Congressman Dennis Moore

Democratic Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur of Toledo, Ohio may have been “bought off” for her “yes” vote for the recent Cap and Trade bill in the U.S. House.  A “Kaptur project”  was part of the 310-page amendment to the legislation released at 3 AM on the day of the vote.

According to the Washington Times, the 310-page “amendment was packed with other vote-getting provisions, both large and small, that had been sought by dozens of wavering Democrats.”

Frustrated by the vote of her Congresswoman, Toledo blogger Maggie Thurber filed a federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to Congresswoman’s Marcy Kaptur’s office.  Thurber wants to find out whether Kaptur voted for the Cap and Trade Bill because that was the will of her constituents — or whether the $3.5 billion in pork swayed her to vote “yes”.

While I am not aware of “pork” in this bill that may have swayed Kansas Congressman Dennis Moore the way Marcy Kaptur may have been “persuaded,” I wondered why fiscally-conservative “Blue Dog” Democrat Dennis Moore voted for Cap and Trade.  The higher tax consequences of the bill and the heavy governmental regulatory burden on businesses may stifle economic growth, at a time when our economy is already depressed. 

Like Thurber in Ohio, I wondered how many in Kansas asked Congressman Moore to vote “yes” and how many asked him to vote “no” for Cap and trade.

I heard from a number of people attending the protest at the Johnson County Courthouse a week ago that they called Dennis Moore for the first time asking him to vote “no” on Cap and Trade.

At least one Kansas Democratic activist on Twitter on the day of the vote requested those on the left to call Moore to vote “yes” since calls were apparently running heavily for him to vote “no”:

6/26/2009 3:14 PM cacardinal: Action! Rep Moore is getting calls to vote NO on climate bill - we need more YES contacts from the 3rd NOW - DC # is 202.225.2865 #fb

How did Democratic strategist Chis Cardinal know the count on the calls Rep Moore was receiving?

I followed Thurber’s example and filed a FOIA request today with Congressman Moore’s office via his online E-mail. In my FOIA request to Congressman Moore, I asked:

Pursuant to the federal Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, I request access to and copies of records showing statistical counts of phone calls and letters for or against the “Cap and Trade” bill voted on in Congress on June 26,2009. Specifically, how many phone calls or letters asked you to vote “Yes” and how many asked you to vote “No” before you voted on the “Cap and Trade” bill? If you did not count the “Yes” and “No” requests, how did you summarize that information before you voted?

Let’s see how serious Congresswoman Kaptur and Congressman Dennis Moore are about FOIA and open records, and transparency.  The people deserve to know why they voted they way they did on Cap and Trade, and whether they ignored the input from their constituents.

How will Kaptur and Moore respond to these FOIA requests?

• Rep. Kaptur gets $3.5 billion sweetener in climate bill, Washington Times, July 1, 2009.
• Modern Day Patriots protest “Cap and Trade” at Johnson County Courthouse, Kansas Meadowlark, June 28, 2009.

Energy Secretary Steven Chu and President Barack Obama

At a White House press conference today President Obama and Energy Secretary Chu revealed several actions they claimed would promote energy efficiency while saving Americans billions of dollars annually.

Some of the mandates include forced changes on energy conservation standards for household and commercial lighting and forced changes on incandescent and fluorescent lamps.

My wife has already made me replace some of the compact fluorescent lights (CFL) in some parts of our house, so I’m not sure she’ll be happy with these lighting changes mandated for 2012.

Do common citizens understand today’s light bulb mandates?  Will common citizens only find out when some light bulbs may no longer be available for purchase in 2012, or only at a much higher price then?

President Obama’s statement about the California economy to justify the energy changes seems incredible:

We know the benefits. In the late 1970s, the state of California enacted tougher energy-efficiency policies. Over the next three decades, those policies helped create almost 1.5 million jobs. And today, Californians consume 40 percent less energy per person than the national average — which, over time, has prevented the need to build at least 24 new power plants. Think about that. California — producing jobs, their economy keeping pace with the rest of the country, and yet they have been able to maintain their energy usage at a much lower level than the rest of the country.

