Lawson for Congress

Our twenty-year incumbent Rep. David Price is Chair of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security. In this role, he has overseen an unprecedented transfer of power and wealth to the military-industrial complex through Homeland Security’s massive bureaucracy.

Evidence of Homeland Security’s reach is evidenced by today’s FEMA press release outlining our federal government’s activities in preparation for hurricane Gustav:

Snapshot of Federal Activities:

Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)

* FEMA’s pre-positioned supplies available for distribution in Gulf Coast states include:
o More than 2.4 million liters of water (137 truckloads).
o More than 4 million meals (203 truckloads).
o 478 emergency generators.
o 141 truckloads of tarps.
o 267 truckloads of blankets and cots.

Transportation Security Administration (TSA)

* TSA has deployed 45 Transit Teams and 150 Transit Security Officers to facilitate the evacuation of critical transit need individuals.

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) - continued
Customs and Border Protection (CBP)

* CBP is providing 20 Law Enforcement Officers to help protect Search & Rescue efforts.
* CBP has deployed 100 law enforcement personnel to help with evacuation and contra-flow traffic issues.
* CBP will provide reconnaissance and imagery to improve situational awareness.

U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)

* DOT, through the Federal Aviation Administration and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, is working with states, airports, airlines and bus companies to facilitate evacuations.
* DOT is managing planned contra-flow traffic on major highways to allow for expanded evacuation efforts and is tracking fuel availability along evacuation routes.

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)

* HHS has deployed nine Disaster Medical Assistance Teams, 11 Health Strike Teams, two Incident Command Teams and nine Federal Medical Stations, each with a 250-bed capacity, to the region.
* HHS has more than 1,000 public health support staff in the region assigned to support medical evacuations and to address health care needs.

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)

* VA has evacuated at-risk patients from VA hospitals in the most exposed facilities.
* VA is providing emergency managers to federal and state operations centers and has 190 medical staff on-hand to staff additional Federal Medical Stations as needed.

U.S. Department of Defense, Northern Command (NORTHCOM)

* Activated four Defense Coordinating Officers to provide assessment and coordination.
* Designated three military installations as FEMA National Logistics Staging Areas to support forward distribution of supplies and equipment to affected areas (Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama; Columbus Air Force Base, Mississippi; and Naval Air Station Meridian, Mississippi).

U.S. Coast Guard (USCG)

* USCG Cutter DECISIVE will be underway from Pascagoula, MS on Saturday, 30 August, to provide a Command and Control platform in the Gulf of Mexico if needed.
* Coast Guard Sector Lower Mississippi River placed one Disaster Assistance Response Team (DART) on standby and Sector Ohio Valley placed 3 additional DARTs on standby. DARTS have boats and personnel capable of conducting rescue in shallow water and urban environments.
* The Coast Guard currently has 19 Search and Rescue (SAR) helicopters and 10 SAR fixed wing aircraft available at Mobile, New Orleans, Corpus Christi, and Houston.
* The Coast Guard will begin conducting pre-storm over flights of estimated land fall locations based on NOAA weather models to identify potential issues/threats this weekend.

National Guard Bureau (NGB)

* National Guard members in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida are standing by with people and equipment. Personnel in Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi have been activated to assist with evacuation and shelter operations.
* More than 65,000 National Guard personnel are currently available in the Gulf Coast region.
* Arkansas has entered into an Memorandum of Understanding with Louisiana to house up to 4,000 evacuees at Fort Chaffee, Ark., if Hurricane Gustav forces a mass evacuation

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)

* USACE is managing levee protection and flood fighting activities and has deployed equipment and personnel to support these efforts.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)

* USDA provided information about how to keep food safe during power outages to the media in the Gulf Coast region.
* Consumers with food safety questions can “Ask Karen,” the FSIS virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov. The toll-free Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-674-6854 is available in English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day.

U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA)

* SBA has staff in Louisiana, Texas, Alabama and Mississippi to coordinate activities with federal and state partners.
* Reservists have been activated to staff SBA’s Disaster Customer Service Center (25 customer service reps), the Field Inspection Team (111 on stand-by), and the Processing and Disbursement center (59 loan offices; 10 attorneys).
* SBA’s field offices are using marketing materials to get the word out about preparedness to residents and business owners in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida.

The American Red Cross (ARC)

* ARC has headquarters operational in Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas.
* Pre-positioned 19 emergency response vehicles and has 196 additional vehicles on standby nationwide.
* Placed Disaster Field Supply Centers on standby and deployed shelter and kitchen trailers to Alabama, Mississippi and Texas.
* Working to identify additional shelter locations in adjacent states to support evacuation efforts.

Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC)

* EMAC is coordinating requests from other, non-impacted states for support from Louisiana and Texas. Pennsylvania, Delaware and Ohio are among the states providing support for medical evacuations.

FEMA coordinates the federal government’s role in preparing for, preventing, mitigating the effects of, responding to, and recovering from all domestic disasters, whether natural or man-made, including acts of terror. For more information on FEMA activities visit www.fema.gov and for more information on personal preparedness see www.Ready.gov.

While this coordination among agencies is admirable, the press release raises a number of questions. Have our states and local communities become entirely dependent on this federal apparatus for emergency response? Considering this year’s repeal of 2006’s Insurrection Act modifications, why does the Department of Defense’s Northern Command (NORTHCOM) play a coordinating role in natural disasters?

Natural disasters have become reliable excuses for consolidating of federal power, instead of encouraging greater local control and self-sufficiency. Why has this occurred? Follow the money — in 1961, departing President Dwight Eisenhower warned us about the rise of the military-industrial complex. Forty years later, this same military-industrial complex was unable to account for $2.3 trillion in expenditures:

Who is responsible for spending all this money? Congress — and our own Rep. David Price.

