Voice For Liberty

Tag: Politics

  • Kansas House candidate to address Pachyderms

    On Friday April 2 at the Wichita Pachyderm Club, Eric Payne will address members and guests. Payne is a candidate for the Republican Party nomination for the Kansas House of Representatives for the 87th district. This district in east and southeast Wichita is currently represented by Raj Goyle. Joseph Scapa, another candidate for this position, will speak to the same group on April 30.

    All are welcome to attend Pachyderm club meetings. The program costs $10, which includes a delicious buffet lunch including salad, soup, two main dishes, and ice tea and coffee. The meeting starts at noon, although it’s recommended to arrive fifteen minutes early to get your lunch before the program starts.

    The Wichita Petroleum Club is on the ninth floor of the Bank of America Building at 100 N. Broadway (north side of Douglas between Topeka and Broadway) in Wichita, Kansas (click for a map and directions). Park in the garage just across Broadway and use the sky walk to enter the Bank of America building. Bring your parking garage ticket to be stamped and your parking fee will be only $1.00. There is usually some metered and free street parking nearby.

  • Bigger danger of healthcare bill: the arrogance of Congress

    By Eric O’Keefe.

    We may never fully know the damage that will be done by the massive health care bill Congress passed on Sunday, but one thing is certain: It will lead to lower-quality care at higher costs.

    Dozens of new health boards will come on line in the next few years, as bureaucrats gradually take control of our health care system. Who knows how many bright college students will decide to avoid medical careers because they don’t want to follow orders from these bureaucrats?

    As alarming as some of the bill’s provisions are, what’s more dangerous is the arrogance this Congress demonstrated.

    The House of Representatives used to represent; now it rules.

    This health care reform was widely debated for a year, and it became less popular by the month. A weekend poll by Rasmussen Reports showed the depth of that unpopularity, with only 26 percent strongly supporting the reform and 45 percent strongly opposing it.

    How can elected representatives defy the considered will of the people?

    Because defiance becomes an easy habit when you know that there is almost no chance you will lose your next election. The loss of accountability enables public servants to indulge their own lust for power. As Lord Acton wrote, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

    If we do not address the problem of a permanent class of rulers in Congress, we will watch Congress bankrupt the country and destroy the republic.

    Most members of the House represent specially drawn districts where one party dominates. As a result, these members face no primary election challengers and only nominal competition in the general election.

    Congressional entrenchment is not a product of popularity; Congress has routinely been unpopular the past 30 years. A February survey by Rasmussen Reports showed approval of Congress at a historic low, with only 10 percent rating their performance as good or excellent. Rasmussen also found 63 percent favor replacing the entire Congress.

    Unfortunately, that will not happen. Even during this year’s extreme political turmoil, you can be confident that over 80 percent of House incumbents will win yet again in November. In most modern US elections, more than 95 percent of House incumbents are reelected.

    The reason is a century of entrenchment by incumbents looking out for themselves. They have large staffs and budgets to run a permanent campaign; they have pork and patronage to distribute at taxpayer expense; and they enacted campaign restrictions to hobble challengers.

    With mostly one-party districts, incumbents own their seats unless they face serious primary challenges. But party organizations controlled by incumbents work to discourage primary challenges, regardless of the performance of the incumbent. In fact, only eight incumbents have lost their primary races in the past three elections combined – that’s a renomination rate of over 99 percent.

    To regain congressional accountability, we must work outside the political parties to set the standard of acceptable behavior, and to enforce it in primary elections.

    In 2006 and 2008, Democrats won the close House races and took control of Congress because voters were tired of big-spending Republicans. In 2010 voters will defeat Democrats in close elections, and the House is likely to return to Republican control. But what will those Republicans do? Should we trust them to behave this time?

    I would say no. Congress will not behave on its own because the political parties now exist to serve the politicians, not the taxpayers.

    That’s why the development of the tea party movement has been so forceful and swift. Tea party leaders stepped up because both parties had failed us. Yet they understand that you don’t solve the problem of two unaccountable parties by creating a third. What we really need is a way to hold politicians of any party accountable, and that begins with independent organizations demanding accountability, and backing primary challengers to representatives of both political parties who fail to live up to their job title: Representative.

    In 2010, tossing out some big-spending Democrats may be all that voters can accomplish. But if we don’t solve the bigger problem of creating the organizations to systematically hold politicians accountable, we will only get another round of broken promises on the road to ruin. The fate of the republic depends on building an independent system to hold Congress accountable to the taxpayers.

