They protested police brutality and got arrested for crashing through police barricades. In 1996, Jones decided to launch his own operation, which he named the Ella Baker Center after an unsung hero of the civil-rights movement.

17. Guantanamo Closure Czar - Daniel Fried

Title: Special envoy to oversee the closure of the detention center at Guantanamo Bay
Salary: unknown
Reports to: Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton
Appointed: March 2009
Department that might have handled similar issues: Justice; State

• Works to get help of foreign governments in moving toward closure of Guantanamo Bay, in fulfillment of Obama's promise to close the prison within a year of taking office.

• Was Assistant Secretary of State for Europe and Eurasian Affairs, State Department (2005 to 2009); Director for European and Eurasian Affairs, State Department (2001 to 2005); U.S. Ambassador to Poland (1997 to 2001)

18. Health Czar  - Nancy-Ann DeParle

Title: Counselor to the President and Director of the White House Office of Health Reform
Salary: $158,500
Reports to: President Obama
Appointed: March 2009
Department that might have handled similar issues: Health and Human Services (HHS)

• Coordinates the development of the Administration's healthcare policy agenda.
• Experience: Managing Director, CCMP Capital (since 2001); Adjunct professor (focusing on healthcare policy), Wharton School of Business (since 2001); Commissioner, Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (since 2001); Fellow, Harvard Institue of Politics (2000 to 2001); Director, Healthcare Financing Administration (1997 to 2000)
• Has law degree from Harvard
• Served as the OMB's representative on health-care reform during Bill Clinton's first term
• As head of the HHS Health Care Financing Administration under Clinton, ran the largest health insurance provider in America, overseeing $600 billion in payments annually to 74 million recipients of Medicare and Medicaid
• 2001: left government to take a year-long fellowship at Harvard's Institute of Politics, where she was part of Harvard's Health Care Policy Forum and led a weekly study group on reforming Medicare.
• During Bush administration, sat on the boards of many health companies, from medical treatment producers to hospital systems

• In September 2008, donated $2,300 each to Clinton and Barack Obama.

19. Information Czar - Vivek Kundra

Title: Federal Chief Information Officer
Salary: unknown
Reports to: Director of the Office of Management and Budget Peter Orszag
Appointed: March 2009
Agencies that might have handled similar issues: other federal agency CIOs

• Basically in charge of overseeing other federal agency CIOs and for setting technology policy across the government.
• Head of a federal technology budget that amounts to $71 billion annually
• Operation is housed in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and will likely have authority to question how money in departmental technology budgets is used
• Formerly head of the District of Columbia's technology operations
• Shortly after he joined the OMB, federal authorities raided his old District government office. They arrested two technology office managers and a subcontractor, charging them with a bribery scheme that allegedly defrauded the city out of at least $500,000. Kundra was not a suspect in the case, the U.S. Attorney's office said.
• Has a masters from Maryland in information technology.

• Experience: Washington, D.C. Chief Technology Officer (2007 to 2009); State of Virginia's Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Trade (2006 to 2007); CEO of computer security firm Creostar

20. Intelligence Czar  - Dennis Blair

Title: Director of National Intelligence
Salary: $197,700
Reports to: President Obama
Appointed: January 2009
Confirmed by Senate: January 28, 2009
Agency that might have handled similar issues: CIA

• Nation's top intelligence official.
• Retired four-star admiral.
• Graduate of the United States Naval Academy, 1968; sixth-generation naval officer
• Lacks professional roots in the world of intelligence
• Held a number of prestigious Washington posts, including the Pentagon's top liaison to the CIA and director of the Joint Staff.

• Ran the non-profit Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA), which focuses primarily on issues related to national security, and does a lot of work for the Defense Department. Left IDA under a cloud of controversy in mid-2006.

21. Mideast Peace Czar - George Mitchell

Title: Special Envoy for Middle East Peace
Salary: unknown
Reports to: Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton
Appointed: January 2009
Department that might have handled similar issues: State

• Works to maintain the shaky peace between Israel and Hamas after recent hostilities
• Senate majority leader from 1989 to 1994
• Was special envoy to Northern Ireland during the Clinton administration and lead investigator into steroid use in Major League Baseball.

• 2000: led a fact-finding committee to study violence in the Middle East; 2001's Mitchell Report formed the basis for the road map for Middle East peace

22. Pay Czar - Kenneth R. Feinberg

Title: Special Master on executive pay
Salary: reportedly receiving no compensation for his work.
Reports to: Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner
Appointed: June 2009
Department that might have handled similar issues: Treasury

• Named to examine compensation practices at companies that have been bailed out more than once by the federal government
• Oversaw the payouts to the families of the victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks
• Was the chief administrator to the Hokie Spirit Memorial Fund, which commemorates the students who died in the April 2007 shooting rampage at Virginia Tech
• Founder and managing partner of Feinberg Rozen LLP (1992 to present), law firm specializing in mediation
• Was Chief of staff for Sen. Edward Kennedy (1978 to 1980)

• While working with the Feinberg Group, donated over $150,000, nearly all of which has gone to Democratic candidates and political action committees. In 2007, donated $2,300 to 2008 presidential candidate Rudolph Giuliani (R).

23. Regulatory Czar - Cass R. Sunstein

Title: Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
Salary: unknown
Reports to: Office of Management and Budget head Peter Orszag
Appointed: January 2009
Nomination was sent to Senate on April 20, 2009 - no action yet taken
Agency that might have handled similar issues: OMB

• Will be responsible for reviewing draft regulations and assessing their costs and benefits
• Is a Harvard Law School professor; prior to that, was a professor at the Univ. of Chicago Law School (1981-2008)
• Academic specialties: constitutional law, administrative law, and regulatory policy
• Obama: "Cass is not only a valued advisor, he is a dear friend"
• Known for advancing a field called "law and behavioral economics" that seeks to shape law and policy around the way research shows people actually behave; though embraced by conservatives, critics say it fails to account for the sometimes less-than-rational aspects of human behavior.
• In his 2002 book, Republic.com, discussed the drawbacks of limitless choices on the Internet that allow people to seek out only like-minded people and opinions that merely fortify their own views; he talked about the idea of the government requiring sites to link to opposing views. He later came to realize it was a "bad idea."
• In his 2004 book, Animal Rights, suggested that animals ought to be able to bring suit, with private citizens acting as their representatives, to ensure that animals are not treated in a way that violates current law.
• In a 2007 speech at Harvard he called for banning hunting in the U.S.

• The American Conservative Union started a website, Stop Sunstein, in an effort to keep him out of the White House.

24. Science Czar - John Holdren

Title: Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and Co-Chair of the President's Council of Advisers on Science and Technology
Salary: unknown
Reports to: President Obama
Appointed: December 2008
Confirmed by Senate: March 19, 2009
Agency or department that might have handled similar issues: Energy

• Top adviser to Obama on science and technology, issues that are increasingly relevant to other issues such as homeland security, energy and environmentalism
• Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy and Director, Program in Science, Technology, and Public Policy at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government (1996-2009); Harvard University Professor of Environmental Science and Public Policy (1996-2009); University of California, Berkeley Professor of Energy and Resources Emeritus (1996 to present)
• Studied aerospace engineering and plasma physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology - where he earned his BS and MS - and Stanford University, where he received his doctorate in 1970
• Is an outspoken advocate of the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and believes the United States should sign the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty.
• In a 2008 New York Times op-ed, Holdren called climate change skeptics "dangerous" members of a "denier fringe."
• In 1971, co-authored a paper in Global Ecology suggesting "some form of ecocatastrophe, if not thermonuclear war, seems almost certain to overtake us before the end of the century."

• Some conservative media outlets have called attention to a book Holdren co-authored in 1977 titled Ecoscience: Population, Resources, and Environment. The book reportedly includes this statement: "population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution." Holdren's office says he "does not now and never has been an advocate of compulsory abortions or other repressive measures to limit fertility."

25. Stimulus Accountability Czar - Earl Devaney

Title: Chair of the Recovery Act Transparency and Accountability Board
Salary: unknown
Reports to: Vice President Biden
Appointed: February 2009
Agency that might have handled similar issues: OMB

• Leads oversight board that monitors money spent by the stimulus package
• Experience: Inspector General at the Interior Department (1999 to present); Director of criminal enforcement at the Environmental Protection Agency (1991 to 1999); Special Agent at the Secret Service (1970 to 1991)
• During his tenure at Interior, uncovered the shady dealings of disgraced ex-lobbyist Jack Abramoff, an investigation that eventually led to Abramoff's imprisonment and the resignation of Interior's no. 2, J. Steven Griles, for lying under oath about his own role in the scandal.

• On July 8, 2009, the U.S. General Services Administration issued a press release announcing an $18 million contract for a new recovery.gov web site, which quoted Devaney as saying, "We are pleased that another major milestone has been achieved."

26. Sudan Czar - J. Scott Gration

Title: Special Envoy to Sudan
Salary: unknown
Reports to: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
Appointed: March 2009
Department that might have handled similar issues: State

• Will coordinate U.S. role in the aftermath of the genocide in Darfur
• Experience: Supreme Allied Command, NATO (2004 to 2005); Air Force assistant deputy undersecretary for international affairs (2003 to 2004)
• Commanded all air operations during the Iraq war in 2003
• 2006: left Air Force position to join Obama's staff after traveling to Africa with the then-Senator from Illinois, even though he was a Republican
• Has won a Bronze Star, a Purple Heart, a Defense Superior Service Medal and 16 other awards
• Is a fluent Swahili speaker who grew up in the Congo
• Has called on the Obama administration to incentivize participation by the Sudanese government in peace talks by lifting sanctions, a position that is controversial. Also worked to position himself as the principal negotiator between the Sudanese government and its adversaries in Darfur, and is planning an international conference for September 2009

• Has M.A. in security studies from Georgetown

27. TARP Czar - Herb Allison

Title: Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Financial Stability
Salary: unknown
Reports to: Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner
Appointed: June 2009
Department that might have handled similar issues: Treasury

• Leads the government's $700 billion financial rescue program in the office of financial stability
• Veteran Wall Street banker and interim head of the mortgage-finance company Fannie Mae
• Worked at Merrill Lynch for 28 years, reaching position of president and COO
• Was CEO of Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association College Retirement Equities Fund (2002 to 2008); CEO of the Alliance for Lifelong Learning (2000 to 2002)
• Has undergraduate degree from Yale and MBA from Stanford
• 2000: was John McCain's 2000 presidential campaign finance chairman

• In 2008, donated $2,300 to Obama's presidential campaign

28. Technology Czar - Aneesh Chopra

Title: Chief Technology Officer
Salary: unknown
Reports to: President Obama
Appointed: April 2009
Confirmed by Senate: May 21, 2009
Department that might have handled similar issues: Commerce

• Will lead in the effort to eliminate wasteful government programs
• Will probably work to increase broadband access nationwide and computerize medical records
• Was Virginia's secretary of technology (2005-2009)
• Has degree in public health from Johns Hopkins, Master's from Harvard in public policy
• Worked at Morgan Stanley as investment banker; also worked at Advisory Board, a health-care research and consultancy firm

• Has donated more than $24,000 since 1997 to various campaigns. With the exception of a $1,000 donation to Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) in 2004, all of Chopra's contributions have gone to Democrats. From 2007 to 2008, Chopra donated $2,750 to Obama's presidential campaign.