Rep. Price funds the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of Homeland Security funds Rep. Price. According to OpenSecrets.org, Rep. Price’s third largest PAC donor is the defense industry, including:

Boeing Co $3,000
EADS North America $2,000
Honeywell International $5,000
Lockheed Martin $6,000
United Technologies $1,000
DRS Technologies $5,000
General Dynamics $6,000
Harris Corp $5,000
L-3 Communications $5,000
Raytheon Co $7,000
SAIC Inc $1,000
Alion Science & Technology $1,000
Northrop Grumman $3,000
SRA International $1,000

On an individual basis, defense industry donors are the largest group, with $30,000 from Defense Electronics and $17,000 from Defense Aerospace.

As your Congressman, I will provide principled representation that answers to you, not corporate interests. I will advance a Constitutional federal government that encourages “hometown security,” instead of enriching government contractors through Homeland Security.

I just watched an instructive interview between CNBC’s Steve Liesman and Harvey Rosenblum, a 38-year Federal Reserve veteran who is currently Director of Research at the Dallas Fed. The entire interview is available here, but let’s start with a brief excerpt:

Liesman: One of the concerns out there right now is that actions by the Federal Reserve and the government will increase what we call “moral hazard.” What are your thoughts on that?

Rosenblum: The Federal Reserve is in business to create moral hazard. The mere act of being a central banker means that your job description involves creating moral hazard. A central bank is a “lender of last resort,” what more moral hazard can you have than having a lender of last resort that people know, when push can to shove, can be relied upon? The Federal Reserve’s job is to cushion the blow to 300 million American citizens of all the economic shocks that hit out there. What drives me crazy is when I hear people shouting “Moral hazard, moral hazard”… that’s what my job is to do…

Liesman then asks Rosenblum an interesting question:

Liesman: You’ve been at the Fed thirty eight years. Do you feel as if some of things being discussed and some of the things the Fed has had to do recently have stretched the Federal Reserve too far?

Rosenblum: No. I think it’s stretching the Federal Reserve in the direction that it needs to be stretched, and we just have to get the laws to catch up with where we ultimately have to be if we’re going to be a 21st century Fed deaing with 21st century financial markets. And if you’re going to be a lender of last resort, you have to have the tools to deal with the thing, and you need more regulatory power. Will regulation ever be perfect? Will it solve all the problems? Absolutely not. At best it will be one step behind the market, but even if you’re two steps behind the market, you’re doing pretty darn good.

There you have it. An insider’s description of a system that is perfectly designed to steal from the poor and middle class, to the benefit of those who control the supply of money and credit. Banks who control the supply of money and credit constantly engineer new ways to exploit the system for their benefit. Importantly, they can push the system past its limits knowing that profits will be privatized during the good times, while losses during crises will be socialized.

Cue my favorite banking video (long-time supporters will have seen this already, but it’s always worth reviewing):

Does it make sense to give the Federal Reserve more power, when in fact it is the cause of our systemic instability, and a key ingredient of an economic system that institutionalizes corporatism, poverty, and injustice?

Fortunately, more people in Washington such as Kentucky Senator Jim Bunning are realizing that the Federal Reserve is the problem instead of the solution:

Now the Fed wants to be the systemic risk regulator. But the Fed is the systemic risk. Giving the Fed more power is like giving the neighborhood kid who broke your window playing baseball in the street a bigger bat and thinking that will fix the problem. I am not going to go along with that and will use all my powers as a Senator to stop any new powers going to the Fed.

Indeed, the Federal Reserve has been scrambling over the past year to prevent a collapse of our banking and money system with a variety of “lending facilities” that let various players in the financial markets exchange assets of questionable values for Treasury debt at low interest rates, for an extended period of time. These lending facilities are the reason that the Fed itself is running out of Treasury debt — it’s lending Treasury debt so that banks don’t have to put a value on illiquid and difficult-to-value (read: questionable) assets. Does such a shell game, or a system that encourages it, make any sense at all?

Well, it might make sense, and money, for the banks. Take last week, for instance. Freddie Mac’s shares soared last Monday after a reportedly successful auction of $2 billion in new debt. One might ask who is buying Freddie’s bonds in the current environment — a recent Financial Times article reports that foreigners are scaling back their GSE holdings:

Bank of China this week revealed it had cut its portfolio of securities issued or guaranteed by the two government-sponsored enterprises by a quarter, or $4.6bn, since the end of June. The sale underscored signs of nervousness among foreign buyers of Fannie and Freddie’s debt.

Might domestic banks be picking up the slack? John Carney of Dealbreaker raises an intriguing possibility:

We don’t know who bought the Freddie notes today. But buyers of Freddie notes who have access to borrowing from the Federal Reserve would have found the decision to bid relatively easy. That’s because the ability to exchange the Freddie debt for Fed cash means banks can buy Freddie debt with a huge amount of leverage, dramatically increasing the return on their capital.

Here’s how it works. A bank that bought the six month notes from Freddie this morning could also bid to borrow from the Fed’s Term Facility, which held an $75 billion auction today. As collateral for the borrowing, the bank could offer the newly purchased Freddie notes, for which the Fed would give them credit for 97% of their market value. Recently, the TAF pricing topped out at 2.35 percent for 28-day borrowing. So a bank buying $100 million of Freddie paper yielding 2.858% could flip it to the Fed, borrowing $97 million at around 2.4% (assuming the pricing will be slightly higher this time around).

At the end of the day, a credit desk could buy $100 million of Freddie debt for just $3 million down. On that $3 million, the desk would receive a 17.7% annualized return, or 8.8% over six months, for paper that is thisclose to being explicitly backed by the Treasury Department. Not a bad deal at all.