Why is President Obama trying to say the California economy is “keeping pace” when California is having a far deeper economic crisis than most of the country?  Is it possible that 40% less enegy per person in California is an enegy stranglehold and a limit on business opportunities there?

About the same time President Obama made his statement above, the Associated Press released a story, “Ailing California economy could prolong recession.”

California faces a $24 billion budget shortfall, an eye-popping amount that dwarfs many states’ entire annual spending plans.

Is it possible that over the last three decades of imposed energy regulations in California, the net effect on California businesses has contributed to their economic crises now?  With new national energy mandates, will three decades of California-like energy policies help U.S. business competitiveness in the World when  California’s example now is far from a thriving economy?

The American people deserve a better explanation from President Obama about economic successes of the energy mandates than citing a failed California economy, and saying California is “keeping pace” when they are a drag on the rest of the country.

Many were wearing a variety of stickers at the Olathe Republican Party Picnic and Straw Poll on Saturday.  Some stickers said “Draft Darla for U.S. Congress” — but she’s not really running.

From Darla’s Facebook page on Sunday:

I asked if there was a candidate named Darla running for office, and they said Yeah…YOU!! LOL.

The stickers were a joke on Darla, but Darla’s message to the audience was no joke. As the invited keynote speaker she blasted elected officials:

I want to speak to those of you that are in office, and those of you that want to represent us.  …  I’m speaking for my listeners who feel they don’t have a voice, who feel they’re not being listened to, or represented.

“We are sick and tired of what we’re seeing from those who supposedly work for us.  We’re as mad as hell and we’re not going to take it anymore.”

Watch and listen to Darla in this video:

A separate straw poll was taken as part of the event to find the crowd’s favorites.  Not everyone voted since there was a $2 fee to cast a ballot.

Here are the straw poll results:

U.S. Senate:

• Todd Tiahrt 165
• Jerry Moran 46
• Others 8

U.S. Congress, Kansas 3rd District:

• Patricia Lightner 74
  (the announcement of her candidacy at the picnic was a surprise)
• Macie Houston 33
• Daniel Gilyeat 30
• Darla Jaye (write-in) 24
• Other Write-Ins  21

Kansas Governor

• Sam Brownback 197
• Write-Ins 12

Kansas Secretary of State

• Kris Kobach 192
• J.R. Claeys 22

U.S. President in 2012

• Sarah Palin 76
• Mike Huckabee 54
• Mitt Romney 52
• Bobby Jindal  19
• Ron Paul  9

Note:  The Tiahrt margin of victory over Jerry Moran for U.S. Senate was helped a bit by the bus load of Tiahrt supporters from Wichita attending the event.

Why would concerned citizens spend their weekend in hot weather to protest this action by the U.S. House on Friday?

One reason was Congressman Dennis Moore.

Congressman Dennis Moore (D-Kansas) ignored many requests to vote against higher taxes and more mandated regulations in the Cap and Trade bill.  Somehow Congressman Moore thinks higher taxes in slow economic times will be welcome, as well as additional burdensome regulations, like paying for an energy rating assessment for your house before you can sell it.

The debate in the U.S. House on Friday, which could be viewed on C-SPAN, was very revealing.  Congressman Moore appeared on C-SPAN for his rallying speech for the Cap and Trade bill about 3:30 PM.

Moore showed no concern about the 300 pages of amendments added to the Bill in the middle of the night.  Several speakers before Moore made parliamentary inquires about how legitimate the vote on the bill was when there was no copy of the bill that anyone in Congress could read.  There was no copy of the bill with the 300 pages of amendments included for anyone to read.  One Democrat suggested that Republicans could read the 300 pages of amendments from the House cloakroom, where there was Internet access.  Republicans had complained that was not possible to view the changes from the House floor.  How much of the bill did Congressman Moore read?  Did he read the 300 pages of changes integrated into the original 1100 page bill before he voted?

