Lawson for Congress

Today we celebrate the Fed’s balance sheet topping $2 trillion, led by purchases of commercial paper that may include a stealth, alternative mechanism for bailing out AIG:

Just two weeks into its operation, the Fed’s commercial paper facility expanded by nearly $100 billion. The Fed now owns something like 20% of all the commercial paper outstanding, holding a total of $243 billion of the short term loans.

It’s unclear who is selling the commercial paper to the Fed. One guess is that it’s AIG, which has not been borrowing as much from the dedicated AIG facility as may have been anticipated given the size of its liabilities. AIG’s borrowings under the special facility actually dropped from $83.5 billion to $81.2 billion. In a sense, the Fed’s commercial paper facility may be operating as a hidden bailout of AIG.

It was hoped that these commercial paper purchases would save companies and preserve jobs. But it’s going to take more than the Fed helping out with short-term corporate financing needs to save jobs.

Our economy is currently a patient with multi-organ system failure. Unlike medicine, however, where one can triage problems in a rational way, our American form of corporate socialism prioritizes industries for government assistance based upon lobbyist clout.

The automobile industry is currently at the head of the line:

The obvious and easy first move for President-Elect Barack Obama is to put some money into the automobile industry to save a large number of jobs, financier Wilbur Ross said Wednesday.

General Motors and Chrysler “need something like $10 billion to pay the one-time cost of merging, that’s a very cheap investment,” Ross said.

Just stabilizing the auto industry will save a large numbers of manufacturing and auto supplier jobs and “do an awful lot of good for the economy,” he said.

It would also be a consistent with the support Obama has with labor unions, Ross added.

“It would be a very quick, easy thing,” Ross said. “I can’t imagine a cheaper way to protect a very, very large number of jobs.”

Nancy Pelosi was being lobbied today by the CEOs of Chrysler, Ford, and GM, and she managed to pay lip service to “green collar jobs”:

“We must work together to ensure the viability of the U.S. auto industry,” Pelosi said in welcoming the CEOs and Ron Gettelfinger, president of the United Auto Workers, to the meeting.

Another priority, she said, was to help “transform blue-collar jobs to green collar jobs.” The meeting was mainly a listening session for Pelosi to get the views of the auto industry, which is facing an unprecedented financial crisis due in large part recently to the global credit crunch that has choked off borrowing by consumers for auto purchases.

In a statement, GM said the session was constructive and that it would work closely with Democratic leaders to ensure “immediate” funding to keep the industry viable.

So let’s get this straight — auto sales have tanked, and manufacturers are going to the government for help. Let’s assume the manufacturers convince our government to borrow yet more money to keep them in business — at taxpayer expense. Consumers, however, still can’t afford to buy new cars. We’re still making them, but who’s going to buy them?

Should the government then start giving us money so we can buy these new cars as they roll off the assembly line?

Why spend taxpayer money to subsidize building wasteful contraptions that burn nonrenewable imported fuels at ridiculously low efficiency, clogging highways and polluting the air, when consumers are leveraged far past the point of being able to handle a new car payment?

I’ve got a cheaper and much more environmentally-sensitive idea. My wife and I were in China last year and saw a great example of green collar jobs in action — folks who were hired to cut grass in Beijing parks using hand clippers.

The sun makes the grass grow. Just pay people to cut it by hand. Presto, green collar jobs.

While we haven’t broken down the results by precinct, we do have some county-based comparisons based upon Obama’s sweep of the district, and the last presidential election. Here goes:

I did some empirical research. B.J. did a pretty miraculous job. Consider that:

• In Wake County, Obama beat McCain by 15 points. We only lost to Price by 3 points in Wake. To put this in historical perspective, in 2004, Bush beat Kerry by 2 points in Wake, while Price beat Batchelor by 4. So despite a 17 point swing in Wake County, we did better there than Batchelor did in 2004.
• In Orange County, Obama beat McCain by 45 points, whereas we lost by 43 points. In 2004, Kerry beat Bush by 35 points, while Price beat Batchelor by 48 points. So despite a 10 point swing for Obama, we did better than Batchelor did in 2004.
• In Durham County, Obama beat McCain by 42 points, whereas we lost by 44. In 2004, Kerry beat Bush by 36 points, while Price beat Batchelor by 42 points. While we did worse than Batchelor did in 2004, Obama turned out close to 28,000 more votes than did Kerry in 2004.