Ah, the ingenuity of the markets.

Keep in mind that the same banks with access to these borrowing facilities charge usurious interest rates for credit cards, load up customers with penalties and fees, profit by creating money out of nothing to lend to the public with interest, and seize underlying assets when folks can’t pay.

Why can’t we all sign up for a taxpayer-financed carry trade? Thank you, Mr. Chairman:

We had a standing-room crowd at the I.O.U.S.A. premiere in Raleigh, North Carolina this evening. Two auditoriums were sold out — both the one sponsored by our campaign, as well as the regular showing. The movie provided an excellent overview of the “fiscal cancer” that David Walker, former head of the Government Accountability Office (GAO), has been courageously discussing for the past several years. The discussion about addressing these issues, however, is just beginning — and will be much more controversial.

If you missed the movie, there are some key excerpts available on YouTube, such as David Walker’s descriptions of our four deficits:

As an example of leadership deficit, consider how Congress has been abusing the trust of our senior citizens by raiding the Social Security trust fund every year:

So how big is our “fiscal hole”? David Walker explains:

After the movie, we watched a live Town Hall discussion from Omaha, Nebraska, moderated by CNBC’s Becky Quick and featuring panelists Warren Buffett, CEO of Berkshire Hathaway; William Niskanen, chairman of the Cato Institute; Bill Novelli, CEO of AARP; Pete Peterson, senior chairman of The Blackstone Group and chairman of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation; and Dave Walker, president & CEO of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation and former U.S. Comptroller General.

The best part about the event is that we had a solidly bipartisan crowd. As such, there was room for everyone to be offended: For example, some Republicans were offended that the Clinton years were painted with such a glowing brush, as spending restraint coupled with a growing economy caused the federal debt to decrease for a change (unless you count the fact that Congress spent the Social Security surplus, of course). Some Democrats were offended by the movie’s downplaying the effects of allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire — such a step will only deal with 10% of our fiscal hole.

There is, however, bipartisan agreement on two critical points:

• We need change in Congress. The biggest applause in our theater during the Town Hall discussion was after Pete Peterson’s assertion that our founders never intended a government run by career politicians. (David Price, take note. After 22 years in Washington and accumulating a healthy Congressional pension, you are a career politician.) Bill Novelli, CEO of AARP, also received resounding applause for his comment that our two party system is “toxic”, and partisan bickering is one of the biggest impediments to meaningful dialog.
• We cannot keep doing what we are doing. Current trends for public debt, private debt, foreign trade balances, and Medicare/Social Security obligations are unsustainable.

The second point was driven home by the movie, and clearly emphasized by David Walker during the Town Hall discussion. In fact, the oddest moment of the entire evening was when Warren Buffett began his comments by complimenting the movie as well-done, and then stating he was going to provide a more optimistic “Pollyanna” perspective. He then proceeded to make the claim that our overall situation is not that serious, since our massive future obligations can be paid for through “the pie getting bigger.” In other words, we can “grow our way out” of the problem.

At that point, the theater’s cognitive dissonance was so thick you could cut it with a knife, and it was clear that a showdown was just around the corner. David Walker did not disappoint, and adroitly yet diplomatically smacked down Warren Buffett’s erroneous assertions. After noting that he has tremendous respect for Mr. Buffett, Mr. Walker reminded everyone that the projections of looming bankruptcy discussed in the film already take GDP growth into account. Assuming traditional growth rates, we cannot grow our way out of this problem. Of course, if growth does not meet projected expectations, things could be worse, and sooner.

Importantly, the Town Hall discussion did attempt to spark some debate about how to fix these problems. Where debate did arise, however, its outcome was entirely too predictable. For example, William Niskanen, chair of the Cato Institute, proposes privatizing a portion of Social Security so that individuals can control their own retirement savings and seek higher returns than our insolvent Social Security system will provide. At the same time, he wisely counsels us to stop government bailouts — the government cannot, and should not, prevent businesses or individuals from making bad investments and losing money.

The counterpoint was provided by Bill Novelli of the AARP. He’s against privatizing Social Security — how do we prevent newly empowered savers from putting their nest egg into Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, Bear Stearns, and Lehman Brothers stock? While Mr. Niskanen is wisely advising us to stop relying on the government to “bail us out,” how can the average American truly “save” when deposit rates don’t keep up with inflation, and beating inflation requires paying the financial services industry for the privilege of putting our savings at risk in volatile markets that have turned into casinos for the highly-leveraged and well-connected?

So how can we cut the Gordian knot? I can envision three ways to proceed:

First, we could try to address the problems within the confines of our existing money system and expected ongoing budget deficits. As David Walker pointed out, the government has no money. It can take money from you in taxes, only to provide benefits to you somewhere else. It can borrow money, but that condemns us to pay the money back, plus interest. It can print money through the Federal Reserve, but simply printing money to meet obligations didn’t work for the Weimar Republic, and isn’t working for Zimbabwe. Within our current framework, we need to cut spending, cut entitlement benefits, and raise taxes to more punitive levels.

Alternately, we could stop and immediately seek debt counseling: end deficit spending, enforce a balanced budget, and fund our entitlement programs by refinancing our existing federal debt over a longer period of time while being more intelligent about what promises we honor, to whom, and when. You can think of this as a self-imposed and somewhat-negotiated “bankruptcy plan” where we tell our creditors that the rules are changing a bit.