Apparently Congressman Moore supports increased taxes, the loss of jobs, and the loss of individual freedom that will be caused by the bill.  Congressman Moore is telling citizens that he and members of Congress know better how to run everyone’s life.  Moore’s response to phone calls and E-mails form many concerned citizens in recent months is simply to ignore them.

What else happened in the U.S. House on Friday?

“We know Madam Speaker that this National Energy tax will cost the American people $2 trillion. We know that. We know this will result in a loss of 2.5 million jobs every year for the American people. We know that. We know this will result in a reduced standard of living for Americans. We know that. What is the point and what is the benefit?”

“What is worse than this is the fact that now, because of this underlying bill, the federal government will virtually have control over every aspect of lives of the American people. It is time to stand up and say ‘we get to choose.’ We choose liberty or we choose tyranny. It’s one or the two. The underlying bill represents the tyranny and the intervention of the federal government.”

“It’s our choice: What will we choose today? Will we choose liberty? Or, will we choose tyranny?”

See the video yourself:

“The house is going to spend a whopping five hours debating the most profound piece of legislation to come to this floor in a hundred years. And the chairman has the audacity to drop a 300+ page amendment in the hopper at 3:09 AM this morning.”

“And so I would ask my colleagues: Don’t you think the American people expect us to understand what’s in this bill before we vote on it? “

“And so we get to page 34 …”

See the video yourself:

Boehner spent about an hour reading excerpts from the 300+ page amendment asking how much some items were going to cost, and how many jobs would be created by others?  Otherwise, Democrats blocked all discussion about the middle-of-night changes.  Why?  How is that responsible government?

What issues was Boehner discussing in the 300+ pages of amendments?  One example was regarding the imposition of “California standards” on the entire U.S. housing construction.  Boehner asked who would pay for imposing those standards?  Boehner asked about the mandated energy inspections of houses before they are sold.  How will such new regulations help a housing market get rejuvenated in these slow economic times?

Many believe that Congress is out-of-touch, and out-of-control, especially when no one in the Congress is reading the bills that are being passed, discussion about the bills is restricted, and there is no time for public comments before a bill is passed.   This is governmental transparency?

The arrogance of Congress should not be tolerated by a free people.  Why aren’t more protesting the out-of-control government we have?

See how your member of Congress voted on the Cap and Trade bill.

• Boehner’s Amazing Speech on the House Floor Friday, NewBusters, June 27, 2009.
• Johnson County, KS Cap And Tax Protest, Nice Deb, June 27, 2009.
• 300 Pages Out of Thin Air, Sunlight Foundation, June 26, 2009.
• Who pays for Cap and Trade?,  The Wall Street Journal, March 9, 2009.
• Cap and Trade Global Warming Bill, The Heritage Foundation.
• Cap and Trade, US Environmental Protection Agency.

• Kansas Tea Parties, Kansas Meadowlark, April 15, 2009.
• Tea Party in Olathe today, Kansas Meadowlark, March 7, 2009.
• “Tea Party” Rally and March in Snow to Senator McCaskill’s Office in Kansas City, Kansas Meadowlark, Feb 28, 2009.
• Sign Photo Essay of Kansas City “Tea Party” and March, Kansas Meadowlark, Feb 28, 2009.
• Poster Child: “Thanks for Putting My Generation in DEBT!”, Kansas Meadowlark, Feb 23, 2009.

UPDATE:  See video of Bob Weeks’ appearance on Kansas week on KPTS in Wichita:

Free Market Health Care Rally at KMBC Channel 9 in Kansas City

A group of more than 60 protesters met outside the KMBC’s studios in Kansas City to promote free market health care, and protest the ABC special “Prescription for America” being aired tonight

The group was made up of modern day patriots from the Kansas City Tea Party and the Kansas City Area 9.12 Project.

General manager Wayne Godsey and KMBC were kind to the protesters by providing water for those in the hot sun and 90+ degree temperatures.

KMBC reporter Jim Flink made a humorous comment about the news coming to them today, since KMBC could report on this event from the perimeter of their studios.  [Jim said his was more common when their studios were downtown.]

