Category Archives: Public Policy Principles News

Public Policy Radar, Commentary, Public Policy Principles News, Economics

Obama Administration Learns From Popular Seafood Company

1 Comment

Free Crab TomorrowIf you’ve ever been in or near a Joe’s Crab Shack restaurant then you know about the “Free Crab Tomorrow” ploy. Of course, it’s a humorous “promotional” for the company that “consumer protection advocates” have not yet become familiar with (we’re waiting for the first class-action lawsuit filed by the Federal Trade Commission demanding free crab be served per the advertising. OOPS! Don’t want to give bureaucrats any ideas regarding the raising of revenue.). For the uninitiated in the audience, the sign never changes. Every day the sign continues to read “Free Crab Tomorrow.” Tomorrow, of course, never comes. That’s the joke.

The Obama administration, always up for a good prank on the American electorate, has borrowed a page from Joe’s Crab Shack’s self-promotion handbook. Only they aren’t joking. In an article in Yahoo News from Reuters we are informed that “White House economists see jobs growth by spring.” In another article from the New York Times on January 11, 2009 in which it is claimed that “hundreds of thousands of jobs would be created during 2009.” The claim is also made that “…unemployment is still expected to rise but then fall late this year (2009)…” (emphasis added).

Other job creation claims made by the President from the Times article-

In the campaign, Mr. Obama vowed to create one million jobs, and after winning election he put forth a plan to create up to three million. The report now puts the figure at roughly 3.7 million, the midpoint of an estimated range of 3.3 million to 4.1 million jobs by the end of next year.

Millions of Jobs Tomorrow.

Oh, yes, the same article has an interesting reference to an Obama “middle-class tax-cut” that has long since fallen into the media memory hole-

Obama transition officials have said that the president-elect’s proposed middle-class tax cut — called “Making Work Pay,” which would provide $500 for individuals and $1,000 for couples by reducing payroll tax withholdings — is “nonnegotiable.”

Free Tax-cut Tomorrow.

What’s next? What new predictions will be made regarding the economy? When will small business get relief from the crushing costs of regulation and the cost of mandatory health care insurance? When will the federal government move to become the major stockholder on other corporations beside GM and Chrysler?

More information tomorrow.

The Vote, Taxation, Education, Gambling, Commentary, Public Policy Principles News

The WRFD Town Hall Meeting- A Review

From the WRFD WebsiteThis author has been teaching an adult Sunday school class on God and Government (using Gary DeMar’s book of the same name as a guide) at his church. Class members (who are currently viewing David Barton’s The Keys to Good Government) are being convicted of the necessity to examine not just the public lives of those who want to be stewards in high office but to also examine their private lives, as well. They are seeing, some for the first time, that private character matters in the behavior of public officials.And some are awakening to the necessity of electing men who are not just Christian but actually apply their faith to all of their life, including their exercise of duty while in office.

You may think this means a position advocating hiring  private detectives to look in bedroom windows and such. You would be wrong. What is being advocated is the examination of the fruit of the faith of candidates and office holders. Many are shocked to learn that the word that is translated as “minister” in some versions (“servant” in some others) is a title used for both civil authority and ecclesiastical authority strongly implying that the admonitions for office holders of Exodus 18 and 1Timothy 3 apply to both offices. The Timothy passages tell us to look to the way a man conducts his family business as an indicator for whether he is capable of handling higher office. That is because how a man manages his family is an indicator of how well a man disciplines himself and maintains his relationship to God. This follows from the idea that a man faithful to God is a man who applies his faith to the management of his family and will also do in the management of his duties that come with higher office, whether civil or ecclesiastical.

Sadly, a man’s faith in God is no longer a guarantee that his family, business or duties of higher office will be handled in a godly manner. Modern pietistic Christianity has bought into the secular humanist argument (made popular by Col. Robert Ingersoll a militantly anti-Christian crusader of the 19th century) that a man’s life can be compartmentalized into separate spiritual and worldly spheres of influence. Thus, a man can be a pillar of his church and completely corrupt in the conduct of his personal and business affairs and his duties of higher office.

If you have paid any attention to recent Supreme court justice confirmation hearings, you will have heard nominees questioned about their faith. To a man, these nominees have declared that they were men of faith and, astonishingly,  that their faith would have absolutely no bearing on any decision they would make from the bench. Frankly, a man who can compartmentalize his faith to this degree is far more frightening than a man who applies his faith to all aspects of his life as the  foundational operating philosophy. That man’s decisions will be predictable based on a knowledge of the law that emanates from his faith. A man who does not apply his faith as a governing philosophy will be like a philosophical nomad traveling from place to place in search of a temporarily green place to nurture his philosophical flock.  This seems fine until one day everyone discovers that all of the ground the nomad traveled has been made barren through his abuse of it. Think in terms of modern Supreme court decisions where justices turn every which way, examining European law for example,  searching for legal philosophy on which to base decisions when all they need do is apply biblical case law as courts have done since their inception here in the early 17th century.

As part of the Sunday school class, this author made the observation that not only was the average Christian compartmentalizing his faith when choosing candidates for higher office, but that so-called Christian leadership, who should, theoretically, know better, actively participate in making it more difficult to discern which candidates for civil office are worthy of the Christian vote. One of the things I had in mind (though not by a long-shot the only thing) were the things I saw and heard at the recent WRFD town hall meeting.

Several members of the Institute for Principled Policy’s governing board were audience participants at the town hall meeting and we were there from about 2:30 pm for the pre-show until about 5:00 pm. At the outset it should be made clear that the host of the program, Pastor Bob Burney, did his best to make the town hall meeting what he promised it would be; open and informative. How do I know this? The format of the meeting was that the participants would write questions out on a pre-printed form and submit them to one of the programs producers or one of the floor volunteers. They were reviewed for things like language and coherence (I presume) and then handed to Pastor Burney.

