By Richard Larsen

Published – Idaho State Journal, 03/29/2009

A few years ago a Danish cartoonist drew a political cartoon that reflected negatively on Mohammed, the leading prophet of Islam. For his indiscretion, a fatwa was issued on the life of the cartoonist, and he was forced into hiding.

Many of us marveled, yet were not surprised, at the intolerant reaction of the Islamic world to a political cartoon. Yet, as I think about it, the same is occurring right now in America.

About 47% of Americans voted against an agenda that would “fundamentally transform America,” in the last presidential election. I can’t speak for the rest of the 58 million Americans who voted that way, but for this American, I rather preferred protection of the principles that paved the way for American grandeur at the time of the nations’ founding. Those principles, clearly articulated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, were founded in a recognition of the sanctity of life regardless of color or creed, the God-given universal right of liberty to the individual, and the freedom to plan and pursue a life of happiness and acquisition of property.

The Constitution went further in defining the limited role of a federal or national government by enumerating the powers that government would hold, and listed specifically some fundamental rights each citizen was entitled to. It went on, in the Tenth Amendment, to declare that those powers not specifically assigned to the federal government were reserved to the states and to the people. In other words, there was to be a very small, specifically functioned national government whose primary roles were protection of the country, facilitating interstate commerce, and standardizing currency.

Is that what we see the national government doing today? Is there even the most remote possibility that Thomas Jefferson or James Madison would look at what their federal government has evolved into, and recognize it as being the American government they intended? Individual freedom and liberty are impinged on nearly daily by those who seek the ever-expanding power and scope of government.

These principles of governance espoused by our Founding Fathers were considered “liberal” in their day. The notion that power and rights were held by individuals who derived them divinely, rather than being granted by a government, despot, monarch, or a parliament was truly radical. Yet most Americans still believe in those principles, and as such, are true liberals; classical liberals. I consider myself to be one.

For the most part, we who are classical liberals have a guttural reaction to what we see perpetrated by those in Washington who are fundamentally transforming the nation from what made us great, to a socialistic, secular European state only different from the rest of Europe by being “across the pond.”

And it is in this context that we see similar reactions to what befell the Danish cartoonist. It is possible to discuss civilly and cogently with some who disagree with the classical liberals, but not with extremists. Those of us who object to the policies, and the cult of conformism promulgated by the mainstream media for the current administration, are made the target of an ideologically spawned “fatwa.”. To the extremists, we are to be silenced at all costs. To facilitate this, they intentionally devolve their attacks to the most base levels, engaging in character assassination, and unwarrantedly charging “racism,” or “hate speech” to quell our dissent. They are the ones who intently look for racism or hate behind everything, and not surprisingly, find it whether it’s there or not.

For these extremists, intolerance has supplanted tolerance; a rigid dogmatism has replaced pursuit of truth; intimidation and accusations are used to stifle dissent rather than freely engaging in the exchange of ideas; and attempted censorship has replaced rational discussion.

For some reason, it appears that those of us who are classical liberals are perceived not just as political rivals with opposing views, but as enemies to be vilified and silenced. Perhaps this is because those who support the current transformation of America don’t want their bubble burst that we’re all “unified” now, and think the classical-liberals should just sit idly by and watch our founding principles be cast aside by a presumably messianic figure. We may be more divided more now than ever.

Cries for “unity” in this transformation of America are moot, for classical liberals are “bitter clingers” to the principles and culture that made America what it is, and will not simply acquiesce to the mantra for “change.” I’m sure many Americans didn’t know this was the change they voted for last November. The transformers may have the upper hand now, but our fate as a European satellite nation is hopefully far from set.

By Richard Larsen

Published – Idaho State Journal, 03/22/2009

It’s impossible to be a student of history and not value the contributions that labor unions have made. Horrendous working conditions, miniscule compensation, child labor, seven-day work weeks, and 18 hour work days were redressed largely with the assistance of organized labor.

While unions have done much to improve the quality of life historically, they may have outlived their usefulness. Unions’ primary role currently seems to be political, rather than serving the collective interests of those they claim to represent. I wish I had a dollar for every union member I have talked with over the years who has appreciated union benefits but detested the political posturing, pressure, and tactics of their union, much of which have had little to do with labor related issues.