29. Terrorism Czar - John Brennan

Title: Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism
Salary: $172,200
Reports to: National Security Adviser James L. Jones
Appointed: January 2009
Department that might have handled similar issues: Homeland Security

• Under Obama's plan the homeland security adviser's office would be eliminated, and the National Security Council would take over those duties. Brennan would be responsible for guarding against natural disasters and terrorism.
• Has called for increased integration between the Departments of Commerce, State and Defense
• Graduated from Fordham University in 1977 after a year of intensive Arabic and Middle Eastern studies in Cairo. Earned his J.D. from the University of Texas at Austin before joining the CIA as an intelligence director in 1980.
• Is a CIA veteran and fluent Arabic speaker
• Was CIA deputy executive director (2001 to 2003) and National Counter-Terrorism Center, Chair (2004 to 2005)
• Worked at Analysis Corp, (2005 to 2008);

• Staunch supporter of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Program; defended the use of extraordinary rendition, saying it is "an absolutely vital tool."

30. Urban Affairs Czar - Adolfo Carrion Jr.

Title: White House Director of Urban Affairs
Salary: $158,500
Reports to: President Obama
Appointed: February 2009
Department that might have handled similar issues: Housing and Urban Development

• Job entails coordinating transportation and housing initiatives, as well as serving as a conduit for federal aid to economically hard-hit cities.
• Has undergraduate degree in world religions from Kings College; became an associate pastor at a Bronx church; earned his master's degree in urban planning from Hunter College
• Was Bronx Borough President (2001-2009); President of the National Association of Latino Elected Officials (since 2007); City Council member (1998 to 2000)
• Many reporters say he has higher ambitions and will probably run for New York City mayor in the next ten years.
• Was an active campaigner for Obama, travelling across the country to speak on his behalf. He focused particularly on states with large Hispanic populations.

• The NY Daily News reported numerous developers made tens of thousands of dollars in campaign donations to Carrión around the same time he was considering approving their projects in the Bronx.

31. Weapons Czar - Ashton Carter

Title: Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics
Salary: unknown
Reports to: Defense Secretary Robert Gates
Appointed: April 2009
Confirmed by Senate: April 23, 2009
Department that might have handled similar issues: Defense

• Will coordinate the Pentagon's acquisitions, technology and logistics for weapons.
• Will oversee a weapons-buying system that Obama has placed at the top of his list of federal programs he wants to fix and will be asked to quickly weigh in on difficult decisions concerning at least 10 major defense programs, while also instantly dissecting the procurement system's ailments so he can advise the administration on its Pentagon acquisition reform agenda
• Is a physicist and Harvard academic whose only previous Pentagon stint was in a mid-level policy post from 1993 until 1996 under the Clinton administration
• Graduated from Yale summa cum laude; studied at Oxford University as a Rhodes scholar and earned a doctorate in theoretical physics.
• Chair of Harvard's International Relations, Science & Security Area International Security Program within the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs; Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy (1993 to 1996); Director of the Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University's Kennedy School (early 1990s)

• Has donated primarily to Democratic politicians since 2000. He donated $6,900 to then-Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) in 2007 and 2008. He gave the same amount to then Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) during that same span.

32. WMD Policy Czar - Gary Samore

Title: White House Coordinator for Weapons of Mass Destruction, Security and Arms Control
Salary: unknown
Reports to: National Security Advisor Gen. James L. Jones
Appointed: January 2009
Department or agency that might have handled similar issues: NSC; Defense; State

• Will coordinate issues related to weapons of mass destruction across the government. His portfolio includes proliferation, nuclear and conventional arms control, threat reduction, and terrorism involving weapons of mass destruction.
• Position sits within the National Security Council.
• Is a veteran arms control negotiator.
• B.A. in sociology from the State University of New York at Stony Brook and his PhD in government from Harvard University in 1984.
• After brief stints with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and the RAND Corporation, joined the State Department during the Reagan administration in 1987. Held several positions there, including director of the Office of Regional Non-proliferation Affairs; special assistant to the Ambassador-at-Large for Non-proliferation and Nuclear Energy Policy; and deputy to Ambassador-at-Large for Korean Affairs Robert Gallucci. Helped to negotiate the 1994 U.S.-North Korea Framework Treaty
• Joined the Clinton administration's National Security Council in 1995 as an adviser on nonproliferation. Coordinated U.S. policy on nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

• Was Director, Council on Foreign Relations (2006 to 2009); Vice President for Global Security and Sustainability, John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation (2005); Researcher, International Institute of Strategic Studies (2001 to 2005)

Real Health Care Reform Posted by tnerenz

Posted 08/20/09 Last updated 08/20/09

http://timnerenz.com/content/real-health-care-reform-0

As predicted, the two major parties appear to have fought to a draw over health care; now they will pass some watered down tweak labeled "reform" and both sides will declare victory.

Most of the haggling these days is between propagandists on both sides carping about the other side misrepresenting what is in the 1,500 page "government option".

I find it more illuminating to focus on what is not in the bill - any real reform. �Three things in particular - tort reform, abolishment of government rationing, and ending prohibitions on alternative medicine - are conspicuous in their absence.

If cost is THE problem, then all the government has to do is indemnify providers from civil lawsuits in which there is no claim of criminal negligence.�That would take Congress one afternoon, the bill could be one page long, and the cost for most hospitalizations would drop 30% the next day.�It's that simple.

Indemnification would take two of the biggest snouts out of the trough - slip 'n' trip trial lawyers and malpractice insurance companies - and still provide relief through the courts should your surgeon show up drunk and cut off your foot.�But you won't find impactful tort reform in either the Democrats' or the Republicans' plans - guess which snouts fund their respective campaigns?�

And why do we still have the FDA in the internet age? �It rations supply and keeps profits high for those already "in the club".�It prevents beneficial drugs from reaching the market, it protects big pharmaceutical companies from lawsuits, it allows for all sorts of harmful chemicals to enter the food supply, and......well, just follow the special interest money and you can figure it all out for yourself.�That one's pretty simple, too.

Underwriters Laboratories is not a government agency.�Neither are the regional accreditation councils that we trust to accredit the schools, colleges, and universities whose graduates go to work for the FDA.�Academic journals are peer-reviewed, not government approved.�My Ph.D. was granted after defense to a committee of faculty, not a government board.�There are dozens of examples of voluntary self-regulation of quality standards that are more effective than government boards.�We don't need the FDA, we have the 'net - and it's free.

And where in those 1,500 pages of so-called reform do we find the expansion of choice through alternative treatments, holistic medicine, herbal and traditional therapies, medical marijuana, alternative credentialing regimens, and licensure?�Why do the Democrats, who claim the franchise on compassion, and the Republicans, who say they are for markets and competition, both run and hide now that it actually matters?�

I won't duck.�My views on medical marijuana formed 30 years ago, when it provided my younger brother his only real relief from both the ravages of his terminal cancer and the side effects of the drugs and radiation used to combat it. �I'm not ashamed to tell you that I bought his pot then, and I would again if I had it to do all over again.  Why? �Not because I approve of drug use; because I love my brothers more than I care about some politicians' burning desire to put Mexicans in jail in the 1920's.�@ It doesn't get any simpler than that.

In two previous posts - Medical Choice, Parts I and II - I proposed a specific market-based plan to cut health care costs, improve quality, and expand choices.�I highly recommend another excellent libertarian proposal entitled "A Four Step Health Care Solution", by Hans Herman Hoppe of the Ludwig Von Mises Institute http://mises.org/story/3643.  There are many, many other good ideas out there; we should not be forced to consider only the false choice between a system run by the government or one run by your employer's insurance company.�

�

There is a third alternative - a system run by you.�You decide what treatments are best for you and your family.�You make the trade-offs between cost, risk, prognosis, quality of care, and quality of life.�You choose between providers who compete for your business based on quality of outcome, cost effectiveness, customer service, compassion, and earned reputation.�Instead of lobbying Congress for favors, providers must focus on giving you what you want at prices you are willing to pay.

When the two major parties start talking about real reform - tort reform, ending government rationing, and allowing medical alternatives - then we might want to start listening. Until then, this debate isn't about health care - it is about more government, more politics, more crony favors, more red tape, and more of the same old partisan power struggle that will end in both sides getting a bit richer. �Enough.

Real reform means less government and more choices - that is what will improve health care.

Tim Nerenz is the Libertarian Party Candidate for U.S. House of Representatives from Wisconsin's 2nd District. To support Dr. Tim's campaign, please visit the campaign website at www.timnerenz.com.

Interesting Questions Posted by Jericho

Posted 08/20/09

Hello all, right now I am taking a history course and my instructor posed the following three questions: 

1. What actions should a government take in order to protect its citizens from an attack?

2. What is the proper balance between preserving liberties and defending our nation from attacks from a difficult to identify enemy?

3. Is it un-american to question the actions of our leaders?

I know the answers to these questions is obvious but since this is supposed to be a debate I would like some input regarding these questions so I have more ammo.

Abolish the Federal Reserve Posted by Bill O. Rights

Posted 08/20/09

Federal Reserve analogy, its dangers, and its false dilemma

     The Federal Reserve is a consolidation of coercive power. This power is unjustifiable in ways that the power of a large corporation to "throw its money around" is not. A large retailer that controls a significant share of the retail market has power, for example, in the form of leverage over other private companies. This large retailer, knowing that it constitutes, say, 75 percent of a wholesale company's sales, has the power to persuade the wholesaler to lower its prices. A smaller retailer that constitutes, say, 10 percent of this wholesaler's sales does not have as much power of persuasion over this wholesaler to lower the wholesaler's prices as does the large retailer.
      Well, why is this power justified? This power is justified if the large retailer has obtained its size and power through consensual agreements, which cannot contain fraud or coercion. The large retailer's persuading the wholesaler to lower its prices does not constitute coercion because the wholesaler is free to reject the large retailer's offer without the threat of harm from the retailer. Granted, this wholesaler's business will be greatly hurt, but it will be the result of the large retailer failing to do business with the wholesaler at the wholesaler's desired prices, which the large retailer is not obligated to do. Thus, the retailer is not harming the wholesaler-the retailer is simply no longer going to greatly help this wholesaler's business.
This large retailer has earned its size and the power that comes with it through its decisions regarding products, services, prices and other relevant market decisions. But what if this large retailer were to instead have a legal power, granted by the federal government, to determine the prices of every wholesaler in the country? Would this large retailer's power over price setting be justified?
      The government should not grant this large retailer this legal power for the same reason it should not grant this sort of power to a central bank, namely the Federal Reserve. The problem with the Federal Reserve is that it has consolidated power. The U.S. Constitution grants far more powers to Congress than to the president. Furthermore, some of the president's powers, such as proposing treaties and nominating federal judges and other federal agents, are subject to Senate approval. On the other hand, Congress's powers are exercised via passing legislation, which can be passed with or without approval from the president. The reasoning behind giving the president far less power than Congress is the potential of abuse and the lack of diverse opinions when one person has the sole power to make a decision over a certain policy. Granted, the president has advisers, but he or she still has the sole executive power vested in the U.S. Constitution.
     If we do not want consolidated power vested in the president, then why would we want it vested in the Federal Reserve? The Federal Reserve has responded to Ron Paul's "Audit the Fed" bill, H. R. 1207, with criticism. The Federal Reserve claims that it needs to be independent from political pressure in order to make the best long-term economic decisions. This may be true, but this removal of the Federal Reserve from politics also removes accountability. The Federal Reserve may not suffer from lack of diverse opinions, but it does present the potential for abuse. And this potential for abuse, from lack of accountability, is not worth the possible advantage of its economic decision-making.
     Furthermore, the criticism by the Federal Reserve also includes a false dilemma logical fallacy. The Federal Reserve maintains that, while the American people overwhelmingly support H. R. 1207, they do not want Congress controlling monetary policy, either. The Federal Reserve's false dilemma concludes that one or the other must control monetary policy, and that the Federal Reserve is the better option. But there are more than two options. The best option is to have no central planning of the U.S. economy. Congress would still have its constitutional powers to borrow money, coin money and draw money from the treasury, but this should not be done in a way to interfere in the free market. These monetary activities should only be done in order for Congress to perform its constitutionally-granted functions, such as maintaining a navy. No policies should exist that interfere in the free market, such as setting interest rates without constitutional authority.