See the three videos below made at this event, as well as the video from KMBC reported during their 5 PM newscast by Jim Flink.

Over a dozen citizens from the Kansas City area interviewed KMBC general manager, Wayne Godsey, about the planned programming on Wednesday night to describe President Obama’s health care plan on ABC’s Prescription for America:

See the KMBC video from their 5 PM newscast, Some Protest Obama Health Care Plan, ABC.  (Obviously, KMBC mixes audio much better than I can.)

• Godsey addresses Protesters Outside KMBC, Bottom Line Communications, June 25, 2009.
• KC rallies for free, independent press, Kansas City Conservative Examiner, June 18, 2009.

Kansas Attorney General Steve Six Welcomes Participants

Attorney General Steve Six’s office is providing training this week at four locations in Kansas on “Open Meetings” and “Open Records.”  Today these training sessions were in Olathe and about 120 attended.

Yesterday the training was held in Dodge City; sessions will be held in Topeka and Wichita on Thursday and Friday.

The sessions were intended for elected officials, appointed officials, staff for state and local units of government, members of the media, and the general public.

After the welcome and introductions by Attorney General Six, Assistant AG Mike Smith, discussed the topics of KOMA (Kansas Open Meetings Act) and KORA (Kansas Open Records Act).

Panel discussion at KOMA/KORA training in Olathe

Separate panel discussions were held on “Open Meetings” and “Open Records” after presentations by Asst. Attorney General Mike Smith.

The panel members were familiar in helping the approximately 4000 units of local government in Kansas comply with open meetings and open record requests.  The panel moderator asked questions of the panel before opening up questions to the audience.

In the discussion on KOMA, most panel members agreed that secret executive sessions caused the largest number of complaints.  Panelist Doug Anstaett wisely said:  “Open government doesn’t guarantee good government.”

There were several questions about electronic records, both cost and format, during the KORA panel discussion.  Mike Smith indicated that the A.G. office was tending to want to release only PDFs since electronic documents could be so easily modified.  In a private discussion after the meeting, I challenged Smith on these comments, since “electronic signatures” can be used to show when a document has been modified.  Analysis of data is severely limited when only released in a PDF format.

The panel participants above above are (from left to right):

• Mike Smith, Asst. Attorney General
• Randy Brown, Executive Director, Sunshine Coalition
• Doug Anstaett, Executive Director, Kansas Press Association
• Kim Winn, Director of Policy Development & Communications, League of Kansas Municipalities
• Don Jarrett, Chief Counsel, Johnson County Government
• Melissa Wangemann, Director of Legislative Services/General Counsel, Kansas Association of Counties

[efg's note:  If I can get my hands on the PowerPoint slides from the meeting today, I'll modify this article and add links to them.  I may add additional comments after reviewing the audio file of today's event]

• Kansas Open Records Act, Sunshine Review
• Open and Honest Government, Attorney General Steve Six
• Frequently Asked Questions about the Kansas Open Meetings Act (KOMA)
• Frequently Asked Questions about the Kansas Open Records Act (KORA)

• A.G. Explains Importance Of Open Meetings And Records, WIBW, June 25, 2009.
• Open meetings, records training today, Dodge City Globe, June 23, 2009.
• Open Government Education Important to Kansans, Kansas City infoZine, June 23, 2009.
• Kansas Attorney General to provide training on Open Records & Open Meetings, Kansas Meadowlark, April 24, 2009.

Last Friday Congresswoman Candice Miller (R-Michigan) attempted to make an amendment to H.R. 2868, the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act of 2009, to minimize the impact of new regulations on agriculture and farmers.  The Democratically controlled committee voted “no” on her amendment along party lines.  Farmers may now suffer increased regulations on any chemical product related to agriculture and farming.

Republicans, like Congressman Charlie Dent (R-Pennsylvania), made the case that IST was a concept or a process, and was not an “off the shelf” specific technology that could be applied to chemical security.

