Lawson for Congress

I’ve dissected the credit crisis in previous posts since last August, and outlined the bureaucratic overreach that we can expect as a result:

http://blog.lawsonforcongress.com/2008/02/24/mortgage-fun-and-games/

http://blog.lawsonforcongress.com/2007/12/19/a-review-of-the-mortgage-crisis/

http://blog.lawsonforcongress.com/2007/12/09/unintended-consequences/

http://blog.lawsonforcongress.com/2007/11/19/whered-the-money-go/

http://blog.lawsonforcongress.com/2007/08/30/obamas-gonna-fix-it/

Since then, we’ve witnessed the Bear Stearns debacle, where a bankrupt investment bank will have its trading losses covered by the Federal Reserve for up to $29 billion in taxpayer dollars. Clearly, these actions illustrate that the Federal Reserve puts the interest of Wall Street well ahead of Main Street. Even worse, these actions open a pandora’s box where further bailouts will be justified and expected.

So what is a bailout, anyway? Essentially, the government (through the Federal Reserve) is using its ability to create money out of thin air. This new money is given to those affected either directly or in the form of “loans” backed by questionable assets. That new money from the Federal Reserve enters into the banking system, and competes with your hard-earned dollars for goods and services. Did the Federal Reserve give you your Bailout Bucks today? If not, you suffer from the higher prices that result as your dollars purchase fewer goods and services.

Our financial system is broken. The inherent instabilities we’ve been experiencing are a symptom of a debt-based paper currency that’s managed by a money monopoly headed by our nation’s third central bank, the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve’s shareholders are its member banks, so it is owned by the banking industry. Furthermore, the Federal Reserve also regulates the banking industry. Talk about the fox guarding the henhouse.

The Federal Reserve has been widely implicated in the financial crises that have afflicted our economy since its founding in 1913, starting with the Great Depression. Here’s a recent apology for the Great Depression from our own Ben Bernanke:

Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my status as an official representative of the Federal Reserve. I would like to say to Milton and Anna: Regarding the Great Depression. You’re right, we did it. We’re very sorry. But thanks to you, we won’t do it again.

The “Anna” mentioned in Bernanke’s apology is revered economist Anna Schwartz. Dr. Schwartz doesn’t seem too impressed with the apology, as this past January she publicly blamed the Federal Reserve for its creation and mismanagement of the current credit crisis:

The high priestess of US monetarism - a revered figure at the Fed - says the central bank is itself the chief cause of the credit bubble, and now seems stunned as the consequences of its own actions engulf the financial system. “The new group at the Fed is not equal to the problem that faces it,” she says, daring to utter a thought that fellow critics mostly utter sotto voce.

	Anna Schwartz wrote a seminal text on the causes of the Great Depression

“They need to speak frankly to the market and acknowledge how bad the problems are, and acknowledge their own failures in letting this happen. This is what is needed to restore confidence,” she told The Sunday Telegraph. “There never would have been a sub-prime mortgage crisis if the Fed had been alert. This is something Alan Greenspan must answer for,” she says.

The Federal Reserve’s ability to create new money and allow the government to live beyond its means without raising taxes is the primary driver of inflation — you’ve noticed this recently if you’ve been watching your grocery and gas bills. Indeed, since the Federal Reserve was founded in 1913, its $1 Federal Reserve Note (a.k.a our dollar) now requires $21.38 to purchase the equivalent goods (by the government’s own optimistic estimates). So much for a stable currency.

Given this mess, one would think that we’d finally be ready to ask questions about how to arrange an alternative to the current system. Instead, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and the Bush administration propose to give us more of the same — more regulatory powers to the Federal Reserve, more bailouts for its friends on Wall Street, and higher prices for working American families.

Not surprisingly, the Wall Street crowd is singing its praises:

Wall Street’s main lobby group, the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, embraced Paulson’s proposals. “Our present regulatory framework was born of Depression-era events and is not well suited for today’s environment where billions of dollars race across the globe with the click of a mouse,” said Tim Ryan, chief executive of the association. “That fact, teamed with the current market conditions, result in an universal agreement that it is time to modernize and revitalize the current system.”

