Lawson for Congress

Back when I was in residency, I spent a lot of time assessing patients to determine if they were getting better, holding their own, or getting worse. When patients were not improving, the next question was if it was time to intervene — colloquially, we’d ask, “Is it time to call the cops?”

I’m running for Congress because I believe it’s time to call the cops. Today’s action in the markets puts an exclamation point on my conversation with voters this week — gold at $975/oz, oil at $102/barrel, one U.S. dollar buys 0.97 Canadian, and one euro is worth $1.52. All that in an environment of stagnant GDP growth, domestic job losses, declining consumer confidence, and bank balance sheets damaged by toxic mortgage debt.

As the Federal Reserve continues flooding the market with liquidity to support the banking system, the dollar plunges to new lows and commodity inflation continues unabated. Why do voters care? Well, let’s start with the retirement home I visited on Tuesday. I was talking to retirees, some with tears in their eyes, as they described their struggles with inflation. The combination of high grocery and medicine bills with low interest rates is toxic for them, and they’re wondering how long their retirement savings will hold out. Person after person described the sinking feeling of spending their retirement principle, since their income is no longer enough to pay for rent, food, and medicine.

Why does our government steal from our retirees? Why does the “greatest generation” see its purchasing power erode before its eyes? It’s not just retirees, though. Everyone is getting closer to the financial edge in this environment.

Where do we go from here? We need to get off the treadmill of our declining fiat currency. To start, our government needs to stop needing so much money. We need a balanced federal budget. We need to end the federal income tax, and to eliminate the IRS and its 67,000 pages of job-killing regulations that place tremendous friction in our economy. We need a foreign policy that we can afford. The government can’t spend its way out of our current crisis. Since our government has already increased the money supply so much faster than the value of goods and services, we the people need to create real wealth again. Finally, we need to again experience the stability of Constitutional money.

Of course, there are those who think we have nothing to worry about. My primary opponent, for example:

I ask for your support in the Republican primary on May 6th. The patient, our nation, is in trouble. It’s time to call the cops, and there is a clear difference in this election regarding which candidate will stand on principle, and can change the status quo:

Please declare your support today. Make a donation, request a yard sign, tell your friends, and help us restore a Constitutional federal government.

I hate going to the DMV. Other than maybe a Nickelback concert (I’ve never been to one so I can’t judge, but I imagine that’s gotta be torture), it’s the most irritating place on the planet. I know I’m not alone. I don’t know a single person who enjoys going to the DMV, and most people I know feel the same way about it as I do. If there is a hell I am convinced it must be inside the Department of Motor Vehicles.

The mutual hatred of the DMV by almost every American is the reason I’m always successful explaining to people why the REAL ID is bad. I may not be able to convince them when I explain that the REAL ID is unconstitutional and a threat to our liberties (which is sad, because that alone should convince all Americans that REAL ID is bad), but I can always convince them when I tell them what they’ll have to go through to get their driver’s license if REAL ID is implemented in our state.

As this recent article from WRAL.com explains:

Raleigh, N.C. — Later this year, the way you get your driver’s license will change. Whether you are renewing or getting a new license, it will take more than a simple trip down to the Department of Motor Vehicles to get it.

…

“It sounds like it would be more of an inconvenience to wait 20 days for your license with your picture ID,” driver Brittany Adams said.

DMV officials said the extra wait time allows for more sophisticated background checks. If you pass all DMV tests, a license will be mailed to your permanent address within 20 days.
…

Licenses will no longer be made on-site at each DMV office. Instead, they will be made at a single Raleigh location, based on state legislation passed two years ago.

While to some this may not seem so bad it’s still an extra inconvenience on top of the already inconvenient trip to the DMV. It also shows how fast the changes to our drivers licenses are moving forward, and it’s likely just the beginning. In two recent blog entries here and here, BJ points out what to expect as REAL ID becomes fully implemented (including the extent of the inconvenience from it when you go to get your license or to get it renewed) and the reason why it is unconstitutional and a threat to our liberties.

Here’s the ultimate question: is it worth it?

No, it is not. A “national ID card” doesn’t protect us from people with evil intent. The 9/11 hijackers were not traveling under aliases — they were exactly who they said they were, complete with drivers licenses and credit cards. Some legislators in Raleigh have mistakenly thought that we need REAL ID to prevent us from giving licenses to illegal aliens. We should not be giving licenses to people here illegally, but we don’t need REAL ID to fix that problem. We are quite capable of fixing that problem as a state.

