A couple days ago a Gingrich Super Pac came out attacking Romney because when his venture capital firm took over a company to transform it, many of the workers would be laid off. Gingrich could have distanced himself from the remarks, because by law a Super Pac can say what they want and raise as much money as they want, but it is illegal for them to coordinate with the candidate. However, instead of doing this Gingrich has come out in agreement with these anti-capitalistic charges. Never one to be outpaced in a race to the stupid-line, Rick Perry took the same course calling Romney a “Vulture Capitalist.”
Before going any further, let me assure you that I am no Romney supporter. I agree that Obama-care is simply Romney-care writ large, and I see him as too moderate to even imagine him as the conservative/libertarian firebrand this country needs. However, to have two supposed conservatives using such emotional charges to attack free market capitalism is appalling. I could hold my nose and cast my vote for Romney, Paul, Huntsman or Santorum (yes, it would take overlooking serious problems to vote for any of them). This would be a vote of “Anyone But Obama!” I might be able to hold my nose enough to vote for Gingrich, if he were to win the nomination—about as likely as the Colts making the Super Bowl. As for Perry, I have decided that I could not vote for him for dogcatcher.

When Perry first entered the race I had problems with his record, but was willing to overlook them. The biggest problem I had was the way he tried to force a new vaccination for HPV on the girls of Texas. I gave him the benefit of the doubt that his views on federalism would prevent him from trying such things on the national level. When voters are willing to overlook some things, it is helpful if the candidate doesn’t keep stacking on things to overlook. Pile crap high enough and it can no longer be overlooked, and much of what was coming from this campaign is pure crap. It is so bad, when a Perry ad comes on TV our houseplants get a fresh burst of life—as if they’ve been fertilized.

In a national debate, Perry, when questioned about his support for in-state tuition for children of illegal aliens, said that anyone who disagreed with him did not have a heart. I disagree with him and I have a heart—I keep it in a jar on my desk, so I can look at it. By doing this he alienated the whole other side of the argument. While many who disagreed may have figured that they could overlook his position, it is hard to overlook his stereotype of the opposition.

Perry soon found he was in trouble after this, and after he forgot his talking points in another debate (He couldn’t remember the departments he pledged to cut—it’s hard to trust you to keep your promises after the election if you can’t remember them during the election). To fix this he decided to pander to the basest feelings of the electorate. He came out with a promise to transform Congress into a part-time legislature. According to him, elect him as president and all Congressmen would have to return home to make a living between sessions. Their pay and benefits would be pared down to their new part-time status. While I agree our freedom is greatest when Congress is deadlocked or out of session, Perry forgot a little document called the Constitution. Congress makes its own rules, sets its own schedule and its own pay. He could recommend legislation along these lines, but who thinks a majority in both houses would support such a thing. This was the type of promise a politician loves—impossible to keep, so failure is not your fault.

As if these were not enough to give the finishing blow to the Perry campaign, he attacks Romney by smearing free-market capitalism. While many readers may agree with this assessment of venture capital and the process used in taking an unprofitable company and turning it around, you have to understand the reason such companies exist and why they do what they do.

Corporate revenues and resources can be broken down into outgoing and incoming. Incoming includes all revenue received from customers for product. Outgoing is everything needed to keep the doors open, the lights on and to produce the product that will bring in the revenue. A company is profitable when incoming is greater than outgoing—it must cost less to produce the product than is received through the sale of it. When failing to turn a profit a company can either cut its outgoing expenses or increase its incoming revenues. To increase income a company can develop (i) a new product line, (ii) a new customer base for its current products or (iii) raise prices. Note that the first two options will also increase the outgoing as new production lines must be opened and new employees hired, etc. The third is the easiest, but is only possible when the market will permit the new price. All three are tied to the market. If there is a market for a new line, one can be developed; if there is a greater market for the old line, it can be expanded; if the market will tolerate higher prices, they can be increased. The free market rules.

The other side of the corporate coin is outgoing expenses. These include facilities, equipment, materials, and wages. If unprofitable a company may move into smaller facilities to save on rent or mortgage. They may find more efficient equipment or a material supplier that is cheaper. Of course, these do not only go down. Over time they go up. Land, materials, equipment and wages are all inflationary, so a company’s profitability is affected, on both the outgoing and incoming side, by market forces. It is not uncommon to have a company pinched by falling prices for their products and rising prices for the materials to make the product. In time a free market balances these out if everything is left fluid to the demands of the market, but if even one area is unmovable then the market must take drastic action to set things right. This brings us to wages. Wages are usually contractual and while increases are easy to implement, cuts in wages are very difficult. Because of this wages tend to ratchet up.

In time the immovable nature of the wages may increase the cost of production beyond any hope of profitability. When this happens there are limited options. One, the company goes under and the employees are forced to take other jobs. These new jobs often involve a pay cut, which permits the price of wages to be adjusted back to market levels. The other company is for someone to take over who is not contractually obligated to the wage structure. This new management can offer to let employees keep their current jobs, if they accept cuts to pay or benefits. Those who will not accept are free to take their skills elsewhere. Either way, the market is balanced and wages settle back to where they should be according to the free market. The unchanging nature of wages in a company make these last two options necessary. We could do away with the corporate “takeover and turn around” if we set wages to fluctuate with the market, but this would not be popular—nor really even desirable.

Rick Perry should rethink his view of capitalism. While he and Newt Gingrich would be shocked to be accused of attacking capitalism, this is exactly what they have done. This type of pandering might work on the Democratic ticket of victimization and class warfare, but is out of place among Republicans. Republicans understand, in the words of Milton Friedman, “Capitalism is a necessary condition for political freedom.” Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich, in an attempt to undermine Mitt Romney, have each leveled their guns at freedom.

