Lawson for Congress

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???

In recent months a lot has been said about the seemingly ever increasing list of potential terrorist threats we call the “terrorist watch list.”

The Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB), better known as the terrorist watch list, is operated by the National Security Branch of the FBI. The list is mainly compiled from names and aliases from the National Counterterrorism Center, which provides international terrorist information, and the FBI, which provided domestic terrorist information. The TSDB, terrorist watch list, was created to “provide ‘one-stop shopping’ so that every government screener is using the same terrorist watch list.”

Many of you have probably heard the numerous stories of delays, interrogations, and canceled flights from legitimate, law-abiding U.S. citizens whose name happens to match or resemble a name on the Federal Government’s terrorist watch list.

James Robinson is a commercial airline pilot and a retired brigadier general with the Air National Guard. Despite his credentials as a commercial pilot, he is forced to jump through hurdles to board his own plane because his name matches that of another on the watch list. This story is made more ironic by the fact that he is held up by the TSA, the same administration which certified him to carry a weapon in the cockpit of his plane.

I highlight this story to draw attention to the inadequacies of the current terrorist watch list, not to advocate its removal. I believe that a properly functioning watch list is vital to domestic safety in America’s terminals and ports as well as at the local level. While I feel safer flying knowing that James Robinson, the pilot, will be checked to insure he is not James Robinson, the terrorist, the simple fact that more than 1,000,000 names and aliases comprise this list deters its effectiveness.

In July of this year the watch list, which was created after 9/11, reached the million mile marker. The sheer size of the list is counterproductive to its mission. As the list continues to grow, more and more innocent citizens are having their rights impeded upon. I am in no way advocating that individuals with names on the list should be ushered through airport terminals around the country, but I am advocating changes to the system.

Nelson Mandela, recipient of America’s highest civilian award, the Presidential Medal of Freedom, as well as the Nobel Peace Prize was on the terrorist watch list until he was recently removed by a bill signed by George W. Bush. When men such as Nelson Mandela and Jim Robinson, head of the Justice Department’s criminal division during the Clinton administration, are on the terror watch list it seems there is gross negligence in the system. If notable characters like these are hassled by the current system of the terrorist watch list, you can imagine its ramifications for ordinary citizens.

More important than the delays and hassles at the airport caused by such a list is its encroachment on the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Is the Due Process clause of this Amendment being adhered to when the government can place practically anyone on the list? The Terrorist Screening Center explains its guidelines for who is included on the list by staing, “Per HSPD-6, only individuals who are known or appropriately suspected to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism are included in the TSDB.” Looking through the hazy vagueness of what defines “appropriately suspected,” it apparent that anyone can placed on the list without being formally charged. The lack of legitimacy to whose is named on the list is furthered by the fact that “the TSC (Terrorist Screening Center) cannot reveal whether a particular person is in the TSDB.” The fact that you cannot determine if you are on the list is of little importance because the TSC does not accept redress inquires for removing names from the list directly from the public.

I wish to close with a few facts from the Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) report on the terrorist watch list from an article in USA Today.

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) could not specify how many people on its no-fly list, which is a small subset of the watch list, might have slipped through screening and been allowed on domestic flights.

Homeland Security has not done enough to use the list more broadly in the private sector, where workers applying for jobs in sensitive places such as chemical factories could do harm.

TSA data show “a number of individuals” on the no-fly list passed undetected through screening and boarded international flights bound for the United States. Several planes have been diverted once officials realized that people named on the watch lists were on board.

Be sure to check out the ACLU’s Watch List Counter and read a few stories of the innocent individuals who have found themselves running into problems because of the Federal Government’s terrorist watch list.

Also, take at the article, Feds Set to Take Over Airline Watch List Checking, Again, on the Wired Blog Network.

Matt Barber is a junior at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and a volunteer with Lawson for Congress. He is working towards a double major in Political Science and Business Administration.