It is this writer’s opinion that Pastor Burney is a Christian who is not afraid to ask tough questions of political candidates to ferret out their positions on issues. This is because he read a question that this writer had submitted to find where John Kasich, candidate for Governor, stood on the second amendment. He didn’t change the wording, or soften the question in any way. Why so sure? This writer wrote the question. It read approximately like this-

Keeping the phrase from the 2nd amendment…”shall not be infringed…” in mind- how can a law that prohibits the ownership of a gun on the basis of caliber, firing rate, magazine size or stock configuration not be an infringement? If you agree that it is an infringement then please explain your vote to restrict my ownership of guns on this basis as a congressman

Sad to say, this question was read during a news break and so the radio audience never heard it. But the studio audience did. And they also heard the 2-3 minute long answer which completely failed to address the specifics of the question. The audience present heard Kasich declaim using phrases taken directly from the politician’s rhetorical cliche handbook. Things like “I agree with the NRA (National Rifle Assoc.) more than I do my wife” and “I own a gun.” They also heard Kasich imply that he the had NRA’s endorsement. He doesn’t.

Why does all of this matter? Why should a Christian care one way or another about a candidate’s votes in Congress? After all, Kasich has a “conservative” reputation and his wife and children were there with him, he has his kids in Christian school, doesn’t he? That’s a great question because it aims right at the heart of the issue of how Christians are supposed to evaluate candidates for office. And the sad fact is that Christians have been misled by those in leadership to think about candidate evaluation in completely the wrong context.

Look again at the rationalizations listed above. In every instance they are based on outward appearances. Yes, Kasich is nominally “conservative.” But that word can be defined in many ways by many different people and groups who award that title. One group’s conservative vote might be another’s progressive vote in Congress. The standards are variable. In fact, by a constitutionalist’s (defined as someone who subscribes to a strict literal interpretation of the meaning of the US Constitution) standard Kasich is conservative to moderate on economics (OK on taxes, flawed on spending) with a moderate progressive streak on social issues. In short he is a so-called “big government” conservative. That’s why the second amendment question quoted above is of vital importance.

How so? In order to understand we must look at what it means to be a representative. All government structures of God have certain characteristics. They are both representative and covenantal. Governments of all jurisdictions self, family, civil, church) are representative in two directions. The chosen representative represents the authority of God to those within his jurisdiction and those people in his jurisdiction back to God. With that in mind, it is easy to see that a people who despise God will seek poor representation who also despises God.  In return as a judgment God will give them the poor representation of and to Himself that they ask for and deserve.

So what is the covenant aspect and why does it matter to civil government? A covenant is a contract. According to a biblical view of government, it is a contract in which God is a party to the contract as both the initiator and arbiter of the contract. God gives the parties to the covenant a choice. Obey the stipulations of the covenant and see earthly and eternal rewards or disobey them and receive earthly and eternal punishment. There is no negotiating the terms of such a contract and neither is there an opt-out. Believers or not, human beings are subject to the terms of the covenant. The covenant applies to all aspects of life including the political.

You might be thinking “I thought there was a separation of  church and state, so how can God be involved in government?” Yes, indeed there is a separation of church and state in terms of jurisdictions (spheres of authority). The state is forbidden by God from engaging in or interfering with the jurisdiction reserved to His church. Likewise the church’s jurisdiction is to act in an advisory capacity to government secondarily. Primarily, the church’s responsibility is to teach the tenets of the Christian faith and how to apply those principles to every facet of their lives to believers . That includes the choosing of and acting as good godly representatives as described above. Hence, the secondary responsibility to act as an advisor to godly representatives in a teaching capacity.

Now to why the second amendment question is so important. When John Kasich and Ted Strickland were elected to Congress, and this goes for all Federal representatives, they swore an oath before God to “…uphold, defend and protect the Constitution of the United States of America…” Kasich violated that oath when he voted to give the federal government an authority that the highest law of the land denied to it. The authority to ban the sale of guns for any reason or in other words infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms. That makes him a willful covenant breaker.

Now, Kasich could have made an effort to repair his reputation as a covenant breaker by explaining that his bad votes had been mistakes and that he now regretted them on the basis of principles that he did not understand at the time. He made no effort to do so and instead chose to attempt to defend his votes and when it became clear that none of his attempts to side step the question were satisfactory he said simply “It is what it is.” That spoke volumes. He broke his covenant without remorse. To a Christian who has a consistent worldview, this made him someone who could not be eligible to be a representative in civil authority.

While Pastor Burney was as faithful to his promise as possible there were other participants that were not so faithful. The questioning noted above took place before the late arrival of Chris Long of Ohio Christian Alliance. This author had submitted several questions of a similar nature to the one above. All of them designed to determine where the candidate answering the question stood as regards the keeping of his or her oaths before God to “…uphold, defend and protect the Constitution of the United States of America…” All of them were very specific questions about parts of the Constitution very relevant to issues of the day.

After Mr. Long’s arrival the facilitation of the meeting was immediately transferred to his control and its nature instantly changed. Instead of allowing tough questions which were designed to get at the core principles of the candidates it became obvious that questions were being screened to protect candidates from hard ball questions. In fact, this writer watched from the front row just in front of the podium where the hosts and guests were seated as Mr. Long sorted audience questions, removing those presumably deemed inappropriate and handing the remaining soft ball questions to Pastor Burney to use.

You might be asking why this would be in light of what has been explained above. But if you think about this for just a minute you might see what’s happening here. It has already been discussed earlier in this posting. It is the habit Christians have allowed themselves to fall into of considering only the outward appearances of faith in looking for a candidate. And many Christian leaders have allowed themselves to be co-opted by a political party. This is nothing new. The Democratic Party co-opted liberal churches and leaders very early in the twentieth century. Conservative evangelicals, on the other hand, tended to avoid politics altogether during the period from about 1925 until the presidential election of 1976 when many of the were persuaded by Christian leaders to vote for a self-proclaimed “born-again Christian-” Jimmy Carter. Most conservative evangelicals found the policies of the Carter administration completely unpalatable, not to mention decidedly un-Christian and this disaffected new voting bloc was easily convinced to join the Reagan coalition inside the Republican Party. Christian leaders became aware that they had been the deciding factor in the Republican party in both keeping George Bush from getting the Republican  nomination (something they had obviously forgotten by 1988 and a fact that was a harbinger of future events with unpleasant consequences) and in delivering the White House to Reagan in 1980. They then began to try to leverage their power inside the Republican party to get some of the social and economic legislation that they believed the nation needed. In the process, many Christian leaders became Republicans first and Christians second. This culminated in the disastrous first and second Bush administrations.