Obama turned out:

• 78,000 more votes in Wake than did Kerry in 2004. Price gained about 19,000 votes in Wake.
• Almost 11,000 more votes in Orange than did Kerry in 2004
• Almost 28,000 more votes in Durham than did Kerry in 2004

This adds up to 57,755 votes. We lost by just over 111,000 votes, whereas Batchelor lost by 95,724 (but got a lower percentage than we did). On top of this, we had 30,000 more votes this year than Batchelor did in 2004. We had 19,109 more votes in Wake, 4,214 more votes in Orange, and 4,460 votes more in Durham.

This is while McCain was stagnant in Orange and Durham counties from Bush’s totals in 2004. I’ll put good money on our gains coming from split Obama tickets, not newly registered Republicans.

You take away those 57,755 new Obama votes, and this is a 58-42 race.

Given all of the circumstances, you really knocked this one out of the park for a Republican.

We’ll post some pictures from last night’s event so everyone can enjoy the real success of this race. I guarantee there was not another victory party in the District with such a wide spectrum of people genuinely excited about liberty, freedom from corporate socialism, and a government that serves the people instead of corporate interests.

Our country remains at a delicate place, and those serving in Congress in the next two years will be challenged to meet the high expectations for change given our current economic predicament. Ultimately, however, the work to save our country must start locally — within our community.

I’ve been so busy with the campaign that I’ve neglected to write about our continued economic challenges. Our national debt now stands at over $10.5 trillion, and suffice it to say that fulfilling the promises made during this election while attempting to prop up our banking system will test the patience of our international lenders:

So how much has our financial catastrophe cost taxpayers? Even leaving aside the damage to investment portfolios, job losses, home foreclosures and diminished business prospects, the financial depression of 2008 has been immensely costly for taxpayers. The Treasury Department has had to issue more than three times as much debt than it anticipated even as late as last July. [Emphasis mine.]

Why has borrowing skyrocketed? You already know the answers. The government is spending money hand over fist to prop up the financial system at the same time it collects less from depressed taxpayers.

The government also expects to borrow $368 billion in the first quarter of next year. Let’s hope the government is getting better at these estimates. If it’s as bad at estimating future borrowings as it was in July, we’re looking at a government that might need to borrow more than $2.5 trillion over the next two quarters, which would mean that the Treasury would be borrowing more than one-third of total Gross Domestic Product.

I imagine that many folks who appreciate the gravity of this situation will start playing a new game: how can I maximize my standard of living for things that really matter — time with family, enjoying healthy, locally-grown food, working with and supporting those who create real value in our community — while minimizing my need for and dependence upon the usurious, war-mongering debt money known as Federal Reserve Notes?

It is time for creativity, and finding new ways to advance sustainable local economies. We must learn how to prosper through equity-based, cooperative capitalism instead of continuing to hook ourselves to the yoke of debt-based competitive capitalism that changes a world of natural abundance into a world of artificial scarcity and injustice.

I’ll close by quoting an email that was mistakenly sent to me from a Price supporter. Turns out this Price supporter working early voting with me in Morrisville was forwarding my emails to Price’s campaign. In this case, however, instead of hitting “forward”, he hit “reply”:

BTW, BJ’s spiel was essentially “I’m BJ Lawson.  I’m running for Congress.  We have a 20-year incumbent who isn’t serving our interests.”

BJ is an odd combination of progressive and Libertarian, as well as being attractive and young.  People who are attracted to part of him are able to deny the part they don’t like.  He won’t go away after next week.  Expect a rematch.

