The Real Presidential Choice Facing the United States

The loud, cacophonous, clamoring back and forth has only just begun. The candidates of the two main parties will be speaking in opposing terms battling each other on every possible subject exaggerating even the slightest crevice of a difference until it rivals the Grand Canyon. We can expect full-throttle vindictive salvos to be thrown by the Super-PACs even should either candidate choose to stay positive and avoid personal attacks. This coming election has the potential to be the most contentious in recent history if not in all of history. Putting it in the most basic terms possible, we can safely predict that either side has no plans on taking any prisoners and go straight for the jugular of the opponent aiming to render them broken beyond repair if not simply and utterly destroyed. So, what will be the issues most likely to be the main themes of the election and which one will be the singularly most vital question voters will need to address.

The most obvious issues according to the press coverage they are receiving are jobs, taxes, unemployment, the economy, gas prices, and the disparities concerning Warren Buffet versus his secretary. As important as all of these issues may be, they will very likely prove to be secondary when the judgment of history is written some time much later in the century. The underlying theme between the candidates on each of these contentious issues will be the role of government should play in finding the solution. One side will place great importance on the steps the government must take to assure that the people are given the tools to solve any difficulties they are facing while the other candidate will stress getting government out of the way and allowing people to empower themselves without government meddlesome interference. The two sides will argue on which is more advantageous, making the wealthy pay their “fair share” in taxation such that the government will have sufficient funds in order to address and solve the problems the people are facing while on the other hand the argument made claims that allowing the wealthy and everybody else to keep more of their wealth by lowering tax rates so those who are the engines that generate the jobs, such as small businesses, have the additional funds to enable them to invest and employ more people. These themes will be the foundation beneath the discussion on other subjects as well.

Take health-care and health insurance, both of which promise to be a hot potato for both candidates, and again the discourse will revolve around how much responsibility should be granted to the government and how much should remain with the individual. How this particular debate plays out will be of great interest as President Obama can reasonably claim that he molded Obama-care using Romney-care as the prototypical guide. Romney will stress that at least Romney-care was Constitutional as it was a state program while Obama-care is not Constitutional being a Federal program and thus against the limitations placed on the Federal Government by the Constitution. For many in the electorate it will be required of Romney that he convinces them he had a turning point on the idea of government getting so fully involved with health-care thus placing distance between his current position and the position allowing him to sign the Massachusetts Health-Care Insurance Reform Law.

Another subject will be the balance between oil, coal, nuclear, natural gas and green energies which will ensure a sufficient supply for the future while also improving the environment. This will also revolve around the role of government regulations, licensing, involvement and promotion in each of these forms of energy generation. What will be of particular interest on this subject is whether either candidate will have a singular position and remains consistent on their message when talking to the different audiences. Will their position ring with the same message when they are speaking in Texas as when they are talking energy in San Francisco. This is something that both extremes on this issue from the coal and oil workers and the strident environmentalists should be interested and both candidates should be fully vetted and revealed if their message is overly adjustable and tailored for the separate audiences. Energy policies are often a good indicator with which to test the honor and honesty of candidates as the wide gulch between the two extremes between differing audiences provides temptation for candidates to adjust their rhetoric tailoring the message to fit the audience thus proposing contradictory positions at different times.

But what is the seminal issue of this coming Presidential election? When looking at each issue it becomes obvious that even more than has been the historic norm, the role of government in our lives and in all segments of society are going to be the central theme. We are faced with a significant difference between the two candidates. The choice is whether we desire to restore government to the restraints of a limiting Constitution or if we wish to transform the way we interpret our Constitution towards making government proactive by removing the limitations over the role of the Federal government. Will we choose to restructure the United States by dismissing Constitutional constraints or reestablish a restrictive Constitutionally limited governance United States? This is the choice in the starkest of terms with which to demonstrate our choice when we enter the voting booth this November. Either we retain the guards against unlimited government power or transit to a government that can dictate every item in our lives. We will be choosing whether we place the individual over the government or place the government to be preeminent over the individual. Which one do you trust to make all the choices going forward, each individual person with the rights and responsibilities for their own actions or the bureaucratic governance making the choices taking the responsibility for all consequences and doling out rights as they find necessary. Do we desire the responsibility derived from individual liberty or the comfort of simple compliance derived from communal group-think?

Beyond the Cusp

Is Obama Trying to Kill Off Family Farming Once and for All?

One of the old and treasured traditions in America is the idea of the family farm, and to that point, the small percentage of farming still being run by family efforts. These smaller farms often sell most of their produce locally at Farmer’s Markets or in local grocery outlets, sometimes also family owned. They are one of the last rural vestiges of an America that was the backbone of this country for over a hundred years. Times have become difficult for the family farm as competing against the factory mega-farms has reduced their access to gain much of a market share. Still, the family farms have soldiered on, often relying on the smaller markets somewhat ignored by the massive industrial style farms. Some are the heart and soul of area food co-ops, others simply sell to local markets, but whatever their market, they still fill a special and vital place in our country’s food system. So, why is the Federal Government moving to destroy the family farms?