Legalize same-sex marriage Posted by Bill O. Rights

Posted 08/20/09 Last updated 08/12/09

Legalize Same-sex Marriage

     People (adults with voluntary, informed consent) should be legally able to marry other people of the same sex. In a country that cherishes freedom as much as the United States, the burden of proof falls on the side arguing to restrict freedom; the side arguing in favor of freedom need not prove anything. The stronger side in the debate over the legalization of same-sex marriage is the side with the strongest reasoning, and one side clearly has it. The side favoring same-sex marriage being illegal uses several typical arguments, none of which are any good.
     One argument is that homosexuality is sinful according to the Christian Bible. While some argue this is untrue, that is irrelevant. For this issue, it does not matter what the Bible says because the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment's "establishment clause" separates church from state. Some may show the countless times our Founding Fathers have referred to God in their texts in an attempt to show why same-sex marriage should be outlawed due to being un-Christian. But if the Founders wanted this to be the case, they would not have separated church and state.

     A second argument is that a majority of Americans oppose same-sex marriage. But the United States is not a "majority rule" country; it's a "majority rule with minority consent." This is why one senator can filibuster and kill a bill that a majority of senators would have voted to pass. This is why the Electoral College elects the president and not the popular vote. Also, a tyrannical majority can exist: If everyone in the world except for one person wanted that one person to be murdered, it would not matter; not even a majority can take away someone's rights without just cause.

     Furthermore, this is an "appeal to the majority" logical fallacy. Here is why: If a majority thinks two plus two equals five, does it make this math correct? The majority will have to put forth their reasons why to not allow same-sex marriage; they cannot simply say their opinion, even if it is a majority opinion. A majority of Americans might oppose same-sex marriage, but they can also be wrong.
     A third argument is that the institution of marriage has traditionally been heterosexual marriages. But this is an "appeal to tradition" logical fallacy. Here is why this line of reasoning is flawed: There have always been murders and rapes throughout history, but that does not mean things should stay this way. Slavery could be defended with the same fallacy. The same goes for marriage since it uses the same flawed reasoning. Referring to the history of marriage does not actually say why it should stay this way or why it should have ever been this way to begin with.
     A fourth argument is that allowing same-sex marriage would degrade the institution of marriage and thus make heterosexual marriages less meaningful. But not allowing homosexuals to marry their same-sex lovers would make these people's relationships less meaningful to them. To take one side over this fourth argument is arbitrary or selfish, so reasons other than this one will need to settle this issue.
     A fifth argument is that allowing same-sex marriage could lead to allowing people to marry non-human animals. But this is a "slippery slope" logical fallacy. A slippery slope argument can be a strong one when no clear distinctions can be drawn between levels of progression and a chain of events is well-supported, but a clear line can be drawn between marriage of people to people and that of people to non-human animals, and there is no well-supported chain of events that could allow the latter to be legalized. Besides, can heterosexual marriages being legal lead to people being allowed to marry non-human animals of the opposite sex? Could I, a male, one day be able to marry a female dog? The same-sex marriage issue is about gender, not species, and to bring in species is a slippery slope (and "red herring") fallacy. Besides, non-human animals lack the mental capacity to enter into a contractual agreement, which a marriage is.
     A sixth argument is that homosexuality is immoral. First, something does not necessarily need to be illegal for being immoral. It would be immoral of me to be rude to a neighbor of mine solely due to his being a different race. Should that be illegal? Should I be legally forced to be equally friendly to everyone? Rude and offensive speech may be immoral, but should that be illegal? Second, what makes homosexuality immoral? If religion is the answer, it cannot be used to argue why same-sex marriage should be illegal, due to the First Amendment's establishment clause.
     Some argue homosexuality is immoral due to being "unnatural." This is an "appeal to nature" logical fallacy. Simply put, it argues something is wrong for being unnatural. But many "natural" things are undesirable and bad, such as illness. Many "unnatural" things are desirable and good, such as lab-made medicines that save lives.
     Furthermore, the case that homosexuality is unnatural is a lot weaker than one may think. If people cannot choose which sex attracts them, would this not make homosexuality natural like heterosexuality, despite the statistical frequency of either? (For a more thorough dissection of this sixth argument, I refer you to Dr. John Corvino's article, "Why Shouldn't Tommy and Jim Have Sex? A Defense of Homosexuality," printed in 1997 in Same Sex: Debating the Ethics, Science, and Culture of Homosexuality.)
     A seventh argument is that homosexuals are not having their Fourteenth Amendment's "equal protection clause's" guarantee denied. One could argue that homosexuals and heterosexuals are receiving "equal" legal protection since each is allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex and neither is allowed to marry someone of the same sex-the law is applied the same to both. But this is unequal because heterosexuals are allowed to marry whom they want, while the law does not allow homosexuals to marry whom they want. Homosexuals' freedom of choice is being denied. For example, it would be "equal" if no one were allowed to practice any religion; it would be the same for everyone-but people would have their freedom of choice denied. Forbidding the practice of religion would be unequal by favoring those who do not wish to practice any religion. The law, not allowing same-sex marriage, is unequal and thus unconstitutional due to favoring heterosexuals by allowing them to marry whom they want while not allowing homosexuals to marry whom they want.
     An eighth argument is that children raised by same-sex couples would be corrupted or emotionally damaged by being raised by homosexuals. But this argument is not against same-sex marriage; it is against being raised by same-sex couples, which can be married or unmarried. Besides, this argument is not a good one, even for what it is, since a household with a married couple tends to be more stable than that of an unmarried couple living together. And if the couple does not live together, this has all sorts of drawbacks for the children, since children raised in single-parent households are more likely to live in poverty, drop out of school and get convicted of crimes than children raised in two-parent households, as well as other serious drawbacks.
     A ninth argument is that children with a same-sex couple as parents/guardians will be harassed for this. But this is an argument against same-sex couples, not against same-sex marriages. A same-sex couple can raise a child whether or not they are married. Besides, this reasoning would make illegal anything that leads to harassment, such as being overweight, unathletic, and having acne.
     A tenth argument is that allowing same-sex marriage will lead to plural marriages or marriages of incest being allowed. But this is, like the fifth argument, a slippery slope fallacy and red herring fallacy. Besides, this argument also argues for no marriage being legal, even opposite-sex marriage, because this can lead people to want other forms of marriage to be legalized.

     An eleventh argument is that the state is only involved in the institution of marriage in order to give incentives, such as tax breaks, for people to get married, which will supposedly lead to better-raised children, who will be the state's next generation of leaders. Whether married couples are generally better at parenting, and what role these incentives play, are irrelevant. This argument actually does not reach the conclusion that the state should give benefits to people based on whether they get married; instead, it reaches the conclusion that the state should give benefits to people based on the number of children they are raising. Thus, childless couples, regardless of sexual orientation and marital status, should not receive additional benefits from the state. However, couples with children, regardless of sexual orientation and marital status, should receive additional benefits from the state.
     The issue of whether the state should be involved in the institution of marriage and grant benefits to people based on their marital status or the number of children they are raising is beyond the scope of this article. But some may argue that this state involvement in the institution of marriage discriminates against single people, and that this state involvement creates a stigma of being single.

Lessons Learned and Re-Learned Posted by tnerenz

Posted 08/11/09 Last updated 08/10/09

http://timnerenz.com/content/lessons-learned-and-re-learned

Note to business students: if you have just spent $50 billion to acquire GM and Chrysler, do not pay people $4,500 to buy a Honda.

The government's Cash-For-Clunkers program is out of money; it only took one week to burn through $1 billion, and now they need $4 billion more.  That must be some kind of new record for government mismanagement.

This was the flagship program of Obamanomics - government/industry partnership, environmentally correct, economic stimulus, putting people back to work, hope, change, blah, blah, blah.  It didn't last a week - and the bleeding has just begun.

Auto dealers have spent millions promoting a defunct program that has now been suspended.  Clunkers taken in on trade must be recovered from scrap yards because new rules require disabling them on-site.  State regulations will restrict this, so the lawyers can't be far behind.  Every day, new conflicting rules come out, and more paperwork is required, adding cost after cost after cost onto the dealerships. 

A classic case of good intentions meeting bad incentives. People who took advantage of the rebate were, for the most part, going to buy another car this year anyway.  We just robbed $4,500 from Peter to pay 20% of Paul's new car.  Worse yet, Peter hasn't been born yet, we just added the bill to his crushing debt burden.   

The way the rules were written, the worst polluting cars did not qualify for the rebate.  They are still out there spewing smoke and guzzling gas.  For many classes of vehicles, the change in fuel efficiency gained from the $4,500 could be as little as 2 mpg.  You can improve your fuel efficiency more than this by driving differently - you should ask for $5,000.  Cash-For-Clunkers was basically welfare for Sandalistas who wanted a new Prius but couldn't afford it on ACORN pay.  Good riddance.

What is the lesson to be learned here?  The same one we have to re-learn over and over again:  the government is really bad a doing just about anything.  

Before we give government control of health care, we should remember Cash-For-Clunkers, as well as Katrina, Sub-prime loans, TARP, Superfund, and a thousand other debacles that did more harm than good and cost multiples more than we were told they would.  If the government can't run a used car lot, we probably shouldn't let them try their luck at brain surgery.

In Article I, Section 8, the Constitution assigns 18 specific powers to the federal Government.  These are necessary and appropriate - roads, copyrights, currency, defense, interstate commerce, naturalization, post office, courts and the like.  The 10th amendment prohibits the government from exercising any other powers.  Let's face it: those guys were smarter than us.  We still don't get it.  

In the enumerated powers listed in Section 8, there is no mention of buying cars, paying mortgages, running banks, buying auto companies, selling energy, running schools, or providing health care.  Or about a thousand other things our government does badly on a daily basis.

Final note to business students: if you want to own a used car lot, do not hire Congress to run it for you.  Get a used car salesman - they are more trustworthy.

