Published – Idaho State Journal, 05/20/12

This past week California Governor Jerry Brown announced that his state is facing a “ballooning” budget deficit of more than $16 billion. In an interview on CBS News, Brown said, “We're not some tired country of Europe. We're a buoyant, dynamic society that will both discipline itself on a daily basis but it will on the long-term plant the seeds of future growth.”

What is inscrutably lost on the governor is that the policies that have brought California to the edge of a fiscal cliff are mostly the same ones of those “tired countries of Europe,” which have manifest the same degree of financial discipline that California has practiced.

Many trends, fads, and even governmental policies have originated in the Golden State that has even given rise to a widely accepted aphorism, “As California goes, so goes the nation.” It’s the verity of that truism that makes the state’s financial problems a portent of things to come for the rest of the nation if we fail to learn from their experience.

Joel Kotkin, one of the nation’s premier demographers, has identified the most significant contributing factors to California’s problems. He points out that four million more people have left California in the last two decades than have moved there from other states. This is in sharp contrast with the 1980s when 100,000 more Americans were settling in California each year than were leaving. Most of those leaving are young families.

They’re leaving because they can’t afford to live there. Everything from food, energy and taxes to real estate and housing, are beyond the financial reach of young families. Kotkin points to restrictions and massive regulations on development and housing that have artificially limited housing supply. As he explains, California’s so-called “smart growth” plans literally force middle-class families into less expensive, high-density housing, or out of state.

From his analysis, housing is merely one front of what he refers to as the "progressive war on the middle class." The high cost of energy has had a dramatic impact on everyone, but especially on the middle class. Policies restricting traditional sources of energy, and state financed advantages granted to green energy producers have resulted in skyrocketing energy costs. The price per kilowatt hour of electricity is nearly twice what it is in Idaho, and more than 50% above the national average, according to Electricchoice.com.

Yet state policy makers are doubling down on green energy and on the restriction to traditional producers, which are expected to make the rates rise even more. For California has enthusiastically embraced cap-and-trade, with AB32, “…which will raise the cost of energy and drive out manufacturing jobs without making even a dent in global carbon emissions. Then there are the renewable portfolio standards, which mandate that a third of the state's energy come from renewable sources like wind and the sun by 2020,” according to the Wall Street Journal.

Most of these costs are borne by the middle class since those below the poverty level get state assistance and the wealthy can afford it. But the high energy costs drive manufacturing and other blue-collar energy users either out of business or out of the state.

And not only are energy costs much higher, but with two decades worth of policy and tax-advantaged investment in green energy, the promised windfall of jobs has not occurred. Only 2% of the job force in California is in green energy, roughly the same as Texas, which maintains a vastly different green energy policy. Rather, in part due to the higher operating costs in California created by onerous regulation, companies, and their jobs, have been exiting the state. California currently has the third highest unemployment rate in the nation at 10.9%.

The Golden State has significant gas and oil resources, yet policy and regulation preclude utilizing them. An estimated 25 billion barrels of oil are sitting untapped in the vast Monterey and Bakersfield shale deposits. Over the past decade, Texas has created 200,000 oil and gas jobs, while California has hardly added any. The Wall Street Journal pointed out recently, that, “The state’s remaining energy producers have been slowing down as the regulatory environment becomes ever more hostile even as producers elsewhere, including in rustbelt states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, ramp up. The oil and gas jobs the Golden State political class shuns pay around $100,000 a year on average.”

"You see the great tragedy of California is that we have all this oil and gas, we won't use it," Mr. Kotkin says. "We have the richest farm land in the world, and we're trying to strangle it." The latter point references how water restrictions aimed at protecting the delta smelt fish are endangering Central Valley farmers. Kotkin asserts that is the kind of “anti-human” public policy that is driving agriculture out and is impacting so many of the state’s economic sectors.

Kotkin explains the demographic changes are occurring because of state policy. “Californians are voting much more based on social issues and less on fiscal ones…” Consequently, it’s a much less favorable climate for employers than ever before. “As progressive policies drive out moderate and conservative members of the middle class, California's politics become even more left-wing. It's a classic case of natural selection, and increasingly the only ones fit to survive in California are the very rich and those who rely on government spending. In a nutshell, ‘the state is run for the very rich, the very poor, and the public employees,’” Kotkin explained recently to the Wall Street Journal.

Middle-class families are fleeing California in droves. As a result, California is turning into a two-and-a-half-class society. On top are the "entrenched incumbents" who inherited their wealth or came to California early and made their money, and the self-made technology millionaires. Then there's a shrunken middle class of public employees and, miles below, a permanent welfare class. As it stands today, about 40% of Californians don't pay any income tax and a quarter are on Medicaid. It's "a very scary political dynamic," Kotkin laments.

Meanwhile, taxes are decimating the private sector economy. According to the Tax Foundation, California has the 48th-worst business tax climate. “The wealthy pay a top rate of 10.3%, the third-highest in the country, while middle-class workers—those who earn more than $48,000—pay a top rate of 9.3%, which is higher than what millionaires pay in 47 states. And state leaders want to raise tax rates even more,” according to the Wall Street Journal.

The reason taxes have been increasing to now unsustainable levels, is that Sacramento has been unable to curtail spending. State spending has more than doubled in the past ten years. Costs for state pensions have increased by over 150% in the same time period, as demands from state employee unions have required a greater percentage of the budget. Unable to muster the discipline to reduce spending to match economic realities, the only tool the state seems to know how to use is tax increases.

The lessons from California are many, and this analysis only scratches the surface. The question is, will we as a nation learn them before or after we’re in the same malaise?

 AP award winning columnist Richard Larsen is President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, and is a graduate of Idaho State University with a BA in Political Science and History and former member of the Idaho State Journal Editorial Board. He can be reached at rlarsenen@cableone.net.

Published – Idaho State Journal, 05/13/12

The unambiguous imagery of blindfolded Lady Justice holding the scales of impartiality aloft, idyllically characterizes our understanding of how American justice is expected to function. We expect it to be dispensed neutrally; blind to race, creed, socio-economic status, and political associations. Yet clearly this administration’s Department of Justice is blind in ways not represented by Lady Justice.

Ever since the near collapse of the crony-capitalistic system created more by Washington than by Wall Street, we’ve consistently heard from the administration that they were going to get “tough” on Wall Street, prosecute the perpetrators of the “fraud and corruption” that they insisted was endemic there, and hold “accountable those who helped bring about the last financial crisis.”

Yet, as stated in a revelatory article in Newsweek, due out this week, the administration and Attorney General Eric Holder have not “criminally charged or prosecuted a single top executive from any of the elite financial institutions thought responsible for the financial crash.” Is this blind justice, or simply being blind to justice?

Holder was explicit in his intent to prosecute those “responsible” for the mortgage market induced meltdown. Said he, “Mortgage, securities, and corporate fraud schemes have eroded the public’s confidence in the nation’s financial markets and have led to a growing sentiment that Wall Street does not play by the same rules as Main Street.  Unscrupulous executives, Ponzi scheme operators, and common criminals alike have targeted the pocketbooks and retirement accounts of middle class Americans, and in many cases, devastated entire families’ futures.  We will not allow these actions to go unpunished.”

In reality, that’s precisely what they’ve done. With no charges, no “perp walks” (other than Bernie Madoff whose Ponzi scheme collapsed with the mortgage market) and no prosecution of any top Wall Street executives, the administration proves by their actions that they are firmly ensconced in the pockets of the 1%, at the expense of the 99%.

Logically, there are only two possibilities for such recalcitrance in pursuing the instigators of all the “fraud and corruption” on Wall Street. The first is, perhaps all those financial titans were functioning legally under the complex web of crony-capitalistic excess, as allowed by Washington’s bizarre regulatory umbrella. Or those wizards of Wall Street have bought and paid for their financial “indulgences” with massive contributions into the campaign coffers of Holder’s boss. The Newsweek authors conclude it is the latter.

They also raise another aspect of the “hands off” policy of the DOJ.  They point to the fact that most of those Wall Street executives, and their companies, are clients of the influential law firms that Holder and his top lieutenants worked at before joining the DOJ in 2009.

Just two months into the new administration, there was a meeting held at the White House with heads of 13 of the top banks and financial institutions.  As reported by ABC News, “President Obama put it to the Big Finance executives” and told them in no uncertain terms, “My administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks.” Here we are three years later, with no arrests, no prosecution, no criminal charges filed, but lots of campaign dollars flowing to the campaign war chest. It would appear the DOJ opted for not “making hay” of the bankers, but save them for their most useful purpose; to finance the president’s campaign.