And our Chairman of the House Banking Committee is weighing in with his support:

Last week, Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank said Congress should authorize the Fed to act as a risk regulator across the markets. “To the extent that anybody is creating credit, they ought to be subject to the same type of prudential supervision that now applies only to banks,” he said.

Instead of Frank’s gentle acquiescence, here’s the key question we need to ask: Can we continue allowing banks and other financial institutions to have a monopoly over creating money, through credit, in Federal Reserve Notes? The answer is no, we cannot. The current system is not sustainable, and we need to provide an option for the American people that includes the use of Constitutional money. Americans need to be free to save, invest, and transact business in gold and silver in addition to Federal Reserve Notes, without any sales or capital gains taxes.

While treating the symptoms of the credit crunch through “liquidity injections” and bailouts is a short term solution that may prevent the financial system from freezing up, it will cause accelerating inflation and further rob American workers of their purchasing power. The true solution to our current financial crisis is not giving more power to a broken system. That’s simply rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. We need the Honest Money Act, HR 2756. Allowing Americans to transact business with honest, Constitutional money instead of only paper created out of thin air by our central bank will provide a needed alternative during this period of turbulence.

Two days ago I had the opportunity to watch my elected Representative, David Price, in action. First at the Cary Chamber’s Eye Opener breakfast, and then at the Triangle J Council of Governments. My intention was to listen and learn — how does a 22-year incumbent interact with his constituents, and how does he engage on issues such as immigration?

As I listened carefully and took notes, it was apparent that Rep. Price has a much different view of immigration than his constituents. His use of codewords like “comprehensive immigration reform” and avoidance of hot topics like amnesty and the cost of immigration to local governments gave some indication of his position. The most telling statement he made, however, was that the business and farming community was not “managing” the immigration issue, and had allowed it to be taken over by “talk radio”. The implication was that the hospitality, construction, and agricultural industries are dependent on immigrant labor, and thus they need to be more active in setting the terms of the public dialog that is now taking place.

While it is true that many immigrants are hard-working and productive contributors to society, it is also true that many are here, well, illegally. Furthermore, people here without documentation are ripe for exploitation, and while the standard of living enjoyed by immigrants in this country may be better than in their home country, they are still vulnerable to abuse. Providing welfare-state social services and healthcare are bankrupting our state and local governments, and healthcare institutions. Finally, our open borders don’t distinguish those seeking the American dream from those with criminal intent. Heinous crimes committed by criminals risk rising backlash against all immigrants, and illustrate the threat that these criminals pose to our families and children.

These concerns are generally known and shared by most Americans. While the morning audience in Cary wasn’t in a position to push back against his benign assessment of unrestrained immigration, the evening audience of local officials at Triangle J most certainly was. When challenged on the topic, Rep. Price became defensive, and fell back into Washingtonspeak: “The problem is a mismatch between the needs of the American labor market and our official immigration policy.”

Ok, thanks. Tell that to the local government looking at building yet another new jail. When he was further pressed on how Washington might help local governments pay for these problems through existing appropriations mechanisms, he had another quotable moment: “Just given the nature of the problem, there are no streams of funding available.” Translation: We let ‘em in, you pay for it.

Never have I been so unimpressed with an elected representative’s command of a critical issue. His attempt to engage with local government representatives at the Triangle J Council of Governments was awkward, and suggested either an ignorance of the problems local governments face, or a desire to avoid controversial discussion as much as possible.

We need our federal government to follow the rules, and live up to its Constitutional responsibilities, on this crucial issue. When you’re ready to understand the breadth of our immigration dilemma, watch this video by Roy Beck of NumbersUSA.