Tim Nerenz is the Libertarian Party Candidate for U.S. House of Representatives from Wisconsin's 2nd District. To support Dr. Tim's campaign, please visit the campaign website at www.timnerenz.com.

Thoughts of Health Care Mobster Posted by Greg L

Posted 08/11/09 Last updated 08/10/09

I'm a mobster - and proud

I did attend a Town Hall Meeting hosted by my congressman, Steve Kagen. 

I will give him credit for having held it at 7PM.  No typo, that was 7PM.  Unlike other representatives who hold there's during the middle of the day; he had it at a time when average taxpaying working stiffs (or mobsters in pro-Obamacare circles) could show up.  That or the newer (even more deceitfully) tactic of not putting advance info out on their website, rather sending a select group of e-mails the day before.

I have thoughts on the issue of health care and I want to be heard.  I want to think that my congressman will take my opinion into consideration before they vote on something which; like social security, medicare, and other social programs; we may never be able to undo once in place.

I did attend the town hall at the Brown County Library.  I found myself amongst the many who could not get in.  Being outside the auditorium and having the opportunity to move around.  I was able to see who the other people were that showed up.  I knew some of the faces in the crowd.  These were people from the area, not outsiders bussed in.  These were other people who, whether for, against, or undecided, are concerned about the nations well being and want to see that there is adequate debate so a decision can be reached that will best fit the nation as a whole. 

I do agree that these town hall meeting are getting unruly, that they should be a place of civil discourse where all sides are allowed a chance to speak.  But, for any representative to use the rudeness of a few as an excuse to deny the rest the right to address and petition their legislature, to hold meetings at times and places which deny the majority a chance to be seen and heard, to take deliberate efforts to silence those who disagree with you is despicable.

I did attend a town hall meeting, only I did not speak.  I did not even hear my concerns brought up.  So, I am using this medium to voice my concerns.

It's Unconstitutional

Article I, Section 1 of the US Constitution reads: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."  From the very begging our Constitution is makes it clear that it is the record of the powers that Congress is granted, they do not have the authority to go beyond what is written.

Some may try to argue that the necessary and proper clause gives Congress a blank check to do whatever they like.  Take a look at the clause in its entirety: "Congress shall have the Power" "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution on the Government of United States, or in any Department, or Office thereof."  Once again limited to powers vested by the Constitution.  Nowhere in the Constitution is Congress or part of the federal government granted the power to pass laws in areas where the power is not vested to them. 

Does the Constitution at any point mention health care, or the medical sciences and arts?  It does: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;".  Cleaned up into modern English; they have the power to grant patents. 

Is there anything in the Constitution which shows what to do with areas such as regulating insurance, providing care for the indigent, overseeing hospitals?  Yes, Amendment X: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."  The Constitution is clear.  The only power with issue of health care that it vests in Congress is to issue patents, all other areas are reserved to the states. 

Why then does our President and Congress want to pass legislation that is blatantly unconstitutional?  Why it they believe that the states have ignored their responsibilities and they need to take over do they not go through the proper channels and amend the Constitution? 

To ignore their oaths and our Constitution which is the supreme law of the land shows a complete contempt for positions they were given.  It shows a contempt for our nation, and it's citizens as a whole.

Why not a Bill of Rights?

When the US Constitution was brought before the people for ratification one of the big concerns was the lack of a Bill of Rights.  Many were worried that without Bill of Rights Congress could find a means to limit their liberties. 

There was much fear that Congress would one day start to overstep it's limited authority in the Constitution and infringe on person liberties.  This fear was standing in the way of getting the Constitution ratified.  If fear continued to rule the Constitution may never have been ratified.  It was Samual Adams and John Hancock who managed to put the populace at ease.  They put forward a list of amendments, based on the Virginia Declaration of Rights and the English Bill of Rights, which would be taken up as soon as the first Congress met. 

Likewise, we need someone to step forward and put fears about this proposal to rest.  Why can't President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and Senate majority leader Reid promise that they will put forward a bill of rights which guarantees that the fears of government overreaching will not take place? 

Why not promise that legislation will not be passed which does not have protections guaranteeing us that:

• No one will be forced into a government insurance program;
• That those in a government insurance program will have the ability to leave the program at any time they so choose;
• That personal medical charts, files, and records of private citizens will not be collected or stored by any government agency;
• That no doctor, nurse, pharmacist, or other medical practitioner will be forced to engage in activities which go against their religious beliefs;
• That no government agent, or member of non-government commission put into place through government actions, will take any action which will deny a citizen life saving medical treatment; 
• That no one will be denied any medical care, testing, or prescribed medicine which they or their insurance provider are willing to pay for; 
• That no government agent or member of a non-government commission put into place will encourage euthanasia of the elderly, sick, or disabled.

If those in favor of Obama-care want to end the fears, if they want to put the worries of extremest to rest all they would have to do is promise to include provisions like these listed.  Failure to do so shows that they are not open to working with those who disagree with them and leaves on wondering if the extremest views have any validity.

Why not make it simpler and less complicated?

The term misinformation is getting thrown around as a label for any criticism of Obama-care.  How do we know what is right and what is wrong?  The e-mails providing the misinformation provide copies of text from the bill, references to page and section, links back to copies of the proposal.  Hard to argue when they are using the text of the bill as the bases of the augment. 

The problem is many of us get snip-its and have no idea of the totality of what is being said.  This is because very few of us have read the bill in it's entirety.  Few of our congressmen have either.  As John Conyers said "I love these members, they get up and say, ‘Read the bill,' What good is reading the bill if it's a thousand pages and you don't have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?" 

We have a representative government, not a direct democracy.  Complex issues like health care are the reason why.  Our founders understood that the average person did not have the time or interest to become educated enough to make an informed and intelligent decision on every issue facing the nation.  Therefore, it was decided to have a small group representing the populace as a whole.  A small group who would take the time to read legislation then seek the information necessary to reach a rational decision on how to vote.  It is a total break down of the system when those charged with the obligation of educating themselves on the issues do not have the time or expertise to read and comprehend legislation put before them.

Voting for any bill which they have not personally read in it's entirety, and have full comprehension of, is a dereliction of their duties.

It's time to end 1,000 page documents written in some cryptic combination Latin and legalese.  Let's end bills with countless amendments, riders, and earmarks.  Let's stop slipping in unpopular legislation by paper-clipping it to some otherwise meaningless piece of feelgood legislation.  Let every bill stand on it's own.  Have every bill read into the record.  And make it part of their oath that they will read every bill before they vote for it.

If they want to end misinformation, if they want to end misinterpretations, if they want to end public fear of unknown consequences, put forward legislation which the average person can read and understand.   If they want civil discourse treat us, your constituents, with the same dignity which they expect and deserve.

2010 Wisconsin State Elections Posted by cjallis

Posted 08/11/09 Last updated 11/12/09

Here is a list of all the people, presently in and running for Wisconsin State government office.

       = incumbant, (R)= Republican, (D)= Democrat, (I)= Independent, (L)= Libertarian, (C)= Constitutionalist, italics=running

Governor:

Jim Doyle (D)

  Mark Neumann (R): http://markforgov.com/

  Scott Walker (R): http://www.scottwalker.org/

  Mark Todd (R): http://marktoddforgovernor.com/

  Bill Ingram (R): http://www.ingram4u.com/

  John Schiess (R): http://www.johnschiess.com/

  Jared Christensen (D): http://www.jcforwisconsin.com/

  Terry Virgil (I):

Lt. Governor:

 Mark Ross (R):

Secretary of State:

Doug Lafollette (D):

  Rev. David King (R):

State Treasurer:

Dawn Marie Sass (D):

  Jason Punzel (R): http://www.jasonpunzel.com/

Attorney General:

JB Van Hollen (R): http://www.vanhollenforag.com/Home.aspx

U.S. Senators:

Russ Feingold (D): http://www.russfeingold.org/home.html

  Dave Westlake (R): http://www.davewestlake.org/Westlake_for_US_Senate/Home.html

  Rob Taylor (C): http://www.robtaylorforsenate.com/

1st District.

Paul Ryan (R): http://www.ryanforcongress.com/Home.aspx

  Paulette Garin (D): http://www.paulettegarin.com/

2nd District.

Tammy Baldwin (D): http://www.tammybaldwin.com/

  Peter Theron (R): http://www.theronforcongress.com/

  Chad Lee (R): http://chadleeforcongress.com/

  Tim Nerenz (L): http://www.timnerenz.com/

3rd District.

Ron Kind (D): http://www.kindforcongress.org/

Dan Kapanke (R): http://www.kapankeforcongress.com/

4th District.

Gwen Moore (D): http://www.gwenmooreforcongress.com/

  Dan Sebring (R): http://www.dansebringforcongress.com/

  Samantha Carter (I): http://www.samanthacarterforcongress.com/

5th District.

Jim Sensenbrenner (R): http://www.sensenbrenner.org/

6th District.

Tom Petri (R): http://www.petripeople.org/

7th District.

Dave Obey (D): http://www.daveobeyforcongress.com/

  Sean Duffy (R): http://duffyforcongress.com/

8th District.

Steve Kagen (D): http://www.kagen4congress.com/

  Reid Ribble (R): http://www.ribbleforcongress.com/

  Marc Savard (R): http://savardforcongress.com/

  Andy Williams (R):

To register as a candidate for any Wisconsin state office go to:  http://elections.state.wi.us/

slippery slope Posted by snowone

Posted 08/07/09 Last updated 08/08/09

One of my favorite quotes is by Martin Niemoller during the rise of Nazi Germany. "First they came for the communists but I was not one so I did not speak out.Then they came for the Socialists and the trade unionists but I was not one so I didnt speak out.Then they came for the Jews but I was not one so I didnt speak out. And then they came for me ,but there was no one left to speak out for me."  Many things come and go on our radar screen but we tend not to pay attention unless we are on a collision course. Remember that small things can start us on a slippery slope that one day will effect every one. Snow One

A Woman's Right To Choose Posted by tnerenz

Posted 08/03/09 Last updated 08/01/09

http://timnerenz.com/content/womans-right-choose

Democrats assume they will win a majority of women's votes with a few noisy proclamations of their support for "a woman's right to choose". Not so fast.

What about a woman's right to choose what schools her children will attend?

What about a woman's right to choose her own health insurance?

What about a woman's right to choose what kind of gun to own? How to carry it?

What about a woman's right to choose what kind of car she drives? How many? What she tows behind them?

What about a woman's right to choose whether or not to smoke, what to smoke, and where to smoke it?

What about a woman's right to choose whether or not to join a union?

What about a woman's right to choose whether or not to recycle?

What about a woman's right to choose how much energy she consumes, and what she uses it for?

What about a woman's right to choose which charities she gives her money to?

What about a woman's right to raise and discipline her children as she believes proper?

What about a woman's right to choose what substances she puts into her own body and for what purposes?

What about a woman's right to choose how much of her income to save, spend, invest, gift, and pass on to her heirs?

What about a woman's right to choose which radio and television stations she will listen to and watch?

What about a woman's right to choose to start a business and operate it the way she thinks best? To hire who she wants? To pay them compensation she believes to be fair?

What about a woman's right to choose to access energy sequestered on public lands?