The hypocrisy of the whole situation has outraged even elements of the left. Mike Gecan, an activist with the Industrial Areas Foundation, explained, “I’m from Chicago, I’ve seen this game played my whole life."

The DOJ and the administration have not only rewarded Wall Street executives by saving them from the pitchforks, but they’ve also been rewarded with the lowest prosecution rates of corporate securities and bank fraud in years.

Department of Justice criminal prosecutions are at 20-year lows for corporate securities and bank fraud, based on data from the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, a data-gathering organization at Syracuse University. Newsweek reports that financial fraud prosecutions are “down 39 percent since 2003, and are just one third of what they were during the Clinton administration.”

If we are to believe what the administration has been telling us for the past few years, what happened in 2008 was the direct result of excessive greed, avarice, corruption, and fraud. And it led to what’s widely heralded as the most significant financial downturn since the Great Depression. But still, not a single criminal prosecution in sight.

Don’t believe for a second that the administration is looking out for the 99%. All the evidence indicates it is carefully protecting the 1%, in what could be the most heinous “pay to play” political episode ever in American history. Their version of “justice is blind” seems to indicate that they’re blind to the abuses of their contributors. As Newsweek refers to it, it’s “the Chicago Way writ large.”

AP award winning columnist Richard Larsen is President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, and is a graduate of Idaho State University with a BA in Political Science and History and former member of the Idaho State Journal Editorial Board. He can be reached at rlarsenen@cableone.net.

By Richard Larsen

Published – Idaho State Journal, 05/06/12

According to Supreme Court precedent, U.S. citizens are presumed to have a “right of privacy.” Whether we concur with how the precedent has been applied or not, it makes sense that in a republic where the rule of law protects citizens, that we not be unduly exposed to prying government or corporate invasions into our privacy. That “right” has all but vanished.

In 2001 when the Patriot Act was passed, the FBI was allowed to expand its use of National Security Letters to search telephone, e-mail, and financial records without a court order. It expanded access of law enforcement agencies to business records, including library and financial records. The underlying theory was to provide law enforcement access to data allowing them to “connect the dots” on future attempted terrorist attacks. The American Civil Liberties Union and hosts of citizens groups protested vehemently.

The Act was renewed in 2005 and again last year for another four years. Not much was changed, other than expanded use of “roving wire taps.”

Although media and civil liberties groups were extremely vocal in their denunciation of the original Act, and the 2005 renewal, hardly a thing has been said regarding last year’s renewal, with its concomitant expansion of authority to impinge on our privacy.

Much more has happened in the past three years to further erode any semblance of privacy. In March, the New York Times reported that, “For more than two years, a handful of senators on the Senate intelligence committee have warned that the government is secretly interpreting its surveillance powers under the Patriot Act in a way that would be alarming if the public knew about it.” The senators averred, “Americans would be ‘stunned’ to know what the government thought the Patriot Act allowed it to do“ through “a top-secret intelligence operation that is based on secret legal theory.”

Also in March, The Huffington Post reported, “The U.S. intelligence community will now be able to store information about Americans with no ties to terrorism for up to five years under new Obama administration guidelines. Until now, the National Counterterrorism Center had to immediately destroy information about Americans that was already stored in other government databases when there were no clear ties to terrorism.”

Last year the New York Times reported, “The government is increasingly monitoring Facebook, Twitter and other social networking sites for [law breakers and] political protesters.” They continued, “Wired magazine reported last month that In-Q-Tel, an investment arm of the Central Intelligence Agency, has put money into Visible Technologies, a software company that crawls across blogs, online forums, and open networks like Twitter and YouTube to monitor what is being said.”

More alarming is the explosion of government requests for information from the search engines. From Google alone, according to their latest online Transparency Report, the government is actively censoring the web, requesting removal of 757 online items. They’ve also issued requests for “disclosure of user data from Google accounts or services” 5,950 times, which Google complied with 93% of the time. They’ve also requested personal user and account information from Google 11,057 times. All of these requests were over just a six-month period.

Last November, The UK Guardian reported on a conference held in D.C. “The annual Intelligence Support Systems (ISS) World Americas conference is a mecca for representatives from intelligence agencies.” In characterizing the technology presented at the conference, which is strictly off limits to the general public or the media, “Gone are the days when mere telephone wiretaps satisfied authorities' intelligence needs. Behind the cloak of secrecy at the ISS World conference, tips are shared about the latest advanced ‘lawful interception’ methods used to spy on citizens – computer hacking, covert bugging and GPS tracking. Smartphones, email, instant message services and free chat services such as Skype have revolutionized communication. This has been matched by the development of increasingly sophisticated surveillance technology.”

After the attacks of 9/11/01, increased surveillance capacity made sense. But clearly, we have far exceeded the original intent of the Patriot Act. What possible reason can there be for gathering, storing, and sharing data on average citizens with no possible ties to terrorism? What possible reason can there be for gathering such data on “political protestors?” And is a “political protestor” someone who disagrees with what Washington is doing? The possibilities are chilling.

Financial organizations are required to abide by strict privacy laws, and state their policy periodically. Maybe it’s time we hold government to the same standard.

It would appear that we have no more right to privacy at all, as far as government is concerned. Clearly, the fox is loose in the chicken coop, and we’re the chickens. All of us, and our electronic communications, are fair game to a government intent on spying on us, and doing Lord knows what, with the data they gather.

AP award winning columnist Richard Larsen is President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, and is a graduate of Idaho State University with a BA in Political Science and History and former member of the Idaho State Journal Editorial Board. He can be reached at rlarsenen@cableone.net.

Published – Idaho State Journal, 04/29/12

The recent suspension of campaigns by erstwhile presidential candidates, characterizes two distinct ways of thinking by voters in this country. One, when he can’t have it his way, gathers up his marbles and goes home. The other, acknowledging reality, accedes to voters’ preferences, and supports the victor.

Three weeks ago former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum suspended his campaign. In his remarks on April 10 Santorum made no inference that he would do anything to assist or support the presumed Republican nominee, Mitt Romney, and made no reference to him.

Earlier this week former House Speaker Newt Gingrich announced he was suspending his campaign as well. But unlike Santorum, Newt declared, “I am committed to defeating Obama. We'll do everything we can to help stop an Obama second term and win congressional majorities.”

Primary elections function as a process of elimination. With nine candidates running at the outset, voters of all parties who were disenchanted with the present administration could register and vote their conscience for the candidate that came closest to their way of thinking. With each successive state primary or caucus, the field shrank a little further.

Some voters choose to be like Gingrich; pragmatic and practical, realizing that to defeat the incumbent, unity is not a luxury, but a requisite. Consequently, even though their preferred candidate may no longer be in the race or viable, they realize in order to prevent another four years of the current regime, it’s imperative to support the one remaining candidate that can end it.

Other voters, however, take the Santorum approach. They gather up their marbles, mournfully exit the stage and go home, attacking the remaining candidate as they go. They can’t have it the way they want it so they “cash in” with pious pomposity, vowing no support to a candidate their “conscience” won’t allow them to vote for. Included in this group are those who imperiously proclaim, “I will not vote for the lesser of two evils,” or “A Romney administration will be just the same,” or any number of other self-validating acclamations.

Four years ago Mitt Romney bowed out of the race in appropriate fashion. He stated the need to unify behind the presumed nominee, endorsed the front-runner and encouraged his delegates to support McCain at the convention. Especially in light of the spirited sparring that occurred between the two, it was the appropriate and logical thing to do.

The moral imperative for anyone who feels the present administration is taking the country down the wrong path is to unite behind the one who can terminate it. For the moral imperative is derived by logic and reason, per Immanuel Kant, and survival of the republic should take supremacy over personal preference. There can be no other morally, or logically, acceptable action than to support the only remaining viable challenger.

Voltaire’s aphorism, “The perfect is the enemy of the good,” applies consummately to politics. If the “perfect” candidate is a “10” on a desirability scale, and the practical choice is between a good “5” and a least desirable “1,” it is both illogical and immoral to not sustain the good five.

Politics is incremental in nature, and based in reality. Even slight movements in the right direction, based on reality, are always preferable to movements in the wrong direction facilitated by misplaced focus on ideality. Consequently, voting for an impossible “10,” which facilitates the election of a “1,” is, in fact, a wasted vote.