With this short history in mind we have to ask ourselves why Christians continue to allow themselves to be used and, yes, seduced into supporting  nominal and  pseudo-Christian candidates by a political party which ignores, insults and does their level best to make sure that Christians stay home for primaries but insists they show their loyalty to the party and vote for candidates whose policies are repugnant to them in general elections. We also have to wonder how Christian leaders have come to the conclusion that they must either support and even work to protect  exclusively Republican candidates who are openly covenant breakers.

The answer lies in simply denying that they are indeed covenant breakers. The best way to do that is by maintaining a state of plausible deniability. If you never ask the tough questions you can easily deny knowledge that the candidate in question’s policies are in conflict with his oath of office. Sadly, this doesn’t often stop Christians from defending these candidates when their shortcomings are made public. Many will stop at almost nothing to protect their chosen candidates because they are nominally Christian (outwardly) and have the added ability to win elections. Winning with a nominal Christian candidate  who may be an oath breaker has become more important than providing a candidate with a consistent Christian worldview who could be a true oath honoring representative.  Earthly power beats godly covenant. Not hardly.

Private Property, Commentary, Public Policy Principles News, Economics, Biblical Worldview, Education, Public Policy Radar

Random Thoughts on Socialism

TFT1One of the effects of the downturn in the economy is the decrease in divorces.  From 2007-2008 there were 300 fewer divorces in Cuyahoga County (Cleveland).  It’s also been hypothesized that this occurs because the financial challenges presented to families force them to converse more and possibly helps them to restore communication and trust.  Should we look to see the divorce rate rise as the economy rebounds?  If so, does this mean that we should pray for a greater economic recession and failure so that families might be saved?  Oh well, never mind.  I suspect that Congress will remove this option from us.  I’ve just heard that they are proposing a bill that would bail out the divorce lawyers who are suffering the loss of business, so that couples who want a divorce but who cannot economically afford one can get the needed divorce.  After all, we all know that there is a right to divorce.  Pardon my sarcasm.

I want to commend my Democratic congressman, John Boccieri.  He voted his conscience, not the party line in voting against the “Pelosi” Health Care Bill.  Afterwards, his public comment was that it was too expensive to support.  I agree, though there are many more problems than that, including the fact that philosophically it moves the United States closer and closer to a socialist and authoritarian governmental structure.  The question this expense rationale presents, however, for Congressman Boccieri is this:  How can the Health Care Bill be considered too costly or too expensive when you voted for the Cap and Trade Bill?  Why wasn’t the Cap and Trade Bill also considered too expensive for you?

I blame the educational system of America for the current crisis in the health care debate.  The American people cannot recognize socialism when they see it.  Prior to the 2008 election I wrote that Obama is a socialist, but with his support for the banking bailout McCain proved himself to lean in that direction as well.  More and more I hear people regurgitating the theme that capitalism is the cause of the economic problems.  If people knew history, they would know that this is an echo of Karl Marx.  Educated people know that socialism is absolutely devastating to a culture.

The other night I was lecturing to a class about postmodernism and the class was reading Os Guinness’ book Time for Truth.  The book has on its cover the unforgettable picture of the young man boldly confronting the row of military tanks in Tiananmen Square.  As I was pointing out the picture one of the young men in my college class said to me, “I was born on that day.”  And it immediately struck me how important it is to teach our young people an accurate understanding of history.  They don’t know what happened in Tiananmen Square, they don’t know Viet Nam, and many of us have forgotten how tens of millions were murdered, executed and destroyed by the Socialist regimes of Mao, the Soviets especially under Stalin, and the Nazis.  Socialism inevitably leads to conformity, intolerance, and totalitarianism.  History unquestioningly confirms this.

Speaking of freedom, this week we celebrated the twentieth anniversary of the dismantling of the Berlin Wall separating Germans, Berliners, and families from one another.  It’s still hard to fathom and I’ve walked through Checkpoint Charlie.  Ask the young people you know whether they know why the Wall was constructed and see what they say.   In most cases they do not.  They have not been taught that it was built not to keep people out, but to keep people in, to keep people from freedom, to keep them from escaping to freedom.  This is socialism.  This will be the consequence of the health care bill and is the same philosophy which says that those who do not have health insurance will be arrested and either jailed or fined as the already passed congressional health bill proposes

Public Policy Radar, Commentary, Public Policy Principles News, The Vote, Economics

A Health Care Rally Report

constitutionOn Thursday, November 5, 2009 a rally was held in Washington DC for the purpose of lobbying the House of Representatives, specifically our own Congressmen, to defeat the complete hijacking of the American health care system.

You probably already know that. You may not know that there were only about 2-3 days notice of this rally. You may also not know that with only that very short notice somewhere between 15,000-30,000 people made the time, found the precious resources and the guts to make the trip. In the middle of a work week. I was one of these. I can testify to the predominantly middle-class status of the rallyers. Like the TEA parties and Town Hall meetings of this last summer, this was no SEIU/ACORN orchestrated rent-a-mob complete with cookie-cutter signs placed strategically around the crowd. Look at the pictures taken by this author to the right. You will see just a handful of the signs and people we were able to see in the crowd (you can see these better in full-screen mode available on the far right of the option bar near the bottom of the picture carousel).  Some of the signs were pretty good- both clever and articulate. Some were corny and/or mediocre. Some were awful, for instance the Lyndon LaRouche Democratic Socialists with their picture of President Obama with a Hitler-like toothbrush moustache and the caption “I’ve Changed.” The LaRoucheites, being agents provocateurs and therefore masters of mis-direction, know full well that it is not Obama that has changed. Obama is doing what he said he would do during the campaign. What has changed is that people have begun to realize  that he was serious when he said them. The LaRoucheite presence at TEA parties and the health care rally with their inflammatory propaganda and signage is designed to provide a “look at the idiots” moment for the main-stream media, who know full-well who the LaRoucheites are but are more than willing to feature them as “typical” of attendees. The LaRouchites also know they can occasionally hook a sucker who does not know what they are about already. Thankfully, it appears that this crowd stayed clear of their table and their propaganda.