The Republican National Convention concluded in St. Paul this week. While I wasn’t a participant in the RNC, I did receive an invitation to attend and help out at the Campaign for Liberty’s Rally for the Republic in neighboring Minneapolis. This rally was funded by Ron Paul’s Campaign for Liberty, an organization that grew out of Dr. Paul’s grassroots Presidential campaign.

I had an excellent time serving as M.C. for the Ron Paul Nation Celebration, a four hour outdoor concert and rally on Monday night…

Aimee Allen

Rockie Lynne

… and had a great time talking with supporters, donors, and conservative luminaries from across the country at Tuesday’s Rally.

I credit Dr. Paul and his principled stands on economics, foreign policy, civil liberties, and Constitutional government for cutting through my decade of personal cynicism. Grassroots organizing for his Presidential campaign inspired and grew into our Congressional campaign in North Carolina’s 4th District, and it is exciting  to see a groundswell of thoughtful Americans who are deeply concerned about our future.

I must admit, though, I was initially skeptical of the Campaign for Liberty’s plan to host a rally in Minneapolis. I’ve been so focused on my district Congressional campaign that the idea of spending significant money on a two-day party across the river from the GOP seemed a bit frivolous — especially since money is so precious for grassroots campaigns.

But having seen how these two events played out, I stand corrected. The rationale for holding the Rally for the Republic was based upon the RNC’s unwillingness to admit that there are deep divisions within the party and its base, and its unwillingness to embrace Ron Paul and his diverse group of supporters.

I had a number of friends and fellow Ron Paul supporters who attended as alternate delegates, and experienced firsthand the surveillance of “Black Hat” McCain operatives, as reported in the Washington Times.

One friend in particular was followed by a “Red Hat” each time he arrived or left the floor. Frankly, that’s both pathetic and disturbing. It’s pathetic that party leadership is so punch-drunk with power that they mimic Communist China in suppressing dissent. How can we claim to be a free country, when the very essence of political expression is censored through a totalitarian party filter?

It’s disturbing, and vaguely fascist, because the GOP convention is an inherently public event. Based upon the fact that the GOP and Democratic conventions are largely funded by the U.S. taxpayer — the two “major parties” received $17 million from the FEC for their media extravaganzas — these nominating spectacles are literally public property. Financially speaking, there is no justification for the convention floor being off limits to anyone.

Don’t misunderstand me — I’ve been a Republican my entire life. But when the party of fiscal responsibility and limited government accepts $17 million of corporate welfare funded by American taxpayers, we’ve got to cry foul. If we Republicans want to treat our event like private property, we need to pay our own way.

So given the many reasons to dislike the Democratic and Republican establishments’ publicly-funded made-for-TV media spectaculars, the Rally for the Republic was a stark and refreshing contrast. Not only was it completely funded by grassroots donations, but the passion and level of dialog for the challenges facing our country far exceeded the partisan rhetoric and scripted platitudes brought forth from Denver and St. Paul.

What did McCain and Obama have to say about $57 trillion in unfunded entitlement liabilities, a foreign policy of pre-emptive war and isolation, declining civil liberties, a federal government that ignores its Constitutional role, or a year-long credit crisis that is crippling our economy and benefiting sophisticated investors while Americans lose their jobs and homes? Crickets.

Interestingly, the GOP’s downsizing the Monday convention worked to the Rally’s advantage. I had a number of media interviews with folks who were originally attending the GOP convention, and confided that they were both surprised and impressed with the turnout, passion, and enthusiasm at Rally. As an outreach event, it was an unqualified success:

As I said in several interviews, the most important result of the Campaign for Liberty’s launch has nothing to do with Dr. Paul’s presidential campaign, nor any one individual office or issue. Instead, the most important result will be when 12,000 passionate individuals committed to Constitutional government that serves the people instead of corporate interests go back to their communities to get, and stay, active.

Based upon demographics alone, the Republican party cannot survive without broadening its ranks. The GOP may have won the battle to host a convention with a united facade. But it will lose the war for long-term relevance if it does not confront the serious issues facing our nation, and engage in open, honest, and thoughtful dialog with the millions of concerned Americans who are tired of politics as usual.