If voters, regardless of party affiliation, fervently believe that the present occupant of the White House represents an ideology that is antithetical to the founding principles of our country, the moral imperative is to unify behind the candidate that can remove him from office. It would be unconscionable to do anything else.

Those who, as a misguided matter of “conscience,” vote for a third party candidate, dividing the conservative vote, or worse yet, choose to not vote, waiting for the perfect candidate, are only improving the likelihood of another four years of the status quo. And that would be a violation of the moral imperative.

The real clincher for the holdouts to supporting Romney should be concern over the composition of the Supreme Court. If you believe in constructionist judicial review, a la John Roberts, versus a “living” constitutional judiciary, a la Elena Kagan, dividing the vote or staying home are indefensible choices.

The moral imperative requires that we put national interests ahead of our own. We unite and end this inexorable march to the economic abyss, the proliferation of the nanny state, and the annulment of our constitutional values. For as Edmund Burke said, “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” Or, worse, that they do the wrong thing.

AP award winning columnist Richard Larsen is President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, and is a graduate of Idaho State University with a BA in Political Science and History and former member of the Idaho State Journal Editorial Board. He can be reached at rlarsenen@cableone.net.

Is President Obama right in assuming that Mitt Romney is “hiding something?” Responding to a Washington Post article which revealed that Romney “is using an exception in federal ethics laws to avoid disclosing the full extent of his investment holdings,” Obama sent three tweets under his verified personal Twitter account attacking Romney. In his last tweet Obama queried, “What’s Romney hiding?”

Having filled the requirements of the Office of Government Ethics by what he’s already disclosed, the expectation that Romney would open his entire economic history to public scrutiny is not required, though it would be a courtesy to American voters. Obviously the OGE didn’t have any problems with Romney’s disclosures since they requested no further documentation, explanation, or more tax returns.

This isn’t an isolated instance, but seems to be an inscrutable theme by the Obama camp. Just a few months ago, before the first release of tax documents by Romney, Ben LaBolt, a spokesman for the Obama campaign, was asking, “What is it that he doesn’t want the American people to see?”

Let’s turn the table on what Obama tweeted. We should all be asking, “What’s Obama hiding?” In spite of having written two ideologically oriented autobiographies, we know remarkably little about the man who’s been our president. Charlie Rose and Tom Brokaw admitted four years ago on PBS, “We don't know a lot about Barack Obama,” and now three years later, we still know very little about him.

And the reason? So much of his documented history is sealed and proscribed from release to the public. It seems only logical that if someone goes to such great lengths to seal and hide records, that there must be something worth hiding, based on Obama’s own reasoning. There must be something that would raise serious questions about his candidacy, or at the very least, provide an unwanted distraction to a candidate in a presidential election campaign.

While there are verifiable lists of nearly twenty items from his past that Obama has had sealed, there are a few undisclosed items that have particular relevance to his past that voters deserve to know about him. Yet for some unexplained reason, have remained hidden from the public.

For example, none of his college records from his two years at Occidental College in Los Angeles have been released, or from his next two years of undergraduate study at Columbia University. No records, grades, or transcripts from his years there. And, you guessed it, we have none from his law school days at Harvard either, including papers published while president of the Harvard Law Review.

He has prevented all such records from being made public. It can’t be a matter of being embarrassed by bad grades, for he wouldn’t have been able to go from a small private liberal arts school to Columbia, one of the most prestigious higher education institutions in the country without stellar grades. And for that matter, with bad grades he wouldn’t have been able to matriculate at Harvard Law School, either. So, Mr. President, what are you hiding?

The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act prevents institutions from releasing student educational records, but in the spirit of full disclosure, shouldn’t Obama release those records, including his transcripts?

We also have no records from his 18 months as a practicing attorney, including client lists. In fact, even his record with the Illinois State Bar Association remains sealed.

All of his records and files from his years as an Illinois State Senator are sealed. Even his medical records are sealed, as the only evidence we have of his medical health is a one-page, 276-word statement from his doctor. By comparison, John McCain, in the last election cycle, released over 1,000 pages of medical records.

Even more troublesome, is the obvious duplicity and lack of impartiality on the part of the mainstream media. The cacophony of talking heads from the media is parroting Obama’s call for Romney to release his records. So where are the calls for Obama to open the books and records on his past?

Just last week Obama said in an interview on Univision, “I think that it’s important for any candidate in public office to be as transparent as possible, to let people know who we are, what we stand for, and you know, I think that this is just carrying on a tradition that has existed throughout the modern presidency.”

Mr. President, are you not to be held to the same standards of transparency? Or is this a standard you hold everyone to except you? So, what are you hiding? How about a document swap; all of your sealed records for Romney’s tax returns?

AP award winning columnist Richard Larsen is President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, and is a graduate of Idaho State University with a BA in Political Science and History and former member of the Idaho State Journal Editorial Board. He can be reached at rlarsenen@cableone.net.

Published – Idaho State Journal, 04/15/12

Do moms who choose to stay at home just sit around and “bake cookies and have teas,” as Hillary Clinton mocked many years ago? Or are they shirking their domestic and familial duties when they enter the workforce or public life, as Howard Gutman, a member of Obama’s campaign insinuated in his accusations against Sarah Palin?

The issue of gender stereotyping surfaced this week with some ill-advised comments by a political activist.

“Guess what: his wife has never really worked a day in her life. She's never really dealt with the kind of economic issues that a majority of the women in this country are facing in terms of how do we feed our kids, how do we send them to school, and why do we worry about their future.” For being a public relations specialist working for the Democrat National Committee, Hilary Rosen’s effused foot-in-mouth statement on MSNBC’s Anderson Cooper Show betrayed an ignorance and insensitivity toward moms who work at home, when she criticized Ann Romney, a cancer and multiple sclerosis survivor, mother of five, and a stay at home mom.

There is probably no job more difficult and challenging, and conversely, rewarding, than providing for the temporal, emotional, psychological, and spiritual needs of children. Yet the mainstream media and vocal advocates for the feminist movement, as characterized by Ms. Rosen, would have us believe that motherhood’s not hard work and should not be a preferred lifestyle for women.

W. Bradford Wilcox of the University of Virginia claims these are false perceptions, and asserts, “Many in the media and academia think working women are one way, and that stay-at-home wives and mothers are another way. This overlooks the fact that many women who work outside the home would like to work less or not at all. That is, they are working because they feel they have to, not because they want to.”

Wilcox bases his analysis on the 2000 National Survey of Marriage and Family Life, which, as he explains, “Indicates that, among married mothers with children in the home under 18, only 18 percent of married mothers would prefer to work full-time; by contrast, 46 percent would prefer to work part-time, and 36 percent would prefer to stay at home. Clearly, the most popular option for married mothers is part-time work, whereas only about one-fifth of these mothers would prefer to work full time.” In other words, 82% of women with children under 18, would prefer to work less or not at all.

It seems ironic that the same people who are such advocates for “choice” in terminating unborn children, seem almost apoplectic and cynically critical over women who exercise a “choice” to remain at home to rear their children. Yet the irony and duplicity doesn’t stop there. For even Ms. Rosen, who was the head of the Recording Industry Association of America, resigned in 2003, to “spend more time with her family,” which consisted of her then-partner, Elizabeth Birch, and their adopted twins, Jacob and Anna, according to Politico.

After the news of Ms. Rosen’s gaffe hit the airwaves, The Washington Post featured the story online with an opportunity to vote, “Is raising a family hard work?” or “She’s right, Ann Romney is out of touch with the issues facing working women.” 97% of respondents voted that raising a family is indeed hard work.

Too many political analysts and pundits characterize the “women’s vote” as a monolithic block that votes based on perceptions regarding female reproductive rights or other gender-specific issues. It presumes that their primary concerns are somehow different than everyone else’s.

Yet in the real world, I find women mostly concerned with the same issues that preoccupy men as it relates to politics: the national debt, the spending deficit, high unemployment, the security of the nation, government intrusion into our private lives, government control of our economy, and over-regulation that curtails economic growth. In other words, they’re a demographic segment with the same concerns as men, yet with some sensitivity to the aforementioned perceived priorities.

Really the so-called “war on women” is, and always has been, an exercise from the left of the political spectrum. Media, academia, and feminists who want to define for women what they should want and choose, rather than letting them choose for themselves. Women are no less diverse, concerned with national issues, or inclined to stereotypical archetypes than men or any other demographic group is.