    Eric O’Keefe is chairman of Sam Adams Alliance, a Chicago-based nonprofit focused on communicating free-market principles.

  • Financial services reform consequences may not be unintended

    A financial services regulation bill could place many types of businesses under new regulations, even though they are nothing like banks or other companies typically considered to be in the financial services business.

    I had thought that this possibility might simply be an example of the unintended consequences of regulation. But after reading a Wall Street Journal article (Will Walmart Pay for the Next Bailout?), I’ve come to believe that these consequences — the spread of regulation to vast new sectors of industry — is, in fact, intended.

    Gregory Zerzan, the author, explains: “The current proposals for ‘financial’ reform are stalking horses allowing government intervention into virtually every facet of the U.S. Economy.” He explains that the Federal Reserve — if it believes a company poses a threat to the economy — could order the company to separate its businesses so that its financial dealings could be regulated as a bank holding company.

    Which companies could be subjected to this new regulation by the Federal Reserve? Zerzan explains:

    Despite non-binding staff explanations to the contrary, there is no mystery as to who is being targeted. Under the bill the Fed gets regulatory authority over bank holding companies with greater than $50 billion in assets, and “nonbank financial companies”. As the Fed already regulates bank holding companies the new twist is that non-banks become subject to Federal Reserve regulation for the first time. The language is unusually clear: if the new systemic risk regulator so chooses, any company engaged in routine business transactions can suddenly be deemed “financial” and subject to bank-like regulation. (emphasis added)

    In Wichita, several large companies could be impacted. The author mentions an “airplane manufacturer that holds customer down payments for future delivery” as an example of a company that could now be regulated by the Federal Reserve.

    Why is the legislation being considered? Zerzan explains that it’s partly based on the belief by some that the government can manage the economy, but there’s also an opportunity to generate new tax revenue:

    Why would the systemic risk regulator seek to make regular American businesses subject to bank-like regulation? No doubt in part it is the belief in some quarters that the government can stop financial crises from happening if only it has enough power and influence over the economy. Even among true believers the near-collapse of the highly regulated banking sector should call that article of faith into question. But there is a more practical reason to seek to turn Walmart, IBM, Boeing and other Fortune 500 companies into “financial” businesses. Under both the House bill and the Dodd legislation it is these companies that are to be taxed to pay for winding up a “too big to fail” firm. If a company gets deemed systemically risky it is on the hook for bailing out financial firms that took on too much risk. Such a regime is neither fair nor sensible from an economic perspective, but existing taxpayers’ money is already over-allocated; the Treasury needs the contents of new wallets to pay for the next crisis.

  • Financial services regulation could spread to non-financial industries

    Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee Christopher Dodd has introduced sweeping legislation to regulate the financial services industry. The bill, at 1,336 pages, would dramatically change the regulatory landscape for one of our most important industries and spread to other non-financial industries.

    The bill would create vast new regulatory powers for the Treasury Department. According to an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Senator Bob Corker says that “there’s no question that Treasury is pushing left,” indicating the Treasury’s Department’s desire for more regulatory power.

    In fact, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is expected to deliver a speech today that calls for Congress to pass a bill with “real reforms.”

    Indication of interest in these regulations may be gauged by the fact that some 400 amendments to the bill have been offered.

    As with any regulation, especially a law designed to regulate a large and multi-faceted industry, unintended consequences are certain to arise. The Main Street Alliance, a coalition of leading U.S. manufacturers and business groups warned that many businesses that would not usually be considered financial institutions could fall under this regulation.

    The Dodd bill extends systemic risk regulation to “nonbank financial companies,” defined as any business substantially engaged in “financial activities.” Because the term “financial activities” is so broad and includes things like lending money and investing a company’s own assets, the bill could authorize the new systemic risk regulator to regulate manufacturers, retailers and other non-financial services businesses.

    Also: “We are concerned the new draft bill is so broad that larger manufacturers could be subjected to regulation by the Federal Reserve,” says Dorothy Coleman of the National Association of Manufacturers, a member of the Alliance.

    Dodd’s proposed regulation is a response to the financial crisis of 2008. Whether new regulation is needed in response to that crisis is one question. But as the Main Street Alliance wrote in a letter to the Senate Banking Committee: “We do not believe that it is the intent of Congress to impose a new regulatory regime on companies that had nothing to do with the financial crisis of 2008.”

    It should be noted that Dodd is not running for re-election this year. He faced declining poll numbers in his home state of Connecticut.