Listen to Congressman Dent’s explanation about IST:

A Center for American Progress study that shows no economists or engineers on the project team, nor any economic or engineering analysis, is enough for Congress to decide national chemical security policy?

I cannot find the words “economic” or “engineering” in the document.  I cannot find the word “money”.  The word “cheaper” appears once.

A newer study by the Center for American Progress, New Strategies to Protect America:  Securing our Nation’s Chemical Facilities , also lacks any engineering or economic analysis.

Pascrell’s comment that IST would help companies be more “efficient” was a bit strange.  What business does the government have in forcing companies to be “efficient” when the government itself is not?

Last week the various videos from the markup sessions in the Committee on Homeland Security, show significant ideological differences between Republicans and Democrats:

Democrats are not happy with the proposal by President Obama to simply extend the existing law, which expires later this year.  Oddly, Republicans were happy with this Obama proposal.  Democrats appear to only see a solution to chemical security if IST were involved

Several of the amendments debated last week were about law suits that would be allowed under the proposed legislation.  Democrats wanted “any person” to be able to sue a company if IST had not been appropriately applied at a chemical facility.  Republicans objected that IST was not an objective criteria, and was a concept about ongoing improvements.  Republicans only wanted those with “skin in the game” to be able to bring a law suit.  Republicans worried about “paralysis by litigation” for companies that progressive groups did not like.

If Democrats are successful in their strategy for chemical security, progressive groups, like the Center for American Progress through their Center for American Progress Action Fund, or any of many other groups, could drive firms they don’t like out of business by ongoing harassing legislation.

For example, if a business is not “green” enough, a law suit could be brought demanding chemical process changes that are “inherently safer technologies.”  Companies may need to spend considerable resources to defend themselves, even if their current chemical processes were safe (according to OSHA) and not threatening the environment (according to the EPA).

One amendment rejected by Democrats was bizarre considering they were dealing with chemical security.  One Republican amendment would give employers the ability to dismiss employees who had committed crimes that were worse than a specified legal threhold.  Democrats voted down the amendment, so they must be comforatble with convicted terrorists working at chemical facilities since that is one of the groups Republicans wanted to exclude.

Congress Emanuel Cleaver’s comments during the discussion of employment was difficult to comprehend.  Cleaver said he didn’t want to be telling the H.R. department of a company how they had to deal with employees.  But Cleaver is comfortable in telling chemical businesses what they can do or not do with their business?

When the “stimulus” package was passed several months ago, that bill contained an exception so the Secretary of Energy could have direct hiring authority to bypass certain federal red tape.  Democrats in the Homeland Security Committee voted down a similar proposal by Republicans to help the DHS Secretary hire mandated inspectors. Democrats are comfortable giving DHS broad regulatory authority when DHS doesn’t have the expertise to make the needed decisions.

DHS will be inspecting and controlling American chemical businesses in unprecedented ways if the legislation is ultimately passed.  Increased regulatory burden and possible loss of jobs are not things Democrats are concerned about now based on how they are voting.

The Homeland Security Committee will continue its work late tomorrow in Washington.

• The Fertilizer Institute Member Company Testifies On Chemical Site Security, AgriMarketing, June 17, 2009.
• Congress could give government bureaucrats more control of farms and industry, Kansas Meadowlark, June 16, 2009.
• Do we want Homeland Security telling businesses how to run their businesses? Telling farmers how to farm?, Kansas Meadowlark, June 12, 2009.

Several Republican leaders addressed the group, including U.S. Senator Sam Brownback, who will be a candidate for Kansas Governor in 2010.

Brownback summarized recent difficult times in Washington, and explained how he will use an approach in his run for Governor that he first used in 1993:

… We are having a difficult time …

On the issue of healthcare they [Democrats] put forward a specific plan … and it’s going to cost $1.6 trillion and it’s not going to cover anybody additionally that’s not covered right now.

That’s the “nut” of the problem that we’re talking about in this country …. is adding a whole bunch of taxes and not addressing any … underlying problem. .