Please help us end politics as usual in North Carolina’s 4th District. Make a donation today!

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.

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.

Americans consider our country one of the freest on earth, yet national incarceration rates beg to differ. More than half of all federal prisoners are not murderers, rapists or even thieves; they are people who have forcibly hurt no one except themselves. More than half of all federal prisoners are non-violent drug offenders.

America now has the highest prison population in the world in terms of both percentage of the population and overall prisoners with one in every one hundred Americans imprisoned. Furthermore Hispanics and Blacks are unequally affected, as the New York Times reports:

One in 36 Hispanic adults is behind bars, based on Justice Department figures for 2006. One in 15 black adults is, too, as is one in nine black men between the ages of 20 and 34.

In a time of economic stagnation and resource-driven inflation why are we spending so much on imprisoning these non-violent offenders? The New York Times elaborates on this point, writing:

It cost an average of $23,876 dollars to imprison someone in 2005, the most recent year for which data were available. But state spending varies widely, from $45,000 a year in Rhode Island to $13,000 in Louisiana.

The cost of medical care is growing by 10 percent annually, the report said, and will accelerate as the prison population ages.

About one in nine state government employees works in corrections, and some states are finding it hard to fill those jobs. California spent more than $500 million on overtime alone in 2006.

$23,876 is quite a large sum. Money that could go to a doctor’s salary to treat drug users rather than a guard’s salary to watch them.

Americans have long adopted an approach that is tough on crime. This toughness is laudable in some cases — with increased sentencing, violent crime has fallen by about 25 percent. Drugs have not followed this trend, however.  In many ways being tough on crime works, but shouldn’t we be more than tough?  Should we not also be smart? Since Nixon declared the federal “War on Drugs”, drug availability has remained essentially unchanged. Few would object to tough sentencing laws that keep violent criminals off the street and prevent violent crime. Should we not save incarceration for when it is a solution, however, rather than just a burden?

Whatever your opinion on the use of drugs, we should question the appropriateness of enforcing laws that are in contradiction to our nation’s highest law, the Constitution. At least with alcohol prohibition in the early 1900s, we had the intellectual honesty to recognize that federal alcohol prohibition required a Constitutional amendment. Today, however, we tolerate unconstitutional expansion of government power.

In one such excess, Gonzales v. Raich (2005), Federal authorities were affirmed in their efforts to criminalize the local, intrastate cultivation and distribution of medical marijuana.  Not only does this imprison people who sought to relieve the suffering of the sick, but as Clarence Thomas writes:

If the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States. This makes a mockery of Madison’s assurance to the people of New York that the “powers delegated” to the Federal Government are “few and defined,” while those of the States are “numerous and indefinite.” The Federalist No. 45, at 313 (J. Madison).

The federal drug war must be rethought, and we must adopt a rational drug policy that not only pays attention to social mores but also respects empirical evidence and, most importantly, obeys our Constitution.

William Griffin is a rising Junior studying Political Science and Economics at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He is a policy intern with Lawson for Congress.

There has been much discussion about the use of the rebate package passed by Congress and signed by the President to stimulate the economy. B.J. recently covered the topic in his post, “Shiller vs. IMF,” laying out the arguments of those who favor using it and those who oppose it. As with most government initiatives, success is best measured by its unintended consequences:

President Bush Boosts Porn Industry With Economic Stimulus Plan, According to AIMRCo

NEW YORK, July 2 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — An unforeseen and surprising beneficiary of the Economic Stimulus Plan, a plan that George Bush contends will “boost our economy and encourage job creation,” has surfaced this week. An independent market-research firm, AIMRCo (Adult Internet Market Research Company), has discovered that many websites focused on adult or erotic material have experienced an upswing in sales in the recent weeks since checks have appeared in millions of Americans’ mailboxes across the country.

According to Kirk Mishkin, Head Research Consultant for AIMRCo, “Many of the sites we surveyed have reported 20-30% growth in membership rates since mid-May when the checks were first sent out, and typically the summer is a slow period for this market.