  • College Republicans to present panel discussion

    On Friday March 26 at the Wichita Pachyderm Club, Wichita State University College Republicans Stacy Goss, Brandon Rudkin, and Craig Allen Harms will present a panel discussion, “Future of the Republican Party: The College Republicans.” This should be an interesting perspective from college Republicans.

    All are welcome to attend Pachyderm club meetings. The program costs $10, which includes a delicious buffet lunch including salad, soup, two main dishes, and ice tea and coffee. The meeting starts at noon, although it’s recommended to arrive fifteen minutes early to get your lunch before the program starts.

    The Wichita Petroleum Club is on the ninth floor of the Bank of America Building at 100 N. Broadway (north side of Douglas between Topeka and Broadway) in Wichita, Kansas (click for a map and directions). Park in the garage just across Broadway and use the sky walk to enter the Bank of America building. Bring your parking garage ticket to be stamped and your parking fee will be only $1.00. There is usually some metered and free street parking nearby.

  • Medical marijuana testimony presented in Kansas House committee

    This week the Kansas House of Representatives Health and Human Services Committee held an informational hearing on HB 2610. This bill would legalize the use of medical marijuana for certain debilitating medical conditions. Representative Gail Finney, a Democrat who represents parts of east Wichita, introduced the bill.

    An informational hearing means that the committee would take no action on the bill, so there would be no vote taken and no possibility that the bill would advance out of the committee to be considered by the entire House.

    There were two bills on the committee’s agenda before the marijuana measure. After these were dispatched, Representative Brenda Landwehr, a Wichita Republican and committee chairman, announced that she had to testify at another committee. Representative David Crum, the committee’s vice-char and an Augusta Republican, also had to attend a different committee meeting. In their absence, Representative Geraldine Flaharty, a Wichita Democrat, presided over the proceedings.

    Leading off the testimony, a woman from Augusta who suffers from multiple sclerosis said she wished for other drugs besides oxycodone and morphine to relieve her pain. In the past, marijuana gave her relief, she said, but now that she stopped using the drug, she has become worse, now barely able to walk. “But I’m too old to break the law,” she said.

    David Mulford of Hutchinson said he has suffered from both chronic pain and muscle spasms for 20 years. He said he has long-term experience with Marinol (a prescription pill form of the main psychoactive substance found in marijuana) and medicinal herbal cannabis.

    He quoted John Walters, former director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, who said in 2002 that “The Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research is currently conducting scientific studies to determine the efficacy of marijuana in treating various ailments. Until that research is concluded, however, most of what the public hears from marijuana activists is little more than a compilation of anecdotes.”

    Mulford said that this research is now available, referring to a recent report from the Center for Medical Cannabis Research at the University of California. He said that this study found that herbal cannabis has benefits for individuals that do not respond well to current therapies. Medicinal cannabis was found to safe and effective, he said the study found.

    Marinol, while an important part of his treatment plan, does not provide the same benefits as herbal cannabis. He said he finds it difficult to believe that anyone would consider him a “faker,” using his illness as an excuse to get high. He said he needs to manage his health, and only that. “We must place patients above politics,” he added.

    Anthony Buckland told of how in the days before his daughter died from cancer at the age of 16, there were no non-narcotic drugs available for her to use. Cannabis, he said, would have helped control her nausea and increase her appetite, as well as controlling pain. The daughter did not want to break the law, which would have been necessary in order to use cannabis.

    Brian Leininger, an attorney from Overland Park who has experience as a district attorney and city prosecutor, spoke on behalf of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP), an organization of former and current law enforcement officers, prosecutors, and judges who at one time had fought the war on drugs, but are now opposed to the prohibition of drugs. He said that marijuana is classified as a schedule 1 drug, meaning that it has no medical benefit, which he said is not true. Many far more dangerous and harmful drugs are not classified as schedule 1 drugs, and are prescribed regularly.

    He said that 14 states have approved cannabis for medical purposes. He urged the committee members to take a fair look at this legislation and vote for it when the times comes. “It’s the compassionate thing to do,” he added.

    Dan Dawdy presented information on the scientific aspects of cannabis and Marinol, the pill form of synthetic THC. One difference, he said, as that Marinol contains just one compound, while medical cannabis in herbal form contains 60 naturally-occurring cannabinoids. He told the committee that the fact that Marinol is ingested orally is a problem too, according to experts. Of the many cannabinoids in natural cannabis, several have been found to be medically useful.