Not only is REAL ID an unnecessary inconvenience and pernicious corporate welfare, it’s also a serious threat to our liberties. Finally, it’s also unconstitutional — so even if it was worth it, REAL ID couldn’t be implemented without amending the Constitution. That’s the way it’s suppose to work, anyway. Sadly, our current lawmakers have absolutely no respect for the Constitution and that is why we must, as I said in my recent entry O Banker! My Hacker!, make them walk the plank. Including and especially David Price.

Speaking of Price, it may interest you to know that he actually voted against the REAL ID before he voted for it. You see, while he voted against The REAL ID Act of 2005 (H.R. 418) on February 10th, 2005, he voted for the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2005 (H.R. 1268), which contained the REAL ID provisions, on May, 5th, 2005.

So much for being principled when spending our taxpayer dollars. Of course, Price wasn’t the only one who did this. Fellow North Carolina Democrat Brad Miller from the neighboring 13th District did the exact same thing. I ran into Congressman Miller last week at the NBAF Town Hall Meeting and decided to take the opportunity to ask him about the REAL ID and his flip-flop on it. Here’s our exchange:

ME: Excuse me, Congressman Miller? My name is Garland Ragland and I’m one of your constituents. We’ve met a couple of times before. I wanted to ask you a question about the REAL ID… You voted against The REAL ID Act but then turned around and voted for the Appropriations bill with the provisions in it (the look he gave me at this point, along with the shrug, showed me he had absolutely no idea how he voted or what the REAL ID even was) and I was just wondering why that was the case and if you could clarify your stance on it?

REP. MILLER: …Well, if I voted against it than I’m against it…

ME: But you voted for it after you voted against it. You voted for the provisions in an Appropriations bill…

REP. MILLER: Well, okay… but that was an Appropriations bill… so there was a lot more there…

ME: I understand. Thank you for your time.

I did understand. What I understood was that to Miller it was politics as usual to vote for an Appropriations bill containing sections and provisions he had previously objected to. I understood, as he quickly disappeared into the school’s auditorium to avoid anymore tough questions, that we must have real change in Washington and the status quo is not acceptable.

My conversation would have been no different if it had been David Price in Miller’s place. This is because they’re all part of a system to rotten to its core. Instead of getting elected and fighting it from the inside, they’ve become part of the inside. They play politics, they’re void of principled stances and all they care about is getting reelected.

It’s time for us to demand more of from our elected officials, as B.J. says in one of his recent entries on the REAL ID. I wholeheartedly agree. If we demand more from them and they’re held accountable for their votes and their actions and their lack of principles they will change because they’ll know if they don’t they’ll get voted out of office. Remember, ultimately all they care about is getting reelected.

Regarding our state legislators, they’re starting to get the message. Please visit this new Web site, www.ncard.info, and find out how your state legislators stand. Then use the contact information to inform them that their job security depends on getting North Carolina to join the 17 other states who have opted out of REAL ID.

Of course, while we should demand more from our elected officials, I think it’s a good idea to go ahead and replace this current defective batch with principled statesmen and women who will uphold the Constitution.

We can start by retiring 22-year professional politician David Price and electing B.J. Lawson, principled statesmen and defender of the Constitution, in his place.

Why would Bank of America, the largest bank in the country, agree to purchase Countrywide Financial, one of the nation’s most toxic mortgage lenders?

Four words: Too big to fail.

You see, the name of the game is bailout. Bank of America really has nothing to lose. After making a $2 billion investment when Countrywide was is distress last summer, anteing up additional stock (it was a stock deal, not cash) to purchase Countrywide and become the nation’s largest mortgage lenders was an easy next step. Think about the options from BoA’s perspective:

After watching its initial $2 billion investment decline by $1.3 billion, and seeing its purchase teetering on the brink of insolvency, it could just watch the mortgage lender keel over, and let someone else to pick up the pieces. That’s not too attractive, as BoA’s initial investment would likely be wiped out in the process.

The alternative is simply to buy the company outright. Does BoA need to worry about “calling the bottom” in the housing market? Does BoA need to concern itself with how much further the housing and mortgage market might deteriorate, and what further writedowns might damage the balance sheet of their combined entity?