Jillian Fox, spokeswoman for LSGmodels.com, one of the sites reporting figures to AIMRCo, added, “In a June 15, 2008 survey to our members, thirty two percent of respondents referenced the recent stimulus package as part of their decision to either become a new member, or renew an existing membership.”

The economic stimulus plan, which includes a check for up to $600 for individuals and $1200 for married couples (among other benefits), is the product of an agreement between House leaders and the Bush Administration, focused on reviving a struggling economy in the wake of flagging economy.

Fox also added, “Getting more people to buy porn was probably the last thing Bush had on his mind when he came up with his ’stimulus package,’ but we’ll take it.”

One might reasonably question if the money we borrowed to pay for these “rebates” are going to spur capital investment and wealth creation. Or do these data suggest that we’re simply seeing “Congressmen Gone Wild”?

It appears our incumbent Representative and others in Congress who supported this legislation have succeeded in seeking a short-run economic boost to satisfy their constituents and facilitate their re-election while ignoring — and in fact exacerbating — very serious fundamental and long-run challenges.

Long-run economic growth results from a number of fundamental factors, which include the accumulation of physical capital (which is a function of personal saving in a healthy economy), human capital (which is a function of education), technological advancement, protection of property rights, and a strong legal system. The accumulation of high debt by government necessitates that resources in the future must be redistributed from investment in these productive forces to paying the bills we’re stacking up now, which crushes long-run economic growth.

Furthermore, the building of a large government debt has a number of negative by-products in an international economy. Absorbing private domestic saving necessitates reliance on foreign saving for domestic growth, as well as possibly on foreign purchasing of government bonds to finance deficit spending. When foreign investment decreases and/or leaves the country, which may occur for a number of reasons (market insecurity, a decline of the value of the dollar due to inflationary monetary policy or payment of foreign debt… either of these sound familiar?), then with it goes the source of growth. At this point, interest rates increase with high government borrowing, and the central bank is in a tough spot. It can either inflate to lower interest rates, which will hurt consumers, increase costs for businesses, and decrease returns of investors; or it can do nothing and allow high interest rates to lead to a recession.  In any of these situations, economic growth is either stagnant or significanlty negative in the end. Thus, “stimulus” spending ultimately gives no real economic boost at all.

By creating more debt to “stimulate” the economy, Congress is attempting to rebalance a house of cards and delay its eventual collapse, even at the cost of potentially worsening it. We are delaying action on making hard choices that must be made today to shore up the country’s financial future and are making the these choices much harder for ourselves down the road. A $9.4 trillion national debt — with more hundred-billion deficits and skyrocketing interest payments expected down the road — and $53 trillion in present value of unfunded liabilities are absolutely nothing to ignore. These are phenomena that will wreck the economy much more powerfully than any near-term recession that may come, and they will not go away on their own nor by creating a significant amount of new debt.

Finally, we should note that the “stimulus packages” being in the form of rebates implies somehow a lessened burden of taxation for now to achieve a change in some economic variable. Real tax cuts are cuts in the burden of government on the taxpayers, and as such, they are long-term commitments that allow us and our communities to keep more of their resources.

Cutting taxes in the short-term and continuing deficit spending in no way represent a tax cut, as the government has one of two options to finance remaining spending. It can borrow and accumulate debt, which necessitates either a future tax increase to pay off the debt or a stalling of long-term growth and decline in opportunities available to the future. Or, the government can print money to finance deficits, which causes price inflation that squeezes consumers. As Milton Friedman would say (paraphrasing), “A tax cut is not a tax cut at all without a spending cut.”

Paige Michael-Shetley is the Volunteer Coordinator and Youth Coodinator for Lawson for Congress. He is a Senior at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and is majoring in Economics and Math.