For yet another major political figure to erroneously attempt to define women in as limited a fashion as Ms. Rosen did, not only seeks to restrict women’s ability to “choose” for themselves what to do in life, but limits definitionally what is a viable life-style choice for women. That, my friends, is what I would call a real, rather than an artificially concocted, “war on women.”

AP award winning columnist Richard Larsen is President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, and is a graduate of Idaho State University with a BA in Political Science and History and former member of the Idaho State Journal Editorial Board. He can be reached at rlarsenen@cableone.net.

Published – Idaho State Journal, 04/08/12

“I can’t believe you ruled against my health reform,” was the caption below President Obama on a political cartoon making the rounds earlier this week. The response from the judge he directed his comment to, was, “I can’t believe you taught constitutional law.” In light of some politically charged comments directed at the Supreme Court by Obama earlier this week, anyone with any sense of history and legal precedent had the judge’s comments echoing through their minds as well.

Obama on Monday, answering a question about the Supreme Court hearings on his health-care plan the previous week, said, “Ultimately, I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.  And I'd just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint -- that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law.  Well, this is a good example.  And I’m pretty confident that this Court will recognize that and not take that step.”

“Unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law.” For having purportedly taught “constitutional law” he’s either startlingly ignorant of it, or he’s prevaricating for the political spin. Andrew Rosenthal of the New York Times described Obama’s remarks as “utterly inept,” many others were even less kind. The Supreme Court has overturned, or ruled congressional legislation unconstitutional, dozens of times, even as recently as two years ago with the landmark Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission which struck down portions of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform Act.

How about Obama’s shot across the bow of the Supreme Court calling them an “unelected group of people?” They’re appointed, as he well knows, but this is his disingenuous way of mitigating the pejorative political impact of a possible ruling against his signature legislation. This is odious intimidation from the President of the United States.

The irony of this posturing is only magnified when we realize, as the Huffington Post reminded us this past week that in 2008 candidate Obama campaigned against Hillary Clinton’s proposed “individual mandate” in part because it was “unconstitutional.” Go figure!

Even more stupefying is Obama’s inability to distinguish between judicial review, a judicial precedent established in 1803 with Marbury v. Madison, and “judicial activism.” What the Supreme Court is doing now with a pending ruling on the constitutionality of Obamacare is clearly within the purview of the judiciary branch as delineated in Article III of the Constitution and according to precedent. Judicial activism, however, goes beyond determining constitutionality, and essentially creates law from the bench from their ruling. A perfect example of judicial activism is the case of Roe v. Wade, where the due process clause from the 14^th Amendment (granting full citizenship rights to former slaves) was convoluted to such an extreme as to justify abortion from an assumed “right of privacy.”

If not such a serious matter, Obama’s reference to Obamacare being passed by “a strong majority” would be comical. It passed the House by a mere 7 votes, 219-212, and the Senate by one vote! What I would call a “strong majority” is the Senate rejecting Obama’s ludicrous budget last week 97-0, and the House’s similar 414-0 vote.

Much of what Washington has done the past several decades would be considered unconstitutional if our founding legal document, the Constitution, was interpreted literally.  For example, the difference between “promote the general welfare” which is what the Preamble to the Constitution says, is vastly different than “provide for the general welfare,” which seems to be the tortuous interpretation made by those who think the Constitution is a “living document,” hence, not to be interpreted literally.

Obama and the advocates of Obamacare maintain that the “individual mandate” to own health insurance is based in the commerce clause of the Constitution. Yet when you read Article I Section 8, it says Congress is to “regulate commerce…among the several states…” Regulate, in 18^th century English, meant to “keep regular or even,” or “prevent obstruction.” It is beyond logic to presume that government can force all citizens to buy something based on that definition, even broccoli, as Justice Scalia indicated during oral testimony.

Most contemporary interpretations of the Constitution are flawed with the Etymological Logical Fallacy, which erroneously postulates that the original historical meaning of a word or phrase is necessarily similar to its present-day meaning. Perhaps the best thing we could do is provide everyone in D.C. with an Oxford English Dictionary, which provides the etymological roots, context, and usage of words in delineated historical timeframes.

Literalism is critical to the implementation of our entire legal code. It seems illogical to presume that our founding legal codex, the Constitution, should be interpreted any less literally.

AP award winning columnist Richard Larsen is President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, and is a graduate of Idaho State University with a BA in Political Science and History and former member of the Idaho State Journal Editorial Board. He can be reached at rlarsenen@cableone.net.

Published – Idaho State Journal, 04/01/12

It’s bad enough that the politicians who run our government create megalithic and bureaucratic monstrosities to rule our lives with, but it’s even worse when those agencies begin to mutate and exercise presumed power to harass the very citizens they are supposed to serve. Several of our government agencies engage in citizen harassment, intimidation, and persecution that is much more characteristic of a fascistic system than a democratic one. And woe to the citizen caught in their crosshairs, as the Sackett’s from Priest Lake discovered, much to their dismay!

Michael and Chantell Sackett bought their “dream” property, about 2/3 of an acre, hundreds of yards away from the lake, in part of a building development back in 2007. They proceeded to develop the lot in preparation for building a modest three bedroom home.

The EPA showed up and issued a cease and desist order claiming the ground was classified as “wetlands.” Visiting with Michael this week, he said there’s a row of houses and a county road between his property and the edge of the lake, and no other water source, or standing water, on their property.

The Sackets stopped the property development per the EPA order, and researched the property more fully. They learned that the data the EPA was using to classify their property was erroneous, as it was not on their “wetlands inventory.” When confronted with the Sackett’s finding, the EPA said that sometimes their data is not accurate, yet insisted that the Sacketts were still obligated to comply with the order.

Meantime, the EPA threatened fines of $32,500 to $75,000 a day if the Sacketts failed to return the property to its former state, and plant non-indigenous flora. But incredibly, there was no means to appeal the diktat of the federal agency. They couldn’t even take the issue to court against the agency! But they tried. And even though they were deprived of their day in court against the EPA by a federal judge and the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court, in a rare unanimous decision last week in Sackett v. EPA, said property owners have every right to challenge bureaucratic fiat in court.

Idaho Congressman Raúl Labrador issued a statement saying, “The federal government is an intimidating force against ordinary citizens, and standing up to its bureaucracy requires extraordinary bravery. Thanks to the unwavering courage and selfless sacrifice of the Sacketts, Americans everywhere will be guaranteed the right to appeal a decision imposed by a government agency.”

Mike Sackett said in a statement after the decision, “We are very thankful to the Supreme Court for affirming that we have rights, and that the EPA is not a law unto itself and that the EPA is not beyond the control of the courts and the Constitution. The EPA used bullying and threats of terrifying fines, and has made our life hell for the past five years. It said we could not go to court and challenge their bogus claim that our small lot had ‘wetlands’ on it. As this nightmare went on, we rubbed our eyes and started to wonder if we were living in some totalitarian country. Now, the Supreme Court has come to our rescue, and reminded the EPA — and everyone — that this is still America, and Americans still have rights under the Constitution.”

In the courtroom, Justice Antonin Scalia, mocked the EPA's view that the Sacketts' small lot was protected by federal law as part of the "navigable waters" of the United States, pointing out that the Sackets had never "seen a ship or other vessel cross their yard.” Scalia insisted that they are entitled to a civil hearing before the agency to contest the EPA’s jurisdiction over their property.

In a concurring opinion for the case, Justice Samuel Alito accurately noted that, despite the ruling, “the combination of the uncertain reach of the Clean Water Act and draconian penalties imposed for the sort of violations alleged in this case still leaves most property owners with little practical alternative but to dance to the EPA’s tune.”

The court decision doesn’t change the laws regarding what constitutes a “wetland,” nor does it force the EPA to limit their bullying tactics to their “wetlands inventory,” but it does give landowners the ability to at least challenge the EPA’s strong-arm tactics against property owners.

Government, and its hoard of agencies and bureaucracies, was not created by divine unction, and are not infallible. They are to serve the people, not rule over them in totalitarian fashion. With the tsunami of government control swamping individual freedom, it was encouraging to see the Supreme Court vote unanimously to help protect individual property owners from tyrannical bureaucratic overreach. Those in government service should never forget that they are to serve “We the People.”

AP award winning columnist Richard Larsen is President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, and is a graduate of Idaho State University with a BA in Political Science and History and former member of the Idaho State Journal Editorial Board. He can be reached at rlarsenen@cableone.net.