A well-documented plan of this type has been proposed by Texas CPA Davis Jackson. The summary videos below are worth watching:

There is a third path to consider, however, in addition to the above. Given the severity of our situation, it is worth asking some questions about our money system itself, its history, and who benefits from preserving the status quo. I was impressed that the movie provided some education as to the nature of our money system, and the role of the Federal Reserve’s monopoly in “managing” the money supply. Most importantly, the selected clip of John Stewart’s interview with Alan Greenspan provided a rare (if deeply embedded) moment of clarity:

Watch the segment from 2:25 to 4:33. John Stewart asks the key question — if we say we live in a “free market economy”, why do we need a Federal Reserve to set interest rates? Greenspan waxes poetically about the gold standard for a while, and then answers: “To the extent that there is a central bank governing the amount of money in the system, that is not a free market.”

So, then, I ask a rhetorical question that’s often at the heart of the “liberal” versus “conservative”, or “left” versus “right” debate. If our money, which is the foundation of almost every economic transaction, does not exist in a “free market” but is instead managed by a monopoly acting in its own best interest, can we claim that any part of our economy is actually free?

That question, briefly glimpsed during the movie, has been asked before. In fact, a hundred years ago the “money question” was a topic of active discussion. The following quotation is from the book High Cost of Living by Thomas Cushing Daniel, published in 1912:

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.

Asking basic questions about our money system opens up additional possibilities to advance prosperity and liberty. Most importantly, it gets us moving in a direction towards following the Constitution, and having a government that honors its commitment to serve the people as opposed to special interests.

Solving this dilemma will not be easy, but it is possible. Pete Peterson noted that despite best intentions and claims of “bipartisanship” and “compromise”, someone will be hurt as we work to address these imbalances. To advance a just and sustainable future, we need principled leaders in Washington who will advance a Constitutional government that levels the playing field, and repairs broken systems that punish average Americans for the benefit of a few.

What are your thoughts on the challenges, and potential solutions?

Physicians for Human Rights has launched a campaign Broken Laws, Broken Lives to document medical evidence of torture, and raise awareness of torture experienced by detainees in American custody. The Preface to their report is written by Major General Antonio Taguba (USA, Ret), who led the US Army’s official investigation into the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal and testified before Congress on his findings in May, 2004. From his Preface:

This report tells the largely untold human story of what happened to detainees in our custody when the Commander-in-Chief and those under him authorized a systematic regime of torture. This story is not only written in words: It is scrawled for the rest of these individuals’ lives on their bodies and minds. Our national honor is stained by the indignity and inhumane treatment these men received from their captors.

The profiles of these eleven former detainees, none of whom were ever charged with a crime or told why they were detained, are tragic and brutal rebuttals to those who claim that torture is ever justified. Through the experiences of these men in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo Bay, we can see the full scope of the damage this illegal and unsound policy has inflicted—both on America’s institutions and our nation’s founding values, which the military, intelligence services, and our justice system are duty-bound to defend.

The full report is deeply troubling, and recommended reading. How can we, as Americans, reach a point of desperation such that we accept, rationalize, and even encourage subhuman behavior? Is there any evidence that information obtained through torture is accurate, or valuable? How is American security enhanced by our abandoning respect for basic human rights?

How have Americans handled the need for intelligence gathering in the past? Is there precedent for interrogations conducted by men and women who respect human rights, and understand the importance of setting a principled example both globally and individually?

Fortunately, yes. As a contrast to horrendous torture tactics that we must reject, an article last October provided an opportunity for the veterans of P.O. Box 1142, a top-secret World War II installation, to speak out about their experiences interrogating Nazi prisoners:

For six decades, they held their silence.

The group of World War II veterans kept a military code and the decorum of their generation, telling virtually no one of their top-secret work interrogating Nazi prisoners of war at Fort Hunt.

When about two dozen veterans got together yesterday for the first time since the 1940s, many of the proud men lamented the chasm between the way they conducted interrogations during the war and the harsh measures used today in questioning terrorism suspects.

Back then, they and their commanders wrestled with the morality of bugging prisoners’ cells with listening devices. They felt bad about censoring letters. They took prisoners out for steak dinners to soften them up. They played games with them.

“We got more information out of a German general with a game of chess or Ping-Pong than they do today, with their torture,” said Henry Kolm, 90, an MIT physicist who had been assigned to play chess in Germany with Hitler’s deputy, Rudolf Hess.

The interrogators had standards that remain a source of pride and honor.

“During the many interrogations, I never laid hands on anyone,” said George Frenkel, 87, of Kensington. “We extracted information in a battle of the wits. I’m proud to say I never compromised my humanity.”

Interesting concept — a battle of wits. Interesting ideals — never compromising one’s humanity.

I believe we need more physicians in Congress. Politicians and bureaucrats are far too eager to engage in linguistic gymnastics to “define” torture. For physicians who honor their Hippocratic oath, definitions are unnecessary. Physicians seek to cure illness, and ease suffering. While there is no question that self-defense is a fundamental human right, imposing suffering on those in custody is un-American, and inhuman.

We had a great gathering tonight at the campaign HQ, with just over 100 attendees stopping by between 5 and 9pm.

I had thought we’d be able to broadcast the event via our Ustream channel, but unfortunately discovered that AT&T’s “DSL Lite” doesn’t provide enough upstream bandwidth for smooth streaming — upload throughput in the office is a paltry 15kb/sec according to iStat, which is frankly embarrassing. As much as we’d like faster service, I’ve just not been able to justify the (greatly increased) cost — so we’re settling for quick turnaround on our taped footage:

Thanks to our tremendous volunteers who showed up early to set up, and stayed late to clean up.

We’ll be in touch with everyone about our next volunteer night at the office — we have another batch of yard signs and pocket Constitutions en route, so the fun is just beginning!

One of the most active organizations in pursuit of good government is DownsizeDC. If you haven’t visited their Web site yet, I’d encourage you to do so — their email updates are well-documented and articulate exposes of how our government serves special and corporate interests at the expense of the people.

