Peter Schiff Campaign 2010

A compilation of video clips from Schiff speaking on the campaign trail.  Great stuff!  Trying again in 2012.

NYC Mosque

In my view the owners of the property should be free to build the Mosque.  Police should protect the property from haters who physically try to destroy the Mosque.  This argument is consistent with property rights and a capitalist society. If the Mosque eventually proves to be breeding terrorists, then it should be stormed by government force.

Others argue government force should prevent the mosque from being built in first place.  This argument is based on national security. The United States is engaged in a “war” with an enemy composed of states who use force and encourage others to use force against the United States and her allies.  Specific foreign states use and sponsored terrorism as tactic against the United States in pursuit of their goals.  If a state sponsor of terrorism assists in the building of a Mosque in the United States, then the building of the mosque may be prevented to protect national security reasons.

The US Constitution protects the freedom of individuals and groups to obey Islamic Law, or any law or moral code for that matter, as long as they do not harm others.  In this light, Mosques are the same as any other building in New York and deserve the same protection the Constitution gives to all private property.  However, if the Mosque is used as a weapon or arm or spy cell in order to advance state enforced Islamic Law, it may justly be destroyed.

John Kerry: Sotomayor

Dear Friend:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to be an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court.

My responsibility as a U.S. Senator to confirm Supreme Court nominees is something I take very seriously.  Supreme Court Justices must be able to thoughtfully and responsibly uphold our Constitution in an impartial and non-partisan manner, and must protect our citizens’ rights and liberties.

President Obama made a history-making selection in that of Judge Sonia Sotomayor.  She not only meet his own criteria of an excellent mind coupled but also possesses unparalleled experience. Judge Sotomayor has been nominated by both Republican and Democratic Presidents and was confirmed by the Senate twice before.   Judge Sotomayor’s judicial outlook is also strengthened by a quintessential American story: growing up in a Bronx housing project and losing her father at a young age. She graduated Summa Cum Laude from Princeton and edited the Yale Law Review before serving as one of America’s top jurists.

After extensive review of her judicial record and meeting with Judge Sotomayor I decided to support her nomination because she has an impressive record, undeniable qualifications and is uniquely qualified to understand the challenges faced by so many Americans. On August 6, 2009, the Senate voted 68-31 to confirm Judge Sonia Sotomayor as an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court.

Thank you again for sharing your views with me.

EMAIL.BEGINHIDE.MERGE

Sincerely,

A

John F. Kerry

United States Senator

JFK/axl

Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program (EECBG)

The Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program (EECBG) was created as part of the the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act) of 2009.  The program was authorized in Title V, Subtitle E of the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) and signed into law on December 19, 2007 by President George Bush.(EECBG Home Page) It was the first time the Department of Energy (DOE) has given money to municipalities.(ACEC Webinar)  It authorized the DOE to redistribute $3,200,000,000 of tax payer money to local communities for 14 types of activities.  The EECBG slogan is “Spend Fast and Spend Well”.(ACEC Webinar)   The money has already been allocated based on an allocation formula. (EECBG Allocation Page)

The top four activities the applicants chose to use the money for were Energy Efficiency (EE) retrofits, EE and Conservation Stratagy, EE Programs and Buildings, Traffic Signals and Street Lighting.  Additional activities included, Energy Audits, Building Codes and Inspections, Renewable Energy Technologies on Government Buildings, Development and Implementation of Transportation Programs and Energy Distribution Technologies.(EECBG Home Page)  Also included is the development of public education programs to increase participation and efficiency rates for recycling programs.(US Mayors PDF)

The purpose of the program is to “assist state, local, and tribal governments in implementing strategies to; reduce fossil fuel emmissions; reduce energy use; improve energy efficiency in the transportation, building, and other appropriate sectors.”(EECBG Home Page) The EECBG program has a three pronged goal; to reduce harmful emissions, improve energy efficiency, and as part of the Recovery Act, improve the economy.