Published – Idaho State Journal, 03/25/12

On January 20, 2009, President-elect Barack Hussein Obama stood in front of the portico on the west side of the U.S. Capital and recited an oath administered by U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts. The promise Obama made was, "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Officers in our military take a similar oath, when they avow, "I, [name], do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

Even local law enforcement and first responders take a similar oath to support the Constitution. At all levels, those to whom are entrusted our safety, security, and lawful tranquility, swear or aver that they will support the Constitution of the United States. For military personnel especially, this is considered a lifetime oath, not just for their term in active duty.

Those who take oaths to uphold the Constitution should be expected to keep them. Clearly from what we see emerging from Washington these days, many who take the oath perfunctorily and cavalierly, don’t feel a compulsion to keep it. This has lead to the emergence of an organization dedicated to keeping the oath.

The Oathkeepers (Oathkeepers.org) distinguish themselves from those who simply take the oath, and promise instead to actually “keep” it based on key provisions of the Constitution itself. They list ten things they will not do if so ordered, for any one would be anathema to the rights assured to all American citizens by our founding legal codex. The violation of any of these would constitute the most egregious, and totalitarian disembowelment of our fundamental liberties.

The Oathkeepers declare that they will not obey orders to: 1) disarm the American people; 2) conduct warrantless searches of the American people; 3) detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to military tribunal; 4) impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state; 5) invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty; 6) blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps; 7) force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext; 8) assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control;"9) confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies; or 10) infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

As fundamental as those “guaranteed” rights are to all Americans, there really is nothing controversial to the basic tenets of the group. What should be controversial is that we have politicians who, as evidenced by their legislation and executive orders, are opening the door to abuse of the most basic rights of our republic. They take the oath, but obviously have no intention of keeping it. That’s what should be alarming, and controversial, to all of us.

Those rights that Oathkeepers vow to uphold are promised by the Constitution to all of us, regardless of race, creed, political affiliation, or ideology. These truly are fundamental, and are not reliant on narrow or limited constitutional interpretation, but are generally accepted rights and privileges for all Americans.

In light of that, there really should be no American citizen unwilling to take, and keep, the same oath to support our basic constitutional rights that our president, our military, and our first responders take. In fact, if our politicians kept their oaths, there would be no need for the Oathkeepers. National legislation, like the National Defense Authorization Act, and executive orders, like the National Defense Resources Preparedness order from just last week, have opened the door to abuses of those very rights.

Mike Chism, a Pocatello resident who serves as the Idaho Chapter President for the national Oathkeepers organization, said they’re giving all citizens an opportunity to take the oath. City Councilman Jim Johnston will administer it on Wednesday the 28^th at 6 p.m. in the Vision 12 Studio at City Hall. Said Chism, “Any American Citizen who wishes to either reaffirm their Oath, if they have once taken it, or any other Citizen who never has taken it, we’re offering that opportunity.”

AP award winning columnist Richard Larsen is President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, and is a graduate of Idaho State University with a BA in Political Science and History and former member of the Idaho State Journal Editorial Board. He can be reached at rlarsenen@cableone.net.

Published – Idaho State Journal, 03/18/12

In a discussion this past week, someone raised the question of whether President Obama will have to go negative in his campaign against whoever happens to be his opponent. There probably is not a limit to how negative he'll go in the campaign, as evidenced by the fact that his campaign released a TV ad this week attacking Sarah Palin, who as I recall, is not even on the ballot! His actual record doesn’t have much to offer to the thoughtful voter.

I don’t care for polls, but when objectively conducted, they constitute the most viable vehicle to quantify public sentiment, which is crucial when it comes to measuring the efficacy and effectiveness of the president’s accomplishments and policies. So while I personally disdain relying on polls, such studies, targeted at key Obama efforts for the first three years, may provide insight as to whether the president will be running on, or from, his record.

Of greatest concern to Americans should be the national debt. It is, as Hillary Clinton has said, an issue of “national security.” Obama owns this. $5 trillion of our debt, and three years of $1.5 trillion deficit spending are creations of Obama and his facilitating congress. Such fiduciary ineptitude would disqualify him for mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, let alone our national president. He may dismiss it as inconsequential, but he cannot run from it.

Looking at his three signature legislative accomplishments, Obamacare is favored by just 42%, of Americans. But perhaps more importantly, “72 percent of Americans believe that the law's individual mandate to purchase health insurance is unconstitutional, including 56 percent of Democrats,” according to Rasmussen from two weeks ago. And perhaps more significantly, “65% of doctors believe healthcare will deteriorate in the next five years” because of it.

The “Stimulus” was not viewed positively just a year after its passage. “Sixty-eight percent of Americans said they think the $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) was a "waste," compared to just 29 percent who think the money was well-spent,” according to an ABC Washington Post poll.

The last legislative “accomplishment” is actually seen as a positive for congress, the Dodd-Frank financial regulatory overhaul. But if people understood that it defined “too big to fail,” virtually assuring future bailouts of big banks and financial institutions, they wouldn’t be too keen on that landmark legislation either, since only 9% view the big banks and the recent bailouts positively. Only a slight majority, 51%, views the auto bailouts unfavorably.

He can’t very well run on his record for helping gas prices, for as we saw this week, as they have skyrocketed, his approval ratings took a 10% hit…in one month. Currently 61% feel he’s handling gas prices poorly.

Perception on the jobs situation has improved, but can any of his policies be traced to amelioration of that malaise? Here there seems to be a real disconnect with voters, since his approval rating improves when unemployment drops, but when pressed for what he’s done to improve job creation, those polled by Gallup recently could not identify anything specifically that he’s done for the non-farm payrolls to increase. And in a CBS poll recently only 38% of respondents thought the president had a plan for creating jobs.

Couple that with a Zogby poll a few months ago where “just one third of the public feels President Obama deserves re-election while five times more Americans think Obama has done a worse job fixing the economy than Jimmy Carter, the modern era's Herbert Hoover.” Overall, 6 in 10 Americans disapprove of Obama’s handling of the economy according to the latest ABC Washington Post poll.

When we look at the raw polling data on the specific areas where Obama has expended most of his effort, we’re hard pressed to find anything substantive from a public sentiment standpoint that he can hang his hat on. Rather, we find mostly wide public disapprobation over what he has actually done, rather than what he claims to have accomplished.

So will he run on his record? It’s unlikely. If his record was a scorecard, it would be filled with “D”s and “F”s. Voters bought his “hope” and “change” mantra without any record to run on four years ago. Will there be a similar logical disconnect this year, with a record? Hopefully voters will be more logical, and less emotional and gullible, this time around. Only with copious spin and misrepresentation can his “record” appear viable to reasonable voters.  After all, elections provide our opportunity to hire, or fire, our leaders based on actual performance; as opposed to how well they can tell us they did.

Based on his own words from 2009, his administration should be a “one-term proposition.” If he’s not part of the solution, he’s part of the problem and clearly should go.

AP award winning columnist Richard Larsen is President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, and is a graduate of Idaho State University with a BA in Political Science and History and former member of the Idaho State Journal Editorial Board. He can be reached at rlarsenen@cableone.net.

Published – Idaho State Journal, 03/11/12

The Constitution is the foundational codex for our legal and governmental system. Built into its relatively succinct 4,500 words is an elaborate system of checks and balances designed to prevent any one of the three branches of government from gaining supremacy over the others. The powers of the government are enumerated for each branch, and what powers are not enumerated, “are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

The Constitution has clearly become increasingly inconsequential to the ruling class in Washington over the past several decades as the limitations to the federal government by that document are progressively disregarded for political expediency. The Constitution should be respected as an inviolable founding document. This, in essence, is the message of Ron Paul, with which I totally concur.

However, there’s an aspect of Paul’s interpretation that begs further examination as it relates to foreign affairs. Paul would have us believe that isolationism, a policy of retraction and seclusion of one’s country from others, is a constitutional requisite. Most of his speeches about our national defense and security sound like they could’ve been written by the issues committee at Code Pink. Even his official website addressing foreign policy utilizes nearly the entire allotted space explaining “blowback,” the notion that we created the justification for Islamic extremist’s Jihad against us by “having boots” in Saudi Arabia, where the holy sites of Mecca and Medina are located.

While our presence on the peninsula may have provided an excuse for the fundamentalist jihad against western culture and democracy, it certainly wasn’t the cause for it. For that we must look at least as far back as the 1940s and the influence of the prolific Islamic author Sayyid Qutb, who later became the figurative head of the Muslim Brotherhood. Qutb was writing scathing and vitriolic letters about American decadence written from his university dorm room in Greely, CO, later published in Egypt.