Two of their recent releases, reprinted below, illustrate my concerns for the so-called “medical industrial complex”, and how so-called regulatory agencies serve corporate masters.

First, the Food and Drug Administration:

Subject: Stop the Killer Horse Hormones

Estrogen hormones derived from animals have dangerous side-effects. Estriol doesn’t.  But the FDA has banned Estriol in favor of the animal derived hormones. Here’s why …

Wyeth Pharmaceutical makes animal derived hormone medications. On October 6, 2005 Wyeth petitioned the FDA to prohibit the use of Estriol, a competitor to Wyeth’s “horse hormones.” Estriol is chemically identical to human estrogen, while Wyeth’s horse hormones are not. Animal derived hormones are associated with a number of health risks, such as blood clots and cancer, while Estriol is associated with a vast number of health benefits, and NO negative side-effects.

On January 9, 2008 the FDA responded to Wyeth’s petition by banning the use of Estriol.

It’s infuriating to note that the FDA’s response to the Wyeth petition calls it a citizen’s petition. It was no such thing. It was a petition from a corporation seeking government aid to prohibit a competing product at the cost of increased danger to women’s health. By contrast, 70,000 doctors, women, and other real citizens petitioned the FDA to deny Wyeth’s request, but the FDA partially sided with Wyeth anyway.

It’s even more infuriating to note that the FDA admitted in a press conference announcing the ban that it knew of no evidence of any harm associated with the use of Estriol.

The American Association for Health Freedom summarizes the case for Estriol as follows: “Compounded bio-identical hormones have been used for 50 years, are listed in the US Pharmacopoeia, are state-regulated, are available only with a doctor’s prescription, and were protected by a previous Act of Congress (FDA Modernization Act 1997).”

The FDA admits that it granted Wyeth’s request simply because Estriol has not endured the FDA’s costly and time consuming approval process. But should the estrogen that naturally flows in a woman’s body have to be approved by the FDA? Of course not. Neither then, should Estriol, which is chemically identical to that estrogen! Estriol is human estrogen.

If Estriol needs to be banned from the market then perhaps all women should report to an FDA lab to have their Estriol removed from their bodies.

We are joining with the American Association for Health Freedom to try to stop this outrage. We want to pass two resolutions in Congress: H. Con. Res. 342 and S. Con. Res. 88. Please ask your Representative and your two Senators to co-sponsor H. Con. Res. 342 and S. Con. Res. 88. You can do so here.

We would also like to note that if Downsize DC’s “Write the Laws Act” were the law of the land this FDA action would not have been possible. Please send another message in support of the “Write the Laws Act,” and use your personal comments to mention the Estriol ban as a reason why we need the “Write the Laws Act.” You can send that message here.

Next, the unexpected results of combining the American Medical Association with Justice Department bureaucrats:

SUBJECT: The AMA Writes the Laws

Should the American Medical Association (AMA) have the power to write laws? Some bureaucrats think they already do.

DownsizeDC.org proposed the “Write the Laws Act” (WTLA) to prevent unelected bureaucrats from writing regulations that have the force of law. Only elected representatives should have that power. We believe there should be “no legislation without representation.”

Sadly, we’ve just learned that the problem WTLA seeks to fix is even worse than we thought. Unelected bureaucrats in the Justice Department have now taken to treating the standards of a private organization, the AMA, as if they had the force of law.

A doctor in Kansas is facing twenty years to life for failing to conform to the standards of the American Medical Association.

Dr. Stephen J. Schneider and his wife, nurse Linda K. Schneider, are charged with illegally distributing prescription drugs, along with several counts of related fraud and illegal monetary transactions.

Did the Schneiders sell illegal drugs? No. They simply prescribed FDA-approved medications to people in pain. Now they face years in prison simply because the Justice Department disagrees with their medical judgments.

That’s bad enough, but there’s more . . .

While the Schneiders are charged with violating the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), the Schneiders didn’t actually violate any specific provision in it. Instead, the Justice Department accuses the Schneiders of violating . . .

• The policies of the Health Care Benefit Providers (HCBP’s) whom they billed — if true, then the HCBP’s should sue the Schneiders in civil court.
• Kansas state law  — if true, then Kansas should prosecute them, not the federal government.
• “Industry principles” — but those “principles” aren’t encoded in federal law, and if the Schneiders violated them, they should instead be investigated by medical licensing boards.
• The Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code book, a “privately written, trademarked and copyrighted publication of a commercial affiliate of the American Medical Association.”

The AMA, of course, is a private organization, and while the CPT is used by the government, it is not law.

It’s important to recognize that Justice Department bureaucrats want to imprison the Schneiders because they disagree with the Schneider’s medical judgments, NOT because the Schneider’s broke the law. Mere bureaucrats are treating the guidelines of private organizations as if they were laws. Like a six year-old in a playground game, the bureaucrats are “making it up as they go along.”

This prosecution threatens all doctors — and their patients, including you.

The Schneider’s case, and others like it, will encourage doctors to let their patients suffer in agony rather than risk a prison sentence. But . . .

Under WTLA the Schneider’s case would be dismissed, because the couple isn’t being accused of violating any law enacted by Congress. According to the WTLA, this would constitute a complete defense.

Thomas More is right: if the Devil breaks the law he should be prosecuted, but not before then. The same should go for doctors and everyone else. This is a fundamental principle of free society. Our constitution says that the only valid laws are those enacted by Congress, not those written by unelected bureaucrats or lifted from the guidelines of private organizations by tyrannical prosecutors.

Tell your Representative and Senators to introduce the “Write the Laws Act.” In your personal comments, tell them about the Schneider case and how the Justice Department is treating AMA rules as if they had the force of law. Tell them the WTLA would prevent such a legal travesty from ever occurring again. You can send your message here.