According to the government, the way to reach this goal is by financing devolopment and dictating how municipalities engage in the development of their communities.  In effect using the municipalities as extended arms of the federal government.  The projects are then performed by government controlled, but privately owned, engineering and construction firms.   The projects must comply with buy american guidelines, historic preservation guidelines, environmental guidelines, hiring guidelines, loan guidelines and reporting guidelines which are vaguely defined by the authorities. (EECBG Guidance Page) In the end municipalities must ask the federal government for permission to start a particular project.  In order to determine whether or not an idea is permissible a municipality can contact the General Counsel Hotline, use Technical Assistance Resources and refer to the EECBG program guidance page. (ACEC Webinar) Hereafter I use the term Central Planning to describe methods used by the DOE.

Defenders of the EECBG program argue that when profit-seeking businesses “decline to embark upon such unprofitable projects, it is the duty of government to fill the gap. Government should either run them as public enterprises or it should subsidize them in order to make them attractive for the private entrepreneur and investor. …[T]he government’s interference enables submarginal producers to continue producing and to stand the competition of more efficient plants, shops, or farms. Here, they say, it is obvious that total production is increased and something is added to the wealth that would not have been produced without the assistance of the authorities.”(Mises p.660)

While it is true that many such projects would never be born if not for the coercive efforts of government, it does not mean that individuals benefit from these projects more than from the otherwise freely chosen projects.  Everything that is brought into existence by subsidies, causes the abortion of values that would have otherwise been born.

In my view, the goals of the EECBG program will never be reached as intended.  Of the three goals, only one can be accomplished.  The EECBG program can do the only thing force can accomplish in the long run.  It can stop things from happening.  In this case, it can reduce carbon emissions, but the longterm goals of increasing energy efficiency and economic growth are in conflict with the forceful nature of redistribution of wealth and Central Planning.

If the $3,200,000,000 had not been taxed or inflated away from entrepreneurs, the money would not have been invested in EECBG projects.  The municipalities would have kept their less efficient energy systems in place until they had enough money to retrofit them.  However, the new systems purchased with grant money can, at best, increase energy efficiency (in the short run) and provide a certain amount of alternative energy, thereby reducing carbon emissions.

In the long run innovation and the production of new and efficient energy systems are thwarted.  No person or body has the omniscient knowledge to know what the best methods of production are.  Under capitalism thousands of entrepreneurs searched in every direction for the most profitable method to produce energy and brought us from burning wood and whale blubber to the wide range of fuels available today.  Subsidies thwart this evolutionary process by distorting the thought process required for long rage planning. Subsidies and Central Planning work together to force production methods into one small basket of options. Forcing Americans to act in a certain way cuts off their ability to think and replaces thought with obedience.  The unintended consequence is a drop in the productive capacity of the American economy.  This drop in production will reduce the amount of energy used by Americans, thereby reducing fossil fuel emissions, further accomplishing goal number one.

$3,200,000,000 of mis-allocated wealth caused people to enter into professions that would have been otherwise non-existent.  They produced goods that consumers would have otherwise not chosen.  This diverted money away from freely chosen investments and products and forced it into municipal retrofit projects.  When the projects are over the mis-employed people will feel the pain of job loss and lack of desirable skills.  If the people remain ignorant of economics and individual rights, they will demand sustained subsidies for their irrational and unprofitable actions.  As an example of how this theory comes to life, take a look at Evergreen Solar Inc. in Massachusetts.

A solar panel manufacturer that received $58 million in state aid in 2007 to open a factory at a former Massachusetts military base is closing the plant and laying off 800 workers (AP Wire January 11, 2011).

It is difficult to examine the results of the EECBG program.  The Energy Empowers web site is supposed to contain EECBG success stories. As of April 10, 2010, there was only one vague article that said the following.