It’s no secret that Washington is broken. We must reject our legislators’ fondness for voting on bills based upon catchy titles and vapid summaries. As our current Rep. David Price reveals, there is a difference between reading legislation and “considering” it:

A further example of Congress’ madness is its tendency to not even write laws anymore. Instead, Congress passes unread legislation that authorizes unelected bureaucrats and other “interested” yet unaccountable parties to write regulations. What results is the worst of both worlds — regulations far too complex to implement or understand, laden with conflicts of interest from those who wrote the regulations, and often missing the intent of the original legislation.

Campaign finance reform is one area where Congress’ regulatory attempts have backfired spectacularly:

A federal appeals court overturned four campaign regulations Friday that remain incomplete six years after Congress approved a landmark election-law overhaul.

The Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia agreed with a lower court that Federal Election Commission regulations dealing with coordination between campaigns and outside advocates must be rewritten.

The appeals court also agreed with Rep. Christopher Shays , R-Conn., a chief sponsor of the law (PL 107-155), that a regulation dealing with fundraising at state-level events that the District Court upheld should instead be overturned.

Judge David S. Tatel, writing for the three-judge panel, found the regulations either contrary to the law or arbitrary. The court sent the FEC back to the drawing board “in the hope that, as the nation enters the thick of the fourth election cycle since [the law’s] passage, the commission will issue regulations consistent with the act’s text and purpose.”

Here’s the funny part, worthy of Heller himself:

But the results are unclear. The flawed regulations will remain in effect until they are rewritten. But the commission has been unable to function this year for lack of a quorum, although nominations to fill the panel are pending in the Senate.

“We’ve just gotten the opinion and are reviewing it, so we don’t really have any comment now,” said Bob Biersack, an FEC spokesman. “It will be up to the commission to decide how to proceed.

North Carolina’s 4th District deserves representation that will read the bills before voting. We must not let our elected representatives unconstitutionally delegate their legislative power. As your Congressman, I will support the Read the Bills Act, and the Write the Laws Act.

To follow up on my latest post discussing Former Democratic Senator and Presidential Nominee George McGovern’s newly-discovered love of liberty, I paid a visit to a blog that I frequent a lot and where I sometimes post called Freedom Democrats, a group of Democrats who, like Senator McGovern, are very freedom-minded. The main poster at the site, Freedom Democrats, also contributes to my main blog, Liberty Republicans. A few weeks ago, he made a post endorsing the election of B.J. in this district instead of David Price, the incumbent and a member of his own party. I’d like to share this post with all of you here. Make sure you share the view of this Democrat with all of your Democratic friends in the 4th District! Away we go:

Stand up to George Bush: Elect a Republican to Congress!

What in the world could bring me, a self-identified libertarian Democrat, to the point of advocating electing a Republican to Congress?

Two things.

First, a Republican like North Carolina’s BJ Lawson.

For those who don’t know Lawson already, he is arguably one of the most dynamic and exciting libertarian Republican candidates this year. With Jim Forsythe out of the race in New Hampshire, the list of Republican congressional candidates representing a new generation of libertarian politics is lead by BJ Lawson and Virginia’s Amit Singh.

Second, there needs to be a Democratic incumbent who is failing to stand up for the district he is elected to represent. In North Carolina’s 4th District, we have such a problem.

Ironically, a front page story at the liberal blog Daily Kos helps make the case.

The great minds in Bush’s Homeland Security department came up with a doozie this year: let’s move the facility where we study the most infectious and dangerous disease among livestock from the isolated island it’s now on (accessible only by ferry or helicopter) and put it where there are lots of livestock operations. Brilliant!

The Associated Press has the details on a plan to move the nation’s leading center for research into animal diseases from Plum Island to the heartland of America:

The only U.S. facility allowed to research the highly contagious foot-and-mouth disease experienced several accidents with the feared virus, the Bush administration acknowledged Friday.

A 1978 release of the virus into cattle holding pens on Plum Island, N.Y., triggered new safety procedures. While that incident was previously known, the Homeland Security Department told a House committee there were other accidents inside the government’s laboratory.