An article in today’s Financial Times notes several disturbing trends that are affecting American families. Even with rapidly rising food and gas prices that are excluded from “headline” inflation numbers, our inflation is still well below that in developing nations:

The [inflation] threat is from emerging economies. Inflation there is now too high, reflecting high weightings towards food and energy where prices have soared. Inflation in the Bric economies hit 8 per cent year-on-year last month, double the level in February 2007. State policy is partly to blame. Short-term real interest rates are negative in Russia and China, while the latter’s currency peg is unhelpful. But prices also reflect structural shortages. In physical commodities it will take time for capital investment to get new supply on line. Meanwhile it is conceivable that some foods might run out: this week India, Egypt and Vietnam restricted rice exports to boost domestic supply.

The consequences of inflation in China and other emerging nations are important to Americans:

But inflation in emerging economies will eventually feed through into their exports. And dirt-cheap consumer products from abroad have been central to keeping western prices low. There is a credible risk that this is an inflection point. Hence, monetary authorities should be firm – precisely the stance they are unable to take due to the banking crisis.

In short, we’ve been exporting a massive amount of dollars for a very long time in exchange for the world’s oil and manufactured goods. Some of those dollars get turned around and used to buy American goods and assets, but many of these dollars have been sloshing around the world’s central banks and forming the basis for inflation in these developing nations. It’s as if the rest of the world, sitting at an All You Can Eat Dollar Buffet, is starting to get full.

As the world has its fill of dollars, and as prices start rising in China and other nations, our trading partners return our inflation to us through higher prices and the continued devaluation of our dollar. As of today, the Chinese RMB broke through 7:1, and is trading at 6.9975 per dollar. When I was in China last July, the exchange rate was 7.5 RMB per dollar. That’s an almost 7% decline in the dollar (or 7% higher prices for Chinese goods) in eight months. Our politicians have been asking for a stronger Chinese currency (and thus a weaker dollar), and now we’re getting it.

While logic would suggest that we need to restrain the creation of new money in the face of these inflationary forces, the article highlights the fact that we’re between a rock and a hard place with respect to the banking system’s insolvency in the current credit crunch. When in doubt, though, bet that the Federal Reserve will continue to support the liquidity of the banking system, and the right of Bear Stearns executives to drive really nice cars:

Is that really the right move for the American people?

A recent Supreme Court decision in the Medellin v. Texas case fortunately reaffirms that we have not yet completely lost our national sovereignty, and indeed state sovereignty, to the vagaries of unaccountable international law. From the ABC News article:

In a defeat for the Bush administration, the Supreme Court ruled 6 to 3 Tuesday that President George W. Bush does not have the authority to force a state to reconsider a death penalty case, even if the conviction in that case violates an international court’s ruling.

Jose Medellin, a Mexican national, was convicted and sentenced to death in 1994 for raping and killing two teenage girls in Houston.

However, the International Court of Justice at The Hague, Netherlands ruled that his conviction was in violation of international treaties, which ordered that the home country of any defendant had to be notified upon the arrest of a foreign national.

Article 36 of the Vienna Convention requires authorities to notify “without delay” a detained foreign national of his right to request assistance from the consul of his own state. At the time of Medellin’s arrest, the United States was a signatory to the treaty, but Mexico was never notified of his arrest.

Medellin, a Mexican citizen who had lived in the United States most of his life, claimed that had he known that he could inform Mexican consular officers of his detention they could have potentially assisted him by providing funding for experts or investigators or ensuring that he was represented by a competent defense counsel. Currently, there are 50 other Mexican nationals on death row in America.

Taking the side of Medellin, Bush had issued a statement admitting that the United States had breached the applicable article of the Vienna Convention, and determined that state courts had to abide by the treaty. This meant they had to then review and reconsider the sentences and convictions of the death row inmates.

Bush claimed that his determination to have the states reconsider the cases came from his “authorized power to effectuate” treaty obligations.

