Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

1.6 Trillion Reasons to Bring Them Home

Monday, February 1st, 2010

President Obama’s budget proposal released today has attracted much attention for its stunning price tag: $3.8 trillion, with a projected one-year deficit of $1.6 trillion.

While there are some who downplay the importance of deficits (Dick Cheney comes to mind, as does Marshall Auerback), discerning Americans know that folks singing the praises of stimulatory deficit spending are actually repeating the discredited refrain of the (in)famous financier Jay Cooke. Mr. Cooke authored a pamphlet entitled How Our National Debt May Be a National Blessing before he helped unleash a credit bubble that bankrupted himself and his country in the Panic of 1873.

Somewhat lost in the partisan response to President Obama’s budget, however, is the realization that cutting discretionary spending is not enough. Now more than ever, it should be obvious that we must come home from Iraq, and not sacrifice more people and treasure in Afghanistan. In short, this proposed budget contains 1.6 trillion reasons to bring our troops home.

It has been said that “War is the health of the State.” With respect to war, we have been veritable gluttons over the past few decades. We’ve fought a War on Poverty, War on Cancer, War on Drugs, and War on Terror. What do we have to show for our efforts?

More poverty, more cancer, more drugs, and more terror.

So where is the health? When you drive into any small town in North Carolina, the nicest building is typically the city hall, courthouse, or prison. The police and sheriff cars are usually sweet looking, brand new hot rods with low-profile light bars, and often at events you see public safety personnel rolling around on pricey Segway scooters.

Yet factories are boarded up, commercial building are vacant and falling into disrepair, and our state’s unemployment insurance fund is bankrupt and borrowing from the federal government.

We can no longer afford to police the world, or fund welfare across the world through foreign aid. It’s time to dismantle the welfare and warfare state, eliminate the income tax that punishes work and productivity, and start creating jobs and rebuilding our economy.

Audit the Fed — Can $319,822 buy you a Congressman?

Wednesday, November 4th, 2009

Ever want to buy your very own Congressman? A legislative tool to get the job done, especially dirty jobs that violate the trust of the American people? How much do you think it would cost?

It turns out surprisingly little.

Meet Rep. Mel Watt of North Carolina’s 12th District. Commercial banks have been his largest career donor, giving a total of $319,822 over the past ten years. That’s just a little over $30,000 per year.

What do banking lobbyists get in return?

Rep. Watt chairs the House Financial Services monetary policy subcommittee. Last Friday, Rep. Ron Paul reported that our Federal Reserve Transparency Act (HR 1207) was “gutted” in Rep. Watt’s subcommittee. Rep. Watt’s changes restricted inquiry around transactions with foreign central banks, monetary policy deliberations, transactions made under the direction of the Federal Open Market Committee and communications between the Board, the reserve banks and staff.

Not a bad return on investment for the Fed and its lobbyists.

In defense of Rep. Watt, however, it’s not totally his fault. His district is the most obviously gerrymandered in North Carolina, following I-85 like a snake from Charlotte to Winston Salem. It is overwhelmingly Democratic, and his re-election has never been seriously challenged. Why should he represent the people when he is electorally invincible?

An invincible incumbent is the most useful tool, and a bargain to boot.

While we may not be able to hold Rep. Watt accountable, we can fight back. His attempt to eviscerate HR1207 must be approved by the full Financial Services committee. It is essential that we contact each member of the Financial Services committee TODAY and let them know Rep. Watt’s proposed changes are unacceptable. Please review the list of committee members, and focus on your representative, or those from your state.

I’ve attached my letter below to help you get started. Join me at DownsizeDC.org to use their Educate the Powerful system — it’s the easiest way to get your message to Congress.

###

Dear Representative Miller,

I am writing you in your capacity as a member of the House Committee on Financial Services.

You may be aware that Rep. Mel Watt’s subcommittee on monetary policy introduced changes to the Federal Reserve Transparency Act (HR 1207) that restrict inquiry around transactions with foreign central banks, monetary policy deliberations, transactions made under the direction of the Federal Open Market Committee and communications between the Board, the reserve banks and staff.