“Substantial energy efficiency improvements will be made throughout the state,” says Dari Sassan, EECBG coordinator for NHOEP. “Through this program, we are going to be able to fund116 innovative projects in 65 communities that will save money and stimulate the local economy,” he explains.(Energy Empowers)

No matter what short term success stories eventually appear, the EECBG program is doomed to fail in its efforts to increase energy efficiency and economic growth in the long run.  The best way to increase efficiency and economic growth is for a government to protect individual rights.  Government should focus its efforts on better defining and protecting individual rights. Instead of taking EECBG grants, local governments should sell or abandon the property they are unable to manage, including roads, public transportation and utilities.  Individuals and voluntary associations can easily perform these relatively simple tasks.  If the government worked to define and defend property rights for utilities and roads, private citizens would embark a thousand different ways to solve transportation, wastewater, drinking water and energy needs.   There is no law of nature that states man must travel by car on asphalt roads or that sewage must be sent through pipes across town to a treatment plant.  These antiquated ideas only get entrenched by government decree and regulation.

References

EECBG Home Page http://www.eecbg.energy.gov/about/default.html

EECBG Allocation Page http://www.eecbg.energy.gov/about/Allocation.html#allocation

US Mayors PDF http://www.usmayors.org/climateprotection/documents/eecbghandout.pdf

EECBG Guidance Page http://www.eecbg.energy.gov/about/program_guidance.html

Mises, Ludwig Von. “Human Action”

Energy Empowers http://www.eereblogs.energy.gov/energyempowers/search.aspx?q=eecbg

I called Barney Frank’s office

I live in Massachusetts.  Today I called all of the senators and representatives of Massachusetts in order to encourage them to vote NO on the health care bill.

John Kerry and Scott Brown could not be reached and they neglected to empty their mail boxes.  That is frustrating.

The representatives were much more responsive.  I reach two voice mails and many polite administrative assistants.  I told each one who I was and where I was from and then stated my purpose, which was to encourage representative so and so to vote against the health care bill.

Barney Frank was first on my list.  A man who sounded like he was hung over answered the phone.  I was expecting a full answering machine, since that was my experience with Kerry and Brown.  This man who sounded like he smoked two packs of cigarettes the night before he answered the phone.  He startled me.   I told him that I wanted to speak with Rep. Frank.  He mumbled something.  Then I told him that I wanted Frank to vote no on the health care bill….silence.  After a long pause, I said hello.  He said “yeah…”

Well, that was all I had intended to say, but then I went on to break the silence.

I said, “In my view, the government’s responsibility in health care involves arbitrating contract disputes and punishing fraud.  Health Care is a service.  It is immoral to force doctors and insurance companies to provide services against their will.

He replied, “What are you talking about?  This bill doesn’t force insurance companies to do anything and they don’t have wills.”

I said, “This bill forces insurance companies to provide coverage to people with pre-existing conditions.”

Long pause…

He said, “Thank you for your thoughts”…hang up

I am a sensitive guy and so I was bit disheartened.  I called the rest of the MA Representatives and the experience was much less awkward.   A lot of it had to do with me.  I didn’t do any preaching.  I just let them know that I was encouraging a “NO” vote.

2010 MA State Representatives Phone List

These guys and gals are doing a lot of work these days.  As an advocate for free markets I like to periodically encourage them to take it easy.  Theses overachievers are making life very complicated.

I encourage you put these numbers in your cell and give them a call when you are stopped at a light.  You’ll probably have to leave a message.  Tell them to take it easy.  All we want is to be left alone in order to pursue our dreams and happiness.

Sen. John Kerry, D-MA 202-224-2742

Sen. Scott Brown, R-MA 202-224-4543

Rep. Barney Frank, D-MA 4th 202-225-5931

Rep. Stephen Lynch, D-MA 9th 202-225-8273

Rep. James McGovern, D-MA 3rd 202-225-6101

Rep. Niki Tsongas, D-MA 5th 202-225-3411

Rep. John Tierney, D-MA 6th 202-225-8020

Rep. Edward Markey, D-MA 7th 202-225-2836

Rep. William Delahunt, D-MA 10th 202-225-3111

Rep. Michael Capuano, D-MA 8th 202-225-5111

Rep. Richard Neal, D-MA 6th 202-225-5601

Rep. John Olver, D-MA 1st 202-225-5335

John Kerry: Climate Change and Energy Production

Below is John Kerry’s response to a letter I wrote to him concerning Cap and Trade.