The Bush administration ordered the Texas state court to reopen Medellin’s case in order to comply with the treaty.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, “Indeed, the Government has not identified a single instance in which the President has attempted (or Congress has acquiesced in) a Presidential directive issued to state courts, much less one that reaches deep into the heart of the State’s police powers and compels state courts to reopen final criminal judgments and set aside neutrally applicable state laws.”

Roberts wrote, “not all international law obligations automatically constitute binding federal law enforceable in United States courts.”

As a friend noted:

I’ve not yet read the decision, but based on the news reports it sounds like this decision may be particularly important as a repudiation of the liberals who want foreign treaties to act as amendments to the U.S. Constitution, so that the federal government can get around that pesky 10th Amendment and impose its will on the States in matters that it would otherwise be forbidden to meddle in.

We are fortunate that an unprecedented assault on self-government was prevented in this case. Allowing a state’s criminal due process to be subverted by international court decisions enforced by our federal government should make every Constitution-respecting American recoil in horror.

Thanks to an introduction by fellow Congressional candidate Dean Santoro, I had the opportunity to be interviewed by Kurt Wallace on his show Wake Up America this morning. Kurt and I had an excellent discussion about our Congressional campaign, running for office against the “establishment”, our American healthcare system, the challenges of taking on an entrenched incumbent, and the value of freedom in advancing true social progress. I invite you to check it out: here

It appears there are some people who think a Constitutional federal government is a threat to Christian conservatives. I disagree, and published the following comment in response to Chuck Campbell’s post:

Chuck - As you know, I am personally quite conservative. My wife and I have been married for eleven years, have three children, and are Christians who seek to live by example and service to others. Furthermore, Christianity has been a lifelong journey as we seek and follow God’s plan for our lives.

I have been blessed to experience much on my journey, starting with my medical training in the late nineties. One of my favorite books is Fearfully and Wonderfully Made, by Phillip Yancey and Paul Brand, a Christian physician. This book looks at the miraculous creation that is humanity, and also acknowledges the challenges of working in medicine, which is literally God’s “complaint department”.

As a physician, I saw and treated the ravages caused by poor lifestyle choices. The devastation caused by smoking and alcohol abuse cannot be overstated, nor the devastation caused by abusing one’s body through excess refined carbohydrates and insufficient exercise leading to obesity, insulin resistance, diabetes, and a slow, painful decline as one’s body can no longer circulate life-giving nutrients to critical organs. Infections, amputations, blindness, heart attacks… in many cases caused by diet and lifestyle choices.

For many people, adult onset diabetes, lung cancer, and liver failure due to alcohol abuse are consequences of abusing our bodies and not honoring them as God’s magnificent creation. But what about the child with leukemia? How about the 41 year old father of three with a newly-diagnosed glioblastoma (brain cancer) with one year to live?

Medicine really gave me a sense of perspective. Should I not treat patients whose behavior clearly brought on their illness? Of course not. That’s not how God calls us to serve. How about acknowledging Romans 3:23-24, “There is no difference, for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came through Christ Jesus.”

I am also quite cognizant of Matthew 7:5: “You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.” I offer my candidacy humbly, with the knowledge that I am an imperfect person who seeks God’s guidance in trying to do His will. I believe I am called to live my faith through example, and remember Jesus’ words in Matthew 9:11-13:

“When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and ’sinners’?” On hearing this, Jesus said, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”

So how do I threaten Christian conservatives? As you know from the state fair, I am strongly pro-life, and view protection of life as the primary role of government. Outside of abortion, I am strongly “pro-choice” — especially with regards to education. What better way to prevent government from sanctioning destructive lifestyles then breaking the government’s monopoly on education?

I do not encourage or embrace destructive lifestyle choices, but I question how government can “punish” them. Should we punish those who eat too much, and exercise too little? Or should we use our limited prison capacity to permanently incarcerate violent criminals who are a threat to others?