Publicizing these absurdities, worthy of Joseph Heller, would once have been the domain of a vigorous and free press. In the age of media consolidation and endless celebrity scandals, however, it’s up to concerned citizens to ask questions, and reveal the threats we face.

As your Congressman, I will work for a government that respects the Constitution, serves the people, and rejects predatory corporatism. The status quo doesn’t work for us any more — join me and folks at Downsize DC as we work to restore good government this November.

Piedmont Biofuels is a commercial biodiesel production facility in an industrial park on the outskirts of Pittsboro, NC, located alongside several other like-minded eco-industrial enterprises. Judging from its aesthetically pleasing landscape of brightly colored buildings, acres of green grass and blossoming foliage, the site appears more like a botanical garden or an art space than it does an industrial park.

Although this rural setting provides the park with somewhat of a buffer against the suburban bustle beyond its borders, an active and unique community of ecologically aware individuals each contributing to the creation of an environmentally sustainable lifestyle exists within the fences of this industrial site. Against this idyllic backdrop, Piedmont Biofuels brews more than one million gallons of biodiesel every year.

In addition to producing biodiesel and providing it to the community, a related worker and member owned cooperative promotes the use of clean, renewable biofuels and lobbies local, state and national government on their behalf. It runs a market garden for wholesale and the local farmer’s market, performs oilseed crop research and provides both consultation services to those interested in setting up their own biodiesel businesses and educational services in the form of classes and workshops on biodiesel and alternative fuels. They also offer internships that allow people to live on-site and immerse themselves in all aspects of the operation.

Last Friday, I was invited to accompany Dr. B.J. Lawson to the Piedmont Biofuels Industrial Park to tour the facility and observe the interview that he conducted with the coop’s vice president of stuff, Dr. Lyle Estill, for his public access television program, “Taking the Pulse.”

One of the three founding members of the coop, Dr. Estill is an influential and innovative force in the world of biofuels. For one thing, his plant was only the third in the nation to convert to chicken fat for its biodiesel production (at a time when the majority of plants were using soy oil).

Although Lyle credits his penchant for recycling as well as his ingrained environmental inclinations as the primary inspiration for his foray into the world of alternative fuels, his various stints in industries as diverse as computer technology and studio artistry also have guided his thinking and continue to inform the way in which Piedmont Biofuels is operated.

When we met Dr. Estill, he was busy giving a tour of the Industrial site as he does on the first Friday of every month. He invited us to join the group for the last leg of the tour followed by a Question and Answer session before giving us a private tour of the grounds and sitting down for a talk with Dr. Lawson.

Dr. Estill began the tour by showing us the apparatuses that comprise the plant’s infrastructure. As we strolled past tanks, reactors, and processors, he frequently stopped to give fascinating and detailed explanations of how the machinery operate in concert to produce biodiesel. His enthusiasm and passion for the operation were evident in his explanations.

As the tour progressed, we were given the opportunity to observe the operations of several of the other eco-industrial enterprises that the Industrial site houses, including Screech’s Greenhouse and the worm bed.

Within the 60ft. hydroponics greenhouse, we saw rows upon rows of giant lettuce heads that Screech has grown for sale both at the local farmer’s market and to Eco Organics, an on-site farm coop charged with remaking the industrial park’s food shed.

Upon entering the greenhouse, we also immediately noticed a long, covered crib. As we peered inside the crib, we quickly realized that this structure contained the worm bed. Powered entirely by food waste, the bed is home to countless worms that busily decompose the site’s fine paper waste. Using food waste produced by Chatham Marketplace, this vermiculture enterprise is set to expand into its own business.

Our visit to Piedmont Biofuels culminated in a “Local Lunch,” in which Dr. Estill generously invited us to partake. Held every Friday, the Local Lunch brings together the coop’s staff to share a meal prepared using only ingredients grown by local farmers.

On this particular Friday, we had the pleasure of sampling an array of delectable dishes from ginger salad to bean salad to tomato and cucumber salad, all made from some of the freshest food that I had ever tasted. Just as enjoyable as the fare were the conversations that I engaged in with the staff and interns that I sat alongside.

The equipment and methods that Piedmont Biofuels employs to create biofuel proved to be very fascinating. However, the people that I met during our visit made an even greater impression on me. Their passion and dedication both to the coop and to the environmentally sustainable lifestyle that the coop encourages was at once admirable and infectious.

In his latest book, Small is Possible: Life in a Local Economy, Dr. Estill writes, “In my 25 years in business, my people have always been my most important asset.” The same value should be placed on people in communities. Although the importance of financial capital and infrastructure should not be dismissed, Piedmont Biofuels is a great example of what happens when people are nurtured as a community’s most valuable resource.

As has been widely reported, Congress passed H.R. 3221, a “comprehensive” housing bill, with our current 4th District representative voting in favor of it. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the bill will cost about $37 billion next year, and it provides $25 billion over the next two years in “relief” for failed semi-governmental institutions Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. However, the CBO states that the cost of this “bailout” for Fannie and Freddie could be as high as $100 billion. These estimates do not even include the $300 billion that the bill authorizes the Federal Housing Administration to spend on guaranteeing loans through 2011. This bill ultimately could cost as much as $500 billion.

Never mind the considerable cost of the bill and the borrowing it will entail at a time when the Administration projects the budget deficit next year to be near $500 billion. Or the fact that, by allowing Fannie and Freddie to purchase mortgages as high as $625,000 and giving borrowers and lenders alike a free ride, the bill will do absolutely nothing to address the problems in our mortgage markets and our financial markets in general. The real shame about this horrendous piece of legislation is a provision that has absolutely nothing to do with mortgages at all, but does have everything to do with the most pressing economic issue we face. The bill increases the public debt ceiling, which is the amount of debt that the government can “legally” have, to $10.6 trillion.