I think we have to step forward … ideas and solutions that are market-based , that are principled, that answer the problem, but don’t add to the taxes, because we are way over taxed. We’re huge in debt, and we cannot keep going forward that way. …

I want to take you through a bit of brief history. I first started running … in 1993. … You just had a popularly-elected Democrat President, Bill Clinton, with a House and a Senate and a media who were very supportive of him, … saying a lot of things like you’re hearing right now. The President wanted higher spending, record debt, bigger bureaucracy, more control over private sector decisions, massive new energy tax, and federal takeover of the healthcare system. Does that sound familiar? This was in 1993.

I remember watching on C-SPAN when the House Democrats voted increased taxes on the country. I said, “No. You can’t do that and expect that the country is going to grow and prosper.” … I turned to my wife .. and said we’ve got to do something about it. And, I did. I ran for Congress. And I got elected in that 1994 class … With that class … here’s a series of specific items that we’re going to do. We put forward a contract with America. Here’s what we’re going to do on welfare reform. Here’s what we’re going to do on taxes. Here’s what we’re going to do on federal spending. Much of which we got through. …

We are best when we run on a series of specific ideas and issues, and put them out to the public to let the public measure us against our ideas. [applause]

[We] wandered away from principles and the country fired the Republican Party. That’s tough in a private setting. That’s tough in a public setting. …

[This] can be a chance for us to figure out how to get our way back. … The way back is … on a series of specific ideas… Now we find ourselves in a very difficult spot.

I am for a federal government that does what it is required to do — and does it very well. But, doesn’t do a whole series of things that it shouldn’t do, or is not built to be able to do, and I think that is where we lose our way. …

What you shouldn’t do is take over the private sector. What you shouldn’t do is burden the society with taxes it cannot carry. What you shouldn’t do is burden the future [generations] with a mortgage that they can’t pay. [applause] …

I think this is a generational issue that we should start to address. I am very fearful for my generation going down as one that didn’t step up to its challenge; that was given a great situation by the greatest generation — the World War II generation. …

It is up to our generation to step up and deal with these crushing fiscal problems. And we need to do it. And we’ll be judged if we don’t do it. …

I’ve been voting against a number of things … the government stimulus [applause] — what we needed was an economic stimulus. What we got was a government stimulus. There is a difference. …

What you’re looking at in the future is increased taxes on energy. … “Cap and Trade” will .. raise utility rates in Kansas … by 25%. It’s the wrong direction. …

[Federal takeover of the healthcare system .... is something we shouldn't have. ...

The President wants an activist Judiciary to make policy instead of the people's elected representatives. "Not on my watch."

[Brownback explained his pledge to only run for two Senate terms.]

There is another election I’m interested in. I will be running for Governor of the State of Kansas.. …

We run best when we run on ideas. When I run for Governor, I’m going to run on a series of ideas. It will be like a roadmap for Kansas. It will be specific. It will be items we can put out in front of people … the people can measure us against [these ideas]. We’re developing that now. …

FEC Audit

One surprising bit of news during the Treasurer’s report was that the FEC was conducting an audit.  From the prepared statement by current treasurer, Steve Fitzgerald:

Four FEC personnel began an audit in our office last Tuesday and are expected to be with us for approximately two weeks.  The audit covers the period 1 Jan 2007 to 31 Dec 2008 and has been triggered by failure to provide information to the FEC as required.  …

FEC reporting can be complex. ….  There is no evidence of any wrongdoing; however, the state of the records was not good and considerable effort has since gone into establishing the records as well as correcting procedures to prevent a recurrence. …

Business Meeting

The business before the meeting was mostly a number of proposed changes to the party constitution and bylaws.  Most of these items were technical in nature.  For example, one dealt with whether it was OK to run a meeting via E-mail.  Another dealt with the specific amount of time before a meeting that an agenda should be published.

At first there were barely enough present to vote on the constitutional measures.  Later after several delegates left, voting was no longer possible on the constitutional matters since 2/3rds of all delegates were no longer present.