In this age of globalized interdependent economies, high salaries and benefits negotiated in behalf of organized workers have made many companies simply uncompetitive. United Auto Workers agreements with Detroit’s Big Three (now, Little Three) automobile manufacturers adds 50% more in labor costs than the domestic non-unionized foreign manufacturers. While UAW controlled shops are on the verge of bankruptcy and requesting massive cash infusions from Washington to even allow them to survive, foreign manufacturers in the U.S. are weathering the current economic storm with greater facility.

Now the Congress, in its infinite wisdom, wants to make it easier for unions to make American corporations even less competitive by introducing the not-surprisingly misnamed “Employee Free Choice Act,” frequently referred to as “card check.” This legislation will abolish the employee’s right to a secret ballot on union membership. Yes, you read correctly. That bastion of democracy, the secret ballot, is vanquished with this bill. It further allows greater peer-pressure from pro-union supporters and allows union organizers to extend the recruitment period ad infinitum rather than a straight up or down secret ballot vote.

Noted economist Dr. Anne Layne-Farrar, in a study titled, “An Empirical Assessment of the Employee Free Choice Act: The Economic Implications,” concluded that one job will be eliminated for every three workers who are pressured into joining a union. Well, since Obama wants to be compared to FDR, a doubling of our unemployment ranks to 17% would grant him another point of comparison.

There seems to be a dominant mentality among some of us that government is a panacea, or the “cure-all” for all society’s ailments. For some reason, it’s assumed that the government, which is increasingly insulated from complaints and customer (or taxpayer) expectations, will somehow be more responsive to our needs than the private sector. If government is the elixir to all that ails America, why do government employees have a union? If government is as beneficent as some seem to think, there should be no need for government employees to be so organized.

You’ll recall the problems disclosed at Walter Reed Medical facility a few years back. The problems were not the medical care by the doctors, surgeons, and the nursing staff that suffers. By all accounts, the actual medical care is outstanding. Good enough, in fact, to provide medical care to the President and the Vice President for their regular checkups and more complex medical procedures.

Aside from the bureaucratic blunders, the biggest problems apparently had to do with the physical facilities, maintenance, and sanitation. Problems with rodents and mold don’t rest with doctors and nurses; they are supposed to be dealt with by those in maintenance. Regrettably, these maintenance workers are covered by civil service rules that prevent government employees from being fired. Currently those working at the hospital, and elsewhere throughout the government, are protected by the most complicated set of job protection rules in the country.

If companies are to compete in this globalized economy, they need to be able to streamline, manage their costs, and terminate non-productive employees. This card-check legislation is nothing more than a payback by the controlling party in D.C. for the $61 million that unions donated to their party races in the 2008 election cycle The proof is in Joe Biden’s comments to the AFL-CIO two weeks ago when he said, “You all brought me to the dance…it’s time we start dancing.” Card check is not good for America, and not good for the American worker.

By Richard Larsen

Published – Idaho State Journal, 03/15/2009

When Barack Obama said last year that he would “fundamentally transform America,” I don’t think many Americans knew what he was talking about. Regrettably we’re seeing more each day what his vision of that transformation is, and Newsweek captured that vision with its cover a couple weeks ago, “We’re All Socialists Now.”

Each day seems to bring another announcement of massive government spending on a new Obama program. Each one brings increased government control over the economy. With that increased control one of the major tenets of socialism is achieved: the means of production and distribution are owned or controlled by the government.

The problems with this agenda are multitudinous, but there is a principle that was fundamental to the founding of this country that brands government control of the economy as anathema. That is the principle of freedom. As power is ceded to the government, or as government expands beyond its Constitutional limits, as we see increasingly every day, individual freedom and liberty are sacrificed.

Our Declaration of Independence proclaimed, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” We do not derive our rights from the government, but from God. But the government can sure take them away. Each massive spending bill, exploitative budget, proposed tax increase, and cap and trade energy scheme threatens our freedom and individual liberty a little more.

Milton Friedman, the Nobel Laureate for Economics, persuasively argued that economic and political freedom are inseparable. Those freedoms we assume to be ours by legal recognition of a divine right from God, not from the government, are inextricably linked with the economic ability to exercise those rights. Friedman said, “A free private market is a mechanism for achieving voluntary cooperation.... It applies to any human activity, not simply to economic transactions. We are speaking a language. Where did that language come from? Did some government entity construct the language and instruct people to use it?... No, the language we speak developed through a free private market....” Once the government is involved, it is no longer a free, voluntary cooperation. It is coerced, controlled, and rationed.