The accidents are significant because the administration is likely to move foot-and-mouth research from the remote island to one of five sites on the U.S. mainland near livestock herds. This has raised concerns about the risks of a catastrophic outbreak of the disease, which does not sicken humans but can devastate the livestock industry.

One of the five likely sites of the research facility is the town of Butner in Granville County, just outside of the 4th District and the Durham metropolitan area.

Here is where the incumbent in the race stands:

My current assessment is that the Granville County site would be a good location for the NBAF, and that our region of North Carolina would reap many economic and agricultural benefits from such a facility.

Here is BJ Lawson’s view:

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

The AP article outlines a government simulations of a simulated foot-and-mouth disease outbreak in Kansas:

A simulated outbreak of the disease in 2002 — part of an earlier U.S. government exercise called “Crimson Sky” — ended with fictional riots in the streets after the simulation’s National Guardsmen were ordered to kill tens of millions of farm animals, so many that troops ran out of bullets. In the exercise, the government said it would have been forced to dig a ditch in Kansas 25 miles long to bury carcasses. In the simulation, protests broke out in some cities amid food shortages.

Stand up to George Bush and his Department of Homeland Security, elect Republican BJ Lawson.

I couldn’t have said it better myself.

I have just read a policy brief submitted by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to Rep. Paul Ryan, the Ranking Member of the House Budget Committee. The brief, written by CBO Director Peter Orszag and prepared by his staff, discusses projects of our current fiscal path, its impact on our economy if left unresolved, the impact of slowing the growth of the deficit, and the impact of financing the deficit completely with tax increases. Here are some significant points in this very sobering brief.

On the rise of the amount of spending and the federal debt (not the total national debt) as a percentage of GDP:

In December 2007, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) published The Long- Term Budget Outlook, which presented a long-term projection of the budget under an alternative fiscal scenario,” representing one interpretation of what continuing today’s underlying fiscal policy would mean. CBO projected that, under that scenario, spending on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security would rise rapidly, and federal outlays excluding interest (primary spending) would climb from about 18 percent of GDP in 2007 to 28 percent in 2050 and to 35 percent in 2082 (see Table 1).2 Because the scenario also assumes that revenues as a share of GDP would not increase much over the 75-year period, CBO projected that the federal budget deficit and federal debt held by the public would rise sharply. By CBO’s reckoning, federal debt under that scenario would climb from about 37 percent of GDP in fiscal year 2007 to more than 290 percent in 2050—a large figure by any standard (see Figure 1). Since the founding of the United States, federal debt surpassed 100 percent of GDP only for a brief period during and just after World War II (see Figure 2 on page 4).

On the economic impact of staying this course:

According to CBO’s simulations using that model, the rising federal budget deficits under this scenario would cause real gross national product (GNP) per person to stop growing and then to begin to contract in the late 2040s (see Figure 3).4 By 2060, real GNP per person would be about 17 percent below its peak in the late 2040s and would be declining at a rapid pace. Beyond 2060, projected deficits would become so large and unsustainable that the model cannot calculate their effects.

Despite the substantial economic costs generated by deficits under this model, such estimates greatly understate the potential loss to economic growth under this scenario. In particular, they are based on a model in which people do not anticipate future changes in debt; as a result, the model predicts a gradual change in the economy as federal debt rises. In reality, the economic effects of rapidly growing debt would probably be much more disorderly and could occur well before the time frame indicated in the scenario. If foreign investors began to expect a crisis, they might significantly reduce their purchases of U.S. securities, causing the exchange value of the dollar to plunge, interest rates to climb, consumer prices to shoot up, and the economy to contract sharply. Amid the anticipation of declining profits and rising inflation and interest rates, stock prices might fall and consumers might sharply reduce their purchases. In such circumstances, the economic problems in this country would probably spill over to the rest of the world and seriously weaken the economies of the United States’ trading partners.