Nah. Come on, we’re talking about Bank of America! Get it? It’s the biggest bank in the country. Is failure of Bank of America really an option?

Of course not. Which explains this recent article in the New York Times:

A confidential proposal that Bank of America circulated to members of Congress this month provides a stunning glimpse of how quickly the industry has reversed its laissez-faire disdain for second-guessing by the government — now that it is in trouble.

The proposal warns that up to $739 billion in mortgages are at “moderate to high risk” of defaulting over the next five years and that millions of families could lose their homes.

To prevent that, Bank of America suggested creating a Federal Homeowner Preservation Corporation that would buy up billions of dollars in troubled mortgages at a deep discount, forgive debt above the current market value of the homes and use federal loan guarantees to refinance the borrowers at lower rates.

It all makes sense now, doesn’t it? If you owe $350,000 on a house now valued at $250,000, the government would pay BoA to purchase your loan, and then reset your mortgage down to $250,000 with a reasonable interest rate. You stay in your house, keep paying interest, and BoA is spared the trouble of foreclosing based upon your negative equity.

Even better, since it didn’t cost BoA anything to put that $350,000 in your account when you signed the mortgage in the first place, they still come out ahead when the loan is bought by the government. But how is the government going to buy these troubled mortgages? Read on:

The government would buy the mortgages at their true current value, perhaps through an auction, at what would probably be a big discount from the original loan amount. The mortgage lenders, or the investors who bought mortgage-backed securities, would be free of the bad loans but would still have to book their losses.

But wait… what is “true current value”? What the government is willing to pay in an auction? Who is bidding against the government? Can you even call it an auction if the banks are selling the mortgage to a single buyer? Who will set the price? The banks, of course. After all, we need to make sure BoA’s balance sheet is adequately protected. So then what happens?

Mr. Taylor estimated the government might end up buying $80 billion to $100 billion in mortgages. But he said the government could recoup its money if it was able to buy the mortgages at a proper discount, repackage them and sell them on the open market.

Oh, I see. The government is going to buy mortgages at a discount, repackage them, and sell them on the open market. That process isn’t working now, but after the government prints more money to give to the banks in payment for the at-risk mortgages and resets mortgages at a more tolerable level for the consumer, presumably the government will be able to sell those mortgages.

That is, as long as the broader credit crisis doesn’t cripple the economy, throw the borrower out of his job, and leave him unable to make any mortgage payments.

To whom will the government sell them? Well, the banks. Sounds like they get to play the game, “sell high, buy low”, with the taxpayer paying the difference.

What a great plan. Is there another alternative? Remember, failure is not an option. We bailed out the banking industry in the S&L crisis of the early 1990s. Sounds like we’re lining up to try again.

Even more amusingly, some savvy consumers are beginning to take advantage of this twisted situation in a new and unique way. Since a large number of mortgages are packaged into securities, and since the brokers securitizing these debts have been playing fast and loose with the loan documents in their rush to package up the loans, borrowers are discovering that they can successfully beat foreclosure when the supposed lender is unable to provide the actual loan note itself:

Joe Lents hasn’t made a payment on his $1.5 million mortgage since 2002.

That’s when Washington Mutual Inc. first tried to foreclose on his home in Boca Raton, Florida. The Seattle-based lender failed to prove that it owned Lents’s mortgage note and dropped attempts to take his house. Subsequent efforts to foreclose have stalled because no one has produced the paperwork.

“If you’re going to take my house away from me, you better own the note,” said Lents, 63, the former chief executive officer of a now-defunct voice recognition software company.

Judges in at least five states have stopped foreclosure proceedings because the banks that pool mortgages into securities and the companies that collect monthly payments haven’t been able to prove they own the mortgages. The confusion is another headache for U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson as he revises rules for packaging mortgages into securities.

So how will this situation turn out? Time will tell, but we desperately need economic and monetary systems that encourage saving and production instead of borrowing and consumption. Do you really think current trends are sustainable?

Rep. Tim Bishop is a Democrat who represents New York’s 1st District, including Long Island and Plum Island. Here’s what he had to say about NBAF in September of 2007:

“I encourage Long Islanders to join me in voicing strong opposition to placing a Bio-Safety Level 4 facility on Plum Island,” said Congressman Tim Bishop, who represents the Congressional district which includes Plum Island. “From the moment DHS became involved at the Plum Island Animal Disease Facility, I have received repeated assurances from the highest levels of the Department—including Secretaries Ridge and Chertoff—that it would not be a suitable location for BSL-4 research.”