We could go back even further to find the roots of Islamic extremism in the 18^th century and the influential teachings of the fundamentalist reformer and theologian Muhammad Ibn Abd al-Wahhab, for whom Wahhabism is named. Although denied by Islamic apologists, Wahhabism, or Salafism, seems to be the common thread running through most of the anti-American, anti-western civilization extremist groups like Al Qaida and the Muslim Brotherhood.

Aside from the “blowback” issue, Paul’s “constitutional” basis for foreign policy correctly cites Congress’ role in declaring war. He maintains that although the president serves as the Commander in Chief of the military, that the exercise of that role should be ultimately controlled and directed by Congress. And that’s fundamentally true, but it doesn’t equate to isolationism.

Article II Section 2 of the Constitution clearly specifies that the president and the executive branch take the lead on foreign relations negotiating treaties and appointing ambassadors with Senate ratification. Article I Section 8 enumerates the authority of Congress, including Section 8.11, the power to declare war.

This seems to be the tenet most focused on by Paul, that only Congress can declare war. Congress has only passed a “Declaration of War” five times in our history. But they have authorized war by resolution or by funding at least 19 times. The Supreme Court logically ruled in 2003 that congressional action supporting bellicose activity is the equivalent of declaring war.

Ron Paul supporters point to the Founding Fathers who spoke in their personal writings against "entangling alliances.” Clearly they were opposed to war. After all, who isn't? Ideally, there would never be cause for conflict. But reality seldom converges with the ideal, so they built into our founding document the ability to declare war, without proscribing under what conditions it may be done. 

The Founding Fathers’ actions speak perhaps even louder than their words. Exercising diplomacy, Thomas Jefferson negotiated his way out of hostilities with Morocco over piracy of American commercial ships. Unable to do the same with Algeria, Jefferson sought, and obtained, Senate approval for the First Barbary War against those 18th century terrorists. No “War Declaration” was passed, yet congress gave him funding and authorized the use of force for the protection of American interests. John Adams and George Washington concurred with the action.

Although some claim Paul’s isolationism is the policy of the Founders and the Constitution, there is ample evidence to the contrary. Facing the reality of exogenous threats, the Founders opted for reality in dealing with those threats rather than adhering to the ideal. One can claim a preference for isolationism, a foreign policy perhaps best characterized by an ostrich, but such a preference is not based on even a literal interpretation of the Constitution.

So while it may sound good to say, "Ron Paul's foreign policy is the founding father's policy," in reality, it clearly is not.

AP award winning columnist Richard Larsen is President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, and is a graduate of Idaho State University with a BA in Political Science and History and former member of the Idaho State Journal Editorial Board. He can be reached at rlarsenen@cableone.net.

Published – Idaho State Journal, 03/04/12

Political parties were warned against by George Washington, yet their formation, evolution, and in some cases, transformation, was inevitable. People who think similarly usually group together for common causes, which in a very loose historical sense, explains the emergence, and sometimes disappearance of parties throughout our nation’s history.

Whether we like it or not, our nation has developed into a fundamentally two-party system. Democrats trace their formation back to Thomas Jefferson, who interestingly, was an anti-federalist opposed to a strong centralized federal government, while the modern Republican party claims Abraham Lincoln as it’s founder, based primarily on an anti-slavery platform.

The most fundamental task filled by political parties is recruiting and selecting candidates for public office. That’s why we have primary elections, to narrow the field of candidates so a winner of the general election can receive a majority vote.

Since primaries are used by the parties to select their candidates, Idaho voters have always had to specify which ballot they wanted to vote on. Last year, however, the legislature passed HB 351 creating “closed” primaries, where voters must declare a party affiliation by registering as a member of one of four possible parties, Constitution, Democrat, Libertarian or Republican. While it was controversial at the time, frankly, it makes sense. Open primaries, without consideration for party affiliation, is tantamount to allowing Protestant ministers vote for the Catholic Pope.

Starting this year, one must register by party affiliation to participate in a party’s caucus or primary. This can be done at the County Election Office, or by printing, filling out, and mailing in the form found at http://www.idahovotes.gov/VoterReg/affiliation_form.pdf. For the Republican Presidential Caucus on Tuesday, anyone can participate by registering before the caucus begins.

With the state-funded primary in May, Idahoans have rarely had a say in the selection of presidential candidates, as earlier state primaries, and caucuses, have usually determined party candidates long before Idahoans voted.

That’s why the changes made by the Idaho Republican Party for this year’s presidential campaign are so significant. The primary date has not been changed from May, which is still important for selecting state and local candidates for the respective parties. But Idaho Republicans have opted to conduct caucuses around the state on “Super Tuesday,” March 6, when over 400 of the requisite 1144 delegates to secure the nomination are up for grabs from 10 states.

The change to a caucus seems to be permanent, as the Idaho Legislature has passed a bill (H 391) that removes the presidential primary line from the state-funded primary ballot, clearly indicating both major parties prefer to determine their national convention delegates by early caucuses.

For Idaho Republicans, this caucus is historic. A Republican challenger to the incumbent president has not yet been determined, which means perhaps for the first time ever, Idaho will have a say in the selection of a major party nominee, much like Idaho Democrats had a say with their 2008 “Super Tuesday” Caucuses. This has resulted in more presidential candidate visits than Idaho is accustomed to.

At stake is Idaho’s 32 delegates to the national convention. And with the way the national party determines delegates for each state, Idaho actually ends up sending more to the national convention than early voting states like Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada.  And this year, Idaho has more than Arizona and South Carolina. Although ranked 39^th in population, Idaho is #30 in delegate count to the national convention.

Each of Idaho's 44 counties will hold its own caucus on Tuesday. Bannock County Republicans will meet in the ISU Student Union Ballroom with registration starting at 5:00 p.m. and the caucus beginning at 7:00 p.m. Bingham county locations are the Blackfoot High School old gymnasium, Snake River High School, Shelley High School gymnasium?and the Aberdeen American Legion Hall.

Every participant votes by secret ballot in successive rounds. The candidate with the lowest vote tally in each round is eliminated until one candidate receives over 50% of the votes. The results of each County Caucus will be accumulated and the winning candidate will be awarded all of Idaho's 32 delegates.

As I have pondered the possibilities with these caucuses, there’s another benefit to them that may not be quantifiable, but perhaps even more important. And that’s the social component. Getting together with others in a dynamic setting, discussing the future of the country and what is needed to get it on the right track, meeting and interacting with others of roughly similar core values, can’t help but have a synergistic affect on the participants. The level of enthusiasm will likely be elevated, which hopefully will increase commitments for awareness, increased knowledge, involvement, and visibility.

Democrats seem to be much more outspoken and visible. Learning from their counterparts, perhaps those whom Nixon referred to as the “silent majority,” can learn how to be a vocal majority instead.

Published – Idaho State Journal, 02/26/12

I recall vividly an experience growing up on a farm years ago when I claimed credit for doing something one of my brothers did. It was a task assigned to me, which I failed to carry out. But my brother completed it before I could. My father, in his wisdom, upon learning of my unearned credit, sardonically asked me, “Don’t you know how dishonest that is?”

I did know it was dishonest, but that experience piqued my attention to claims of credit unearned. And now that presidential politics are into full swing, the claims of unearned credit are being self-proclaimed nearly every day.

A visit to the official presidential reelection campaign website reads like a bad fiction novel. Improvements in various sectors of the economy and our collective financial viability as a country are claimed as “accomplishments” of the president.

Obama claiming credit for an economic rebound is like an old girlfriend of mine in high school who claimed credit for every time our Snake River High School football team won. She claimed that whenever she went to a game, we won. Just “showing up” caused the win. Correlation is not to be mistaken for causation.

Certainly if he’s to be given credit for an improving economy, we should be able to identify and quantify, to at least some extent, what he has done to ameliorate our moribund economy. Any policy of his, any legislative accomplishments, any executive orders that he has issued or implemented should provide the evidence to validate his claims.

His three most significant legislative exploits provide no evidence of causation for improving the economy. Obamacare certainly doesn’t stimulate the economy, for it is laden with new taxes and fees imposed on individuals and employers to be implemented over the next few years. And actually when those new taxes hit, the adverse impact on the economy will be considerable. For as Christina Romer, former chair of Obama’s Council of Economic Advisors, revealed last year, "Tax changes have very large effects: an exogenous tax increase of 1 percent of GDP lowers real GDP by roughly 2 to 3 percent."