Dear Friend:

Thank you for writing to me about climate change.  I appreciate hearing your thoughts on this issue.

I believe that addressing climate change is more than an urgent scientific imperative.  It is also tremendous economic opportunity.  We have a chance to create millions of new green jobs here at home, and help spark a global recovery that brings clean growth to the developing world and lasting benefits to all of us.

Global climate change is one of the greatest challenges facing the international community today.  Right now, the most critical trends and facts all point in the wrong direction.  The CO2 emissions that cause climate change grew at a rate four times faster during the previous administration than they did in the 1990s.  Two years ago, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a series of projections for global emissions, based on likely energy and land use patterns.  Well, today our emissions have actually moved beyond the worst case scenarios predicted by all of the models of the IPCC.  Meanwhile, our oceans and forests, which act as natural repositories, are losing their ability to absorb carbon dioxide.  This means that the impacts of climate change are being felt stronger than expected, faster than expected.

I believe we must accept the reality of what the science is telling us and act in accordance with the full scope and urgency of this problem.  Right now, we have the rare opportunity to avert the climate disaster of tomorrow while helping address our economic challenges of today.  Transitioning to a low carbon economy creates tremendous opportunities for economic growth and job creation.  Energy is a $6 trillion market with opportunities for innovation and growth that dwarf any other sector.  Investments in energy efficiency and renewable produce roughly 3.5 times more jobs per dollar than spending on fossil fuels and green jobs pay 17 percent more than the median national income.  We can’t afford not to act.

I’ve been working with the Congress and with the Obama Administration to make reducing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions a top priority.  In June 2009, the House of Representatives took a decisive stand and successfully passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act.  I am working with my colleagues to pass similar legislation in the Senate.  In October 2009, Senator Boxer and I introduced the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act (S.1733), which will cut carbon pollution and stimulate the economy by creating millions of jobs in the clean energy sector.  Additional information about this bill can be found on my website at http://kerry.senate.gov/.  Building upon significant work already completed in Congress, Senators Graham, Lieberman, and I have also been working together to develop a bipartisan consensus on a comprehensive pollution reduction and energy independence plan. In December 2009, we released our framework for climate action outlining the principles and guidelines that will shape our ongoing efforts to develop comprehensive climate change legislation in the Senate.

As Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, I am working closely with the Obama Administration to ensure that the United States takes a leadership role in developing a global agreement to address climate change. In December 2009, I attended the United Nations climate summit in Copenhagen, Denmark. With the leadership of President Obama, the world reached an agreement that included a process for developed and major developing countries to pledge national targets or actions to mitigate global warming pollution.  The agreement also provides $100 billion annually by 2020 to assist the most vulnerable developing countries already facing the impacts of climate change.  I believe that the global accord reached in Copenhagen will help drive the U.S. to pass climate change legislation early this year.

Please be assured I will continue to fight for significant climate change legislation in the United States.

Again, thank you for your letter.  Please do not hesitate to contact me again about this or any other issue of importance to you.

Campaign Finance Law and Corruption

Our government has a long history of subsidizing, stimulating, and doing favors in general for private citizens or groups of citizens. Many of these favors go to businesses and corporations that, in effect, bribe congressmen. This has created an environment where businessmen offer money and or support to politicians in exchange for government favors.  This is called Crony Capitalism at best and Fascism at worst: government working in collusion with corporations in exchange for favors at the expense of private citizens.

In order to prevent corporations from influencing government policy and favor distribution, many people advocate for laws banning corporate campaign contributions—to silence the corporate voice.  This would allow individual voters to determine government policy, rather than corporations who buy congressmen.

In my view the problem of corruption is a symptom of the unhealthy marriage between the business and state.  History provides numerous examples of corrupt government and business relationships— from the railroad tycoons of the 19^th century to the financial institutions of today. The corruption is unintentionally caused in part by the encouragement of government/business partnerships.  In some cases the partnership is formed in an attempt to speed up progress.