Other brilliant economists and principled leaders through the years have argued against precisely this kind of economic power grab we see transforming our nation. Thomas Jefferson, in his inimitable style declared, “The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground. To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it. ... [A] wise and frugal government ... shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.”

Although he’s heterodox to government spend-thrifts, Ronald Reagan echoed that principle in 1981. He said, “We who live in free market societies believe that growth, prosperity and ultimately human fulfillment are created from the bottom up, not the government down. Only when the human spirit is allowed to invent and create, only when individuals are given a personal stake in deciding economic policies and benefiting from their success -- only then can societies remain economically alive, dynamic, progressive, and free. ... Only private industry in the last analysis can provide jobs with a future. ... The fact is, we'll never build a lasting economic recovery by going deeper into debt at a faster rate than we ever have before. ... In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” How true those words echo for today.

I love the America that was founded on freedom, and God-given rights. I would prefer those who desire to “fundamentally transform” America simply move to Europe for their secular, socialistic systems, and leave the “land of the free” to freedom-lovers who want it to stay that way.

By Richard Larsen

Published – Idaho State Journal, 03/08/2009

President Obama now owns this dire economy. He can no longer claim that he inherited the current malaise from George W. Bush.

Last fall with the failure of Lehman Brothers and other financial institutions, the problems with subprime mortgages and their “infection” of securitized mortgage-backed investments, mostly affected the banking and housing sectors of the economy. There was certainly the risk that it could spread to other segments of the economy, but with the right policy moves, that’s where it could have stopped. Obama and his party have ensured that it spread to all segments of the economy.

Financial markets are primarily forward looking and are one of the leading economic indicators used by the government. They appreciate in anticipation of improvement in the broad economy, corporate profits, and improving systemic risk indicators. Yet all they have done since Obama was elected is go down. And every time he opens his mouth to explain an $800 billion stimulus bill, or a $1.7 trillion budget, or a mortgage rescue plan, it goes down even more. Every time he denounces “predatory lenders” for making the loans Congress encouraged them to make, underwritten and guaranteed by Congress’ own social-engineering mortgage piggy banks, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the markets go down. Every time he castigates “Wall Street greed” for packaging and securitizing those mortgages, the markets decline further. In short, Obama now owns this bad economy, and much of it is of his making.

The financial markets obviously knew what to expect from an Obama administration. The day after the election the Dow Jones Industrial Average tanked over 300 points. That was not a good omen.

Displaying an obvious inability to switch from campaign mode to governing mode, Obama has continued to verbally hammer the economy. In December, while Congressional leaders were crafting his massive “stimulus” package, Obama declared, “In short, a bad situation could become dramatically worse.” At George Mason University, he declared, “The recession could linger for years” unless Congress approves his stimulus bill. In the same speech, he said, “I don't believe it's too late to change course, but it will be if we don't take dramatic action as soon as possible.” The week Congress voted on his “stimulus” bill he said it would be “catastrophic” if it didn’t pass. Obama could now write a new book, and he could title it, “The Politics of Fear.” The subtitle could be something like, “How to Make Political “Hay” by Scaring the Hell out of the American People.”

Stock indexes are down roughly 30% since Obama’s election. And he still seems to have no grasp of the role he plays in creating a positive economy. His fiscal policies will ensure nominal, if any, GDP growth in future years. And until he learns that part of his role is to be the economy’s head cheerleader, it will continue to tank every time he disparages the economy.

Financial markets are significantly affected by psychological factors. They reflect the collective level of faith and confidence in the markets they represent. Confidence moves markets higher, whereas fear-mongering (as Obama is engaging in) and insecurity will force it down.

Obama has had unmistakable political victories. Every one of his recommendations have been rubber-stamped by an all-too-willing Congress that knows no taxation restraint, and has never met a lavish spending bill that it doesn’t like. Yet his political victories are failures for America. Not just for our economic prospects, but for the hammering he has personally done to the savings and retirement accounts of millions of Americans who count on market stability for current and future income.

Financial markets will eventually stabilize and begin to creep back up. But it will be in spite of, not because of, his fiscal policies and unmitigated disastrous spending binges. It will be because the American people still work, produce, provide service and do much good on a global scale. And the companies that they work for will strive to be even more productive even though the President’s proposed tax increases will penalize them for their success.