I don’t think BJ goes to the same site regularly, but I can tell you there were a lot of voters from 11 am on.  They came in groups, and they wore badges, so this was the crowd that lives somewhere else and works in and near RTP.  The parkng lot was jammed the entire time I was there.  Might be the place for David Fri. (if BJ isn’t there).

Our educational challenge is reflected by this gentleman’s characterizing Constitutionalism as “odd.” It’s refreshing, however, to see him recognize that Constitutionalism is both progressive and libertarian.

Here’s to continued progress in the fight for liberty, and thanks to everyone for your support.

It seems that my opponent has been claiming at the polls that I am distorting his record.

Perhaps that claim might work with people lacking access to the Internet, but we have worked to run a fact-based campaign focused on the issues, and documenting assertions.

This campaign is not personal, nor is it personally directed against our incumbent. It is based upon the issues, and his voting record that tends to serve the corporations who fund his campaigns as opposed to the people.

Bankruptcy reform? He voted for the banks. Repeal of Glass-Steagall? He voted for the banks. Bailout? He voted for the banks. Distortionary agricultural subsidies? He voted for big agriculture. NBAF? He votes for government contractors. Civil liberties? The harshest criticism of H.R. 1955 is from his colleague Rep. Dennis Kucinich.

The above facts are well-documented.

So if my opponent must resort to distortions in defense, it should come as no surprise that he might distort on offense.

One of his favorites is that I want to cut veterans’ benefits.

Why on earth would I want to do that?

One of our great disgraces over the past eight years is the rampant privatization of our military. This privatization has affected not just soldiers on active duty, but families living in base housing, as well as the way we treat our veterans.

I have no intention of cutting veterans’ benefits, and am committed to honoring those who have served our country. Especially in healthcare — I’m more than a bit familiar with the VA system, and while they have a relatively advanced computer system, there is great room for improvement.

I’m off to vote, and work the polls. To paraphrase Gandhi, it’s time to be the change we want to see in our community, and by extension the world.

Here are turnout numbers for Early Voting in the Fourth District:

Democrats (46%)
Voted: 147,440 (54%)
Not Voted: 125,712 (46%)
Total: 273,152

Republicans (27%)
Voted: 64,316 (40%)
Not Voted: 92,648 (60%)
Total: 156,964

Unaffiliated (27%)
Voted: 65,226 (41%)
Not Voted: 92,235 (59%)
Total: 157,461

Total Early Voting Turnout: 277,092 / 587,793 (47%)

How can you help us win? Three ways:

1. Get a Republican out to vote on Tuesday
2. Tell a Democrat or Unaffiliated about the need for principled change with Lawson for Congress
3. Help us with our Outreach Program then call the office today (919-481-1177) and volunteer to work a polling place

In the immortal words of Bill Galloway, weight training and football coach at Lakeland High School: “Always finish hard.”

This simple credo from high school weight training accurately sums up the efforts of our fantastic team during the weeks of early voting. Thanks to a dedicated team, we staffed every allowable early voting station, and as the lines grew, so did our enthusiasm.

Not all the works was done during the daytime, however. Folks worked the night shift to prepare materials and sift through data to prioritize our efforts, as well:

Throughout early voting, we worked hard, played fair, and talked with thousands of voters. My favorite footage came from driving around the district and capturing video earlier in the week:

Getting to the end of the week, a final batch of 10,000 Constitutions disappeared in three days — voter after voter thanked us for acknowledging the deeply-held concern that something is wrong with our government, and expressed gratitude for reawakening the vision of what is possible if we indeed “follow the rules” with a government that serves the people.

The last day of early voting really summed it up. After rotating between popular polling stations earlier in the week, I focused all of my efforts at Cedar Creek in Morrisville on Saturday. I arrived before the polls opened at 10am, and found the closest parking about a quarter mile away in the adjoining neighborhood.

The line was about an hour and forty minutes when voting started. The day was a blur, but I’ll never forget the feeling of seeing the end of the line at about 5:30 as the last folks rounded the corner. Over seven hours of talking, listening, and shaking hands — with lots of pleasant surprises along the way.