These changes have the practical effect of killing the bill, and eliminating the transparency that our economy and financial markets require for stability and sustainable growth.

It is clear that Rep. Watt is serving the banking lobbyists who have funded his campaigns over the past decade. It is also clear that he does not fear for his re-election, given his willingness to put the bankers’ narrow interests above those of the American people.

Your district is not quite as safe. There are many people across party lines who will work to defeat you if you support Rep. Watt’s changes.

HR 1207 has over 300 cosponsors in its original form. I trust you will use your influence to remove Rep. Watt’s changes, and bring HR 1207 to a vote on the House floor in its original form.

Sincerely,

William (B.J.) Lawson

###

P.S — In a recent video message, Ron Paul indicated that it is especially important that constituents contact the 13 Democrats on the Financial Services committee who already co-sponsored HR 1207, with a VERY polite reminder that you STILL want them to support the ORIGINAL bill, and to resist Mr. Watt’s amendments.

For your convenience, here is that list . . .
Rep. John Adler, NJ (202) 225-4765
Rep. Travis Childers, MS (202) 225-4306
Rep. Steve Driehaus, OH (202) 225-2216
Rep. Alan Grayson, FL (202) 225-2176
Rep. Rubén Hinojosa, TX (202) 225-2531
Rep. Suzanne Kosmas, FL (877) 956-7627
Rep. Dan Maffei, NY (202) 225-3701
Rep. Brad Miller, NC (202) 225-3032
Rep. Walt Minnick, ID (202) 225-6611
Rep. Ed Perlmutter, CO (202)-225-2645
Rep. David Scott, GA (202) 225-2939
Rep. Brad Sherman, CA (202) 225-5911
Rep. Jackie Speier, CA (202) 225-3531

The Fed and Iran

Friday, June 19th, 2009

I hope you are enjoying a beautiful and bountiful summer. We’ve just finished up the political organizing season with an interesting NC GOP convention, and we’ve been taking some family time to get our personal house (well, gardens really) in order while preparing for what’s next.

There’s more to come on both of those fronts, but I wanted to drop a quick note on recent events with some good news. Just this week the Obama Administration presented its plans for (re)regulating the financial system, and Treasury Secretary Geithner was defending the proposal on Capitol Hill yesterday.

As you might imagine, educated observers are not impressed. Perhaps the greatest oxymoron is giving the Federal Reserve additional authority as a “systemic risk regulator,” despite its demonstrated incompetence in preventing, predicting, or even recognizing systemic risk of its own creation over the past two decades, culminating in our current crisis.

Despite the Fed’s performance as grounds for skepticism, I still run into people who are comfortable placing more trust and authority in our central bank. Apparently its placing $15 trillion of public funds at risk in one year (yes, that’s around our total GDP) isn’t reason enough to seek more fundamental reform. How can that be?

Helpful hint: when you find folks who articulately defend the status quo, and don’t think transparency and accountability need apply with money and banking, ask for their resumes. Chances are they have spent more time benefiting personally from the system than understanding and experiencing its undesirable side effects.

The good news, however, is that our fight for Federal Reserve accountability is bearing fruit. H.R. 1207, the Federal Reserve Transparency Act introduced by Rep. Ron Paul, now has 234 cosponsors — that’s a majority, with broad bipartisan support.

Given our recent success, it’s no surprise that the Federal Reserve is hiring veteran lobbyist Linda Robertson to represent its interests on Capitol Hill — the ultimate irony is that Ms. Robertson is best known for heading Enron’s lobbying office before its 2002 collapse. Clearly, hiring Enron’s former lobbyist means we’re making progress!

On another encouraging note, I hope you’ve been able to follow the revolution unfolding in Iran. Despite media restrictions, courageous Iranian citizens are documenting their growing uprising against tyranny via cellphones, video cameras, and intermittent Internet connections.

While it’s dangerous to draw conclusions from real-time blogs, cell phone videos, and Twitter, there are some encouraging signs. For example, we continue to see graphic videos of beatings and shootings by the private militia loyal to the current regime as they seek power through fear and intimidation. As the crowds have swelled, however, some of these Basij militia are now covering their faces to avoid retaliation by protesters.