What about a woman's right to choose what medicines to use and what medical treatments to seek out for herself and her family?

What about a woman's right to choose between a public pension and private retirement saving plan?

What about a woman's right to choose not to invest in GM, Chrysler, AIG, and the Wall Street banks?

What about a woman's right to choose what bumper stickers to put on her vehicle without being labeled a terrorist suspect?

What about a woman's right to choose to trade with people from any nation on earth?

What about a woman's right to choose whether or not to increase her indebtedness?

What about a woman's right to choose whether or not to enjoy an adult beverage at 18?

Empty slogans don't fool anyone - you can't be for choice but against choices. And what high principle instructs that a woman's right to choose applies only to abortion? Do Democrats think women can only be trusted to make reproductive choices? What are they saying - that the rest of life is just too complicated for a female to manage on her own? That is a demeaning view of women, if you ask me.

We Libertarians hold women in much higher regard. We think women should be free to make economic choices, health choices, moral choices, family choices, career choices, school choices, entertainment choices, security choices, travel choices, drug choices, energy choices, charity choices, and pension choices. We trust women. We respect their judgment. Apparently, not everyone else shares these views.

Libertarians are pro-choice on everything, not just one thing. We are pro-choices plural, not just pro-choice singular. We are for choice from A-Z, not from A - Ab.

We trust both women and men to make the best choices for their own lives and families. We think that all issues are "women's issues" - not just one or two as designated by Democrat elites.

We oppose the very idea of group-think; we know that each individual person - male or female - will make choices based upon their own conscience and beliefs. We respect those choices; that is how you show respect for the person who made them. Respect is the basis of civil order, not involuntary compliance.

Libertarians are the genuine advocates of equal rights; we do not differentiate between men's Liberty and women's Liberty. Liberty is the absence of government in choice - all choice.

Tim Nerenz is the Libertarian Party Candidate for U.S. House of Representatives from Wisconsin's 2nd District. To support Dr. Tim's campaign, please visit the campaign website at www.timnerenz.com.

Parties, Primaries & Elections Posted by Greg L

Posted 07/29/09

Krist Novoselic v. Grange

Last month Krist Novoselic, former bass player for Nirvana, signed up to run for the clerk position in his small, rural county in Washington state.  He has since withdrawn. 

During his short stint he ran what could be called a third party campaign with the Grange Party.  But, there is no Grange Party.  There is a Grange Farmers' Association that endorses, but does not run, candidates.

Novoselic never intended to run for office rather he ran a protest campaign to bring attention to Washington state's "Top Two Primary" system.  He viewed it as a flaw that one could not just ran as a member of a party but as "preferring" a party.  Had he continued on the ballot next to his name would have appeared "prefers Grange Party".  In Washington a person can run as "preferring" any political party - imaginary, defunct, or alive and kicking. The identified party has nothing to say about it. 

When withdrawing Novoselic put in his letter to the local paper:

What I did -declaring my candidacy under the banner of the Grange Party-would have been unimaginable before Washington's new election law was applied. Now the state, without restriction, has given the name Grange to any taker. I don't like this state intrusion. It has allowed me to change the message of a group. There is no such thing as a Grange Party, but that's what it would look like to voters who don't read legal disclaimers on their ballots.

Looking back, perhaps I should have chosen an organization which would have been more willing to protect its trademark? How about the Prefers Starbucks Party? Maybe Microsoft? The best would be the Prefers Walt Disney Party-because claiming Disney would further demonstrate what a Mickey-Mouse system this is.

Partisan Primaries

Washington States has a nonpartisan blanket primary.  In this the candidates from every party are placed in one central primary and the top two move on.  Sounds fair, but every major political party (Republican, Democrat, Libertarian) opposes this. 

What Novoselic supports are firehouse primaries wherein the parties pay for their own nominating procedures.  Also sounds nice but doesn't address the real issue.

In the case of Novoselic he was running for Clerk .  Why should it matter what political party the County Clerk is form?  Unless the intent is for the office to be used to help ones party.  I have never heard a good argument for why any administrative position should be partisan.  In fact mast people when discussing this say they are against having administrative positions being partisan but no one pushes to have this changed.  

I would go a step further why are party affiliations listed on a ballot for legislative positions?  I'm not saying that political affiliations are not important.  What I am saying is that if we are electing an individual to represent the voters and not a party which chooses a person to represent them (at least in theory) why are political parties given such a place of prominence on the ballot?    

The only place party affiliation should be listed is for executive positions. 

This is because with executive positions (mayor, governor, president) you are voting not for one person, but an entire cabinet or administration.  To reach the pinnacle of political power one has to make numerous affiliations.  To get be granted endorsements for these affiliates politicians need to make many promises and grant countless favors.  This leaves them with little ability to operate as individuals and instead leaves them beholden to the special interests who helped them ascend.  This leaves the choice not Obama vs. McCain, or Doyle vs. Walker, but the Republican Party and their allies vs the Democrat Party and their allies.  This may sound cynical, but it is reality.

So in my view our executives should not be viewed as great powerfull individuals, but as the face for a conglomeration of special interests and legislatures should be veiwed as individuals with the power to vote their will rather than another number toward the majority for either the elephants or donkeys.

The first step to making this happen.  To making legislatures beholden to the people and not the party.  To ending the ability of the party in power to ram legislation through with no real debate or review is to remove the parties from the ballots.  To have truly nonpartisan primaries and elections.

Education: Just another brick in the wall? Posted by MarkStrand4Liberty

Posted 07/22/09 Last updated 07/19/09

I have read several articles pertaining to education in the past few months, and it makes me think, with all of the money being spent on education, is it just me or are kids getting dumber by the class? It isn't my intention to label people, but in my line of work, I deal with a lot of younger people. I'm not seeing a very bright future for a lot of them. I would like to make a few points about what the problem is, what's been done about the problem of public education, and what can be done better.

I honestly believe that each class of students has an equal amount of intellect and capacity. The potential is there for kids to learn. I think the problem with our current education system is that teachers are teaching to the lowest intellect, and dragging the rest of the students to that pace. It is my belief that laws like "no child" have prevented a lot of the potential growth in a lot of kids. I saw it happening when I was in school, teachers teaching the answers to standardized testing, and that's it. All the quizzes and tests were multiple guess or fill in the blank. Teachers unions, government mandates and the culture of everybody's a winner have taken away the opportunities of many kids, and I feel that environment has gone from kindergarden through Masters degrees. Teach to the test, no one fails if they show up. If you are a teacher, please, see the potential in each kid and help them help themselves.

Another problem that I see with the way we teach our kids is the lack of parent involvement. Until recently, you could say I was guilty of that as well. But without Moms AND Dads taking time each day just to listen to your kids read, or helping them with a math problem, you won't know what they are learning, or what they are missing. My oldest son is going into second grade next year. He reads at a fifth grade level, comprehends and has a very wide vocabulary. He also lacks good penmanship and fine motor skills. Had I not been involved, would I know these things?

Yet another problem exists, and that is guidance counselors pushing 4 year traditional college on EVERY high school student, or handing them the drop out papers. Yeah, I've known people from both sides of this one, and it makes me sick to think that an educated adult would ever give up on someone at the age of 15. I don't believe that we are all here to get a 4 year degree. In fact, 4 out of the top 5 jobs in need require an associates degree, not a bachelors, along with practical training, not theory. I believe that a lot of high school aged people are missing an opportunity by going to a traditional college when the jobs are coming from the technical side. Sorry, but not everyone can be a doctor, however we need nurses and specialists. We need engineers. We need truck drivers. We need skilled machinests. We need people with specialized skill sets, not just the basic broad spectrum, and the technical college system can meet those needs. Yet all we ever hear about is tuition going up and more money being subsidized to the 4 year schools.

The biggest positive change that I can see being made is taking the tax dollars away from Washington and away from Madison and keeping those dollars in the district. It is my belief that school tax dollars should be collected and distributed within the school district. This way, the dollars can't be misappropriated fo this initiative or that over run cost. Wisconsin, under Governor Doyle, has greatly increased public school spending, yet we have not seen better results. In conclusion, there is a lot more we could be doing in Wisconsin a lot better when it comes to educating our kids.

Health Care: Who should run what Posted by MarkStrand4Liberty

Posted 07/14/09

This is the first of many weblogs pertaining to issues that affect everyone, no matter where in the spectrum of politics you may be from. The issues and opinions are purely my own opinion and are not influenced by any particular side.

This is an issue that is in the national news, but also local to me. You see, my wife is in the medical field, studying to be a respiratory therapist and currently a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA). The way I see things, there are several components to health care. There are the patients, the drug companies, insurance companies, the people making health care equipment (like GE), unions, employers and health care workers. There are more, but I think we all can agree that these are all major areas.

The patients include everyone, here legally or illegally, insured or uninsured. In America, it is illegal to be denied health care. Re-read the last sentence very carefully, more than once. In America, it is illegal to be denied health care. Now that we have that covered, let's move on to who profits from what in health care.

Drug companies are hard at work, looking for the best possible way to cure diseases that are incurable. The drug companies are also working on cures to diseases that weren't diseases 20 years ago, like ADHD and ED. They are also working on cures for depression, which used to be cured with counseling sessions on a leather couch. There is literally a drug for everything, and if there isn't, be sure that the drug companies are working on it, 24/7.

The big issue of the day right now is universal health care. Well, we have universal health care already, since it is illegal to deny health care to anyone in the US. So, what is really being debated is universal health insurance, prescription drugs, and everything else that goes along with health care. The question I see and hear is which is better, employer health care or government health care, as if those were the only 2 options. I would like to broaden the horizons of those who think that those are the only choices.

First, why is health insurance tied to employment? That probably has a lot to do with the early 1900's and unions. I wasn't around then, but from the books I have read, work was difficult, wages weren't fair, there was no such thing as health insurance, no OSHA, and the majority of Americans worked in factories or farms. The workers began to rebel against their employers, and the government stepped in and began mandating things like Social Security and labor laws. Now, we have OSHA, a minimum wage, labor laws, unions and employer provided health care plans. Things are certainly different.

Things are certainly different now when it comes to technology and health care. Nearly every piece of equipment you can find in a hospital has been modernized since Prohibition. That modernization comes from ingenuity of companies like GE. We need GE to realize it is too important to the modernization of medicine to be taken over or partnered with the government. Jack Welch, the former CEO of GE, did not believe in the efficiency of bureaucracy. Neither do I.

What questions should we be asking ourselves when it comes to our health? Who should be in control? If you think that the government will provide you with health insurance and drugs, you can be assured that the cost will cripple every taxpayer. Doctors will overcharge for services, drug companies will have no reason to cure any diseases and also overcharge, hospitals will encourage every test they can, and in order to control costs the government will be forced to ration health care. You will have to wait until some official says yes, you are now sick enough to be cared for. You will have no choice in which doctor you can see, one will be appointed for you. You will have no recourse, there will be no second opinion. Your blood will be taken from you, DNA will be tested for genetic discrepancies. Oh, and when you need services the most, you'll more than likely be "obsolete" and if it costs too much, you will be "liquidated".