    Dawdy explained: “We do not stop at one headache medicine or one cholesterol-lowering drug. Why not? It’s simple: one medicine doesn’t work for everyone, it doesn’t work in every situation, or for every need. … Even the best drugs don’t work for everyone.” He added that “I used to believe that cannabis was not medicine — it just made people not mind being sick.” But after seeing the medicine in action, he came to realize that medical cannabis has the ability to help many ill people improve their lives.

    Tom Ballard, who said he is a long-time resident of Kansas, spoke on the issue of cannabis dependency. He told the committee that “cannabis lacks the physical and psychological dependence liabilities associated with most other substances.” He said that only ten percent of those why try cannabis meet the clinical criteria for drug dependency, which is less than the 15 percent associated with alcohol use. He said that the majority of cannabis users who are in treatment programs are there as a condition of their probation, not their choice. “Prohibitionists disingenuously argue that these admissions to treatment justify the need to maintain cannabis’ illegal status when in reality it appears to be the policy and not the use that results in the commitment of cannabis users to treatment centers.”

    Ballard also addressed the effect of cannabis use on driving, saying that its effect on the ability to drive — compared to the effect of alcohol — is mild.

    Tyler Feeney said that we should be having hearings on this matter, not an informational session where the leadership of the committee — referring to Representatives Landwehr and Crum — is not present, saying that they “obviously don’t care.” The audience expressed its approval of this sentiment with applause and cheers. He said it’s a disconnect when legislators take money from the pharmaceutical industry, cigarette makers, and people who sell booze, but panic at the idea of marijuana. “14 other states have done this, and the apocalypse hasn’t hit yet.”

    He promoted medical marijuana as a way to help solve the state’s budget problem by earning revenue through its sale.

    Feeney urged the committee to hold a real hearing instead of this informational hearing, which he characterized as a waste of time. He thanked the committee members who were still present, as by this time, many committee members had left the room. Chairman Flaharty said that some members had other appointments, and that’s why they had left.

    Patrick Wilbur, Executive Director of Drug Policy Forum of Kansas, said it’s obvious that for some patients, cannabis is the best answer for them. Also, this bill does not endorse or legalize the recreational use of cannabis. He cited an ABC News/Washington Post poll that found that 81% of Americans endorsed the legalization of medical marijuana. “This is not a fringe issue. This is mainstream,” he said. The approval numbers are not as high in Kansas, he said, but there is still a solid majority of Kansans that support this.

    Cheryl Riley, founder and director of the Kansas Medical Cannabis Network, spoke about the evidence supporting the medical use of cannabis, stating: “Four decades of intensive research and clinical trials in Israel and elsewhere has proved beyond any doubt to rational minds that medical cannabis is indeed effective therapy for a wide array of medical conditions.” She noted that the American Medical Association has asked the DEA to reschedule cannabis so that clinical studies could be conducted.

    She also told the committee that many religious organizations have announced support for medical cannabis as a matter of human compassion.

    In written testimony supplied to the committee, Dr. Jon Hauxwell, a retired physician living in Hays, wrote: “Cannabis denialists rely on a derisive catch phrase, ‘medical excuse marijuana.’ Apparently we are to believe that the tens of thousands of people who can attest to the unique benefits of cannabis therapy when other drugs have failed, are simply deluded, or faking. This is cruel and cynical. One wonders how many of these patients the denialists have actually interviewed, and by what criteria they dismissed these affirmations as crazy or deceitful. These patients deserve compassion, not derision.”

    On the potential for abuse if Kansas legalizes medical cannabis, Hauxwell wrote to the committee: “As a licensed physician, I could legally prescribe or administer methamphetamine, cocaine, morphine, Oxy-Contin, and barbiturates. There are indeed some people who seek to divert these drugs for abuse. Doctors must be vigilant, and sometimes we get fooled. But we as a society have made a commitment: The abusers don’t get to call the shots. They will not be allowed to deprive legitimate patients of the right to the treatment they need.”

    Concluding his written testimony, Dr. Hauxwell explained that cannabis is safe, provides proven benefits, and is a valuable and necessary option for treatment:

    It is biologically plausible — and demonstrable — that cannabis safely offers a wide variety of benefits for health, benefits which have already been discovered and applied by patients across the world, and over centuries.

    Denialists maintain that even if cannabis does treat a variety of medical conditions, it is unnecessary because these conditions can be treated with currently available drugs.