As our Independence Day approaches, I do hope our Supreme Court is watching the videos of home/dorm invasions, beatings, and killings by the Basij militia. As noted by Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership, the purpose of our Second Amendment has never been clearer.

What are they DOING in there?

Tuesday, April 28th, 2009

I need your help making an important phone call. Today is a national day of action in support of HR 1207, the Federal Reserve Transparency Act. This essential legislation, introduced by Texas Republican Ron Paul, will open up the Federal Reserve to a full and complete audit by the GAO.

It’s bad enough that taxpayers have pledged over $12 trillion to prop up a financial system best described as corporate socialism. It’s even worse that the primary entity responsible for our economic crisis dismissively ignores Freedom of Information Act requests for transparency and use of taxpayer funds.

HR 1207 already has over 90 cosponsors, with broad bipartisan support. Unfortunately, this support does not extend to our Representative David Price. Would you please join me in calling David Price’s office at 202-225-1784 to request that he cosponsor HR 1207?

If you’re outside of North Carolina’s 4th District, visit the Campaign for Liberty’s Web site to find out if you need to contact your representative:

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/campaigns/supporthr1207.php

Thanks!

Time for Local Economic Stimulus

Friday, April 10th, 2009

Just a quick note to let you know I’m going to be on Fox Business around 2:20pm this afternoon to discuss my work reinvigorating our local currency, the PLENTY.

As all true free market advocates know, we can’t have a free market when money and credit are under monopoly control. Our region of North Carolina had the benefit of forward-thinking activists who launched a community currency in 2001, and I’ve been working with a talented group of folks to reinvigorate and relaunch the currency since last fall.

Why might a community embrace a local currency? A local currency circulates within a community, encourages self-sufficiency, and spurs economic growth the old-fashioned way –  encouraging and rewarding people for helping other people. It is also a stepping stone to a desperately-needed education about the nature of money itself — as people use a local currency, they start asking basic questions about money and its relationship to a healthy economy.

We’re still a few weeks away from our relaunch as a fully-reserved community currency in partnership with Pittsboro’s Capital Bank, but an article in the USA Today on Monday triggered a wave of media attention highlighting our work to grow our economy by asserting our most basic economic freedom. If you’d like to follow our progress, and learn more about local currencies in general, please visit our Web site at www.theplenty.org.

It’s ironic that my former opponent is still in Washington trying to “help” by TARPing, TALFing, and PIPPing us to death. If you’re tired of being TARPed, TALFed, and PIPPed, why don’t you try doing business in a local currency for a change?

Lobbying’s Return on Investment

Friday, January 23rd, 2009

When we substitute influence peddling for the Rule of Law, the value of Washington lobbyists becomes evident. As today’s Wall Street Journal notes, the return on investment is huge:

General Motors Corp. spent $3.3 million on lobbying in the fourth quarter of 2008, a period that coincides with the government committing $13.4 billion to the ailing auto maker under the Treasury’s Troubled Asset Relief Program. In all of 2008, GM spent $13.1 million on lobbying, down from $14.3 million in 2007. GM’s reported lobbying expenses for 2008 were only slightly less than combined spending by Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC.

“Lobbying is the transparent and effective way that GM has its voice heard on critical policy issues…that companies should not be required to forfeit if they receive federal funding,” said GM spokesman Greg A. Martin, who added that no funds lent from the Treasury would be used for lobbying.

The last sentence is especially insightful. Clearly, they must have keep their lobbying cash in a separate bucket from the truckloads of funds delivered from the federal government. How else would they keep score, and learn that their return on lobbying investment was 1,000-to-1 in 2008? The article also reports the combined Bank of America/Merrill Lynch lobbying return was over 5,000-to-1: $45 billion received, versus $8.8 million spent.

Read more…

Why Do You Pay Taxes?

Thursday, January 22nd, 2009

As various tax-related mail begins to appear in the mailboxes of hardworking Americans across the country, it’s instructive for all of us to reflect on why we carry the burden of our government every April.