How about the FinReg, Dodd-Frank financial regulatory reform? As with Obamacare, there is nothing stimulative in it either. It only solidifies the crony capitalistic relationship between Wall Street, the major banks, and Washington by assuring further government intervention with institutions deemed “too big to fail.” The costs of implementation at the private sector level will likely result in higher fees, charges, and interest rates for financial institutions to recoup the implementation costs. That’s definitely not stimulative!

The claims for improving the economy must be in the president’s “stimulus” package. According to the Wall Street Journal, over half of the $850 billion ($1.1 trillion, including interest) “stimulus” bill could be more correctly classified as discretionary spending. The Congressional Budget Office “scoring” of the stimulus package indicated that only 12 cents of every dollar would have a stimulative affect on the economy within the first 18 months. The scoring process clearly indicated the impotence of the “Stimulus” for creating positive economic activity.

Then there must be some evidence in his executive orders then, a total of 111 that he’s issued to date. Of those, most deal with regulation, government agencies, commissions, and appointments. Perusing all the executive orders I didn’t see one that was designed to augment the economy, improve job prospects for out of work Americans, or stimulate economic growth.

In three years at the helm, in real world economics, there is only one thing that I can recall that he did that had any potential to stimulate the economy, and that was extension of the payroll tax holiday. And for the average American that is fortunate enough to have a job, that amounts to $40 per month.

Even his unprecedented increase in government spending cannot be considered as stimulative. There are some academic die-hards, many of whom are currently serving in the administration, who still adhere to that aspect of Keynesian economic theory. And it’s hard to understand why, unless it’s just “bitter clinging” to an archaic ideology, for it’s failed every time it’s been attempted, by any administration, including FDR’s.

The great Nobel Laureate for economics, Milton Friedman, declared a couple of years ago, “unbridled government spending is the single greatest deterrent to faster economic growth in the United States today.” He’s probably rolling over in his grave as he observes the unparalleled spending spree the federal government is engaging in.

Sorry, Mr. President, you have no grounds to claim credit for the modicum of improvement we’ve seen since the recession officially ended. Any improvement is in spite of your policies, not because of them. Just “showing up” does not a win make.  And as my father taught me years ago, claiming credit where none is warranted, is dishonest.

AP award winning columnist Richard Larsen is President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, and is a graduate of Idaho State University with a BA in Political Science and History and former member of the Idaho State Journal Editorial Board. He can be reached at rlarsenen@cableone.net.

Published – Idaho State Journal, 02/19/12

Since the 2008 financial market collapse, nearly every major newspaper and media outlet has featured stories on the demise or failure of capitalism. What they have mostly focused on is the failure of the largest financial institutions in managing risk, and the impact on the rest of us. But what they have mostly failed to do is mark the distinction between capitalism and crony capitalism. If they delved further into the failures of 2008, they would have been proclaiming the failure of crony capitalism.

We’ve seen over the past few years an even greater immersion into crony capitalism that further obscures the risks assumed by the major players in the private sector, poses even greater threats to the economy and our livelihoods, and further inserts government into control and manipulation of the very bedrock of our financial system, energy production, and corporate environment.

Although some amongst us are critical of capitalism, all of us participate in it, benefit from it, and fundamentally believe in it. At its most rudimentary level, capitalism is what we engage in every day. Investopedia defines capitalism as “An economic system based on a free market, open competition, profit motive and private ownership of the means of production.”

Everything we buy, every transaction we conduct, every financial plan we embark on, is based on our ownership of what we buy, build, produce, or service, and our freedom in making choices about price, service, and loyalty. If we want to make a purchase, we shop around for the best prices. Those companies that price comparable products or services too high will likely be passed over in favor of those who are more competitively priced. Those companies that fail to adapt to market forces, fail, and go out of business. The market has worked. Capitalism has worked. Capitalism does work.

Crony capitalism, however, is completely different. It is a perversion and a corruption of pure capitalism. Also referred to as corporatism, or statism, crony capitalism features corporate welfare as one of its most significant characteristics. Mussolini understood all too well this cozy relationship between government and business, for he once said, ‎"Fascism should rightly be called corporatism, as it's the merger of corporate & government power."

Investopedia defines it as, “being based on the close relationships between businessmen and the state. Instead of success being determined by a free market and the rule of law, the success of a business is dependent on the favoritism that is shown to it by the ruling government in the form of tax breaks, government grants and other incentives.”

In other words, under crony capitalism, politicians in government determine winners and losers in the corporate world, not market forces. They determine which companies survive and flourish, and which fail.

This is the nature of the relationship in crony capitalism. Government officials express a desire to expand under the auspices of creating new laws, business incentives, and regulation. Corporations, through their lobbyists or CEOs who have been in government, influence the drafting of legislation to their benefit, gaining favorable tax treatment of their operations, regulation that favors their business model, and other business incentives. For this favorable treatment, corporations reward politicians by giving money to their campaigns and family members. Politicians benefit from the campaign donations, and push legislation and regulation that benefits their largest donors.

Financial reporter Christopher Powers aptly said of it, "It has become more and more apparent to seemingly everyone of late, that the American economic system is not based on capitalism, but a twisted hierarchical system of special interests and government favors commonly known as ‘crony capitalism.’??The distinction is very important, because crony capitalism in America – especially during the last century – created a toxic environment that has only recently spilled over into the mainstream understanding of the economy, but has long been under the surface, guiding the tides of public policy."

Bill Frezza, a fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute has written, "Would a farmer who put out a trough of slop be surprised if it attracted a bunch of pigs? Yet activists who promote enlarging the size and scope of government always seem to be shocked when one program after another is hijacked by corporations that find it easier to seek favors in Washington than customers in the marketplace. And, despite knowing that such corruption is inevitable, mainstream media consistently dismiss those who advocate curtailing government powers as corporate stooges."

Economics professor Donald Boudreaux, described the problem this way, ‎"When government gives up its role as referee in favor of a reciprocal relationship with those it regulates that also benefits those who run government, you have cronyism. Crony capitalism has as much to do with real capitalism as praying mantises have to do with real prayer.”

In a truly capitalist system, bad banks and financial institutions, and automakers weighed down by massive “legacy” costs would have been allowed to fail in 2008 and 2009. Their profitable and viable operations would’ve been bought by more efficient competitors. Shareholders, bondholders and some depositors would have lost some money, but taxpayers would not have been put on the hook for a dime.

‎

David Stockman, former White House Budget Director, in a revelatory interview with Bill Moyers, said just last month, “Crony capitalism is about the aggressive and proactive use of political resources, lobbying, campaign contributions, influence-peddling of one type or another to gain something from the governmental process that wouldn't otherwise be achievable in the market. And as the time has progressed over the last two or three decades, I think it's gotten much worse. Money dominates politics. And as a result, we have neither capitalism or democracy. We have some kind of crony capitalism, which is the worst.”

Economist Walter Williams recently wrote, "Free market capitalism is unforgiving. Producers please customers, in a cost-minimizing fashion, and make a profit, or they face losses or go bankrupt. It's this market discipline that some businesses seek to avoid. That's why they descend upon Washington calling for crony capitalism – government bailouts, subsidies and special privileges."

But as we’ve seen, in a crony capitalist system, such failures are given preferential treatment, if they have the right political connections. Economist Richard Salsman ‎said recently, "Capitalism has been blamed for the Great Recession of 2007-2009 and for the financial crisis and bailouts of 2008, but it’s not ‘capitalism’ but the mixed economy and corporatism-cronyism that did it."

The mortgage market meltdown illustrated how convoluted and corrupt crony capitalism is in the mortgage industry. Economist George Stigler, a Nobel laureate for his research into the causes and effects of public regulation conducted an exhaustive study characterizing the corrupt relationship between financial institutions, the Government Service Enterprises (GSEs, including Ginnie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Fannie Mae) and politicians. The abstract of his research states,

“How special interests, measured by campaign contributions from the mortgage industry, and constituent interests, measured by the share of subprime borrowers in a congressional district, influenced U.S. government policy toward the housing sector during the subprime mortgage credit expansion from 2002 to 2007.”

It continues, “Beginning in 2002, mortgage industry campaign contributions increasingly targeted U.S. representatives from districts with a large fraction of subprime borrowers. During the expansion years, mortgage industry campaign contributions and the share of subprime borrowers in a congressional district increasingly predicted congressional voting behavior on housing related legislation. The evidence suggests that both subprime mortgage lenders and subprime mortgage borrowers influenced government policy toward housing finance during the subprime mortgage credit expansion.”