[Show thumbnails]

This was a true grass-roots upswell of individuals determined to lobby Congress to vote against the federal government commandeering their right to buy private health care coverage or go without coverage if they so desire.  Many of them, just like me, small business owners or the spouse of one. Many of them, just like me, fully aware of what the requirements of the House version would do to their businesses. Every small business owner knows this fact; Employees cost a lot more than just their wages. Training, unemployment insurance, workman’s compensation, Social Security, Medicaid and the cost of benefits like health care coverage, made mandatory under the bill, all contribute to the cost of an employee. This bill creates an atmosphere that will stifles the growth or or completely kill off  small business. And small business is the largest employer in our economy. The tremendous costs of doing business in the atmosphere being created by the bill is a hurdle that many small businesses and even many medium and large-sized businesses will not be able to negotiate without increased productivity. Increased productivity is an economic analysts euphemism for squeezing more work out of a smaller work force. In order to stay competitive these businesses will simply not hire new employees and probably lay off some of those they already have. To say that the health care bill will create greater unemployment, in fact will kill jobs is no overstatement.

Others were there because they understand that the final objective of the public option is the elimination of a private market for health care insurance and a complete assumption of all authority over who does and who does not get treatment. If that sounds like it means  “death boards” to decide if grandma gets her surgery that’s because it means exactly that. Overweight? “Sorry, but that’s  a procedure with a risk of failure among the “less disciplined” members of society. Lose 50 pounds first.” Everyone should be asking why the major media believe that those who expose this obvious implication of the health care bill to be a targets for derisive criticism.  Could it be that they are, as elitists who have never actually had to deal with the bureaucracies they demand be created (the vast majority of them at least),  so enthusiastic for government expropriation of the entire system that they are willing to ignore the obvious results of that action?

This article was being written before the bill passed the House of Representatives by a squeaker vote of 220-215. Two votes to spare. Look at the pictures at the right side above.  Note there are some that just appear to be lines of people. These are the lines of constituents waiting to talk to their elected representatives. The lines are more than a block long for each of the three House office buildings. Some of those who actually got in to see their representatives reported being treated courteously. Others were treated rudely, staff looking for any excuse to usher lobbying constituents out of the office,  and a few claim to have been physically man-handled. Twelve were arrested in one case when a Congressman was physical with a female constituent and some of the males nearby objected.  They were arrested and charged with “unauthorized entry” and “disorderly conduct.” The Congressman’s chief-of-staff was making every effort to weasle out of the incident, saying that everyone had been polite and nice, knowing the public relations nightmare the Congressman had created. If everything had been “polite and nice” then why were 12 people arrested? Rep. Nancy Pelosi had anti health care bill constituents physically removed from her office. How could Congress ignore the clear will of the American people that health care reform of this kind was not what was wanted? It’s simpler than you might think. It’s also more corrupt than you might think.

What many of the rallyers didn’t now about was the maneuvering going on behind the scenes by President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and her lieutenants. The vote was originally scheduled for Thursday or Friday.  Pelosi and company simply didn’t have the votes on these days. As late as Saturday, she still didn’t have the votes despite an Obama pep-talk to the Dempcratic caucus and there was talk of postponing until Monday or Tuesday. The difference was the pro-life and Blue-dog Democrats. Pelosi put her House Whip to work brokering deals to pass the health care bill.

Scuttlebutt has it (and of course the truth of this will not be known until after the 2010 elections pans out who loses their jobs over this bill) that more than a few Blue-dog Democrat Congressmen were promised headships of federal agencies if they are un-elected after their “YES” vote on this and the so-called “cap and trade” bills. Complicating the matter are the Christian activist leaders who devised what they thought was the no-lose strategy of calling on their membership to admonish their Congressmen to vote “NO” on the sole basis of the abortion funding provisions that leadership had tried to claim were not there but were forced to admit actually existed. The final deal was brokered with the pro-life Democrats to accept an amendment offered by Michigan Democrat Bart Stupak to remove the abortion funding provisions. The die-hard infanticides were placated with the promise that the abortion funding will be in the final House-Senate conference committee version of the bill after Senate passage.

Thus, the mid-rated Christian strategists were thinking one move ahead while the grandmaster politicians were thinking 3 moves ahead. What does this mean? The removal of the abortion funding language was the excuse that pro-lifers and many Blue-dogs needed to cast their votes in favor of the bill. A bill that they desperately wanted an excuse to vote for and still be able to claim that they had complied with all that they had been asked to do by strategically out-maneuvered Christian activists. Had the Christian groups taken a principled stand against the bill on the far more comprehensive  grounds of the bills constitutionality rather than on a narrow pro-life stance, Pelosi might still be looking for the votes she needed.

Al hope should not be lost, however. While Rep. Michele Bachmann should be given great credit for organizing this rally with only a few days to get the job done, it should be noted that the Republican House leadership made a concerted effort to hijack the movement (surprise, surprise). House minority leader John Boehner and several Republican House leadership members attempted to gin up support for their own health care federal takeover bill (called by one wag the “me too!” bill). Not only did this effort yield, at best, lukewarm support the effort served to both bore the attendees who were there to lobby against federal health care and make the rally, at more than 2 hours, overly lengthy. It was clear that this crowd was heavy with TEA partiers who were not overly thrilled with the Republican party and especially its bungling leadership and their efforts to do the same thing as the Democrats, but in a different way.