Take this morning, for instance. We can credit the “ingenuity of the markets”, and specifically the ingenuity of John Thain, for moving annual executive bonus payments by Merrill Lynch up by a month last November, thus disbursing $15 billion in executive bonuses just before closing Merrill’s acquisition by Bank of America. Fast forward a few months, and the United States taxpayer just gave Bank of America another $20 billion in newly-borrowed funds to put a band-aid on mortar wounds in Merrill Lynch’s balance sheet.

Doesn’t that make you relish the withholding from your paycheck? Seventy-five percent of the cash payment from our latest Bank of America bailout went directly to Merrill Lynch executives.

Read more…

Happy New Year

Friday, January 16th, 2009

From a letter to supporters:

Thanks again for your support and efforts last November. Since the election, I’ve taken some needed time with the family — but as the new year rolls around, it’s time to once again get active.

While we weren’t victorious, it is critical that the voice of individual liberty, personal responsibility, and principled government remain strong during these trying times. We continue to head down the wrong path, and The Establishment in Washington (and Raleigh, for that matter) perpetuates its interests as power brokers, bureaucrats, and politicians look out for one another while Americans on the outside suffer the consequences.

Just this morning, you’ll be pleased to know that our corporate welfare system has given Bank of America $138 billion in capital injections and guarantees as it pulls an Enron following its purchase of Merrill Lynch. Keep in mind that Bank of America’s total market capitalization is about $40 billion — therefore, you’d expect that such a dramatic rescue would completely wipe out existing stockholders, bondholders, and present management to prevent moral hazard and demonstrate the consequences of corporate irresponsibility.

But that’s not the way the world works. Bank of America, Citi, Goldman Sachs, and other recipients of government largesse will continue to profit from the illusion that their existence makes the world a better place. Did you know that we gave Goldman Sachs $10 billion in taxpayer money in 2008, while Goldman Sachs gave out $11 billion in bonuses? Our national debt and budget deficits are going vertical as we borrow money from the banksters to give it back to the banksters… while we shoulder the endlessly compounding burden of interest. Folks, this math doesn’t work.

As the assault on our country, its economy, and our future becomes increasingly brazen, it is important that we stay involved. I will continue to blog at www.unitedliberty.org, but the most important involvement is in the real world. As I mentioned in this blog post:

http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/save-the-date-save-the-country

It starts at the precinct meeting, then the county convention, then the district convention, and finally the state convention. Bring a few friends along with you to each of these events, volunteer, elect principled people into leadership positions, appoint principled people to committees, and with some effort we’ll end up with a party organization that is willing to be honest with itself, and the American people.

If you’re in North Carolina’s 4th District, start by saving these dates:

  • Chatham County: Precinct meetings at 6:30 PM on Tuesday, March 10 at the District Courtroom in Pittsboro. County convention to follow at 7:00 PM.
  • Orange County: Precinct meetings at 9:00 AM on Saturday, March 7 at the Big Barn Convention Center. County convention to follow.
  • Durham County: Pending, but will be on a Saturday in March.
  • Wake County: Precinct meetings at 7:00 PM [UPDATE: listed incorrectly as 8:00AM in email] on Thursday, February 19. Locations depend on State House district. County convention on Thursday, March 12.

Ready to get in touch with others? Sign up at Campaign for Liberty, join organizations like the Republican Liberty Caucus, an let’s be the change we want to see in the world.

Sincerely,

BJ

Answering the Daily Tar Heel

Tuesday, October 28th, 2008

I have the opportunity to answer some additional questions from a reporter at the Daily Tar Heel in preparation for their upcoming voter’s guide. In the interest of transparency, here goes:

1) How does he plan to push his 4 bills- rather uncommon ones- as a new face in Washington without the political clout of a veteran congressman?

Even with the political clout of a veteran congressman, pushing bills through Congress is no easy task. For example, according to GovTrack.us, Rep. David Price has sponsored 47 bills since Jan 7, 1997, of which 44 haven’t made it out of committee and only one (H.R. 2638: Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009) was successfully enacted.

So in the past decade in Congress, Rep. Price enacted one piece of legislation — an appropriations bill — that was signed into law just one month ago.