Many that I talked to thought the proposals were generally good ideas, but were not needed as rules.  Perhaps the proposed changes would be more appropriate in some sort of “best practices” guide instead of rules from a group believing in limited government.

At one point while district chairs were confirming the number of delegates still present to vote, several candidates for office were given the opportunity to address the state committee, including Tim Huelskamp, Tracey Mann, and Sue Boldra for Congress in the First District, and Mike Pompeo for Congress in the Fourth District.

There will likely be a candidate announcing soon for Kansas Treasurer.

The next Kansas Republican Party meeting will be in Topeka during Kansas Days in Jan. 2010.  Some of the Constitutional matters discussed on Saturday may be discussed at that time when more delegates are present.

There were comments that a certain female Governor had been invited to be the speaker at Kansas Days in January, but it’s unclear when that might be confirmed.

Dr. Mark Hendrickson

The Flint Hills Center for Public Policy today sponsored a luncheon near the Plaza in Kansas City, MO where Dr. Mark Hendrickson talked about “The Next Great Depression and the Attack of the Watermelons?”

Hendrickson is a professor of economics and international business at Grove City College in Pennsylvania and is a contributing scholar with the Center for Vision & Values think tank.

Dr.  Hedrickson admitted the title of his talk was chosen to attract some attention.

“I don’t think we’re doomed to a second Great Depression, although I do think it’s possible.”

“Things aren’t that bad.”

Using a baseball analogy:  “The would-be political planners — the elitists who want to gain more control over our lives, and who will inflict greater poverty on us if they succeed in doing that — they have the ‘lead’ right now. But I always view the American people as the home team. We get the last at bat. Even though the other team might be in the lead, I think we can overtake them.

Causes of a depression?

“The world does operate … on a cause-effect system, or relationship.” The orthodoxy says market failure causes depression since markets failed in the 30s.

Markets simply — through price mechanisms — balance supply with demand. Everything adjusts.

Hendrickson explained that President Obama’s statement that “doing nothing” should not have been an option as a justification for the “stimulus” program. This was exactly the wrong lesson to learn from history. “This man does not know history.”

What about the depression of 1920-1921?

Hendrickson explained there was a very brief and severe depression as the market reacted to the misallocations in the economy after World War I. The unemployment rate exploded over about a six month period from 2.3% to over 11%. Production in the country declined by about a fourth. There was “huge shrinkage.”

What happened? Harding was President and did nothing! Adjustments in the market took place, people went back to work and production increased. This was during a time that federal spending was cut by almost half. “The solution was a market solution…. Markets do work — if they are allowed to. The market made the adjustment and we were off to the races as the federal government was shrunk.”

The Great Depression

The opposite approach was taken by Presidents Hoover and Franklin Roosevelt, which led to the Great Depression. “Markets didn’t work then because they were not allowed to work. They were mugged. They were handicapped. They were straight-jacketed by constant, repeated, government interference — perhaps born of the best of intentions. … Government created this unnatural phenomenon called the Great Depression. There is no natural reason … for the economy to be depressed for 12 years. It can only happen if government does it to an economy.”

Today

Today, are we making the same mistakes? There are some interesting parallels between today and the Great Depression.

The Great Depression started with the collapse of the stock market. Recently we’ve had a financial cataclysm. This financial crisis has government’s fingerprints all over it.

What do you do? Hoover made things worse by causing the reduction in world trade. In the last year protectionist voices are getting very loud. President Obama has not been a real friend of trade. We are seeing today a disintegration of world trade. That should concern us because they accompanied the early stages of the Great Depression.

Hoover increased taxes. Roosevelt did the same. When the Bush tax cuts expire next year there is already a huge tax increase built into the system if nothing is done by Congress. But Obama wants to increase taxes on top of that. This is not what you do in a depression. When the economy is down, you don’t saddle it with more taxes. “You don’t kick an economy when it’s down.”

Roosevelt spent money like crazy with the New Deal programs. Did you notice that today that federal spending is accelerating a lot now? Same old thing.