That’s a great sign for constitutionalists and should be a warning to Republican party leadership. But no one ever went broke underestimating the ability of Republican leaders to purposefully mis-read obvious signs of discontent (bordering on open revolt) among the party’s conservative core. The revolt over New York’s District 23 election has already been mis-characterized by Republican party hacks like Rush Limbaugh as a triumph for the party (you know, the Republicans who ran Dede Scozzafava, a closet Democrat shill for the seat) while downplaying the 3rd party aspect of the near victory by Hoffman on the Conservative Party ticket.

The Republican party had better get the message (though they won’t)- The core of the party simply won’t accept any more blue-blooded, forked tongue, country club liberal Republicans anymore and the TEA partiers whom party leadership are currently wooing aren’t interested in supporting the status quo Republicans. They’ll happily bolt to a principled third-party if they don’t like the Republican choice ala Doug Hoffman. If bills like “cap and trade” and health care “reform” are passed into law, neither of these groups will sit still in the 2010 elections for anything short of candidate pledges to rescind these laws if elected. Any so-called “conservative” candidate who says “well, these things are the law now and we need to make the best of it from here on out” needs to find another job, preferably in the private sector where he can see the damage that his lack of real commitment to the movement has wrought. If the private sector will have him/her. Liberal Republicans need to be shown the door forthwith. These are the modern political realities emerging thanks to Barack Obama’s presidency.

Economics, Biblical Worldview, General, Crime and Punishment, Gambling, Commentary, Public Policy Principles News, The Vote

The Biggest Winners and Losers from Ohio’s Election

1 Comment
This entry is part 4 of 4 in the series 2009 Election Issues

Voting MachineWith this now completed election it is time to reflect on who the biggest winners and biggest losers in Ohio were.  By this we do not want you to rant and rave but to put forth a reasoned perspective on who you believe gained the most and who lost the most on November 3.  Try to remain focused on Ohio issues and politicians, including your own local issues, and away from national politics in this discussion.  Don’t just regurgitate the talking heads who are proclaiming the Republicans won and Obama lost.  For example, let me proceed first with my opinions.

I believe the biggest winner in Ohio was Dan Gilbert and his associates.  Gilbert, who amassed a fortune through his quick loans operation and who owns the Cleveland Cavaliers professional basketball team, fronted the Ohio Casino initiative which narrowly won.  Gilbert and his associates will now have a legally constituted monopoly on casino gambling in Ohio.  The fact that the citizens of Ohio endorsed this idea of granting a few people control over this industry boggles my mind.  My reaction has nothing to do with the morality or immorality with gaming but with the control, opportunity, and money granted by Ohioans to a select few through a constitutional amendment.  This is outrageous and deplorable.  Quite obviously the biggest winner in Ohio was Dan Gilbert, the billionaire who will now along with his associates be able to reap additional billions each year from the willing naïve sacrificial citizens of Ohio.

But who lost the most?  There were many losers:  the public school systems, the governor of Ohio, those opposing state issues 2 or 3, but who lost the most?  Many lost opportunities; many lost money; and some even lost their seats of power.  But did anyone lose more than any of these?  Let me put forward my opinion and we want to hear yours.

I have always been a supporter of law enforcement.  I address police officers as “sir” and taught my children to do so as well.  When law enforcement supporters have called or written for donations or were selling tickets for fund-raisers, I willingly forked forth the bucks realizing I could never do enough or support them enough.  To me law enforcement officials have been the least appreciated and the most under-respected servants in society.  But no more!  From my vantage point the biggest loser in Ohio was the FOP (Fraternal Order of Police).  They lost their integrity and my respect.  Time after time I was bombarded on the TV by Tipton’s endorsement of the state amendment for legalized casinos.  How much money did the FOP pay for this plethora of commercials?  What are they receiving in return?  The law enforcement agencies are receiving a great deal of money from the profits of the gaming industry and this appears like a pay-off to me.

More disappointing to me than the passage of issue 3 and the amending of the Ohio Constitution to permit a legal monopoly on casinos is the support of this monopoly by a law enforcement agency that should understand the value of the Constitution, the seriousness of a Constitutional Amendment, and the essential philosophical danger of endorsing a monopoly.  The one virtue that those in law must possess is impartiality.  The support of this amendment by the FOP demonstrates partiality to me. Formal support of this amendment by the FOP seemingly places the gambling industry and the law enforcement agencies into the same bed together.  Does this disturb any of you?

As close as the vote was on Issue 3, it is quite possible that the endorsement by the FOP and the extent of the publicity generated by the FOP was just enough to get this amendment passed.  This will make it difficult for me to ever address an officer of the law as “sir” and to teach my grandchildren that they should respect these officers since I now know the truth…they can be bought off like anyone else.  The FOP won, but from my vantage point they lost their soul and their integrity and what loss could be greater?

IPP invites you to enter into this discussion on Ohio’s biggest winners and biggest losers.  If you are not registered, then please do so by registering and commenting in our Forum.

Commentary, Public Policy Principles News, The Vote, Economics, Biblical Worldview, Uncategorized, Public Policy Radar, Gambling

NO on Issue 3

This entry is part 3 of 4 in the series 2009 Election Issues

Voting MachineUnlike many others who are discussing the pros and cons of the language of Issue 3, the Institute for Principled Policy believes there are larger underlying reasons for advocating a NO vote on this Ohio ballot initiative.  We have shared these concerns before as a general position on the question of gambling expansion, but they are just as relevant in the current debate as in any other debate over gambling, state sponsored or privately owned.

“Does the Bible specifically speak to gambling as being not only a sin but something which the civil authority, bearing the sword under Romans 13 authority, can make a determination upon relative to the legality of such activity?