The marriage of business and state is similar to the marriage between church and state in a fundamental respect.   The church was indistinguishable from the government for over thousand years in Europe. The government-church collected taxes by force and used the money to favor the church.  Therefore there was an incentive for the church to put and keep its members in the government. In our current system of Crony Capitalism, taxes are taken by force and given to business and special interests in an attempt to speed up progress. Therefore there is incentive for corporations and special interest groups to put and keep lobbyists in government.

Regulating corporate political speech will not solve the problem of corruption. It will only make the problem worse. Under fear of government force many potentially influential and intelligent voices will remain silent rather than risk penalty for violation of ambiguous laws.  The corrupt element of society will continue to sneak, cheat and fraud the citizens of the United States.   Sadly, by default, Crony Capitalism will emerge as the lone voice just like the Churches of the Middle Ages.

The solution to corruption requires a constitutional amendment that separates business and state, prohibiting government from subsidizing corporations, farms, special interest groups or private citizens.  Then corporations will have no more influence on government than religion.  It would much be easier to distinguish between the honest and the fraudulent people if the government prohibited all favors.

The argument for regulating free speech through campaign finance laws attacks corruption, a symptom caused by the encouragement of government/business partnerships.  This method of attack misses the mark as is demonstrated by the failure of 100 years of campaign finance laws to prevent corruption. Government interference with the economy is a major cause of corruption. The legal separation of business and economics is the cure.

Letter to Congress: Health Care

We want a free market in health care…not to be confused with the current mix of government and private health care.

We all have the right to voluntarily contract with any insurance company and any doctor under any terms. HR 3590 violates this right.

No one has the right to goods and services produced by another man—including medicine. No one has the right to health care.

If you are for free markets, encourage legislation that protects doctors, patients, and insurance companies from fraud.

Encourage legislation that ensures the sanctity of contract.

Pass legislation that forces states to keep commerce regular—allow out of state insurance to be purchased across borders.

Pass legislation that allows people to purchase any type of insurance they want.

Pass legislation that allows insurance companies to sell any policy they want— at whatever price they want—- to whoever they want.

HR 3590 is a monstrosity that must be burned. Shame on all of you for spending so much time and so many resources on a project outside the realm of government responsibility. If you spent that much time trying to figure out how to protect rights, instead of distorting rights, we might once again be a prosperous and peaceful nation.

Sincerely yours,

Mark Dohle

Letter to Congress: Cap and Trade

Dear Congressman,

Cap and Trade regulations go beyond protecting lives and properties from floods and droughts caused by carbon dioxide. The regulations force the flow of money and investment into government favored alternative energy producers. This regulation of energy production is an assault on a requirement for human life as we know it; the freedom to produce and consume energy.

Freedom and its implementation through the protection of individual rights form the sacred cornerstone of civilization and prosperity. Any proposition to limit freedom should be thoroughly investigated. People need to have their rights protected in order to live according to their moral and practical judgment. Otherwise choices are based on the carrots and sticks offered by anyone willing to initiate force, private or government. When people’s rights are violated, it distorts their ability to live as rationality dictates. Then in order to survive ordinary people often make otherwise irrational decisions in order to follow the path of least resistance.

The wind projects that were bankrolled “in exchange for a tax shelter” are an example of the irrationality that is encouraged by government subsidies. According to Václav Klaus, it would take 4,750 wind power plants to replace the Temelín nuclear power plant, “the construction of which would require 8.6 million tons of material…[and] they would create a 665-kilometer-long and 150-meter-high line…”(Blue Planet Green Shackles p.105). In a free market wind projects would exist in their proper place and time, but irrational ideas like replacing mankind’s energy needs—to any significant degree—with windmills is widespread only because of the false signals of monetary success provided by subsidies to green technology and the false signals trumpeted by grant funded academic research supporting “green technology”. Government subsidies favoring any project, green or otherwise, encourage and allow people to continually make otherwise irrational energy choices by postponing the hardships generally brought about by bad ideas. Please continue to protect our lives from pollution, but not at the expense of violating our right to produce, sell and use any energy we choose.

Thank you for your consideration. I would like to hear you address my argument.

Sincerely yours,

Mark Dohle