Apologies to Rep. Price if GovTrack missed something here, and he’s certainly signed on to co-sponsor numerous bills led by others, but his track record for advancing legislative progress over the past eleven years is modest at best.

My initial goal as our representative is to educate folks about the desperate need for the four mentioned “good government” reforms. It is only with education that change can occur, and that change must be pushed not by a single legislator, but by a coalition of principled leaders responding to people who insist on good government.

2) Congressman Price says Lawson’s “laissez-faire economic policies” are similar to ones that brought about the current economic crisis- what is BJ’s response to that?

Rep. Price has radically distorted my views on economics and banking. I oppose a financial system that preys on working Americans with high interest rates and endless fees for lending money that it creates out of nothing. I oppose taxpayer-funded bailouts of Wall Street. I oppose deregulation of the banking system, since our banking system enjoys a legislated monopoly over our money and credit.

In brief, the current crisis is the expected outcome from deregulating a legislated monopoly over money and credit.

The banking industry has a monopoly over our supply of money and credit thanks to the Federal Reserve Act and gradual consolidation of power over the past 95 years. As we’ve seen, that monopoly must be regulated aggressively, or else moral hazard and the race for short term profits puts the entire system at risk. I am decidedly not “laissez-faire” with respect to the banking system.

David Price, however, has a voting record that embraces deregulation of the banking industry. In 1999, he voted for the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which repealed the Glass-Steagall regulations barring financial institutions from performing both commercial and investment banking, as well as a combination of other services. The financial sector lobbied very hard for this legislation. Many analysts have cited this particular action as a contributor to the current financial crisis, as a wave of merger and acquisition activity ensued in its aftermath and allowed massive leveraging of portfolios to the point where many institutions became “too big to fail.”

Additionally, he further shifted the balance of power from individuals to banks by voting for 2005’s “Bankruptcy Reform” legislation, which made it harder for individuals and families to file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy and instead pushed them to file for Chapter 13 bankruptcy. Under Chapter 7, most or all debts are forgiven, easing the burden on debtors (albeit while damaging their credit ratings) while requiring lenders to accept the cost of default. It is the risk of nonpayment, or default, that restrains lenders and encourages healthy diligence before lending money. Under Chapter 13 bankruptcy, repayment of debt under a court-set plan with wage garnishments is mandatory, making life harder for debtors.

David Price’s voting record on this topic is not surprising, as he has received over $600,000 in PAC contributions from the financial industry over his career.

3.) Why does BJ place such strong emphasis on strict Constitutionalism? Price says that it is idiosyncratic and not the right way to approach the Constitution.  How does BJ defend himself on this ground?

The Constitution represents our founders’ best attempts, as flawed human beings, to create a government that lives up to the ideals of our Declaration of Independence: “… that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

By studying the debate surrounding the framing and ratifying of our Constitution, it is apparent that our founders intended a government that protected the rights of the American individual — understanding that the individual is the ultimate minority — instead of corporate interests.

Please understand that we’ve never lived up to this ideal, and throughout our history efforts to advance a government that respects individual human rights has been under assault. One example of challenges over the last century are Supreme Court decisions that set dangerous precedents and took our government in a direction of empowering corporations over individuals. Specifically, debates have ensued over the concept of corporate personhood, and limited liability for corporations.

I do not feel a need to defend my studied, rational conclusion that the Constitution is intended to set forth a government that serves the people, derives its power from the consent of the governed, and ultimately seeks to protect individual liberties. Numerous constitutional scholars including Bruce Fein, Kevin Gutzman, and Roger Pilon share this perspective… along with Jefferson, Madison and other founders. Pilon’s thoughts provide helpful perspective:

In 1776, America’s Founders gathered in Philadelphia to draft the Declaration of Independence, which dissolved the political ties that had bound the American people to Great Britain. A new nation was thus born, free and independent, the United States of America. Eleven years later, in 1787, after American patriots had won our independence on the battlefield, many of the men who had met earlier in Philadelphia, plus others, met there again to draft a plan for governing the new nation, the Constitution of the United States. In 1789, after the plan had been ratified, the new government was established. Together, the Declaration and the Constitution are America’s founding documents.