With regard to the federal government’s involvement in social issues, I think the Constitution is a great start to defining how our government in Washington should behave. You’re right, I do not support the federal government “defining” marriage in any sense. Why should Washington care? That’s clearly something that can, and should, be left to the states. Likewise for the federal “war on drugs”. The states should retain the right to determine how drug use is controlled. At least when we enacted prohibition, we had the intellectual honesty to amend the Constitution.

When I answer questions about supporting social legislation, please understand that I’m not running for office in Raleigh, but in Washington. I think Washington needs to respect the rule of law, and remember the 10th Amendment. These are good discussions to be having at the state and local level, but we need to return the focus in Washington to things it should be doing: secure borders, eliminating the income tax, inflation and rising grocery bills, and national security. (No, not steroids in baseball either.)

Finally, your perspective on my foreign policy beliefs is incorrect. I am not at all isolationist, but simply believe we must be more judicious in our use of deadly force and seek to follow the Augustinian principle of Just War. As a nation, we cannot unilaterally force our will on the rest of the world indefinitely. Right now, we police the world at China’s pleasure with our massive debt and current account deficit. Instead, we must get back into the business of inspiring multinational cooperation to deal with criminals and terrorists that threaten civilized society.

Please visit www.lawsonforcongress.com to learn more about our campaign to restore a Constitutional federal government. A Constitutional federal government is not a threat to Christian conservatives. It will protect life, restore free speech, provide free choice and local control in education, secure our borders, rebuild a strong military defense, encourage peace and understanding through diplomatic and economic engagement, and enable Christians to lead by example.

What do you think?

Another person I had the pleasure of meeting over the past year is Tom Roberg. I first met Tom in April 2007 when evaluating his startup company, Laam Science. Tom and his partners saw an opportunity to commercialize a fabric coating that has antibacterial and antiviral properties when exposed to visible light. Unlike some other antimicrobial coatings, this technique does not use expensive metals like silver, doesn’t leach chemicals into the environment, and uses the same oxygen radical chemistry as our own immune system.

After an appropriate amount of diligence, I made a small investment in Laam Science. What Tom and his team are doing is exactly what our economy needs — local innovation to solve a global need. From N95 respirator masks to surgical drapes, gowns, gloves, and air conditioning filters, I believe their approach makes sense and has a lot of potential. They’re not going to succeed based upon government grants or corporate welfare, they’re going to have to successfully develop and prove the value of a new product in a competitive market. While any new business is a high-risk proposition, these are the types of risks we must take to create value for our communities.

I later learned that Tom is also a former candidate for Congress in the 4th District. I met with him on December 6th to discuss my campaign, and received a great deal of insight with respect to the process and challenges of running for office. We have also continued to keep in touch, and I am pleased to have recently received Tom’s endorsement:

March 17, 2008

Dear Fellow Republicans,

As a prior Congressional candidate and long-time Republican activist, I am pleased to endorse Dr. William (B.J.) Lawson in his effort to challenge David Price this November.

I first came to know B.J. last year while he was evaluating my recent entrepreneurial endeavor, Laam Science. As an entrepreneur with a medical background, he balanced rigor in his decision to invest with an understanding of the risks involved in new enterprises.

B.J. then approached me early last December to discuss his desire to serve the Fourth District in Congress. As a former candidate myself, I was impressed by his energy, commitment, and unifying message centered on traditional, Constitutional conservatism. In a time when our nation and party are being increasingly divided, we need a new approach to challenge our incumbent’s big-government status quo.

B.J. understands the challenges we face economically with rising inflation, a declining currency, and slowing growth. Our economy, financial markets, and currency are facing tremendous uncertainties. We must respond with more freedom and individual economic self-determination to restore confidence, sustainable growth, and prosperity.

B.J. is an articulate candidate to carry this critical message. Furthermore, he brings an impressive and well-vetted resume of personal accomplishments. Please join me in supporting his campaign.

Sincerely,

Thomas H. Roberg
1998 Congressional Candidate
North Carolina’s 4th District

Chairman of the Board
Laam Science, Inc.