During the New Deal years Roosevelt spent as much as all the presidents before him. Obama is going to double the debt of the United States. Obama’s plans may result in as much debt being incurred in the next eight years as all presidents before him. There’s a very strong parallel here with the Great Depression.

We’re a long way from 12 years of depression now, so if we wake up and change the policies we won’t have the effects of the Great Depression. If we continue to replicate the mistakes of the past, we possibly could replicate the Great Depression.

Other things that happened during the Great Depression

Roosevelt used the Justice Department to persecute large firms under the anti-trust laws. Obama’s deputy attorney general for antitrust recently suggested we should ramp up enforcement of anti-trust laws.

Roosevelt used excise taxes on many things that everyone needed in daily life. Today, “Cap and Trade” threatens to be a similar excise tax. Taxing carbon dioxide will raise prices of everything, because our economy is based on energy. This will be devastating in both the short and long term.

Attack of the Watermelons

Watermelons are the environmentalists: “green” on the outside but “red” on the inside. The have a liberal ideology.

But “big government” people should be called “illiberals” instead of “liberal” or “progressive” since they want to go backwards to the time elitists were planning the economy.

All “illiberals” oppose the basic rights of men and women enshrined in the founding documents of our country: our rights to life, liberty and property.

There’s a fourth target of “illiberals’: the truth. Think of the Soviet propaganda machine. Think of lies like the “markets failed us during the Great Depression.”

There’s a lot of dishonesty in the green movement today. Their biggest fear is carbon dioxide. But think about it. Carbon dioxide is the basis of our food chain. Plants need carbon dioxide to live. Animals and humans need plants. Carbon dioxide is part of our food chain, yet EPA has declared it a pollutant.

“I believe in a just society, but I’m not a socialist.
I believe in a harmonious, friendly community, but I’m not a communist.
I believe in a safe environment, but I’m not an environmentalist.”

Once these ideologies become “isms” then they become part of the political agenda. And it’s always the agenda of illiberalism: mutilating the truth as a pretext for taking away life, liberty or property.

What the most common greenhouse gas? Water! You’ve got many people thinking it’s carbon dioxide, which has been declared a pollutant and a danger to the climate. If EPA is going to be consisted, water should be declared a pollutant and a hazard, too. “Water vapor is 98% by volume, and between 80 and 90% by impact, of all the greenhouse effect that there is.”

Paleoclimatologists have found the coldest period in the last half-billion years on earth was when the concentration of carbon dioxide was 10 times what it is today!

Why are we going after carbon dioxide?

Carbon dioxide is emitted from burning fossil fuels. Our economy — our whole way of life — depends on fossil fuels. If you accept the premise that the government has the right to control the amount of carbon dioxide that can be released, you’re saying you want to control and ration energy. That’s another way to say you want to control and regulate the economic lives of people.

We could end up with the situation where the government decides who gets to drive how many miles, who is allowed to fly, which factories can run a full power and which ones have to cut back, how much you should be allowed to cool your house in the summer time. We’re talking about a near doubling of electricity bills … a near doubling of the price of gasoline.

Economic Suicide

We’re talking about committing economic suicide. We’re talking about enslaving the American people for a myth. That ought to concern all of us.

Al Gore wrote in his book, Earth in the Balance, back in the early 90s that he was in favor of slower economic growth. Slower economic growth will kill people on the margins of poverty. The most dangerous environment for human beings is poverty — not smoky air or anything like that. These people want to impoverish us. They think it’s for the good of the world.

Personally, I’m opposed to that kind of a blood thirsty agenda. I’m certainly opposed to the surrender of our freedom. … They’re trying to throttle the economic life and freedom out of us for the sake of their own elitist agenda.

The antidote for error, lies, fallacy … is always Truth. The number one weapon in the arsenal of the illiberals is to obscure the truth. The number one weapon in our arsenal is to shine the light on the Truth.

I believe the American people are going to be free. I think the American spirit is going to stand up and resist these encroachments against our Liberty, and I think we’re going to use the Truth to accomplish that.