As amended over the years, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, the nation’s fundamental law. But the broad language of the Constitution is illuminated by the principles set forth in the Declaration. To better understand and appreciate the form of government we have, therefore, it is important to look first to the Declaration, where the Founders outlined their moral vision and the government it implied.

Addressing “a candid World,” the Founders’ immediate aim in the Declaration was to justify their decision to declare independence. Toward that end they set forth a theory of legitimate government, then demonstrated how far British rule had strayed from that ideal. But their argument served not simply to discredit British rule; in addition, it set the course for future American government. Indeed, for more than two centuries the ringing phrases of the Declaration have inspired countless millions around the world.

Appealing to all mankind, the Declaration’s seminal passage opens with perhaps the most important line in the document: “We hold these Truths to be self-evident.” Grounded in reason, “self- evident” truths invoke the long tradition of natural law, which holds that there is a “higher law” of right and wrong from which to derive human law and against which to criticize that law at any time. It is not political will, then, but moral reasoning, accessible to all, that is the foundation of our political system.

But if reason is the foundation of the Founders’ vision—the method by which we justify our political order—liberty is its aim. Thus, the cardinal moral truths are these:

that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness—That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.We are all created equal, as defined by our natural rights; thus, no one has rights superior to those of anyone else. Moreover, we are born with those rights, we do not get them from government—indeed, whatever rights or powers government has come from us, from “the Consent of the Governed.” And our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness imply the right to live our lives as we wish—to pursue happiness as we think best, by our own lights—provided only that we respect the equal rights of others to do the same. Drawing by implication upon the common law tradition of liberty, property, and contract—its principles rooted in “right reason”—the Founders thus outlined the moral foundations of a free society.

Only then did they turn to government. We institute government, the Declaration says, to secure our rights—our natural rights and the rights we create as we live our lives. But the powers government may need to do that must be derived from our consent if they are to be just. Government is thus twice limited: by its end, which any of us would have a right to pursue were there no government; and by its means, which require our consent.

I’d suggest that Rep. Price defend his idiosyncratic view that the Constitution is a document that is open to wide interpretation based upon which lobbyist is asking for special treatment from the federal government. Even more concerning is is our recent tendency to ignore the Constitution entirely with the recent decline in our civil liberties and expansion of power within the Executive Branch.

4.) Price says Lawson wants to eliminate the federal reserve, progressive taxation, social security, medicare and fed support of research and education- is this true? How is eliminating those things a good thing for the people? What will he do to compensate for the loss of that safety net?

One thing at a time. The Federal Reserve:

I don’t believe we need to “eliminate” the Federal Reserve — if economic history is any guide, its actions will eventually result in its own self-destruction. Instead, I simply advocate for choice — we need monetary freedom to encourage local, sustainable economic growth:

http://www.lawsonforcongress.com/issues/rising-prices/
http://blog.lawsonforcongress.com/2008/09/21/taking-the-pulse-small-is-possible/

Progressive Taxation:

I believe it’s time to look at the sustainability of our taxation policy as a whole, based upon where we want to go as a country. If we want more jobs and income, why should we tax jobs and income? Like Al Gore said, why not tax what we burn, instead of what we earn?

http://www.lawsonforcongress.com/issues/taxation/

Social Security and Medicare:

I have never said that we should eliminate safety nets like Social Security and Medicare. Over time, however, we need to transition to safety nets that are as local and accountable as possible. Medicare and Social Security must be reformed — in the short term I favor immediate redirection of funds from our irrational foreign policy to shoring up our domestic finances. But over the longer term, Medicare and Social Security have provided for our national insolvency. Don’t believe me, listen to David Walker:

http://blog.lawsonforcongress.com/2008/08/22/iousanswers/

Finally, I would never advocate privatizing social security with our current money and banking system. Why should we hand retirement savings from vulnerable individuals to a financial services industry that is capable of turning a 401k into a 201k in a matter of weeks?

Federal Support for Research and Education:

Look what happens with the federal government tries to make higher education “affordable”:

The above chart from the Bureau of Labor Statistics of college tuition inflation versus overall Consumer Price Index since 1978 says it all.