The American economy is struggling, and the President is doing nothing to positively address it. Calling my Tahoe a Hummer doesn’t make it any more so than calling a massive spending bill an economic “stimulus.” But as his chief of staff has said, “Never let a serious crisis go to waste.” And they’re not. They will apparently use their fear tactics to create as much government as they possibly can. “This crisis provides the opportunity for us to do things that you could not do before,” Rahm Emanuel elaborated.

Mr. President, this is no longer George Bush’s recession, it is yours. And your fiscal policies and verbal abuse heaped upon segments of our marketplace are ensuring that your presence will be felt long after you’ve left office in about 1415 days. But then, who’s counting?

By Richard Larsen

Published – Idaho State Journal, 03/01/2009

Reality is sometimes so ironic you don’t have to do a thing to embellish it to make it more so. Fresh off the signing of the biggest spending bill in U.S. history, laden with pet projects, President Obama this week hosted, prepare yourself, a “Fiscal Responsibility Summit.” But wait, it gets better!

This comes on the heels of his “Mortgage Rescue Plan” which rewards those who have been fiscally irresponsible at the expense of those who have been fiscally responsible. But wait, it gets even better!

Obama’s new budget features a $1.75 trillion deficit, four times larger than any in American history. You’re right: no fiscal responsibility there. Maybe he should have had the summit before all of these spending announcements. But wait, there’s more!

After denouncing lobbyists and special interests and claiming they would have no influence in his administration, would you hazard a guess who the participants were at his “Fiscal Responsibility Summit?” Go ahead, guess. You’re right! According to Raw Data, aside from those from his administration and Congress, the remaining 56 participants were all lobbyists and special interest representatives! In short, nearly all the participants in Obama’s “Fiscal Responsibility Summit” represent organizations that are feeding at the public trough and undoubtedly looking for more! You just can’t make this stuff up! The participants were split into breakout groups and were to come back with recommendations. Apparently none of the groups recommended that he curtail his profligate spending.

With all his excessive spending, Obama advancing the notion of fiscal responsibility would be as ironic as Russia telling the U.S. not to socialize our economy. But wait! That happened too!

Last month, speaking at the World Economic Forum at Davos, Switzerland, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin uttered some substantive and wise counsel. Not just to the U.S., but to the rest of the world. He said, after denouncing protectionist trade policies in challenging economic times, “Excessive intervention in economic activity and blind faith in the state's omnipotence is another possible mistake.”

“True, the state's increased role in times of crisis is a natural reaction to market setbacks. Instead of streamlining market mechanisms, some are tempted to expand state economic intervention to the greatest possible extent.

“The concentration of surplus assets in the hands of the state is a negative aspect of anti-crisis measures in virtually every nation.

“In the 20th century, the Soviet Union made the state's role absolute. In the long run, this made the Soviet economy totally uncompetitive. This lesson cost us dearly. I am sure nobody wants to see it repeated.

“Nor should we turn a blind eye to the fact that the spirit of free enterprise, including the principle of personal responsibility of businesspeople, investors and shareholders for their decisions, is being eroded in the last few months. There is no reason to believe that we can achieve better results by shifting responsibility onto the state.

“And one more point: anti-crisis measures should not escalate into financial populism and a refusal to implement responsible macroeconomic policies. The unjustified swelling of the budgetary deficit and the accumulation of public debts are just as destructive as adventurous stock-jobbing."

At his summit, Obama proclaimed that he would cut the federal deficit in half in four years. I think that’s Obama-speak for, “We’ve already mortgaged our country to the hilt, now come the taxes to pay for it.” Brace yourselves for increased or new taxes on everything from to energy. His budget proposes increased taxes to the tune of $1.3 trillion!

Speaking of irony, some Journal readers have been disturbed over something Rush Limbaugh recently said. Contrary to what most have alleged, his actual words were, “I support the president, but I don’t support his policies.” Those most critical of Limbaugh apparently fail to see the irony in his remark, for they have undoubtedly been the ones most vociferous in declaring for the past six years, “I support the troops, but I don’t support their mission.”

After seeing what Obama’s done in his first month, it’s obvious that he has no intention of “governing from the middle.” I throw my two-bits in with Limbaugh: I support the president, but I don’t support his socialistic policies. And to Newsweek magazine, “No, we are NOT all socialists now!”