It’s time for us to get back to work, and to work for our customers instead of our government. Please help us restore a Constitutional federal government that lets us prosper and help each other as free, entrepreneurial Americans.

Americans today are slowly being crushed by our currency’s decline. Oil is $110 per barrel, gold is over $1,000 per ounce, and foreign currencies across the board are hitting new record highs against the dollar.

These prices and events are not theoretical concerns. Americans across the board are facing rising prices for food, energy, and manufactured goods. Unfortunately, however, we’re not supposed to talk about the dollar here. In fact, we have such a provincial view of money in the United States that your average American consumer doesn’t even have the ability to save him or herself from a collapsing paper currency. In other countries, however, consumers are much more sophisticated:

In Bolivia, billboards feature George Washington’s image on a $1 bill alongside a bright pink 500 euro note, encouraging savers to turn to the euro to tuck away money earned abroad or sent home in remittances.

“If the dollar’s going down … save it in Euros!!!” say the signs popping up around La Paz for Bolivia’s Banco Bisa.

Just try going down to your local bank and switching your savings account to Euros. Not so much. (You can visit RBC Centura and gain access to Canadian dollars fairly easily, however.)

American consumers shouldn’t feel badly about their lack of knowledge regarding the dollar crisis, however. It turns out that even the White House isn’t allowed to talk about the dollar. Here’s a memorable quote from a recent press conference on March 7 by Dana Perino and Edward Lazear, Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers:

Q I’d like to follow up on their refusal to talk about the dollar, if I could. I mean, we’re in a kind of a bad situation here, when OPEC says the reason for $105 or $106 a barrel of oil is the falling value of the dollar — and you won’t address that issue. Where do we go to find out who is right?

MS. PERINO: Well, as he just said, the Treasury Secretary is where you go to talk about the dollar. It’s a longstanding policy that predates this administration, and I’m not going to change it today. But Treasury can talk about it.

Q I don’t expect you to change it, but I do expect you to be able to say whether OPEC is completely wrong about this, or whether there is at least something to their claim that the dollar is responsible for the high price of oil right now.

MS. PERINO: Wendell, I’m under strict instructions, and have been from the beginning, to not talk about the dollar, and I’m not going to get fired to satisfy your question. (Laughter.)

That’s funny, all right. It’s funny that the current crisis is cloaked in bureaucratic “secrecy”, and folks aren’t willing to be honest about a crisis of historic proportions.

Today, the Federal Reserve opened up the money spigots to bail out a broke investment bank. Not surprisingly, our currency continues its free-fall against commodities and other currencies. The American worker, saver, and retiree has never been so endangered as in today’s inflationary environment.

For folks who don’t understand why we’re in such danger, here’s the answer: un-Consitutional debt-backed paper money that can be created or destroyed at will by a private central bank. Right now, your salary and savings are being stolen by the rising cost of food, energy, and other necessities just so we can keep a corrupt system solvent.

It’s time for a change, and time for Americans to talk about the dollar again. My favorite quote from this recent post:

I urge all voters to apply this crucial test to their representatives before supporting them.

Make them commit squarely and unequivocally to these questions. Do you believe Congress should exercise its sovereign power as provided in the Constitution of the United States to create money and regulate the value thereof and control the circulating medium in the interest of the whole people? Or do you believe this sovereign power should be transferred to Banks of Issue?

Their answers will prove conclusively whether they are with the people or against them.

Or do you believe that Banking Corporations should issue a credit substitute and through it control the money and circulating medium of exchange of the people of the United States in their own interest?

Watch your presidential candidate carefully and see that he commits himself clearly on this vital question. It will be a true test of his honesty and fitness for office. Admitted ignorance on the monetary issue should not excuse him. The subject is as old as our government, and if he does not know enough about it now to answer these test questions, he is not qualified to fill the position he aspires to, and should not ask your votes.

These words were written in 1912. When’s the last time you considered the nature of money?