This limit has had no real meaning historically, as Congress has increased it periodically from $43 billion in 1940 to now $10.6 trillion. This trend over time reflects an absolute lack of willingness of our representatives in Washington to stop increasing spending at such a blinding rate and to make the hard decisions necessary to reduce the debt and prevent the economic collapse it will bring if left unchecked. In addition to the economic issue at hand, the debt and the conscious increasing of its limit by our representatives is a moral issue. In pushing more and more of the costs of their excesses on to future generations, our representatives, including David Price, show themselves to be individuals of truly repugnant moral character.

But while our representatives are to blame for their behavior, we the people are to blame for electing them and not holding them accountable for their behavior. Much of this is likely due to what appears to be a genuine lack of concern for the debt, as a recent Pew Research Poll finds that deficits rank behind the economy, education, jobs, health care, energy, Social Security and Iraq. What many voters fail to realize is that most of these issues are directly tied to the deficit and our future fiscal outlook, particularly the health of the economy. It is absolutely essential that voters learn about deficits, debt, our long-term imbalances, and their horrifying consequences, so that we may elect responsible representatives who will take action to resolve what has truly become a crisis.

Thankfully, we have a golden opportunity before us to educate voters on the issues. Documentary films have shown to have tremendous impact in raising awareness and public profiles of issues, and a new documentary about the debt will be released in August. The film is appropriately titled I.O.U.S.A. and will be debuting on August 22. There will be a special screening the night before on August 21, which will be accompanied by a live discussion featuring former Comptroller of the Currency David Walker, Berkshire Hathaway CEO Warren Buffet, and Blackstone Group Chairman and former Commerce Secretary Peter Peterson. As the trailer states, “You can’t afford to miss this film.”

When people ask why I’m running for Congress, I start with a summary of my four primary questions about our federal government, and Congress in particular:

1. Most people assume that our elected Representatives and their staff actually read the bills before they vote on them. They don’t.
2. Many people assume that our lawmakers limit legislation to a single topic at a time. They don’t do that, either.
3. Most people assume that our elected Representatives actually write legislation. Increasingly, they don’t.
4. Finally, many people assume that Congress follows rules concerning what our federal should, and shouldn’t, do. Not any more.

I believe it’s time for a new generation of principled leadership who will expect more from our government. With your help, I want to lead Washington to embrace a Good Government Platform, and seek to pass the following legislation:

1. The Read the Bills Act: Congress should read legislation before it votes on it.
2. The One Subject at a Time Act: Congress should limit legislation to one subject per bill.
3. The Write the Laws Act: Congress should write laws and be accountable for their results, and not delegate rulemaking authority to unelected bureaucrats and corporate lobbyists.
4. The Enumerated Powers Act: All legislation must specify the Constitutional authority upon which it is based.

The PATRIOT Act is a perfect example of legislation that never should have passed. Why? Because it was only available to Representatives for fifteen minutes before leadership called for a vote. As Judge Andrew Napolitano notes:

The most sinful aspect of [the PATRIOT Act's] passage was how members of the House were not permitted to read it. It was posted on the House Intranet for 15 min [before the vote] and it’s 315 pages long. I read it twice, and it took me 20 hours each time. And you need in front of you not just it, but lots of other statutes, the full U.S. criminal code, to process it. It does lots of amending of other statutes, so you need to reread [those] statues to figure out what government has done by amending that statute.

I was speaking in the Midwest—I don’t want to tell you where, somewhere in the great Heartland—two weeks ago and at the end of my speech, after I said many of these things I’m saying here and in my book, there was a congressman in the audience. He and I socialized a bit, and he said, “Judge, I’m a little ill at ease. I didn’t know until hearing you tonight that the Patriot Act permitted self-written search warrants and criminalized speech about receiving them, and I voted for it twice.”

And I said—knowing how he was going to answer—I asked, “Didn’t you read it? You voted on it.” No, he didn’t have time, he only read the summary. And he didn’t remember the summary talking about self-written search warrants and criminalized speech. He told me many of his colleagues were in the same situation. I said, “WRONG—all your colleagues are in the same situation! No one in the House except maybe leadership read the Patriot Act you voted on!” It’s abominable for the government to tamper with our basic liberties—but it’s inconceivable that they would do so without any debate.

David Price voted for the PATRIOT Act. Suffice it to say that voting “Yea” when legislation cannot even possibly have been read is legislative malpractice.

There are plenty of additional examples, such as our over 600-page Farm Bill. Clearly, we have a readability problem when legislation is over 600 pages. How can bills be that long? One reason is that legislators treat bills like freight trains: when a bill is likely to “leave the station”, lawmakers start “piling on” with unrelated provisions, many of which would never pass on their own. The Farm Bill has several good examples, such as an unrelated provision that allows the Department of Homeland Security to bring Foot and Mouth Disease onto the mainland United States, when previously it could only be studied offshore.

The REAL ID is another example. It failed to pass as standalone legislation, but then was tacked on as an unrelated provision to a “support the troops” military funding bill. Finally, you can look at the recently-passed Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008. Somewhere in the middle of fixing the housing crisis, the bill contains language that requires payment processors like Visa, MasterCard, and PayPal to report your transaction data to the federal government. What does that have to do with housing relief?

As a result of these poor practices, the Executive branch asks for things like the line-item veto. Failing that, the Executive branch has made the problem worse by engaging in questionable “signing statements” that arbitrarily reject part of legislation passed by the Congress.