The article on his Congressional Web site continues further:

Plum Island’s proximity to major metropolitan areas on Long Island and Connecticut make it an unsuitable location for BSL-4 research, which investigates highly infectious diseases that affect both animals and humans, such as the Ebola virus. Placing a prime terrorist target in such a highly populated area could have disastrous consequences.

Why is Rep. Tim Bishop encouraging his constituents to reject NBAF on Plum Island, while Rep. David Price is encouraging NBAF to locate in our backyard?

Unfamiliar with NBAF? Read this post.

Last night’s gathering at South Granville High School in Creedmoor was a poignant illustration of the crisis of confidence between our federal government and its citizens. I had the opportunity to speak with people on both sides of the issue — local citizens opposed to NBAF, as well as representatives from Homeland Security, the USDA, government contractors, and our local consortium desiring to bring the laboratory to the area.

At the end of the evening, what stood out was the profound lack of trust in our federal government. Person after person approached the microphone to ask the panel to essentially predict the future. Almost every question asked for long-term assurance regarding safety, transparency, governance, and accountability. Many questions couldn’t be answered until the Environmental Impact Statement is prepared. When answers were offered, however, they were received with palpable skepticism among the lab’s opponents.

Unfortunately, no members of last night’s panel can predict the future. Despite their best intentions, the lab’s representatives from Homeland Security, USDA, and various government contractors are incapable of delivering on any verbal promises made last night. At the end of the evening, we’re still left with the nagging question of whether our region wants the largest BSL-4 laboratory to study the most dangerous organisms in our backyard, when that laboratory’s use will be dictated by ongoing threat assessments by our Department of Homeland Security and the USDA.

My question to the panel was a slightly different one — why do we need this boondoggle at all? We’re looking to spend $450 million on this laboratory, which is money that we don’t have, to study diseases that are not yet endemic to our country. Does it really make sense to spend money we don’t have to concentrate the risk of studying and housing all these exotic diseases in a single large facility?

Make no mistake, each of these diseases is a cause for alarm. We absolutely should contribute to the global body of knowledge to diagnose, treat, and ultimately prevent these diseases from causing a public health disaster. But let’s consider an alternative: since each of these diseases is endemic somewhere, there is already research being done right now in laboratories around the world.

Why can’t we embrace a collaborative approach, and encourage our scientists to work at the best existing laboratories for these diseases around the world? Such studies are being done where the diseases are already endemic. If we believe we have the best safety and containment protocols, why not share those with other countries where they are already studying the diseases, and reduce the risks inherent in existing laboratories? Why not encourage laboratories that have already specialized in a few of these diseases, and thus reduce the “risk concentration” of a single large repository for dangerous pathogens?

I asked this question, and was told that we need this laboratory since we will not be able to rely on international cooperation in the event of a widespread outbreak. For example, in a global Foot and Mouth Disease outbreak, the UK would meet its own needs before it would share assays or treatments with us.

That answer still falls short for me. In a collaborative environment, as our scientists help create diagnostic assays, treatments, or vaccines for each disease, we can begin commercializing the resulting technology domestically so that we are assured of our own defense.

Is this really the best way to spend $450 million, plus ongoing operating expenses?

Regrettably, our incumbent representative David Price is lobbying our Department of Homeland Security, in conjunction with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, to locate the proposed National Bio- & Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF) in Butner, North Carolina. The proposed facility would bring a Biosafety Level 4 (BSL-4) laboratory to our backyard to study diseases including:

• Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD)
• Classical Swine Fever (CSF)
• African Swine Fever (ASF)
• Rift Valley Fever (RVF)
• Contagious Bovine Pleuropneumonia (CBPP)
• Japanese Encephalitis (JE) virus
• Nipah Virus
• Hendra Virus

This list is not inclusive, and may change based upon Homeland Security’s “continued threat assessments and risk assessment”.

Rep. Price has a twenty-two year history of bringing home the bacon to North Carolina, but this is one federal gravy train that we should avoid at all costs. The proposed facility will replace the current Plum Island Animal Disease Center, located off the northeastern tip of Long Island. Plum Island is on an island for a reason: by current law, Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) cannot be studied on the mainland United States. While we in the United States have been free of FMD since 1929 (other than an accidental outbreak on Plum Island in 1978), it has devastated the livestock industry overseas, especially in the U.K.