So much for the government helping give us an “affordable education” — the government’s well-meaning efforts to “help” have just thrown money at higher education. Cheap money and cheap debt have driven up tuition so we start minting newly-graduated debt slaves who have no choice except working for The Man instead of trying to change the world.

Here’s the upshot regarding the Department of Education… involving the federal government takes money AWAY from our students and teachers here in North Carolina:

http://www.lawsonforcongress.com/issues/education/

Regarding research — I’m not in a huge hurry to cut research dollars. There are much better places to cut, like the cost of our trillion-dollar foreign policy. But over time, individuals investing their OWN money are better and more disciplined investors than government bueaucrats spending other peoples’ money.

I sit on a board of a local startup incubator that helps take companies out of the laboratory through pre-commercial development, and hopefully to their first fundraising. It is MUCH more difficult to work with the opaque box of federal SBIR grants funded by folks with political connections than it is to fund a great idea and a great team with a motivated investor who knows the space and the technology.

To the extent that we take money away from individuals who might be able to make their own investments in future technologies, we handicap job growth because we become dependent on a highly politicized system of seeking funds for good ideas.

That’s been my experience as an entrepreneur, and as an investor… not saying that federal grants don’t get the job done in some cases, but over time we’ll be much better off if our people have more of their OWN money to invest.

How do we compensate for loss of safety nets?

The goal of a constitutional federal government is not to eliminate safety nets. It is to empower creation of safety nets at the state and local level that are as accountable and responsive to local needs as possible. Safety nets should exist, but we’ve been trying relentlessly to “outsource” safety nets to the federal government for the past century and haven’t liked the results. Isn’t it time for a change?

5.) Does BJ have a fundamental problem with libertarianism?  Why does he seek to distance himself from this school of thought when many of his policies reflect similar trains of thought or ideals?

I do not have a fundamental problem with libertarianism. I have a fundamental problem with philosophical labels being used to define our political debate. We need to engage based upon the issues, not based upon labels that serve only to divide us into groups, prejudice discussion, and prevent reaching new levels of understanding across philosophical backgrounds.

One should not mistake a respect for a constitutional federal government as a universal belief that government at the state and local level should be so strictly limited. Indeed, that is where diversity in our states and communities is helpful.

I believe we should seek to advance state and local governments that provide the same basic rights and protections to all and serve the people instead of corporate interests, while providing freedom and flexibility to experiment with ways local governments can best leverage local resources to reflect the will of the people.

No Coasting into the Wall

Monday, October 27th, 2008

I watch little live television, although I did watch some Olympics coverage — mostly to follow Michael Phelps. One thing I learned from watching Phelps race is that it’s never a good idea to coast into the wall, and that every kick and stroke makes a difference.

So we have one more week of early voting before election day, and yesterday morning I sent out an impassioned request for one more wave of donations so we can take this campaign full throttle all the way to next Tuesday.

Briefly, we spent a lot of money on direct mail, radio, print, and TV advertisements, and underbudgeted for our GOTV and efforts at the polls — which are proving amazingly effective. Here’s a video snapshot outlining the success we’ve had reaching voters with our message of principled change, accountability, and following the Constitution:

Needless to say, the Constitution is much more effective than a trite “Working for Us” handout provided by a 20-year incumbent who works for his corporate donors. Can you help us order more Constitutions for election day?

We also have been addressing the issue of voting for a “Republican” head on. Specifically, voting Lawson for Congress is important not just to elect a principled voice of reason to Congress, but to provide a principled voice of reason to an out-of-touch Republican establishment. The party is killing itself, but even worse, it’s killing our country. We can’t run from the challenge to take back our country, or our political parties. So why re-elect a corporate establishment Democrat, who answers to Nancy Pelosi and saddles all of us with David’s Price?

Speaking of the establishment, we have a quick interview with Theresa Sanders about her experience having someone “relieve her” on the first day of early voting:

Help us win this race the right way. Wherever you are, you can join us by participating in our user-friendly Voter Outreach program — one couple raised over $750 and garnered many votes yesterday alone just by calling local voters!

Finally, here’s a video snapshot of this evening’s activities:

Thank you again for your support.