On slowing the growth of the deficit:

Under the target path, federal outlays excluding interest (that is, primary spending) would rise from 18 percent of GDP in 2007 to 20 percent in 2030 and then decline to 19 percent in 2050 and 13 percent in 2082. For almost all years, revenues would remain at 18.5 percent of GDP. Under those assumptions, the budget deficit would gradually increase to about 6 percent of GDP in 2040 but then would decline to almost zero in 2075. By 2082, the target path would generate a budget surplus of about 2 percent of GDP. The primary budget (that is, the budget excluding interest on the public debt) would reach balance around 2050. With possible economic feedbacks not included, federal debt held by the public would increase to a peak of 120 percent of GDP around 2060 and then would decline to 64 percent in 2082. Thus, compared with the alternative fiscal scenario, the target path would substantially reduce future budget deficits and federal debt.

The target path provided by the Committee staff would be economically sustainable. Under that target, real GNP per person (in 2007 dollars) would continue to grow over the entire projection period, rising from about $45,000 in 2007 to about $165,000 in 2082 (see Figure 4). The economy would be considerably stronger under the target path than it would be under the alternative fiscal scenario. By 2060 (the last year for which it is possible to simulate the effects of the alternative fiscal policy using the textbook growth model), real GNP per person under the target path would be about 85 percent higher than that under the alternative fiscal scenario.

On the impact of raising taxes to finance all projected spending:

… tax rates would have to be raised by substantial amounts to finance the level of spending projected for 2082 under CBO’s alternative fiscal scenario. With no economic feedbacks taken into account and under an assumption that raising marginal tax rates was the only mechanism used to balance the budget, tax rates would have to more than double. The tax rate for the lowest tax bracket would have to be increased from 10 percent to 25 percent; the tax rate on incomes in the current 25 percent bracket would have to be increased to 63 percent; and the tax rate of the highest bracket would have to be raised from 35 percent to 88 percent. The top corporate income tax rate would also increase from 35 percent to 88 percent. Such tax rates would significantly reduce economic activity and would create serious problems with tax avoidance and tax evasion. Revenues would probably fall significantly short of the amount needed to finance the growth of spending; therefore, tax rates at such levels would probably not be economically feasible.

If federal outlays excluding interest did not rise to their 2082 share of GDP (35 percent), but instead were stabilized at the share of GDP projected for 2050 (28 percent), simulations can provide some guidance about the possible economic effects of financing additional spending with a proportional across-the-board increase in all personal and corporate tax rates.6 (The increase would apply to the regular rate schedule, the rates under the alternative minimum tax, and the preferential tax rates on dividends and capital gains.) To carry out the analysis, CBO used two different models of economic behavior—the textbook growth model and what is termed a stochastic overlapping generations model—to reflect the range of opinion among economists about how people respond to taxes. Both models take into account the dynamic effects of
higher tax rates on the economy and how those changes in the economy would in turn affect revenues. However, both models are simplified representations of the economy and therefore provide only a rough guide to the potential effects of the tax scenarios on the economy.

In the textbook growth model, economic output depends on the number of hours of work supplied by workers, the size of the capital stock, and total factor productivity (in simple terms, the state of technological know-how). The labor supply response is projected by CBO’s tax microsimulation model, which, for a sample of taxpayers, provides a detailed representation of individual income taxes. The textbook growth model assumes that households do not explicitly consider expected future policies when they make plans—that is, the model incorporates no forward-looking behavior. Moreover, the model does not account for the way that changes in marginal tax rates on capital income might influence investment, though it does account for the effects of budget deficits on investment.

In the stochastic overlapping generations model, households are forward-looking and their members decide how much to work and save in order to make themselves as well off as possible over their lifetime.9 They face uncertainty about future wages and the length of their life and may be subject to borrowing constraints.

Before accounting for economic feedbacks through the models, CBO estimates that individual income tax rates would have to be raised by about 90 percent to finance the projected increase in spending between 2007 and 2050. The lowest tax rate on individual income would have to be increased from 10 percent to 19 percent; the tax rate on incomes in the current 25 percent bracket would have to be increased to 47 percent; and the highest statutory rate would have to be raised from 35 percent to 66 percent. The top corporate income tax rate would also have to increase from 35 percent to 66 percent. Those estimates of tax rate changes are meant to be illustrative; official estimates of tax rate and revenue changes for any specific proposal would be prepared by the Joint Committee on Taxation.