There are a number of special interests who are joining Rep. Price is supporting this effort. This Consortium includes representatives from our local academic communities and industry. While they are clearly well-meaning and interested in economic growth, they have differing opinions concerning what is in the best interest of our region. The Consortium’s Web site has a FAQ page supporting the laboratory, but their support falls short on several counts.

The first concerns are transparency and accountability. While we already have several BSL-2 and BSL-3 laboratories in our District, these labs are associated with industry, our universities, and our state’s Division of Public Health. As such, there are certain levels of transparency and accountability associated with their activities. The Department of Homeland Security is a completely different animal, pardon the pun, and over the course of the past five years has proven itself to be highly politicized, corrupt, wasteful, and secretive. The transparency and accountability that we can demand of our existing facilities would be completely absent at NBAF.

The next concern is simply common sense. Why change the law to allow FMD to be studied on the mainland United States? Why locate such a facility, with no transparency and little accountability, within fifty miles of two million people? Why allow “pretreated and decontaminated” waste from this facility to flow into Falls Lake, Raleigh’s already precious water supply? Are jobs and prestige from this federal gravy train really worth the risk to our citizens and environment?

Fortunately, there is growing grassroots awareness that the answer is no. Not in our backyard, certainly. A growing grassroots organization has been spreading the word through its Web site www.nobio.org and letting citizens know how to push back. There are a number of events this week, but the most important is Thursday evening’s DHS/NBAF Hearing at South Granville High School, Creedmoor, from 7 - 10pm. Concerned citizens should attend — this laboratory’s proposed location is on the border of Granville and Durham counties, and waste disposal or accidents will affect all of us.

Finally, I had the opportunity to meet with local activists from the Granville Nonviolent Action Team (GNAT) this past weekend. I was interviewed by John Monroe, who received this form letter (quoted below) in response to his concerns from David Price:

“NBAF, which will be managed by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in cooperation with U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), will conduct research focused on zoonotic and foreign animal diseases.”

“Much of the federal research on these kinds of diseases is currently conducted by DHS and USDA at the Plum Island Animal Disease Center in New York.”

“I understand that there are concerns about the security of NBAF, in terms of the potential for dangerous pathogens to spread beyond the facility, and that these concerns are based in part on questions on the security of the Plum Island facility in the past.”

“Through my subcommittee post, I intent to exercise such oversight in order to achieve a safe and sustainable outcome for both our national security interests and the welfare of the community where the facility is eventually sited, hopefully in North Carolina.”

Here is a YouTube video of our discussion:

As a citizen, physician, and father, I strongly oppose NBAF in our backyard. Join me in opposing David Price, and opposing NBAF. As your Congressman, I will work for the people of the Fourth District by seeking to make our federal government smaller, not larger. I will work to preserve private property rights, and not encourage unaccountable environmental hazards in our backyards.

It wasn’t the Lincoln-Douglas debate, nor the Kennedy-Nixon debate, but it was the Lawson-Cho debate. Or perhaps the Cho-Lawson debate, depending on your preference for alphabetical order.

The Durham All Interested Republicans (and All Like-Minded Conservatives) hosted an excellent event on Wednesday, February 13. It was well-coordinated, at a fantastic venue, with about 70 people in attendance. We even earned a nice article in the Durham Herald Sun.

Overall, I learned a lot from the debate. I think I could have been more forceful in stating some points, but on balance thought the conversation highlighted the contrasts between two extremely different candidates. Here are annotated video clips of some memorable segments:

(Note - there have been reports of occasional problems viewing the embedded videos. The hyperlinks below will take you to the videos if you have any trouble. They will shortly be available with captioning through our Media page, as well.)

Opening Statements:

Appealing to Swing Voters:

Federal Deficit:

Traditional American Values:

Beating David Price:

As you can see, my opponent doesn’t pull many punches. Quite surprising for a Presbyterian minister — but I guess some folks have to check their principles at the door when they enter politics.

Come to think of it, that’s a great reason to vote for me instead of my opponent. I’ll hold onto my principles, honorably represent the Fourth District, and work relentlessly to restore a Constitutional federal government.