I hear you already going, you’re crazy, what leads you to believe the government even cares about family farms, let alone is out to destroy them? Well, I will try to make this clear and succinct. There have been a couple of items that I came across without even looking for them, so there are probably others that I have yet to find. The first obvious attack on the family farm is the same as the attack on small businesses. The Obama tax and regulations aimed at the “rich” which are defined as those making a gross income of $250,000.00 at this time. I expect if he is reelected that will be adjusted down to around $200,000.00 or possibly even lower. Just like small businesses, family farms will often fall into that gross income bracket, especially at harvest time. Remember that the attack is on gross income and ignores all exemptions and expenses which for small businesses is the cost of their supplies or inventory and for family farms is the cost of seeds, fertilizer, fuel, irrigation water, and other necessities to raise their crops. But there are things above and beyond this that will directly hit family farms which will cause them difficulty if not prevent their operation, especially during the two most labor intense and important seasons, planting and harvesting.

During the year the family farm needs fertilizer just like the major industrial farms, just in a proportionally smaller amount. That amount still is well above twenty-five pounds. Department of Homeland Security has announced it plans to regulate the sale of ammonium nitrate of any amount above twenty-five pounds. Ammonium nitrate facilities must also keep records of sales or transfers of the chemical for at least two years after each transaction and must make an application and register with the Department of Homeland Security. Remember, Timothy McVeigh used 4,000 pounds of ammonium nitrate to blow up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, so obviously any farmer buying twenty-five pounds has to be suspect. Additionally, Anders Behring Breivik used ammonium nitrate to bomb in Oslo, so that really seals it, right? The claim is the government has been working on these regulations since 911 but for some reason it was delayed as farmers opposed these regulations. As in those wonderful commercials, Wait, there’s more!

Recently, the Federal Department of Transportation issued a regulation that reclassifies farm vehicles from simple tractors to harvesters, combines, cattle haulers and the majority of other motorized farming equipment as Commercial Motorized Vehicles which will require a CDL, Commercial Driver’s License, to operate. This would prevent family farms from using their teenage children to run virtually every mechanized farm vehicle as they would not be old enough until they reach eighteen or twenty-one in most states and also are able to pass the CDL driving test, a test that would have little bearing on their actual driving skill requirements in the fields. This should place yet another requirement which will not only prevent any family member under eighteen, or twenty-one, in most states from helping with the planting and harvesting and also require the farmer to pay for a CDL which will need to be renewed regularly adding yet another fee to their ledgers. Many family farms are barely holding on as it is and paying repeatedly for a CDL which costs anywhere from approximately $50.00 on up, depending on which state in which you get the license, is simply one more government fee I am sure these farmers do not need or appreciate. The license also requires in addition to the written test and driving proficiency test that you get a medical and security qualification and background checks. Simply stated, this is a requirement placed on the farm that will affect solely the family farmers and not restrict commercial farms as their equipment is not operated by family members below age eighteen or twenty-one.

This should not be surprising as the family farm is one enterprise that will very likely never be employing union workers, thus it must be destroyed by our union driven President. Add to that the seeming love President Obama has for regulations, virtually any regulations. As far as family farming’s future, next thing to look for is regulations or laws restricting or outright outlawing basic forms of irrigation and requiring water saving irrigation practices. Where this is a great goal that with time and the rising price of water will eventually be adopted by natural pressures of market forces. But to require farmers to use some system such as drip irrigation requires an investment that family farmers will likely need to save towards and not be able to simply install such a system tomorrow if required by government. I would also look for increased inspections to be required of farms over a certain acreage, which will be small enough to apply to most family farms but large enough to exempt backyard vegetable gardens, if we’re lucky, and licensing and who knows what else the inventive minds of government bureaucrat will dream up. The signs are all there and it does appear that the family farms are wearing a huge red target and are starting to take incoming government meddling. The future of farming may very well be one without a single family farm, even among the Amish if they can figure how to require a driver’s license requirement for guiding a plow behind your trusty horse, mule, ox, or work animal of your preference. Such will be a sad future and relegate family farming to art galleries and not the country sides.

Beyond the Cusp

Helping Hand of Government Past, Present, and Future

The helping hand of government has a long, and some might say dark and destructive, history. One of the earliest stories of Government’s helping hands overreaching is from a folk tale about none other than Davy Crockett, the Congressional Representative of Tennessee’s 9th district and a conversation between him and a farmer named Horatio Bunce as Representative Crocket was out campaigning for reelection. In short, Davy Crockett had voted for a bill to provide $20,000.00 to be utilized to rebuild an area of Georgetown that had been destroyed in a fire making many citizens homeless with simply the clothes they were wearing. The fire also destroyed a restaurant that was a favorite of many members of Congress from both Houses. The farmer informed Mr. Crockett that though he had supported him before, he no longer could do so in good conscience. When pressed for the reason, the farmer replied that Representative Crockett had abused his power and sullied his honor by breaking his pledge to uphold the Constitution by voting to allot funds for the rebuilding of what were private properties, a power not granted to the Government by the Constitution. Were such to be the only sins against the Constitution in our times.