Under this scenario, real GNP per person in 2050 could be between 5 percent and 20 percent less than what it would be if revenues and spending in 2050 were the same shares of GDP as in 2007. Those economic effects could be substantially reduced if the tax policies used to finance the additional spending did not distort economic behavior as much as increases in income tax rates would. In particular, tax policies that relied less on proportional increases in marginal income tax rates could have substantially smaller effects on the economy. For example, raising revenues by broadening the income tax base and eliminating various tax preferences (such as the deductions for mortgage interest, state and local taxes, and health insurance) would have a smaller effect on real GNP than would a proportional increase in tax rates.

This is a very sobering account of our nation’s financial status prepared by one of the most well-respected public finance economists around in Orszag, who could hardly be considered a free market libertarian/conservative alarmist given his previous history with the Brookings Institute, a left-leaning think tank. While Dr. Orszag implores that we must slow the growth of deficits, which is surely true, he also states that the damage due to deficits is likely underestimated because the model used does not account for forward-looking and panicky behavior of agents that is unquantifiable and would likely lead to more disastrous consequences. As Orszag’s report demonstrates, we cannot simply tax our way out of this problem, as the tax increases necessary to fund these increases in spending will certainly cause disastrous economic effects and likely wouldn’t even generate enough revenue to fund th spending, given the negative revenue impacts of the economic crash that apparently are not dealt with by the model.

For an additional sobering account of our nation’s long-term finances, I invite all of you to view these two videos by David Walker, the just recently retired Comptroller of the Currency.

As an economics and math major at UNC, and someone with an interest in, well, working and making money in the future, these assessments by respected financial analysts scare me. The bottom line is that if we want to ensure that this absolutely crushing financial burden of our government does not come to pass, we must do the work now to cut spending, eliminate the deficits quickly, and greatly restrain the long-term growth of entitlement programs. We cannot tax our way out, and we cannot grow our way out.

To do this work, we need to have a responsible Representative of the 4th District in Washington who demonstrates a thorough concern for and understanding of this problem and who will is willing to exercise courage in telling the truth about an issue when it may not be politically expedient to do so. Voting for a Concurrent Budget Resolution that plans to add $2 trillion in debt over the next five fiscal years, and then calls the Resolution “fiscally responsible,” does not demonstrate the type of responsible representation that is needed to tackle this problem. Clearly, based on this alone, David Price cannot be trusted in representing our district to address this issue.

It is time for a true Revolution. It is time for a change in Washington and in the seat held by the people of the 4th District of North Carolina. To address this issue, we need a Representative who has the experience of starting, owning, and operating a business from scratch and growing it into a financial success that allowed he and his family to emerge out of their own hefty burden of debt. We need a doctor who has made a career in the medical sector who understands why costs in health care, a major contributor to the projected financial burden of the federal government, are increasing so sharply and how we can abate them. If we as a district want to tackle this grand challenge head on and preserve a bright economic future for our country and for future generations, we must elect Dr. William “B.J.” Lawson to be the next Representative of the 4th U.S. House District of North Carolina.

For more insight into our nation’s fiscal troubles, I would like to recommend two books to all of you. The first is Running on Empty by Pete Peterson, a former U.S. Secretary of Commerce and co-founder of the Concord Coalition, an organization advocating fiscal responsibility and spending restraint in Washington. This is the book I read that really opened my eyes to how bad our fiscal situation, explaining well we got into the mess, the consequences of maintaining the course, and why both Democrats and Republicans are to blame.

The second book is The Coming Generational Storm by Lawrence Kotlikoff, a very well-renowned and respected public finance economist at Boston University. This book is newer and a bit more updated, and the tone is more academic, but it is equally as sobering and powerful.