I cannot see how employers can continue to foot the bills of it's employees health care without in time regulating the things you do when you are off the clock. It is unreasonable to think that as we get older and become less productive that employers would pay for the higher cost of keeping someone who is unhealthy on payroll. With doctors gauging because of the people who do not pay their medical bills, the time will come when employers say enough is enough.

The best solution, the fairest solution, the market solution would be to do two fundamental things. First, we should be allowed to shop for our own health insurance. Well, in fact, we are allowed to shop for our own health insurance, but since we are not allowed to shop across state lines, insurance companies can charge similar prices based on the health of the state's citizens. The solution is to allow insurance companies to sell insurance in a similar fashion to car insurance, life insurance, or basically any other insurance.

One major difference between health insurance and car insurance is that with health insurance a claim is made for every visit, every prescription, every test. With car insurance, a claim is made when the driver is in an accident and damage is done, or when someone breaks in to your car. Do you make an insurance claim every time you take your car in for an oil change, or have a diagnostic test done to see why the check engine light is on? More than likely, you either pay for those things out of your own pocket or you have a warranty.

If we were to pay at the time of service for the non-emergency visits to the doctor, the preventative check-ups, and regular medications, the cost of health care would at worst level off. You pay to get your car fixed when the work is completed, why do we think that doctors want to wait and see if they get paid? That is why they charge so much for routine things, because they don't know if they will be compensated in our current system.

One last thing to think about. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Why we wait until we are sick to see the doctor instead of trying to not get sick is still a mystery to me. And why we don't plan for being sick is also a mystery. We plan for retirement, we plan for taxes, why not take advantage of Health Savings Accounts? Because at the end of the year, the money put in disappears into the unknown and doesn't roll over. WHY? It's your money, it should roll over like an IRA or 401k.

I hope we all think about the real way to solve the health care issue. All it would take is personal responsibility, allowing you to choose your level of care and planning.

Letter to my Congressman on the Unconstitutionality of S.1261 Posted by Ecnelis Doogod

Posted 07/14/09

S.1261 vs. 1st & 10th Amendment
Thomas G., Young Americans for Liberty Supporter

Representative Kind,

1st Amendment Violations

S.1261, the "PASS ID" act, violates the 1st Amendment rights of the citizens of the United States of America in; Sec. 3, Subtitle E, Sec. 241(4)(A) combined with Sec. 3, Subtitle E, Sec. 242(a)(1)(A), with "Official Purpose" being defined as:

"accessing Federal facilities that contain mission functions critical to homeland security, national security, or defense"

Using this wording leaves much open to interpretation, who is to say the Congress or Supreme Court, or even the entire City of Washington D.C. wouldn't fall under this category along with or our post offices, or local military bases. One wouldn't be able to go visit relatives on base without submitting their personal information to the government with this Identification Card. Ontop of this more importantly it would violate our 1st Amendment right by abridging our right to

"peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government"

due to being required to have received a Federal ID to be on grounds designated for "Official purposes." I hereby plead for this bill not to be allowed due to it leaving so much to open interpretation by the Federal Government.

10th Amendment Violations

S.1261, as a whole, blatantly violates the 10th amendment. Nowhere in the constitution was the Federal Government given authority over the establishment of Identification Cards. This being said the state acceptance of the out of control bill should be left to state referendums for the citizens of their respective states to vote on after being properly educated about the profoundly enormous effects this bill would have on their privacy and civil rights. Some of the more specific violations include S.1261 Sec. 3, Subtitle E, Sec. 242(d)(5) stating;

"the establishment of an effective procedure to confirm that a person submitting an application for a driver's license or identification card is terminating or has terminated any driver's license or identification card issued pursuant to this section to such person by a state"

Not to mention that that statement is quite close to treading on the toes of the 4th Amendment by allowing access to a citizen's information without due process of law before a court.

Final Notes
It appears that Section 3, Subtitle E, Sec 245(b) is a blatantly clear contradiction to Section 3, Subtitle E, Sec 245(d)(1) is the simple fact that, what else could it possibly be construed as besides a "database of driver's license information", alongside the question of, how would Sec. 3, Subtitle E, Sec. 242(d)(5) be completed with a database of such nature?

I, as a fellow citizen of The United States of America, to oppose this bill on the grounds of it's unconstitutional nature, not to mention the invasion of privacy, the further amount of power and information it would give to an already out of control Federal Government.

Sincerely,

_______________________________________________________________________

Please keep in mind im 15 and still relatively new to Constitutionalism, I used to be a hardcore Democrat until i started seeing the cracks in it, just how i was raised. So please feel free to point out any faults or anything I could have done better.

Restoring America Series: Money & Freedom Event a Success! (Videos) Posted by ToddWelch

Posted 07/08/09

We had a great time at the first of many Restoring America Series events, this educational event was about Money & Freedom - Unraveling the Mysteries of Banking. 

Host: Chippewa Valley Campaign for Liberty
Speaker: Ken Van Doren
Topic: Money and Freedom - Unraveling the Mystery of Banking.
Date: July 7th 2009 @ 6:30pm

Overview:
1. What is money?
2. Our REAL financial situation.
3. Fractional Reserve Banking explained.
4. What caused the economic meltdown? Booms and busts explained.
5. Common sense financial regulation.
6. The importance of HR1207, Audit the FED bill.
7. Is Financial life possible without the Federal REserve?.
8. HOPE for our future....

Planned Economy or Planned Destruction? Posted by mjkrajnik

Posted 07/01/09

Subject: Re: Strike the Root

David,

Not all politicians are Marxists, but most neo-cons and modern day democrats are to some degree.  Since around 1913, Karl Marx Communist Manifesto has been the road map for our nation and we are now seeing the disastrous effects of this ruinous road we have been on for the last Century.

I suggest reading some Ayn Rand - Such as Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal or Atlas Shrugged for a better explanation of Capitalism.  Capitalism is the only economic modern that comports with freedom and liberty.  Don't buy the argument that Capitalism is evil because someone "capitalized" on something and harmed them.  In most of these cases, the proper role of government should come into play, which is to protect against fraud and protect the sanctity of contracts.

How anyone could believe all the lies about capitalism and business and then believe that an omnipotent government knows all the answers, has no corruption, and will "protect" us is beyond me.  I am much more afraid of a tyrannical  government than any private business.  Virtually ALL evil throughout the history of the world was purported by governments, not the free market.  Nazi Germany, Stalin, Mao, Castro et cetera were all oligarchies - not bastions of laissez-faire capitalism.

The ONLY way a business can harm the people is with government privilege that FORCES the people to use their product or service through some government act, legislation, or coercion.  Otherwise, market forces come into effect and bad, evil, inefficient business would go away because people, voting with THEIR money, will in effect vote them out of existence by not patronizing that particular business.

The cartoon is spot on.  Politicians get drunk on power and spending other peoples money.  Then they get dissatisfied with the Constitutional constraints placed on them by The Constitution and a Gold Standard and they start an evil central bank such as the federal reserve to secretly tax the people and to usurp liberty and freedom from them.  History has shown us, however, that central economic planning has not, does not, and will never work.  Ultimately all such systems will crumble under their own immense bureaucratic weight as did the Soviet Union.

Unfortunately, The United States is on that same road accelerating toward the same proverbial cliff.

For Liberty,

Michael Krajnik






Sent: Sun, Jun 28, 2009 10:58 pm
Subject: RE: Strike the Root - In 1934 at least the press could and would criticize the marxists...

Mike,

All politicians are Marxist.  It does not matter if they are Democratic or Republican.  They are all trying to collect more power and wealth through special interest groups.  Although I do agree that the Democrats are trying to put an end to Capitalism.  The Capitalist are the ones that Marx was referring too.  The small majority of people that capitalize and take advantage of the working class.  In theory this posting really does not make much scents.
Dave 


In 1934 at least the press could and would criticize the marxists...today, they're the mouthpiece of rancid socialist propaganda brainwashing the masses into handing over their God-given freedom.

Call it...Conspiracy.  Obama is on the front horse now...but he is just a stooge screaming out perverse commands to the horses (that'd be us).  The real "intelligentsia" is represented by the diabolical banksters and US Treasonry co-criminals riding in back.  Damn these spawn of Satan!  They seem to have the upper hand.  God save us!     Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed...     Holy Crap - from the Chicago Trib yet.  I love the Stalin part.  It just goes to show that this Progressive conspiracy has been around for a long time.  They didn't win then and hopefully won't now, but it is Fabian.  Each generation, the damage is less reversible.

Would you believe it's from 1934...                 

Independence Day not July 4th Posted by ToddWelch

Posted 07/01/09

I would like to remind fellow patriots to not let the statists get away with marginalizing the most important holiday of the year by renaming it the "4th of July." This is making our awesome "Independence Day" less worthy of the fantastic celebration and reflection it deserves.

Please remind everyone you come across that uses the lesser name the value in our nation's independence and winning the fight for the truths we hold so dear.

Happy Independence Day!

Independence Day Posted by tnerenz

Posted 06/28/09

http://timnerenz.com/content/independence-day

false false

The important divide in American civic life is not between Right and Left on the horizontal axis; it is between Up and Down on the vertical - do we want more or less government?

Where we each place ourselves on this vertical scale depends largely upon our understanding of the relationship between the individual and society. Does society exist for the benefit of its individual members (the individualist's orientation)? Or do individuals exist for the benefit of their society (the socialist's)? It is not an irrelevant abstraction; the answer shapes our view of the world and the role of government in our lives.

Government is the organized use of force to constrain action. To the individualist, it is the state itself which needs to be constrained. To the socialist, it is the individual. These are incompatible philosophies. One can only be advanced if the other retreats. This is the dimension of civic life measured on the vertical axis.

Today's Republicans and Democrats are both socialists, in that they seek to restrain the individual to benefit of society. They differ only on the purposes to which they would turn the power of the state against its citizens. They push and pull to the right and left against each other along the horizontal axis, but when given control of the levers of government, they have both pushed the vertical up with equal gusto.

In broad terms, Democrats constrain economic liberty to achieve their notion of social justice, while Republicans constrain personal liberty to achieve their notion of moral order. Whenever state power constrains its individual citizens, Liberty is lost; whether it is the Left or Right hand doing the taking is of secondary concern.

Libertarians do not seek to restrain individuals; we seek to restrain the state from taking our liberties. Economic liberty and personal liberty are two sides of the same coin; it is foolish to think we could give up heads and somehow retain tails.

It is the relentless assault on our liberties - from both the Right and the Left - that explains the increasing disaffection of the public for its government, regardless of which of the two major parties claims temporary custody of it. Most Americans don't want either the Right or the Left to lord over us. We see plainly that it is the unchecked power of the state that produces abject failures on both the Right (Iraq) and the Left (California).

There is an alternative to Right/Left; it is Down - a smaller, less powerful, and less intrusive government whose aim is neutrality, not ideology.

If one believes - as Libertarians do - that society exists to benefit its individual members, then it follows that the power of the state must be constrained to preserve individual sovereignty. The idea of individual sovereignty and limited government is not new, although it is once again considered radical. It is the noble ideal upon which our nation was founded. The holiday we are about to celebrate on July 4th is Independence Day; it is not Entitlements Day.