So who do you think won the debate?

This past Tuesday I had a troubling experience in Raleigh. I joined a group of North Carolina citizens from across the political spectrum who share one concern: The “national ID card” mandated by the the REAL ID Act of 2005.

I strongly oppose REAL ID because it is an un-Constitutional federal usurpation of state responsibilities, and a massive corporate welfare scheme that does not protect us from people with evil intent. In fact, it makes each us of less safe by reducing our privacy and increasing the risks of identity theft or mis-identification when errors occur in this new, singularly-important system.

Our group of 15 met with Rep. Grier Martin, who chairs the Homeland Security committee of our state’s General Assembly. I have the utmost respect for Rep. Martin as a patriot and a serviceman, and he brings valuable active-duty military experience to the Homeland Security committee. Our interaction on this topic, however, left much to be desired.

Our goals meeting with Rep. Martin were to educate him on the dangers of REAL ID, assess his willingness to help us educate others in the General Assembly, and see if a principled objection to this dangerous unfunded mandate would inspire him to take a leadership role in helping North Carolina fight back along with 38 other states who are in the process of “opting out”.

After listening to our objections, he responded with a lesson in realpolitik: he didn’t share a personal opinion on REAL ID, and told us that the only chance we have of inspiring change is to launch a grassroots movement that would cause a majority of state legislators to fear for their re-election. To paraphrase, he said that his colleagues in the General Assembly care only for being re-elected, and that the only way we could advance this issue was to educate enough voters ourselves so that we could effectively threaten a majority of the General Assembly with losing their jobs unless they take action.

While I admit that I’ve entertained such a cynical view as the “worst case scenario” for our representative government, I was taken aback to hear such a stark characterization from Rep. Martin. In his defense, he said he was just being realistic, and asked us to “not shoot the messenger.”

While I would never shoot the messenger, the most concerning moment came in his answer to my final, more pointed, question. Since we need to speak with other representatives, I asked Rep. Martin if he knew of any colleagues in the General Assembly who view it as their role to be proactive about issues, and actually educate their constituents about dangers that our government needs to address. In a word, does he know of any leaders, as opposed to just crowd-followers?

He was unable to name any, and slipped into a repeat of the realpolitik lesson. Perhaps he just hasn’t met any leaders yet, but I sincerely pray that they’re out there.

I am running for Congress because I have much higher expectations for our government. As a business owner, when I hire somebody for a job, I expect them to keep an eye on things with respect to that job and proactively raise concern if there are issues that need attention. I expect my elected representatives to function the same way. As citizens, we need our representatives looking out for our best interests, and not just being motivated by a desire to win 50% plus one vote in the next election.

Think about it — would you really hire an employee who only ever gives you the answer you want to hear, exercises no judgment, and doesn’t do anything unless he or she is told to do so? Well, having spent some time in the corporate world, I suppose people do hire such employees — but usually with disastrous long-term results.

It’s time for all of us to demand more of our elected officials. We need principled leadership at the local, state, and federal level. We need leaders who view it as within their job description to look out for their constituents, and educate their constituents about important issues instead of waiting to drown in a tidal wave of incensed public opinion.

We’ve seen the disastrous economic consequences of pandering for re-election in Washington, with a $9.2 trillion national debt and an economy that’s exporting jobs and investment while it swims in a sea of red ink. I’m optimistic, though, because I believe in miracles. Come join the miracle, run for office yourself, and give unprincipled vote-pandering incumbents a real reason to be afraid. Good government doesn’t have a price.

In Walt Whitman’s poem about Abraham Lincoln, O Captain! My Captain!, Lincoln is represented as the captain of a ship — the ship representing America. The poem details the struggles Lincoln endured as President, such as The Civil War, and how he guided the country through them as the “captain” (President) of our “ship” (country) until there was calm again.

Nearly 150 years later one must wonder what measure of drunken sailor is currently steering our ship at sea, or whether anyone has the wheel at all, when you consider the current state of our country, especially when it comes to the economy.

The reality is the entire “crew” currently steering our ship at sea has gotten into the rum and they’re steering us right into a fiscal hurricane. You might know the “crew” better by their more common name — Congress.

It became even more evident that they’re sailing us right into the path of a storm last week when the House of Representatives approved a nearly $150 billion dollar “stimulus package.” The Senate is expected to follow suit.