First, there must be some clarity in the choices of words we are using. Gambling, as defined by Webster’s 1828 dictionary, is as follows: “Gaming for money.” Let’s assume that this definition is agreed upon for purposes of usage of the word. Please notice that this definition would exclude the gathering of friends coming together to play a card game without money changing hands, but would not exclude organized gambling (casinos, lotteries, bingo parlors, monte carlo nights, etc.)

Given that gambling, defined correctly as “gaming for money”, is a clear violation of the 10th Commandment (thou shalt not covet) in that it is desiring something of value which you have not been given by God nor earned by your labor, then we need to look at how the Bible describes coveting or covetousness.

Colossians 3:5-6–”Mortify therefore your members which are on the earth, fornication, uncleanness, the inordinant affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness which is idolatry. For the which things’ sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience.” (1599 Geneva)
Ephesians 5:5–”For this ye know, that no whoremonger, neither unclean person, nor covetous person, which is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ, and of God.” (1599 Geneva)

Covetousness is the root of evil before the act. Given that the Bible equates coveting with idolatry, and that gambling is the act of gaming for money as a result of coveting more than you have been given or earned from your labor, it is a violation of the command against coveting, then bythe clear testimony of Scripture  and logical inference , it is also a violation against creating a idol (2nd Commandment).

Additionally, engaging in gambling involves relying on “chance”, “luck” or other metaphysical crutches (rabbit’s feet, lucky charms, lucky numbers, etc), thus denying the sovereignty of God and His Law-Word. This is a violation of the First Commandment against having other gods. Matthew 6:24 is clear that one cannot serve both God and mammon (”No man can serve two masters: for either he shall hate the one, and love the other, or else he shall lean to the one, anddespise the other. Ye cannot serve God and riches.”) Only one God can be served, and engaging in gambling is worship of a false god.

As for the 8th Commandment against theft, the first person violated is God Himself. God has a first ownership claim over all resources, and requires it be used in specific ways (tithe, legitimate tax, gifts, provide for own and own home, church, provide for widows and orphans, etc). We have a stewardship responsibility of all God provides, and failure of that disqualifies a man from oversight of the church (Titus 1:5-8) and the state (Exodus 18:21).

Additionally, we are complicit in the theft of resources from others through the legalization of gambling (and there is no such thing as a purely “private” gambling operation; just legal and illegal–government has some part to play in any operation through enabling legislation, tax policy, police and safety efforts, etc). Redistribution of wealth under any circumstances, whether through confiscatory taxation or through state-endorsed gambling is theft.

Overall, as mentioned, supporting gambling is supporting multiple violations of God’s Law, whether or not man has said it is legal.”

In light of the above, the Institute for Principled Policy requests that you vote “NO” on Ohio State Issue 3 on the November 3rd ballot.

Commentary, Public Policy Principles News, The Vote

Ohio Issue 2 Pro and Con

This entry is part 2 of 4 in the series 2009 Election Issues

Voting MachinePeople have different ideas about the same issue.  This is especially true about this year’s Ohio ballot Issue 2, the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board.  Keeping that fact in mind, the Institute for Principled Policy will be bringing pro and con arguments relative to the issue, but will not be making an official endorsement of it either way.

Argument Pro Issue 2

Issue 2 creates the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board (the Board), a board of Ohio agriculture interests which would have first right of refusal on any and all potential regulations on agriculture.  Issue 2 sets up no regulatory scheme; it neither prohibits nor proscribes any specific action by anyone involved in agriculture; and it is up to the people of the state of Ohio to decide to create it (and it’s established in the Constitution to keep radical interests from altering the makeup of the board after the fact).

The board, if adopted, will be the first review of any potential regulations on agriculture to be proposed.  The Constitutional amendment would also have force of law advantage over any other future initiative that may be proposed on the ballot, and can be the basis of legal challenge to such an initiative (per legal review of the issue by the OSU Extension Director of Ag Law, Peggy Kirk Hall).

The makeup of the board is known to the extent that there are certain specialties that must be represented on the board (2 veterinarians (one being the State Veterinarian), 1 county humane society member, 1 food safety expert, a dean of an agricultural college, the Director of Agriculture, 2 consumer representatives, 2 reps from farm organizations, and 3 family farmers).  Who those actual people are (except for the Director of Agriculture and the State Veterinarian) is subject to an application/nomination/Senate confirmation process.  That process will serve to sort out those who have real interests in protecting and promoting Ohio agriculture from those who have a radical animal-rights agenda.

Any authority given to this board is subject to the authority of the elected General Assembly (GA), as the enabling legislation spelled out particularly (Senate Joint Resolution 6, citing Article XIV, Section 1(B)), so the 13 members of the board do not have unilateral authority…the General Assembly also establishes the procedures for the board to follow in creating any potential new rule, so there can’t be any “making it up as they go along” effort that doesn’t get elected official oversight either.

Additionally, Section 1(D) of SJR 6 states “The General Assembly may enact laws that it deems necessary to carry out the purposes of this section, to facilitate the execution of the duties of the Board and the state department that regulates agriculture under this section, and to set the terms of office of the Board members and conditions for Board members’ service on the Board.”  Again, the final control on the Board, except for the number of board members, the numbers of each interest (family farmers, farm organizations, veterinarians, etc.) on the board, and who appoints which (Governor appoints 10 through Senate confirmation process; House Speaker and Senate President each appoint 1 family farmer), is all left in the hands of the Ohio General Assembly, our elected legislative officials.

Concerns have been raised that Issue 2 will allow the state to have control over agriculture.  Extending “state intervention” is problematic mainly if one believes that up until Issue 2 there was no intervention by the state in agriculture.  A 2-inch-thick book known as Title 9 of the Ohio Revised Code is proof that there has been state intervention in agriculture since Ohio became a state.