We’re closing in on election day, and I’d like to thank everyone who has taken our campaign to this point. Special thanks to everyone who has donated to make the campaign possible, volunteered to work the polls during early voting, and those who will be working again on Tuesday.

We have the right message, at the right time. While other campaigns seek to divide the electorate and pit us against each other in the quest for 50% plus one vote, we seek to unite our District with a government that serves the people instead of corporate interests. While other campaigns hide behind personal attacks and divisive partisan rhetoric, we recognize that we are all Americans, and all on the same team to the extent we embrace the freedom and responsibility provided by our Constitution and Declaration of Independence.

This election is critical, and our job as citizens does not end on November 4th. We are not electing a king on election day. We are electing a president to head our Executive Branch, and Representatives and Senators to serve us in our Legislative Branch. Regardless of the results, this election must be about accountability. It is time to remind our elected representatives that our government derives its power by consent of the governed. Our leaders must be held accountable for their actions, and judged by their ability to advance a federal government that follows the Constitution and serves the people instead of corporate interests.

Ultimately, we must work to take back our country by taking back our District. We will be working tirelessly through this election to carry this message of principled change, and we’ll leave everything on the field on Tuesday.

With just a few days until Nov. 4^th, it’s instructive to highlight the endorsements that B.J. Lawson did not receive – from the various newspapers in the area. The evolution of the language used in the non-endorsements generally grows from negative to positive in B.J.’s favor. We can only hope that readers of these Price endorsements could “read between the lines” and do their own research to reach their own conclusions before they voted.

Here are the highlights with links to the full articles and overall they are fairly entertaining:

News & Observer, October 16. The N&O took the lazy and biased road in endorsing the three Democratic Congressional incumbents in the area. The N&O devoted a lot of ink to Rep. Price, writing, “The voters of this district should be proud of their congressman, and proud of having sent him to Washington for 20 of the last 22 years. David Price of Chapel Hill is thoughtful, knowledgeable, responsive. His instincts and record are progressive — even though he sometimes catches flak from the left as a too-prudent pragmatist. Price, who is 68, surely knows his way around the partisan minefields…”

All they could write about B.J., because the Editorial Board REFUSED to meet with him and never interviewed him, is, “Republican opponent William “B.J.” Lawson of Cary, a 34-year-old physician and medical software entrepreneur making his first run for office, depicts Price as too willing to support deficit spending and too comfortable with corporate interests. He has some worthy goals. But he does not make the case for replacing a congressman who has performed in outstanding fashion.”

You will see 10 online comments when you click on the link, all calling the N&O on their bias and their dismissal of B.J. as a serious candidate. And my letter to the editor was published two days later because they ignored B.J. from the very beginning, as was one from Marcia Patton. Thanks Marcia!!

Independent Weekly, October 22. This one really left us scratching our heads the most, especially since Editor Lisa Sorg had written an excellent, in-depth feature story about B.J. the week before that received lots of reader praise. The Rep. Price endorsement is certainly not a glowing one, however, opening with, “This race is a tougher call than it looks: We cautiously endorse incumbent U.S. Rep. David Price for many of his progressive stands on the Iraq war, media reform, gay and lesbian rights, and reproductive rights. He also supports pathways to citizenship for illegal immigrants.” The Indy then moves on to question and criticize Rep. Price’s stance on issues (or lack of stance) and voting records.

Their much shorter commentary on B.J. states, “Depending on your litmus test issues, Republican challenger William (B.J.) Lawson is a viable choice. While Lawson’s Libertarian free-market stances and opposition to Roe v. Wade preclude us from endorsing his candidacy, he has many progressive views, including opposing the war in Iraq, strong stands on civil liberties protections, and a disdain for extending to corporations the same legal rights as individuals.”

The campaign feels that there were definite politics in play within the Indy editorial staff in coming to their decision. We just hope that the article the week before spoke for itself and carried more weight in the minds of the readers.