Russell Roberts, a Distinguished Scholar and professor of Economics at George Mason University, scholarly breaks down this unhealthy relationship further, stating that “public-policy decisions have perverted the incentives that naturally create stability in financial markets and the market for housing. Over the last three decades, government policy has coddled creditors, reducing the risk they face from financing bad investments. Not surprisingly, this encouraged risky investments financed by borrowed money. The increasing use of debt mixed with housing policy, monetary policy, and tax policy crippled the housing market and the financial sector. Wall Street is not blameless in this debacle. It lobbied for the policy decisions that created the mess.”

This entanglement between Wall Street institutions, the GSEs, and politicians gets even more convoluted when you research on your own the role played in the mortgage collapse of people like Franklin Raines, Jim Johnson, Tim Howard, Timothy Geithner, Hank Paulson, Chris Dodd, and Barney Frank.

It’s crony capitalism that allows companies like General Electric, which had profits of $14 billion in 2010, to pay no corporate income taxes on a tax return that was 57,000 pages long. Tax deductions, tax credits, loopholes, “stimulus” funding, all speak volumes of the benefits of CEO Jeffrey Immelt’s cozy relationship with Washington, and how the largest corporations can “play the system” for increased profits.

The “green energy” movement is the fastest growing crony capitalism sector, receiving preferential tax treatment for deductions, government loans, and “stimulus” funding in the form of grants. Their capital outlays for lobbying have increased twelve fold over 2008 levels and the number of lobbyists for “green energy” companies and associations have increased 10 fold, according to OpenSecrets.org.

An entire library would likely be needed to document all the cases of abuse and crony capitalism in “green energy,” but the collusion between green energy companies and the government is absolutely shocking. The now bankrupt Solyndra debacle involving a government stimulus loan for half-a-billion dollars is just the tip of the iceberg. American Thinker goes so far as saying “green jobs are a euphemism for crony capitalism.”

According to Peter Schweizer, a research fellow at Stanford University, “an examination of grants and guaranteed loans offered by just one stimulus program run by the Department of Energy, for alternative-energy projects, is stunning. The so-called 1705 Loan Guarantee Program and the 1603 Grant Program channeled billions of dollars to all sorts of energy companies. The grants were earmarked for alternative-fuel and green-power projects…”

He continued, “a large proportion of the winners were companies with Obama-campaign connections. Indeed, at least 10 members of Obama’s finance committee and more than a dozen of his campaign bundlers were big winners in getting your money. At the same time, several politicians who supported Obama managed to strike gold by launching alternative-energy companies and obtaining grants. How much did they get? According to the Department of Energy’s own numbers ... a lot. In the 1705 government-backed-loan program, for example, $16.4 billion of the $20.5 billion in loans granted as of Sept. 15 went to companies either run by or primarily owned by Obama financial backers—individuals who were bundlers, members of Obama’s National Finance Committee, or large donors to the Democratic Party.”

It doesn’t seem to make much difference which political party is in control in Washington, for crony capitalism has thrived, as David Stockman said, for the past thirty years openly, and “under the public radar” for the past century. The problem has been significantly exacerbated over the past few years, as political favoritism toward specific industries and companies has accelerated the tax breaks, tax free loans, and outright government grants to corporate favorites as anointed by Washington.

The costs are massive, and impossible to get a complete grasp on. The Fiscal Times has quantified the cost of just the top 10 tax breaks to corporations at nearly $500 billion. The New York Times reports that subsidies in one corporate sector has tripled in the past few years, leading to a “gold rush mentality” in that sector. When all the tax breaks, incentives, subsidies, grants, and loans are totaled, the figure could well exceed $1 trillion. And government costs that currently administer all those programs could be in the hundreds of billions.

The solutions are not easy, but must be addressed. We need honest people who can’t be “bought off” in Washington, and term limits for congressmen and senators would help keep them that way. The influence peddling and free money exchange between major industries and Washington has to end, which could include a lower cap on campaign contributions by corporations and individuals. A flat tax on corporations would help to eliminate the cronyism in our tax code.

If “fairness” is truly one of our core American values, as the president said in his State of the Union Address, expunging the crony capitalism that has infested Washington is a great place to start.

AP award winning columnist Richard Larsen is President of Larsen Financial, a brokerage and financial planning firm in Pocatello, and is a graduate of Idaho State University with a BA in Political Science and History and former member of the Idaho State Journal Editorial Board. He can be reached at rlarsenen@cableone.net.

Complete Bibliography available upon request.

Published – Idaho State Journal, 02/12/12

“The ability to identify logical fallacies in the arguments of others, and to avoid them in one’s own arguments, is both valuable and increasingly rare. Fallacious reasoning keeps us from knowing the truth, and the inability to think critically makes us vulnerable to manipulation by those skilled in the art of rhetoric.” Thus reads the homepage of an excellent website dedicated to logical fallacies. And the relevance of that statement has perhaps never been more self-evident than in society today. 

I read with interest the letters to the editor citing my weekly missives. Those of substance that address the topic, and manifest some cognitive functionality while disagreeing with my theses usually get a personal letter in response providing more detail, data, and qualified sources that I was not able to include in the limited space provided in the Journal.

Others, however, are so specious and vacuous that serious consideration or response is unjustifiable. Sometimes, however, in spite of their inanity, they warrant special treatment for they provide didactic opportunities, a “teaching moment” if you will.

Such was the case with two letters this past week. The most exemplary for its instructional value was one that typified something we see too much of; attempt at humor to mock, trivialize, and minimalize contrarian perspectives. Such writing sometimes is entertaining, but sacrifices substance and logic for the sake of “humor” and says much more about the narrow-mindedness and lack of cognitive substance of the writer than it does about their intended target.

In exemplary fashion, one writer’s entire letter was a casuistic ad hominem logical fallacy. Comparing me with a fictional Chauncey Gardiner, the writer asserts, “He is wrong all the time. About everything. It seems comically absurd that Larsen is incapable of writing a column that is not factually, conceptually, historically, and literally inaccurate.”

Translated from the Latin literally as “against the person,” this logical error sidesteps arguments and substance, and instead targets the messenger. As one website dedicated to logical fallacies explains, “An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First is an attack against the character of person making the claim. Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making.”

Many of you occasionally find yourselves in the position of being criticized or pilloried because you see things differently than what political correctness and social conformity otherwise dictates. Take solace in the fact that when they attack you instead of your articulated position, their logical “quiver” is empty. They can’t argue with substance, so they resort to attacking you. And regrettably, the practice seems to be proliferating.

That letter also typified another logical deficiency that is symptomatic of our culture of conformity and “group think” mentality; Confirmation Bias. This common practice “refers to a type of selective thinking whereby one tends to notice and to look for what confirms one's beliefs, and to ignore, not look for, or undervalue the relevance of what contradicts one's beliefs,” according to the Skeptic’s Encyclopedia. To those so afflicted, any contrarian evidence, facts, data, or perspectives are anathema, heterodox, and “wrong.”

Ronald Reagan, perfectly characterized this problem when he said, “The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so.”

In this technological era of informational abundance, even the search engines foster confirmation bias. Author and blogger Eli Pariser, illuminates how the “algorithmic personalization of our information diets” limits search results based on our personal online reading and searching patterns. The result is personalized optimization that taints results, and if people are not aware of that fact, their searches deliver only what they want to see.

The other letter manifested those logical anomalies, and introduced another that is increasingly common in a society that’s taught more what to think than how to think. The writer unwittingly introduced the Etymological Fallacy, which superimposes contemporary perspectives on historical fact.

She said, “…for me, liberty, freedom and the pursuit of happiness mean freedom from organized religion — especially a state religion, freedom from social conservatives who push their agenda down my throat, and freedom to have some government programs for the greater good and for those less fortunate — Social Security, Medicare and unemployment benefits.” That’s clearly and contextually not what the Lockean Creed and our Founding Fathers meant. To ascribe contemporary values on historical verity is intellectually disingenuous, that’s why it’s a logical fallacy.

If we are to be an enlightened citizenry, it’s incumbent upon us to be skeptical, to read and research beyond what the conformists and mainstream media spoon feed us, and to identify their logically fallacious tools intended to intimidate nonconforming thinkers into submission. Their arguments fail with their spurious illogic.