The fight against the National Bio & Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF) continues to march forward and gather steam. In the last few weeks I have had the pleasure of meeting and getting to know members of the Granville Non-Violent Action Team (G.N.A.T.) and they, along with B.J., have inspired and encouraged me to speak out about NBAF.

So, in the last couple of weeks, I have composed two Letters to the Editor: one for the Durham Herald-Sun, and one to the Raleigh News & Observer.

Below is my letter to the Durham Herald-Sun, which addresses the attempts by the NC Consortium for NBAF to speak about the security and transparency factors of the proposed facility even though they are unqualified to speak about either:

NBAF risks public health
March 6, 2008

Regarding the Feb. 27th article “Official Supports Bio-Agro Defense Facility”, Dr. Warwick Arden, Dean of the NCSU College of Veterinary Medicine, like many members of the N.C. Consortium for the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility (NBAF), is unqualified to discuss the security and transparency aspects of the facility. He is not a member of Homeland Security and, as such, his assurances of how the Department will behave are meaningless.

Further, there are several facts that Arden cannot deny. For instance, the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, which will be stored at NBAF, in England in 2007 is believed to have been caused by an accidental release from a facility there. Accidents, after all, do happen.

In September, New York Congressman Tim Bishop, whose district includes Plum Island, encouraged his constituents to reject locating NBAF on Plum Island. This was despite that the facility on Plum Island has been in place for over 50 years.

At the Creedmoor town hall meeting last week, Dr. William (B.J.) Lawson, a physician who’s running for Congress against NBAF-supporter David Price, argued that we should collaborate with laboratories around the world already studying these diseases instead of building a “Taj Mahal” for these diseases in our backyard.

The reality remains unchanged. NBAF presents undeniable and unnecessary public safety and health risks to our area that any potential benefits from the facility do not outweigh. Unqualified assurances from Arden and other members of the Consortium will not change that.

While my letter to the Herald-Sun tackled a recent article they published, my letter to the News and Observer tackled what hasn’t been in any articles yet: the fact that David Price supports NBAF and has lobbied Homeland Security to bring it here. Here it is, as published (except for the bold part):

What Price supports

I have yet to see a single article that points out that U.S. Rep. David Price supports the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility and as chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security has been lobbying the Department of Homeland Security to bring it to the area.

He has done so while ignoring the dangers of the NBAF, a facility that will store animal-to-animal and animal-to-human diseases that will pose health and safety risks to local livestock and residents.

Thankfully, at least one candidate has stepped up to retire professional politician Price and give the people of the forth district a voice in Washington once again — B.J. Lawson, a Duke Medical School graduate from Cary who filed his candidacy last month.

It seems that after serving in Congress for over 20 years, Price has lost touch with the people he’s supposed to represent. I say “supposed to” because a glance at Price’s campaign donors shows whom he now truly represents: a laundry list of corporate and special interests, including some interests who might benefit from NBAF being located in the area.

It’s time for long-overdue change. Someone in Congress actually looking out for the best interests of the people would be Price-less.

The part in bold was actually removed by the newspaper, but as people wake up to what David Price is doing, they’ll begin to look for alternatives. B.J. Lawson is that alternative.

Watch our local newspapers, as many other local residents are speaking out about the proposed facility and making solid points about its dangers. I encourage everyone to do the same, and don’t stop at NBAF. Letters to the Editor are a great way to speak your mind about whatever issue is important to you. To write the Durham Herald-Sun click here. To write the Raleigh News and Observer click here.

North Carolina’s educational system is in serious trouble, including within our Fourth District. Both as a parent and Congressional candidate, education is an critical issue.

We have firsthand experience with education from many perspectives. My wife taught elementary school in Durham while I was in medical school, with four of those years at E.K. Powe on Ninth Street. Even in those days, Powe had a challenging student population. We gradually learned that despite her best efforts to help her children, what happened at home was even more important than what happened in school. There are excellent examples of local programs and schools that do make a difference through a more holistic approach, but traditional public schools alone are insufficient to address the challenges faced by our most threatened children.