While the “stimulus package” will certainly come too late to stop top economists from setting off alarms that (and perhaps the reality that) we are already in a recession, one has to wonder if it will have any positive impact on the economy at all. And could it actually have a negative impact?

Shawn Tully, editor for Fortune Magazine, thinks so. In a recent article for Fortune he asks the question “will the cure be worse than the disease?” and makes the following point:

The wobbly economy is overtaking Iraq as the issue weighing most heavily on the minds of America’s voters. And Washington has noticed. The White House and Congress are almost certain to enact some kind of stimulus package. But like all such temporary, feel-good measures, it will generate a quick blip in growth that will quickly evaporate.

So if Mr. Tully is correct and the “stimulus package” will only “generate a quick blip in growth” and then “quickly evaporate” than is it worth it? And more importantly where do we get the $150 billion dollars? Since we’re running a deficit and we have a national debt we have two choices that can be likened to a choice between getting punched in the stomach or punched in the face: Borrow or print it.

If we choose to simply print the money we’ll further weaken our already weak dollar which will then trigger more inflation — just like what happens when the Fed cuts interest rates also in the name of “stimulating the economy.” Obviously this would be bad for the economy, or as Mr. Tully points out in his article:

Indeed, while the economy is sending mixed messages about growth, the signs of increasing inflation are flashing bright red. For 2007 the consumer price index rose 4.1%, the biggest annual increase in 17 years. Gold, historically a reliable harbinger of inflation, set an all-time high of more than $900 an ounce. The dollar is languishing at a record low against the euro and a weighted basket of international currencies. “Flooding the market with liquidity is a disaster for the purchasing power of the dollar,” says David Gitlitz, chief economist for Trend Macrolytics.

If we choose to borrow the money the obvious consequence will be a greater national debt, but there also hidden consequences as well. To understand these hidden consequences first let’s understand who we’d be most likely to borrow the bulk of the money from — China, our banker.

China is quickly emerging as a global military superpower and a couple years back the FBI and the Pentagon investigated whether Chinese spies had been hacking into U.S. government computer systems. Then, in June of last year, it was alleged that China’s military hacked the Pentagon’s computer network, an allegation that the Chinese government denied.

Whether true or not it’s hard not to see why this isn’t the best country to owe money, or in other words: O Banker! My Hacker!

When this is considered the hidden consequences of borrowing from them are revealed and they can be summed up in one sentence: our national security is weakened.

It’s also not hard to see why Shawn Tully asks “will the cure be worse than the disease?” when the ’swallow spiders to kill flies’ approaches — which will hurt the economy more in the long term in favor of short term gain by either increasing the national debt or further weakening the dollar and causing inflation — to the economy Congress and the Fed are taking are considered.

To this end, Congress treating an ailing economy with a $150 billion dollar “stimulus package” makes about as much sense as a doctor treating cancer with AIDS. We’ll either have to print the money and further undermine our currency at a time when New York City stores are putting up signs that they accept the stronger Euro almost as fast as other stores are putting up “out of business” signs and “for sale” signs are going up in front of foreclosed homes. Or we’ll have to borrow the money from countries like China, weakening our national security in the process and forcing future generations to pay the price of our unpaid bills.

In front of the Chinese with hat in hand on bended knee is no place for our children to end up.

Thomas Jefferson once said “timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.” The sea of liberty is, indeed, tempestuous, but at least there’s always a destination with calm seas ahead. We need a new crew in Washington made up of people like B.J. Lawson steering our ship at sea, one with a destination of liberty, and the current crew and their status quo needs to be made to walk the plank.

Our federal government passed the REAL ID Act of 2005 (H.R. 418) to force states to adopt universal standards for their drivers’ licenses and state identification cards, and then make that information available to the federal government through a national database. There are many reasons to oppose this plan, some of which are summarized here:

• It’s a national identity system. The standardized national driver’s licenses created by Real ID would become a key part of a system of identity papers, databases, status and identity checks and access control points – an “internal passport” that will increasingly be used to track and control individuals’ movements and activities.
• Will not be effective against terrorism. The fact is, identity-based security is not an effective way to stop terrorism. ID documents do not reveal anything about evil intent – and even if they did, determined terrorists will always be able to obtain fraudulent documents (either counterfeit or real documents bought from corrupt officials).
• Will be a nightmare for state governments. Real ID requires state governments to remake their driver’s licenses, restructure many of their computer databases and other systems, create an extensive new document-storage system, and – perhaps most difficult of all – verify the “issuance, validity and completeness” of every document presented at DMVs. See Real Burdens.
• Will mean higher fees, long lines, and bureaucratic nightmares for individuals. Because Congress ordered but did not pay for these mandates, which will cost states billions of dollars, fees on individuals applying for driver’s licenses will inevitably rise, perhaps steeply. Individuals are also likely to confront slower service, longer lines, and frequent bureaucratic snafus in obtaining these ID cards. Many unlucky individuals will find themselves caught in a bureaucratic nightmare as they run up against the complexities of this law.
• Increased security and ID-theft risks. The creation of a single interlinked database as well as the requirement that each DMV store copies of every birth certificate and other documents presented to it will create a one-stop shop for identity thieves.
• Will be exploited by the private sector to invade privacy. Real ID would make it easy for anybody in private industry to snap up the data on these IDs. Already, bars often swipe licenses to collect personal data on customers – but that will prove to be just the tip of the iceberg as every convenience store learns to grab that data and sell it to data companies for a dime.
• Will expand over time. The Real ID database will inevitably, over time, become the repository for more and more data on individuals, and will be drawn on for an ever-wider set of purposes. Its standardized machine-readable interface will drive its integration into an ever-growing network of identity checks and access control points – each of which will create new data trails that will in turn be linked to that central database or its private-sector shadow equivalent.

Even more interesting, this national database will be implemented and managed by a private contractor:

The organization set to profit from the REAL ID Act is the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators. According to its web site, AAMVA “is a tax-exempt, nonprofit organization striving to develop model programs in motor vehicle administration, police traffic services and highway safety. The association also serves as an information clearinghouse in these areas, and acts as the international spokesman for these interests.”

AAMVA is the most likely organization to run the massive new databases which will be required for the REAL ID Act. It represents all 50 U.S. states and 10 Canadian provinces.

And now, AAMVA has hired Brian Zimmer, a well-connected House staffer who is a major proponent of REAL ID.

AAMVA has been at this for a very long time, notes Jim Harper, director of information policy studies for the Cato Institute.

AAMVA is well recognized (by those who care to follow these issues) as a proponent of driver regulation, national IDs, and even internationally uniform ID systems. Since at least the late 1930’s AAMVA has been pushing regulatory control of drivers and driving. As I note in my book, Identity Crisis, “Before September 11, 2001, AAMVA promoted a national identification card as a solution to illegal immigration. After September 11, 2001, it promoted a national identification card as a solution to terrorism. If national identification cards are a hammer, AAMVA sees every public policy problem as a nail.”

AAMVA collects about $1 per driver per year (roughly $13 million) for its part in administering the Commercial Drivers License Information System. AAMVA would make much more as the administrator of databases required by the REAL ID Act. — Jim Harper, Cato Institute

I strongly oppose REAL ID because it is an un-Constitutional federal usurpation of state responsibilities, and a massive corporate welfare scheme that does not protect us from those with evil intent. In fact, it makes each us of less safe by reducing our privacy and increasing the risks of identity theft or mis-identification when errors occur in this new, singularly-important system.

The good news is that many states are pushing back against this un-Constitutional plan, as documented here:

Following is a list of states where legislation against Real ID is currently active, with links to the relevant legislation and, where available, its status. The map below shows the introduction and passage of anti-Real ID bills in last year’s legislative session. It will be updated as new bills are introduced in the 2008 session. More information about Real ID in each state is available by clicking on the state name. This list will be constantly changing as more states act, and it will be updated as quickly as possible. View the video short, “Real ID: A Real Nightmare,” here.

We need to fight the REAL ID at both the federal and state level. As your Congressman, I will work to repeal the REAL ID Act. At the state level, each of us needs to contact our elected representatives and request the introduction of legislation to opt-out of REAL ID.

One common misconception among our state representatives is that we “need” REAL ID to prevent our giving drivers’ licenses to illegal aliens. As a state, we are perfectly capable of implementing our own system to determine who meets our requirements to drive a car. Using our driver’s license as a national identification card is completely separate, and something that we must emphatically reject.

Seventeen states have already opted-out of REAL ID, with over 15 others in progress. Why are we not participating?