Under the existing Title 9 regulations, agriculture has become the state’s biggest economic engine, producing $93 billion in economic growth, nearly 1 million jobs, and (especially with what is happening to states like California, Michigan, Florida, etc. with Humane Society of the United States (HSUS)  intervention) a top-ten-in-the-nation ranking for Ohio agricultural production in many areas of the agricultural economy.  Ohio does that with about 75,000 farms, only about 200 of which are considered concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFO’s), or “mega-farms” in the common vernacular.  For the public to believe that a board of review on Ohio’s agricultural practices would have as a primary goal the harassment, persecution or elimination of Ohio’s family farms (the vast majority of the farms involved in our agricultural economy) in order to benefit the CAFO’s in some nefarious scheme strains credulity.

The main opposition to Issue 2 is carried out  mainly under the banner of the coordinating ballot organization “Ohio Against Constitutional Takeover (OhioACT)”  This coalition is replete with committed leftists, neo-Marxists, green warriors and animal-above-people radicals.  The Ohio Environmental Council, the Sierra Club, Food and Water Watch, League of Women Voters and HSUS all are part of this effort. Others include Cornucopia Institute, a Wisconsin-based “progressive” farm policy group focusing on “economic justice” whose board includes Earth First! Activists; the Ohio Farmers Union, which testified in Columbus that they want to compromise with HSUS and agree to HSUS’ demands relative to animal confinement; Mercy For Animals, a Chicago based (with a Columbus office) animal rights group who state, from their website that “non-human animals are irreplaceable individuals with morally significant interests and hence rights”; and Working Families Win, an Americans for Democratic Action-associated organization whose Ohio chapter states their goals of “organizing around the issues of guaranteed health care, jobs and wages, fair trade and sound energy policy.”

OhioACT’s “factsheet” on Issue 2 is filled with fictions.  The claim:  ‘The Livestock Care Standards Board, once cemented into the state constitution, would have the power to override any act by the Ohio Department of Agriculture or the state legislature, or any other initiative or referendum brought before the Ohio public other than an additional constitutional amendment.  In effect, this means that any standard created by the Board is a final decision, giving it unchecked power over animal agriculture” is unsupported in light of Section 1(B) of the actual language of Senate Joint Resolution 6.

It is interesting that OhioACT’s “factsheet” quotes just the first half of the first sentence in Section 1(B), conveniently leaving out the pertinent detail about the Board being ‘subject to the authority of the General Assembly.’  Oh, but they have to leave that out, don’t they?  Otherwise, their claims become seen for what they are:  empty and misleading.

Under the factsheet’s “unchecked power” heading, they make claims there will be no public input.  How do they know that?  The General Assembly sets the rules by which the Board will operate.  If the GA wants 10 public hearings by the Board on each rule proposed, then 10 public hearings the Board will have to provide.

The section on “undemocratic board” is a cute ploy.  They state there are no rules about the time of service on the board, then footnote Section 1(D) of the law which states clearly that the Ohio General Assembly will set the terms of service for the board members.  Can’t put that up front, now can they? If they did the entire theme of “unchecked power” argument goes down the drain!  Additionally, Section 1(A)(4) of SJR6 states clearly that “Not more than seven members appointed to the Board at any given time shall be of the same political party.”  This means clearly:  Partisanship is reduced by design of the law!  How can it get more democratic than that?

Then we have OhioACT’s “Family Farmer Fallacy” fallacy.  Here’s the real definition of “family farm” according to USDA regulation:  A farm that (1) produces agricultural commodities for sale in such quantities so as to be recognized in the community as a farm and not a rural residence; (2) produces enough income (including off-farm employment) to pay family and farm operating expenses, pay debts, and maintain the property; (3) is managed by the operator; (4) has a substantial amount of labor provided by the operator and the operator’s family; and (5) may use seasonal labor during peak periods and a reasonable amount of full-time hired labor.  It is reasonable to assume that this would be a working definition which the Speaker of the House, the Senate President, and the Governor will use in making their nominations to the board for the “family farmer” slots on the board.

In essence, even though the language doesn’t specifically say “This amendment will stop the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) in their tracks”, it does throw a significant legal and administrative hurdle in their path, one big enough that HSUS and their allies, many of them listed above as Issue 2’s opponents, are expending considerable effort to defeat.  To read the language of Issue 2, and the enabling legislation, is to understand that there is much in it that WILL stop (or significantly hinder) HSUS from getting to the ballot in 2010. The HSUS proposal would definitely wreak havoc on small family farmers, as well as large ones.

Is it any coincidence that HSUS came in to Ohio at the end of their successful 2008 ballot initiative in California with the threat of “do it our way, or we will bring the initiative to the ballot in Ohio…..in 2010“?  Why wait the extra year?  Why not bring it in 09 before the full impact of what happened in California gets out in the information cycle?  Why not roll right into another attack while you have significant momentum?  Why 2010?

The likely answer:  2010 is a major election year in Ohio, and the progressive movement needs a turnout issue at the ballot in order to protect their gains in Ohio politics, and secure the bulwarks for the 2012 cycle.  What better than an emotionally-driven issue such as “humane animal treatment” to bring out their hardened cadres and get popular support from a significant segment of the Ohio electorate who often doesn’t take the time to think through most issues they will be voting on?  What better way to get “the team” (progressive/leftist elected officials and candidates) to endorse this issue and thus be associated with a “compassion” issue?  There’s a lot more to the HSUS delay than meets the eye.  There’s a lot more to Ohio Issue 2 than meets the eye, as well.


Argument Con Issue 2

“If it’s going to increase the scope, size, or cost of government – vote NO”.   Should we add a clause to this principled axiom which states “…unless it’s a preemptive strike against radical environmentalists”?  This is the thrust of the argument for supporters of Issue 2, which would create the Livestock Care Standards Board via constutional amendment.  The argument goes something like this: if we don’t create this board (which would have input on all agricultural legislation in Ohio), then the Humane Society of the United States will descend upon Ohio in 2010 with their own ballot initiative, and attempt to turn us all into vegans while implementing planks of the UN Agenda 21.  This brings up several problems and questions that one should consider before supporting Issue 2.