Today, our children attend public school in Wake County, where we’ve seen firsthand the damage wrought by the death of neighborhood schools and ever-increasing bureaucracy. At the same time, we’ve seen a growing trend towards greater centralized control and reduced local freedom. Some would suggest that centralized control provides better accountability and assessments. In North Carolina, however, our educational bureaucracy has been more interested in protecting itself and pretending it’s making progress than actually dealing with the difficult problems facing our children.

The problems of education must be addressed at every level of government: federal, state, and local. At the federal level, many applaud No Child Left Behind (NCLB) for providing accountability based upon standardized tests. Others applaud it for its inexplicable logo, also clearly left behind.

While there is value in states keeping themselves accountable, federal supervision is not the answer — the requirements of NCLB have perverse consequences that work against our children.

For example, take Wake County’s constant redistricting dilemma. In discussions with folks within the Wake County Public School System (WCPSS), it’s clear that the county wants to prevent schools from missing their NCLB performance goals at all costs. Since federal funds only account for about 10% of our state’s educational budget, and 6% of the budget in Wake County, the heavy-handed punishments and school “takeovers” required by Washington make NCLB a much bigger stick than a carrot.

But in response to that stick, when the county faces children with serious educational needs, it pursues short-term punishment-avoidance strategies. Instead of focusing the energy and resources on holistically addressing those needs, the county uses the smokescreen of “diversity” to justify busing that spreads children across the county, diluting the “problems” and allowing schools, on average, to hit their targets.

From my medical background, I consider this behavior malpractice. Think about it — when you have really sick patients who need focused attention, you put them in an intensive care unit. Would it make sense to spread the sickest patients throughout the hospital so, on average, everyone appears to be doing “ok”? That would be a recipe for disaster, as it is in our schools. Not only is an hour-long bus ride a tremendous waste of time, it’s also bad for the budget and the environment. Finally, parental involvement and school volunteerism are eliminated when schools are across the county instead of across the street.

So at the federal level, NCLB and the Department of Education have got to go. Ultimately, federal involvement only gives us unfunded mandates and unintended consequences. The Department of Education consumed $62 billion last year, which is money that never should have left the states in the first place. When you consider we only received about $1 billion in federal educational funds along with the strings of federal control, we would have been much better off keeping our tax dollars here for our children.

At the state level, we need to insist on transparency and accountability in our state’s educational system. Even though NCLB requires statewide tests, our state has created tests that are not nationally normed, and are actually “dumbed down” so that students “at grade level” in North Carolina are below those in South Carolina:

In addition, states with already low standards have done nothing to raise them. Oklahoma and Tennessee once again share the cream puff award, with both states earning Fs because their self-reported performance is much higher than can be justified by the NAEP results. States with nearly equally embarrassing D minuses included Mississippi, Georgia, and North Carolina. Once again, we discover that Suzy could be a good reader in North Carolina, where standards are low, but a failure in neighboring South Carolina, where standards are higher.

How useful is that? Since we’ve proven ourselves incapable of holding ourselves accountable even with a federal mandate, we need to take control of our state’s educational bureaucracy so that we can have an honest assessment and deal with the consequences. Instead of “rolling our own” with respect to tests, why not just use the nationally-normed Iowa Test of Basic Skills?

We also need to break the state’s monopoly on providing educational services. Monopolies in any industry provide poor service, high costs, and low quality. Education is no different, and our parents and children of all socioeconomic backgrounds deserve freedom of choice with educational dollars. Choice must include freedom to “opt out” and home school, as well.

At the local level, we need school board representatives to be accountable across the county through “at-large” elections, as opposed to just representing the interests of their district. Unfortunately, since North Carolina leaves so little local control to the counties and municipal governments, making this change requires legislation in Raleigh. Please contact your local representatives and evaluate potential candidates based upon their supporting At-Large Elections for WCPSS Board of Education. Also, please sign this electronic petition in support of this legislative initiative.