Let me try to list some of the most egregious examples of Government sticking its nose, fingers, and sometimes the entire hand where it had no business that I recall from my sixty years. One particularly expensive item, at least for me at that time, was a simple regulation that forced the States to require every motorist to insure their vehicle in order to get the car licensed. This was to do away with the problems of uninsured drivers. Well, surprise of surprises, once having car insurance became required by law, for reasons that are a mystery, not, insurance rates for car insurance nearly tripled over the next two years. It still did not eliminate uninsured drivers but it did add another charge on every insured driver’s policy, a “contribution” to the State uninsured drivers’ fund which was supposed to be used to cover those uninsured drivers this regulation supposedly made impossible. This was a case of please don’t do me any more favors. Of course, the Government did not heed my wishes and more fun and games were to come.

The next Government caused boondoggle eventually did work the way it was claimed it would. Unfortunately, I honestly believe it would have evolved without the not so invisible hand of Government. I’m talking about the breakup of Ma Bell. The Government decided that having one telephone company for the entire nation supplying service to everybody did not allow for competition and thus AT&T had to be making undeserved profits off the system. So, the Government divided up Ma Bell and gave us regional baby Bells and stipulated that though Ma Bell still owned the entire communications network’s hardware, it would be required to charge the same rate to competitors of the baby Bells showing no preference. This resulted in Ma Bell showing no preferences including towards maintaining the same bottom line profits. In order to meet the desired profit margin, Ma Bell presented fees for use of the network hardware that guaranteed their continued financial health. They were not about to allow the Government to prevent them their deserved profits. With now competing baby Bells having to duplicate many positions which were also manned by Ma Bell, phone rates increased. With time, and new hardware being developed and competing with the older network, eventually prices fell below previous levels. This development appeared, for the most part, to coincide with the explosion of many newer communications technologies, especially in the form of satellite communications. With this new technology taking the place of extensive land lines, new companies such as Hughes entered the communications market. Soon we had wireless phones and everything else that we accept as commonplace today. Communication is only dependent upon land lines in local markets, and then only as a choice competing with cell phones. The advances that necessitated and made available new names and companies vying for our communication dollars would have happened and made much of AT&T and IT&T land line technology obsolete without any assistance from Government.

Recently, Government seems to have decided that there should be absolutely no limit to their ability to be invasive in our lives. Examples of more recent government meddling includes low water toilets which do not function properly in much older homes with larger diameter drainage pipes, low water shower heads, and the newest and worst intrusion, low water and energy washing machines. Recent testing of the new lines of front loading washing machines find that where they are just adequate at removing simple dirt, they are downright pathetic at removing set in oils, ground in dirt, grass stains, grease stains and other stubborn stains. Recent ratings by Consumer Reports has shown that every make and model of the front loading washing machines, even the most expensive deluxe washing machines, perform significantly poorer quality than the most basic top loaders from ten to fifteen years ago. But the worst is the next Government energy saving regulation coming soon to your electronics and appliance stores near you.

We are about to leave the age of the incandescent light bulb and enter the brave new world of compact fluorescent lamp (CFLs). We have been assured by Government spokespeople, who else would it be, that these new light bulbs will last longer, be just as bright and easy on the eyes as the old incandescent bulbs; well, except for the barely noticeable flickering. But what about the things they haven’t told us, the drawbacks, and there are many. First, that barely noticeable flicker will give many folks a nasty headache, especially if they are trying to read from one of these new-fangled bulbs (mandatory sounding like an old fogey for those choosing to refute my comments). Almost every lampshade that was designed to fit by clamping on the nice rounded shape of an incandescent bulb will no longer work and that is most of my budget lamps around the house. Tests have shown that the CFL lights are not a true white light that we have all been accustomed to with the incandescent bulbs. And then there is the big one that they do not talk about. What happens if one of the compact fluorescent bulbs breaks? Do you realize that you cannot simply go get the broom and dustpan and sweep it all up and throw it into the trash? Oh no, that will be illegal. Should your toddler pull down a lamp by its cord or the dog knock over your pole lamp and some of these CFLs should break, you have to call a specialist to come and decontaminate your house, or at least that room. These CFLs contain a small amount of mercury, a highly toxic liquid at room temperature and partially gas and liquid inside these CFLs. When one breaks a hazmat team needs to be called to properly clean the environment of even the smallest amount of mercury. It will be illegal under EPA regulations to simply STS, as I like to call it, meaning sweep, toss, and shut up. So, break one of these, as I said before, new-fangled CFL bulbs and it is estimated that initially cost anywhere from $1,000.00 to $5,000.00, until sufficient people get trained. Even after there are sufficient numbers of trained people, since it will take special equipment and detection meters and a fair amount of time to properly dispose of your broken light bulb, it will never be all that affordable, and you have to call a “professional”, it’s the law! So, now those crazies who are stocking up on good old incandescent light bulbs might not be all that crazy after all. My solution is I will simply only buy rather expensive and rather unbreakable LED light bulbs. Nope, no CFLs in my house.

Beyond the Cusp