1. How does the creation of this board advance the cause of liberty, or line up with the preamble to the Ohio Constitution?

2. State Representative Ruhl, a supporter, conceded that the creation of this board would NOT stop HSUS from attempting a ballot iniative.

3. Why are Issue 2 supporters so convinced that HSUS could muster enough support to pass such an initiative?  This is not California or the east coast.  A better strategy might be to go ahead and let them make their attempt next year – then ALL pro-liberty and pro-family groups in Ohio can join forces and expose HSUS for what they really are.  As it stands now, some groups (such ours and the Buckeye Institute) have elected to stay neutral in light of the division this has caused in the pro-liberty and conservative communities.

4. One of the main concerns is that HSUS, the Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth, etc. oppose Issue 2.  However, should we base our endorsement or opposition of an issue solely based on who is on the other side?  The Principled Policy Institute adamantly opposes Issue 3 (casino gambling) — but so does the ultra-liberal Ohio Council of Churches along with a number of gambling interests!

5. Contrary to the claims, this initiative is more reactionary than proactive.  A truly principled and proactive measure would have been to have created this board years ago, in the absence of any imminent threat.

6. Would this set a regulatory and legislative precedent in Ohio for other areas of law?  Imagine dozens of similar appointed boards that would have jurisdiction over legislation regarding health care, manufacturing, insurance, banking, energy, etc. in Ohio.  Such a system of unaccountable bureacracy would be contrary to the truly representative ideals of an elected general assembly.

7. With the wrong governor and legislature in power, such a board could do serious damage to Ohio before their terms expire.  Much like the H1N1 vaccine, the cure could potentially be worse than the disease.  What if the Livestock Care Standards Board ended up being spiked with disciples of Rachel Carson?

Nobody in their right mind would support the agenda of the Humane Society of United States, if they knew the truth about this radical organization (which has nothing to do with animal shelters).  However, let us think very carefully before purposely increasing the scope, size, and cost of government – as a preventative measure to a potential increase in the scope, size, and cost of government.

Commentary, Public Policy Principles News, Biblical Worldview, Book Review

Government is the extension of God’s moral order

“Government in every area is God’s order, law, and authority asserted over His creation. In the world of men, God’s government, whether in church, state, school, business, or family, is the extension of God’s moral order over a fallen world, an assertion, to use an old Calvinist battle-cry, of ‘The Crown Rights of King Jesus.’ To reduce government, whether in the family, the state, or elsewhere, to force is to destroy government. Modern government, having forsaken God’s law, is essentially government by force, and its force is a killing, dissecting force, a government by autopsy.


Read the rest of the entry here

Public Policy Principles News, Economics, Taxation, Public Policy Radar, Commentary

“NO” On Ohio Issue 1

This entry is part 1 of 4 in the series 2009 Election Issues

Voting MachineIssue one should be a “no-brainer”.  It authorizes $200 million dollars from the State of Ohio coffers to be distributed to Veterans of the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan, and Iraq Conflicts.  This money would provide Ohioans who fought in these “wars” $100 per month of service , not to exceed $1000, while  soldiers stationed in other locations during these conflicts could receive $50 per month for months served, not to exceed $500.

These would be bonuses from the people of Ohio to show appreciation to those from Ohio who served.  It would also offer a $5000 death benefit to the families of soldiers killed in the line of duty.  This would continue practices established after previous wars and conflicts.   This is a quite appropriate action.

We owe those who fight on our behalf.  We are thankful for their service and appreciate their unselfish service.  The only trouble is that this money would be raised by bonds and would need to be paid back by the State to those who purchase the bonds.  And the State of Ohio does not have this money! It would need to be borrowed money.

How can the State of Ohio justify going into more debt?  And though IPP strongly supports the American military and appreciates the service of Ohio’s veterans, we do not believe that Ohio should make this type of commitment at this time without having the money in hand while knowing that the State would not be able to pay off its bonds from a State surplus.  Therefore though we support the sentiment of this amendment and support the military, but we believe the State of Ohio cannot pledge itself to this type of financial obligation.

Therefore we do not believe that this is the right time for such an action.  The State of Ohio is so desperate for funding that is relying upon legal gambling to rescue it from its financial dire straits.  IPP therefore proposes that this action be delayed.  So Vote No on Issue I.

We also propose an alternative:  that the State open a private account that it would oversee and that 100% of the proceeds go directly to these veterans divided equally among them and that this fund be an open fund contributed to on a voluntary basis by the citizens of Ohio.  This way the benefactors of the bravery or these soldiers, the citizenry, can tangibly and personally say “thank you” and that the State of Ohio would not risk further financial obligation and debt.  We believe this is the appropriate alternative to this bill and IPP pledges the first $500.00 into this account if this bill is voted down and the alternative voluntary account is established as a different option.   Then the State could run public service announcements to generate funding for this account while virtuous citizens could demonstrate their appreciation by voluntarily donating their resources directly into this fund.

Taxation, Education, Public Policy Radar, Private Property, Commentary, Public Policy Principles News, Economics

It’s Levy Season- Know How To Vote

taxIt’s levy season once again. The time when school boards attempt to defraud taxpayers into voting themselves massive tax increases on the basis of the impending collapse of western civilization if the latest combination of renewal, replacement and new millages are not passed. The terminology of these appeals to emotion are deliberately misleading and/or deceptive.

What exactly happens to my taxes with a renewal that includes “no new taxes” and why do my taxes increase anyway when the renewal passes? Why do my taxes increase when the replacement levy was sold as a decrease in my old millage? Will this levy ever expire?

Have you ever asked these questions and been completely stumped by the rhetoric from the school officials and the news media who have closed ranks with school officials in an attempt to make sure levies pass?

This spring we ran a series called Tax and Spin- Undersanding Property Tax Levies. It is an attempt to unravel the mystery of property tax levies and explain why what looks like a decrease in rate actually causes an increase in taxes.

Don’t continue to be fooled. Read the series. This post will be a “sticky” until the election. New articles will post below it.