The Chronicle (Duke University), October 27. Well it appears that Duke students have more loyalty to a former professor than to an alumnus twice over! We also know that Duke is a significant contributor to Price’s campaign too. In any case, it’s just more bias but they write some positive comments about B.J.: “North Carolina’s 4th District is facing its tightest congressional race in more than a decade…Both candidates for this seat have presented a unique and powerful vision of what this country should become. After meeting with both B.J. Lawson and David Price for a candid discussion of their views, however, it is clear that Price’s ideas and ideology are precisely what the 4th District needs to move forward.”

Here’s more: “Lawson’s success thus far in his campaign is not without foundation. A Duke-trained physician and entrepreneur, Lawson embraces lofty ideals in both the positive and pejorative sense.

Lawson’s advocacy on behalf of price sensitivity in higher education and endorsement of localism, coupled with his positions on the issues of Iraq and gay rights are laudable.
Unfortunately, Lawson displays a naivety regarding the machinations of policy creation in Washington and a myopic view of the policy implications of his ideals.”

This is contrasted with, “…David Price, a 10-term incumbent, offers both a deep institutional knowledge of Washington and a history of leadership on Capitol Hill. Price serves as a member of the House Appropriations Committee and is the Chair of the Subcommittee on Homeland Security, positions of notable influence that benefit his legislation on behalf of the 4th district.”

The Chronicle staff acknowledges that B.J. is a serious candidate, but it’s obvious that they want to keep an old, longtime incumbent in the broken Congress because he can do favors for the 4^th District. We shouldn’t be surprised. You will also see 28 comments sharply criticizing the Price endorsement too.

Herald-Sun (Durham), October 29. Unlike the N&O, at least the Herald-Sun has devoted ink to the Lawson campaign on a somewhat regular basis, publishing letters to the editor in support of B.J. and including his quote against the bailout legislation. But like the other newspapers, they took the easy road, writing, “Price has been representing the 4th District in Congress for nearly 20 years now, serving from 1987 to 1994 and again from 1996 to the present. Price has taken bold stands and also worked quietly behind the scenes. He has been a thoughtful and effective legislator and, we believe, deserves to be reelected.”

This non-endorsement is a bit more balanced in B.J.’s favor than the others. “His Republican opponent, B.J. Lawson, has taken on a tough challenge in a difficult year, although Price is not invulnerable, as his defeat in 1994 showed. Lawson, a Cary resident, is a young, energetic candidate with intriguing positions and an impressive background — he earned a medical degree before becoming a successful software entrepreneur…Lawson has some good ideas, including an emphasis on alternative energy that isn’t far from Price’s view. Lawson also says, correctly, that Congress is too influenced by lobbyists and corporate interests, that some members of Congress don’t read legislation before voting on it, and that the health system needs overhauled so doctors can spend more time with patients. If Lawson doesn’t win, we hope to hear more from him. He may represent the next generation of Republicans.”

Well gee, we couldn’t have said it better ourselves!!

The Daily Tar Heel (UNC-Chapel Hill), October 31. This final one to appear is really just as much of an endorsement of B.J. as it is of Rep. Price. They write, “This year’s election is unquestionably about change. So we are particularly hesitant to endorse a long-serving incumbent for the U.S. Congress, which has a lower approval rating than lame-duck President George W. Bush.”

It continues, “And as a 20-year veteran of Congress, Price is a fixture of the Washington political establishment.

His opponent, William (B.J.) Lawson, is by contrast a political rookie with some very fresh and compelling ideas.

Though running as a Republican, Lawson subscribes to a political philosophy that transcends typical partisan boundaries.

Lawson strongly opposes the defense facility and disagrees with Price on a number of issues like health care, drug prohibition and the death penalty. On these particular issues, Lawson seems like the more progressive candidate.

Lawson’s passionate disdain for a debt-obsessed corporate culture on Wall Street and lobbyist-run political culture in Washington also make him an appealing choice.”

BUT HERE’S THE KICKER, FOLKS: “But when it comes to which candidate would best represent District 4 and bring effective leadership to Congress, David Price gets our endorsement.

In this particular race, we’ll take Price’s record of proven leadership over Lawson’s fresh perspective.”

Nah, we don’t need new blood in Washington, do we???