    However, these drugs often have side-effects more disabling than cannabis, or don’t work well for some individuals. If these drugs are already adequate, we could make at least two predictions: One, no other new drugs will ever be introduced to treat the conditions cannabis can treat, because they too would be “unnecessary.” And two, no cancer patient will ever again tell her oncologist “I’m not going to take any more radiation and chemo. I know what that means, but I’d rather die than go through that again.”

    Written testimony presented at this hearing is available at Informational Presentations on Kansas Medical Marijuana Act. A USA Today article that references Representative Finney and the Kansas bill is Slowly, states are lessening limits on marijuana. A recent poll that shows support for medical marijuana in Kansas is Survey USA News Poll #16266.

  • The bamboozled public

    The intellectual arguments used by the State throughout history to “engineer consent” by the public can be classified into two parts: (1) that rule by the existing government is inevitable, absolutely necessary, and far better than the indescribable evils that would ensue upon its downfall; and (2) that the State rulers are especially great, wise, and altruistic men — far greater, wiser, and better than their simple subjects. In former times, the latter argument took the form of rule by “divine right’ or by the “divine ruler” himself, or by an “aristocracy” of men. In modern times, as we indicated earlier, this argument stresses not so much divine approval as rule by a wise guild of “scientific experts” especially endowed in knowledge of statesmanship and the arcane facts of the world. The increasing use of scientific jargon, especially in the social sciences, has permitted intellectuals to weave apologia for State rule which rival the ancient priestcraft in obscurantism. For example, a thief who presumed to justify his theft by saying that he was really helping his victims by his spending, thus giving retail trade a needed boost, would be hooted down without delay. But when this same theory is clothed in Keynesian mathematical equations and impressive references to the “multiplier effect,” it carries far more conviction with a bamboozled public.

    From Murray N. Rothbard, For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto, pages 59 – 60

  • Tea party leaders analysis released

    The Sam Adams Alliance, an organization that supports free market principles, has released a study that examines tea party leaders, their thoughts, and their motivations. It found that many tea party leaders are new to political activism, and having experienced empowerment, are ready to move to the next step of activism. “This is their time to act,” the report concludes.

    While it is often thought that the tea party movement might blossom into a third party, that wasn’t the sentiment of those surveyed: “A striking 85.7 percent said ‘No’ when asked if they were in favor of moving in the direction of a Third Party.” Eric O’Keefe, Chairman of the Sam Adams Alliance, wrote in his letter introducing the analysis: “We found a deep distrust of current political leaders and both political parties, but strong understanding that practical considerations argue against a third party.”

    Political party affiliation was largely Republican: “61.7 percent Republican, 27.7 percent Independent, and 10.6 percent Tea Party.”

    Social issues were not important to the respondents. Instead, fiscal and economic issues are the focus: “91.7 percent said ‘budget’ is “very important, followed by the ‘economy’ at 85.4 percent, and ‘defense’ at 79.6 percent.”

    The tea party leaders are relatively new to politics: “46.9% were uninvolved or rarely involved with politics prior to 2009.” Also: “Tea Party activists are for the most part new to this role. They are neither practiced nor polished in activism; but having experienced a taste of the empowerment that comes with action, they feel more than ever that this is their time to act.”

    But tea party leaders are self-aware and want to advance the movement: “They are also motivated to take this to the next level — and are actively preparing for a phase two.”

    Read the report and learn more about the Sam Adams Alliance at Activist Insights. A direct link to the report is The Early Adopters.

  • ‘Kansas Votes’ provides information on legislature, bills

    The website Kansas Votes provides information about pending legislation in Kansas as it works its way through the law-making process. This process, which can appear complicated to the average citizen, is explained in plain language on this website.

    Here are some features of Kansas Votes:

    • Concise, plain-language, objective and accurate descriptions of every bill, amendment, roll call vote and voice vote.
    • Ability to track all the votes of a particular legislator, or search by bill number, category or keyword.
    • Ability to view all the bills and amendments introduced by a particular legislator.
    • Ability to post a public comment, view others’ comments, and participate in citizen surveys on each bill.
    • Automatically e-mail legislators or others about a bill.
    • Ability to follow action in any one or more of 50 different categories of legislation (such as Education or Land Use or Taxes).
    • Ability to sign up for e-mail notifications of action on any bill or subject area of interest, including new bill introductions.

    Now citizens have a valuable tool to help them follow the action in the statehouse. This is especially important as traditional media such as newspapers devote less coverage to news like this.

    And did I mention it’s free?

    To use Kansas Votes, click on Kansas Votes.