The third problem is Congress’ tendency to not even write legislation any more. When you do run into a bill that is short enough to read, typically that bill doesn’t actually create or amend laws. Instead, Congress has started delegating its Constitutional lawmaking authority to unelected bureaucrats and lobbyists — with predictable and often unpleasant results.

The first time I experienced this phenomenon was when I was in medicine and HIPAA was coming to fruition. I watched as legislation that many assumed would protect the privacy of protected health information actually did the opposite — the lobbyists and bureaucrats who wrote the rules created a system where everyone who has a financial interest in your care has easy electronic access to your information, while at the same time, physicians and caregivers are less able to use judgment and common sense when sharing information with you and your family.

Another great example of this trend is H.R. 1955, or the so-called “Thought Crime” bill. H.R. 1955 doesn’t actually contain a new law — instead, it authorizes a committee to travel the world and learn how other countries deal with the problems of “homegrown terrorism and domestic radicalization”. This committee then is empowered to create policy recommendations that will be implemented by our Attorney General. Does that sound like a good idea? What if we don’t like the policy recommendations? Who is accountable for the results?

Finally, and most importantly, there’s one fundamental question: What is the role of the federal government? Congress should not be able to pass any legislation just because it seems like a good idea, and can get the votes. Our Constitution specifies that there are things our federal government should do, and any powers not specifically granted to the federal government are reserved for the states and the people. Ignoring that fundamental principle means that we cease being a Republic, or nation of laws — not to mention what it is doing to inflate the size and cost of the federal government.

So… if Congress isn’t reading the bills or writing the laws, if legislation doesn’t respect any limits on the government’s power, and if the legislation they pass is partially ignored by the Executive Branch, does our government represent the people?

Above and beyond any particular issues, I believe a renewed emphasis on good government is critical to reshaping our future. These are not partisan proposals, but they are a radical change to the way Washington operates. Can we make this change? Can we afford not to?

With your help, we will.

Too often, discussion of serious issues such as energy are defined by divisive partisan rhetoric that often misses the point, such as this humorous Daily Show segment:

While politicians in both major parties are focused on gas prices, the arguments they use are often little more than a red herring. Consider the current controversy about offshore drilling, for example.

The Republican party line is “Drill here, drill now, pay less”. That’s deceptive. The Democratic party line is “Use what you got, already!” — we shouldn’t risk environmental damage to areas off-limits until existing leases are exploited. That’s also deceptive.

Here’s one problem with these arguments: both parties make the assumption that lifting drilling restrictions for the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) would result in an immediate rush of oil exploration, with lower prices (Republicans) and environmental devastation (Democrats).

Rational people, however, might question that fundamental assumption. The fact is that oil rigs aren’t just sitting around idle waiting for new places to drill. They’re already close to fully utilized in the places of greatest economic benefit, as shown by utilization data at RigZone.

Furthermore, new rigs aren’t rolling off the assembly line on a daily basis. They’re extremely expensive and take a long time to build. So one reason existing leases aren’t being exploited is that there are easier pickings elsewhere. Opening up additional OCS territory doesn’t mean that new rigs would appear overnight.

But why not? Doesn’t it seem that if global demand and oil prices are strong, then industry investment in exploration and rig production would be also accelerating? Given what we know about growing global demand, why aren’t oil companies investing every spare dollar in exploration, instead of dividends and share buybacks?

Could it be that large oil companies are aggressively buying back stock and not plowing money into locating new reserves because the largest and most accessible reserves have already been found?

Oil is a finite resource, so it is safe to say that once all the oil is extracted, it is gone for good and cannot be replaced. The term “Peak Oil” refers to the time in which the world’s oil production will reach its maximum rate and then begin to decline. Peak Oil is not about the time when we run out of oil; it is about the rate at which oil is being produced. Simply put, it is the point where the amount of oil the world uses everyday exceeds the rate at which oil can be produced.

For an excellent introduction and discussion about Peak Oil, please visit The Oil Drum.

In 1956, scientist M. King Hubbert used a logistic model, now called the Hubbert peak theory, to accurately predict the time which the United States’ lower 48 states would reach peak oil. It is agreed upon that the lower 48 states reached their production peak in 1970 and have been producing less oil, at a slower rate each year, than it had the year before — despite rising prices and continued efforts to increase supply.

The Hubbert Theory has been used successfully to project timetables for the peak of oil and other finite resources in many countries throughout the world. Since the US imports over 60% of its oil, we have not been worrying about the unseen consequences. But what happens when the entire world’s oil supply reaches its peak? Once there is a peak in world oil production, the world will need to learn to decrease the amount of oil consumed and learn how to stop relying so heavily on oil.

From the week of July 4- July 11 2008, the U.S crude oil imports averaged 10.8 million barrels per day. This is a 1.2 million barrel increase from the previous week. In 2007 the U.S consumed over 142 billion gallons of gasoline and in total, consumed over 7.5 billion barrels of crude oil: almost 25% of the total amount of oil consumed in the entire world. Even in the energy sector, dating back to 2005, the U.S accounted for 21.8% of the total energy used in the world. Yet we are only 5% of the world’s population.

Ultimately, high energy prices will help us focus on local, community-based sustainability. However, we will likely need to use nearly every drop and BTU of available energy to make an orderly transition to renewables in the face of global population growth and our current level of fossil fuel dependence.

From that perspective, lifting the federal ban on offshore drilling is necessary, as we must be able to use the most accessible of our few remaining reserves:

But merely lifting the ban won’t accomplish much in itself. It doesn’t mean drilling will begin immediately. It will take some time, during which we will continue to be 300 million Americans increasingly competing with 1.1 billion Indians and 1.3 billion Chinese who love their new cars. So prices are unlikely to collapse, and the impetus to look locally for sustainable solutions will only grow.