This nation did not just magically appear one day in 1776. There were over two centuries of American history before the Declaration of Independence; before the Revolution, our Government was organized on the premise that individuals exist to benefit the society to which they are assigned at birth. Government constrained its individual citizens and sought to impose its own notion of social justice and moral order upon them.

The state and its ruling elite claimed dominion over the natural rights of its citizens. The government claimed jurisdiction over private property. The state intervened in commerce to reward allies and punish opponents. A distant central government imposed mandates upon local governments and individuals, extracted exorbitant taxes and fees, and burdened citizens with public debts. Prosperity was not earned through merit; it was allocated by the state to those best able to petition for favors and pay for advantage. Sound familiar?

Human nature did not change on July 4, 1776. What was changed was the nature, size, scope, and purpose of our government. Two centuries of collectivism was rejected, and individualism was embraced. While the same diversity of views on social justice and moral order existed in their time as ours, our founding fathers had the wisdom to constrain the government to neutrality on these matters. They considered all possible directions for the new government; they rejected left and right and wisely chose "Down".

What followed was a century unlike any that had been brought forth before or since. These United States rose from a backwater colony to become the most powerful and most prosperous nation on earth. By 1900 - in just 10 short decades - Americans made up 3% of the world's population, yet produced 50% of its products. We abolished slavery, we rapidly increased life expectancy, we institutionalized private charity, and we led an industrial revolution that created the world's first middle class - a majority of citizens living in prosperity that had never been achieved before in all the great civilizations of history. Not the Byzantines, Persians, Romans, Egyptians, Greeks, Mayans, Ottomans, or any of the great dynasties in China.

It was not by accident that we became the most prosperous, the freest, and the most virtuous people on earth; our commitment to Liberty guaranteed it would happen. Neither is it by accident that in our recent decades we have become less prosperous, less free, and less virtuous. We have rejected the ideal of individualism, and our failure to constrain our government has enabled it to constrain us. We have exchanged Liberty for Government; we have traded Independence for Entitlement; we have surrendered Sovereignty for Subsidy. As a result, we are a nation in decline, and we have chosen our ruinous path ourselves.

It need not be. Americans changed our government once to install Liberty as its First Principle - this is the first Revolution that we remember each July 4th. We can do it again; and we must. We cannot allow future generations of Americans to be born into slavery - and make no mistake that we are becoming slaves to the State.

This time, our revolution will not be fought with bullets and blood; it will be fought with ballots and blogs. The weapons will be different, but the mission is not; restoring our individual sovereignty from a government who has denied it to us.

What is the purpose of winning independence from one government, only to become dependent on another? How do we honor the millions who fought and died to secure our Liberty by trading it away? What good is emancipation from one master if it is simply traded for enslavement to another?

This Independence Day, let us not forget what it is that we are celebrating - it is our independence from government. Happy Independence Day.

Tim Nerenz is the Libertarian Party Candidate for U.S. House of Representatives from Wisconsin's 2nd District. To support Dr. Tim's campaign, please visit the campaign website at www.timnerenz.com.

Politically Homeless Posted by Greg L

Posted 06/28/09

I am not a member of the Right.  I am not a war hawk.  I do not believe that morality can be forced on people.  I do not think that it is governments job to promote business.

I am definately not a member of the Left.  I believe that government bureaucracys are highly inefficient.  I advocate a laze fare approach to enterprise.  I believe in borders and defending them. 

I do not think that I can be defined as a moderate.  I reject the bipartisan support of outrageous pork projects, huge budgets, a debt they have no intention of paying off, a willingness to ignore our nations supreme law (The Constitution for those who have forgotten), and a general disregard of the public in favor of special interest.  All moderate means to me is a politician who is willing to sell their soul to lobbyists from either side of the aisle.

I am not apathetic or ambivalent.  I have strong convictions and am willing to fight for them.

How can I allow myself to lie outside the bounds of mainstream conventional wisdom and enter an area reserved exclusively for "kooks", "weirdos" and "extremest"?  What can give my outlook something other than that of the left or right?  What are my convictions?  What is the philosophy that defines my political ideology?

I have a foundation built of three key principles: austrian economics, personal responsibility, and self reliance.

Austrian Economics

I do think the Austrian of neoclassical school of economics is the most accurate.  I so not subscribe to the Keynesian school; and think the idea that government spending can produce economic growth is laughable. 

I want sound money instead of fiat money.  I am against corporate welfare instead advocating that government to take a hand off - laze fare approach to business.  I am against a tax code which is used as a back-door approach to regulating and rewarding behavior.  I disagree with the notion that government can create wealth, jobs, or economic prosperity.

Personal Responsibility

I remember when comedians were the only ones bringing up the idea that government regulate fatty foods. Now New York has already started regulating what restraints can serve. 
Often when the debate over the regulation smoking, fast food, and other health choices is brought up someone will eventually slip up and mention the cost to taxpayers - after all we cover there expenses through medicare, medicaid or some other form of socialized medicine.  Taking over health care entirely gives that much more room to take away our ability to choose for ourselves. 

I believe that there are consequences for ones actions.  That if I overeat and don't exercise that I will become fat, that if I don't brush my teeth I will get cavities, that if stay out in the sun too long that I will get a sunburn, that if I don't pay my insurance they won't pay me when an accident occurs. 

I don't think that you can outlaw stupidity - and why would politicians put themselves out of business.  I accept that because I didn't become a doctor, lawyer, or banker I do not make the same pay as a banker, lawyer or doctor.  I accept that because I choose to live in Wisconsin that I have to freeze through Wisconsin winters; and - although begrudgingly -I have to pay Wisconsin taxes. 

I disapprove of a government which tries to give the perception that they can remove risk from our lives.  But they give the false hope one can overextend on a mortgage, go bankrupt and get baled out; that you can not put away any of your take home pay but still have retirement income; that nanny government will protect you from tobacco, alcohol, cancer, AIDS, the devil, and ourselves.

Self Reliance

One can not the joys of liberty if they seek to taken care of.  We live in a society where it is almost revered to be a grown child.  The notion of leaving home to seek your own path is longer admired.  Gone are the days when even the pampered rich like Teddy Roosevelt and Kit Carson would go west in pursuit of the zen that comes from a life or rugged individualism. 

It's not just that as individuals we do not grow, hunt or catch their own food.  It's not that we don't shingle our own roofs, plunge our backed up toilets, or change our own oil.  It's what it represents.  An attitude of having someone else take care of our selves.
Would Washington, Adams, Franklin, and the rest of our founders have fought the revolution if they lacked confidence in their ability to be self reliant - to govern their own nation with a king?  

So is it any wonder that the current government takes steps to limit our ability to be self reliant?  That it seeks to tax us off our land if we choose to try and just live off it rather than joining the rat race so government can take it our earnings.  That they put undue regulations making it so one can not just hang a shingle and perform a service where they can earn an honest living?  That they discourage bartering?  That they discourage and punish saving and investing?  That they encourage a throw away materialistic society?  That they encourage us to become slaves to easy credit?     

We have a government that wants to promote alternative energy, energy conservation, green lifestyles.  But those who actually lead the way are those who want escape government, those who want to live off the grid, those who possess the rugged individualism and self reliance.  The very attributes they seek to destroy.

Physicians respond to Obama at Virtual Town Meeting Posted by Matt Hawes

Posted 06/26/09 Last updated 06/25/09

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) has started TakeBackMedicine.com to spread the word about the dangers of the administration's healthcare proposals.

Tonight, they will host a National Physician Summit - a virtual town meeting where doctors across the country will explain why they oppose government medicine and discuss what they think can be done to reclaim healthcare for the patients.

Further details:

JUNE 25, 2009
LIVE WEBCAST & TELECONFERENCE

7:30 - 9:00 pm EDT
AND
7:00 - 8:30 PDT

Dial-instructions & web access at
www.TakeBackMedicine.com

Confirmed speakers include:
Rep. Tom Price, MD. (R-GA)
Mark Kellen, MD, President, AAPS
Jane Orient, MD, Doctors for Disaster Preparedness
Deborah Peel, MD, Patient Privacy Coalition
David McKalip, MD, President, FL Medical Assoc.
Eric Novack, MD,author, AZ Health Freedom Act
Marcy Zwelling-Aamot, MD, Board Member, CA Medical Society
Moderated by: Kathryn Serkes

& more than 20 other practicing physicians


WHAT DO REAL DOCTORS THINK ABOUT HEALTH CARE REFORM?

A panel of more than 20 distinguished physicians will lead a discussion of doctors logging on from across the country for an unprecedented live National Physician Town Meeting. They will tell specific stories of the negative impact on their practices & patients.

Questions to be discussed:

Further details:

* Why the government plan is bad for patients and doctors
* The horrendous impact a National Health Board would have on access to care
* Why doctors will quit in droves if current plans pass
* Why big medicine doesn't reflect practicing doctors

ACTION STEPS
1. Call in with your questions (info on web site)
2. Forward to friends
3. Invite your doctor to listen or call in

www.TakeBackMedicine.com

 

Another Midnight Special Posted by rickrich

Posted 06/20/09

Another Midnight Special

Years ago, before she went over to the dark side, Judy Robson was a nice lady who helped people. Judy was a nurse. A high calling, to be sure; giver of care and solace, angel of mercy, and so on.

Now, she's a politician. A state senator from Beloit.

Several days ago, under cover of darkness deep in the Madison night, she put a 47-million-dollar UW Nursing School building into the budget. To do it, the state would have to borrow 28 million bucks.

Slight problem: she didn't really talk with anybody over at the big college about it; I guess she just kinda knew the dean of nursing would love to have a new building; there'd been some buzz about it; so Judy stuck it into the budget.

Now, a few days later, it's out of the budget. Out, because Spencer Black, one of our local Madison assemblymen, got a call from a constituent...namely, Julie Underwood, who was at the time the interim provost at the UW...saying "ah, Spencer, do me a favor and pull Robson's nursing building out of the budget"...or, words to that effect.

The 47-million-dollar building, you see, was NOT part of the UW's capital budget request to Joint Finance, nor was it included in the budget Baldy sent to the legislature.

Apparently Judy just thought it would be a nice idea to stick it into the budget. After all, we're flush with money and rollin' in dough here in Badgerland, aren't we?
You'd think after an embarrassment like that, Robson would quietly go away and hope the newsies found something else to harp about in the budget.

Not Judy.

She says she'll try again to get it into the budget. Obviously, she knows better than the UW, which says a good time to build the new nursing school building would be about two years from now.
Perhaps Ms. Robson should return to her first profession, where she could once again do some good for people.

Just a thought

Response from Ron Kind on HR 1207 Posted by Scott Carter

Posted 06/20/09

This is the response I received from Ron Kind after urging him to support HR 1207. Needless to say, I am disappointed.

Dear Scott:

Thank you for contacting me about the Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009, H.R. 1207.  I appreciate hearing from you on this issue.

The Federal Reserve System serves as the central bank of the United States.  The Federal Reserve itself is an independent agency that formulates the nation's monetary policy, supervises and regulates banks, and provides financial services to depository instituations and the federal government.  The entity is comprised of the presidentially appointed Board of Governors, the Federal Open Market Committee, and twelve regional privately-owned Federal Reserve banks located in major cities throughout the nation. 

The Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009, H.R. 1207, would audit the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Reserve banks.  Although I have consistently supported greater transparency in government, I also believe that the Federal Reserve plays a key role as a non-partisan agency, and it should be protected from excessive political and industry pressures.  Now more than ever, we must support the Federal Reserve's mission and the current measures being taken to help our ailing economy.  H.R. 1207 has been sent to the House Financial Services Committee for review.  If it comes before the full House for a vote, I will be sure to keep your thoughts in mind. 

Again, thank you for contacting me.  Please do not hesitate to be in touch with additional comments or concerns.  I also encourage you to visit my website, www.kind.house.gov, where you can find updated information, sign up to receive my electronic newsletter, and send me e-mail.

Sincerely,

Ron Kind
Member of Congress  

Libertarian Health-Care Alternative: Medical Choice - Part II Posted by tnerenz

Posted 06/06/09 Last updated 06/06/09

http://timnerenz.com/content/libertarian-health-care-alternative-medical-choice-part-
ii

Socialists argue for government health care on the basis that Europeans pay less for health care and live longer. Yes, but they have to live those years in Europe, so that's a wash.

Europhiles and statists may be disappointed to learn that unhealthy people spend more on health care and live shorter lives; it has very little to do with who pays their doctors. Unless you propose that we kill them - which would provide the additional benefit of reducing CO2 emissions, so maybe I shouldn't have suggested it - nationalizing health care will not make us healthy.

Americans are not particularly healthy people; and this is a choice we have made fully informed. In case you are an orphan who just awoke from a coma, here is what you missed: don't smoke, eat less, exercise, manage stress, floss, stretch, get your teeth cleaned, have your eyes checked, drink in moderation, don't shoot yourself or others, wear a helmet, wear a seatbelt, don't do drugs, practice safe sex, stay out of the sun. If you need more tips, ask your mom, spouse, or that skinny overbearing neighbor who makes that face if you light up within 100 yards of her.

In last week's post, entitled Medical Choice, I described a market-based proposal to reduce the cost of health care by up to 30% by increasing choice and competition and having consumers directly pay for health care services using an expanded Health Savings Account (HSA). In Part II, we will now shift to health insurance reform.

The solution for health insurance is hiding in plain sight. Let's think about driving. There are good drivers and bad drivers, and all points in between. For the most part, your driving costs are the consequences of your choices and behaviors. Your choices decide direct costs of driving, and you also choose from a wide array of insurance products, based upon your own needs, preferences, behaviors, and economic circumstances.

A family with two vehicles might spend $1,500 a month on driving with car payments, insurance, gas, maintenance, etc. $1,500 would not be untypical for that same family to spend on health care insurance, co-pays, and misc. out of pocket expenses. We have a need for both driving and healthcare; neither one is a right (apologies to socialists and teenagers). There are many parallels between driving and health care that are instructive.

Some driving/health care tasks we do ourselves - check the air in our tires and take blood sugar readings if we are diabetic. The amounts we pay out of pocket each month for gas and generic prescriptions is probably not so different. Every three months, we change oil and we get our teeth cleaned. Every so often we need a brake job or break a wrist - both will set us back several hundred dollars. Every few years, we buy a new car or have a major hospitalization - $30-60,000 let's say. And once or twice in a lifetime, we get sued for half a million, or have a catastrophic injury or medical condition that runs up into six figures.

Although driving costs and risks are similar to health care costs and risks, we approach auto insurance and health insurance completely different. One approach works, the other clearly does not.

The best template for health insurance reform is driving insurance. You choose to buy liability, comprehensive, collision, and theft insurance independently. Each represents different types of risk of unpredictable costs. In each category, you choose deductible amounts, coverage amounts, caps, and exclusions. You choose how much you are willing to pay, and you choose which company you will buy from - your choices run into the several thousands. The key phrase is "you choose" - not your employer, or the government. Insurers must earn your business, not lobby some board of bureaucrats.

Driving insurance crosses state lines; health insurance can't (regulation). Driving insurance offers plans tailored to individual circumstances; health insurance can't (regulation). Driving insurance varies with the number of drivers in a family; health insurance doesn't (regulation). All other insurances are regulated to insure solvency; health insurance is over-regulated to restrict benefits. It needs to be de-regulated to the same general level as other insurances are.

The driving insurance template can be easily applied to health care. There might be separate insurance for injuries (collision), catastrophic care (liability), and occasional illness (comprehensive). Your rate would depend on your own risk rating - just like your driving insurance does. Live safe, pay less; live large, pay large. A single person should pay less than Octo-mom. Just as most states have an uninsured motorists fund, provisions for a safety net must be incorporated.

There is another insurance model that can be applied to health care - life insurance. You can choose term life, whole life, or universal life policies. The premium cost is different for each type, and they pay out differently - lump sum, fixed annuity, and variable annuity. Let's apply this same principle to health care.

For a low premium, you can by "term" illness insurance; if you are diagnosed with disease x, you immediately receive a lump sum payment of y. You are free to seek any treatment and spend it (or not) as you deem best. Or "whole illness" illness insurance that pays a fixed amount per month for life upon diagnosis. Or "universal illness" that reimburses you for the variable costs of your treatments for life.

The novel idea of "term" illness insurance (credit to another Dr. Nerenz, brother David, a recognized expert in the health care field) is transformative. It shifts every economic incentive in the whole health care system to outcomes, as every one of us will seek the most effective treatments at the best price. Innovation and quality would be rewarded; ineffective and inefficient practices would be punished and purged from the system through predictable market forces.

Like so many other things, improving our health care financing system is not as difficult as we were led to believe. In the last post, we introduced the concept of Medical Choice - taking control for medical spending away from corporations and governments and giving it to consumers through the use of expanded Health Savings Accounts. In this post, we have added a conceptual framework for insurance reform.

In both, we have used existing vehicles - the HSA and the network of private insurance companies and local agencies - to fix what is broken in our health care system without sacrificing quality or availability. Tammy Baldwin has made government-run health care her #1 legislative priority; she thinks the government should make your health care choices for you. I think you should.

And now it will be for you to decide. Vote Libertarian. Vote for Tim, Not Tammy.

Libertarian Health-Care Alternative: Medical Choice - Part I Posted by tnerenz

Posted 06/06/09

http://timnerenz.com/content/libertarian-health-care-medical-choice...

There are many reasons to oppose government-run health care, but we only really need the first one; the government will run it.

What is the problem with our health care system? It’s not quality – we have the best people, equipment, and facilities in the world. It’s not capacity – we have enough providers, equipment, laboratories, and treatment facilities to care for everyone. It’s not distribution – there are clinics and physicians spread across every nook and cranny of the country.

The problem with our health care system is economic inefficiency – cost escalation in health care has outpaced other sectors of the economy. Health care and health insurance are two of the most regulated economic sectors; if government interference was the answer, we would not have the problem. Economic inefficiency in health care starts with the disempowerment of the consumer in medical choice. We consumers (patients) have very little effective say over what care we receive and what we will pay.

Effectively, a person only decides when to consume – i.e. when to seek medical attention for an illness or injury. From then on, we are pretty much at the mercy of what the providers prescribe, and what 3rd parties - insurers and the government – have decided we can receive and at what cost. Most of us do not even know what our treatments cost, only the amount of our insurance co-pays. We can not make rational economic decisions when we are separated from transactions.

The way to fix an economic efficiency problem is to increase choice and competition; add in the component of direct payment for services, and you have a Libertarian alternative to government health care – Medical Choice.

We already pay for many types of healthcare services directly – optometry, dentistry, chiropractic, many pharmacy products and services, routine office visits, for example. The simple act of paying the entire amount of a service, rather than a tiny co-pay portion, make consumers and providers focus on benefits and costs of healthcare services, just as they do any other purchase decision.

Where choice and competition exits and consumers pay directly for the health care services they receive, costs do not escalate; in many cases, they have gone down. Who could have imagined $4 prescription drugs five years ago? Or $29 eyeglasses? Who could have predicted how inexpensive laser eye surgery has become? Free market capitalists, that’s who. These examples do not come from the world of over-regulated, third-party-pay medicine; they were produced by consumer choice, provider competition, and direct payment. Medical Choice works.

The enabling mechanism for Medical Choice is already in place – untaxed personal Health Savings Account, or HSA. HSA’s have been around for a couple of years now, but less than 3% of us can utilize them due to government restrictions and regulations. Uncapped personal HSA makes Medical Choice a practical market alternative to government health care.

Instead of others choosing and purchasing your health care plan for you, your employer or government plan would fund your personal HSA with untaxed dollars. You would then purchase your own private insurance and pay directly for health care expenses. You would also make personal contributions to your HSA, and your HSA could receive gifts from any legitimate source – family members, charities, estates, etc.

Insurance claims would not be paid to providers, but would deposited into your HSA, and you would then pay your provider directly. There would be no cap on the size of your HSA, only a requirement that it be used to pay legitimate medical expenses for you or someone you designate – including charities that provide needed care for those unable to afford it on their own.

What does this accomplish? It eliminates 3rd party payments to providers. Studies show that up to 30% of health care costs are administrative costs, most of which are associated with billing 3rd parties for services, whether the government (Medicare, Medicaid) or private insurers. Many providers currently give deep discounts for patients who pay cash; under Medical Choice everyone would pay cash, and the overhead cost of dealing with 3rd party payment is eliminated.

In a service industry, the only ways to eliminate cost are to pay people less, or pay less people. Single-payer proposals target skilled physicians and nurses; Medical Choice targets billing clerks.

And as health care providers compete for your business, we could reasonably expect them to reduce their prices and fees and to increase the quality of service and care. When economic efficiency is the problem, free markets are the answer. There is no evidence to suggest that government-run plans reduce real costs in the system. Medicare pays only 80% of the cost of care; the balance is shifted to private payers. That does not reduce cost, it merely drives up the price of private insurance.

Medical Choice also decouples insurance from employment. If you are dissatisfied with the insurance your company provides for you today, what are your options? Quit your job or decline coverage. If you are on Medicare or Medicaid, you have even less recourse. With Medical Choice, you can change insurance companies. This completely chances their incentives – insurers must please consumers, not their employers or a government agency.

Your personal HSA would be an asset you own; it would be eligible to be passed to heirs of your estate, would be portable, and would not have time limits like Flexible Spending Accounts (FSA) do. You would decide what mix of insurance, savings, and direct expense works best for you and your family, just as you do with your automobile expenses. As you age and your circumstances change, you would adjust your HSA to serve your needs. You decide, not someone else.

While Medical Choice alone is an improvement over our current system, it would be even more effective if coupled with medical insurance reform. Government regulation of insurance inhibits innovation and flexibility and drives up the cost of medical insurance. De-regulating insurers - allowing insurers to respond to market demands for a wider array of products - is what will make insurance affordable and accessible.

That will be the subject of next week’s post.

My youtube video Posted by norfair18

Posted 05/29/09

Spread the video!  Educate people!

'For Liberty' Trailer: "Let in not be said that we did nothing!" Posted by tshoes4liberty

Posted 03/31/09

"For Liberty" just released their more professional movie trailer!  Looks amazing, can't wait till it comes out!  Let's make this video go viral!