Personally, it can be preferable when one says, “I once held view ‘A,’ but evidence convinced me otherwise and I know hold view ‘B’.” Such a person demonstrates thoughtfulness in their views. Rather than regurgitating the view of a parent, teacher, professor or preacher, they think through issues to find the truth. Those who have never changed any views were either very lucky to be spoon fed perfect truth without error, or (most likely) they have put little thought into their beliefs. Why would we automatically reject the thoughtful converted one in favor of someone who shows no sign of thinking through positions? Simply agreeing with us, is not proof of deep thought or even reasonable views.

Several years ago I was discussing with a friend his childhood in a very strict Anabaptist sect which I won’t name. He told me that his father used to say, “Beware the converted.” Though the Christian gospel requires Christ’s people to reach out to the unbeliever, this group became so untrusting of outsiders that even those responding to the message of Christ and seeking membership among them were held in suspicion. This would shock most Christians, but this is exactly how does this differ from how we treat those who change their political views.

When a candidate stands up and says, “Yes, I was once pro-choice, but now I’m pro-life.” We should celebrate a victory and ask what convinced them. It is possible the argument or experience that convinced them would work on others. Don’t forget, even Ronald Reagan—hero of the conservative movement—was once pro-choice. While I cannot attest to Mitt Romney’s credentials as a pro-lifer, I am not going to spend years working to convince others that life begins at conception and then slap a candidate who says he now agrees simply because he once disagreed. There is a certain place for giving the benefit of the doubt.

It is of course easy to tell what happened. A set number of those attending decided their primary qualification was a sense of electability and held firm for Romney. Then the ideologues were split among Santorum and Paul. Of course, this was inevitable. Santorum appeals more to the evangelical, social conservative, while Paul appeals more to the fiscal conservative. Being libertarian many of Paul’s views on social issues would be seen as libertine and unacceptable to most evangelicals. Sometimes I think I am the only libertarian evangelical in the world—though I know a couple others who may qualify.

Since Iowa is a state where voters can show up at the caucus and change their affiliation to vote, a large number of independents supported Paul. This of course skews the numbers for Santorum because it means the lion’s share of rock-ribbed conservative GOP voters in Iowa must have voted for him. Had Paul not been in the race, it is likely many of his GOP supporters would have selected Santorum as the anti-Romney candidate, giving Santorum a runaway evening.

Last night is a perfect example of what will happen if there is a third party run by a serious candidate. Unfortunately, Paul refuses to take such a run off the table. He did so early in the race declaring that he would not go third party but would run as a Republican, but recently on a late night talk show he said a third party run was still possible. In Iowa, Santorum was the candidate closer to the values of the state. Don’t get me wrong. I am not a Santorum supporter and believe he has much to answer for and could be very vulnerable in a general election, but Iowa is not the beltway. He should have been a shoe-in, but with the addition of another ideologue candidate taking away a large enough number of the base and a good number of independents, Iowans ended up with a candidate they have little in common with—one whom the majority of the state did not want.

This scenario is going to keep playing itself out. State by state, Ron Paul and Rick Santorum (or Perry in some) will split the conservative vote and Paul will bring in enough independents to pad his numbers until we end up with Mr. Romney as the official candidate for our party. I fear the skewed numbers will convince Paul that he has a shot and he’ll leave the GOP at the last moment to run a third party candidacy. If this happens get ready for four more years of Obama.

How to Win a Local Election

Newspapers will endorse someone from both sides of the race. If there is both a Democrat and a Republican running they will endorse a candidate for each party. In seeking the candidate to endorse they look for those who match up with the values of the paper’s owners or editorial staff. This means they look for a Democrat and a Republican who each share their values. So when everything is done and the endorsements have been announced we see which two people have the closest values to each other and are the least different. The Register has told us Mitt Romney is the most Democrat-like of all the candidates. When you see such endorsements take notice and vote with care.

I would also point out that the accident they are basing this current emotional call on happened in a state that already had such a law for those under 21 (http://www.iihs.org/laws/cellphonelaws.aspx) and the law did not prevent the accident. If the existence of the law did not prevent the accident, why would anyone imagine the expansion of the law to work any better?

One final point to make is about the other vehicles in the accident. The pickup driven by the texting teen struck the rear of a semi when it slowed for a construction zone. That accident was probably survivable. The problem was the two buses that struck the rear of the pickup. The first one struck with enough force to push it over the pickup, rolling it up like a jelly roll. The second bus struck the first bus. Why has no one pointed out that the buses were following too close? I used to drive a school bus and company policy was that any accident in which you hit something with the front of your bus resulted in automatic termination because such an accident is always preventable with the proper following distance. Had these drivers been at a proper distance there would have been no fatalities.

The initiating incident was the texting teen, but the killing blows were delivered by two bus drivers overlooking their safety training and driving too close to safely stop. This matters little though, because it plays into the hands of some who would use emotion to make laws. The actual cause of the deaths will not be addressed, but will be swept aside in an emotional assault on cell usage. Yes, it is stupid to text while driving. Yes, something should be done. However, until you convince the drivers, efforts to force them will be ineffective.

In 2008 the GOP ran a candidate ill equipped to inspire the base. While he could promise little more than four years of the same, Obama promised something different. Of course it would be different. He was using the word “Change,” wasn’t he? He said he would change things. Of course there was little said about what he would change beyond such bromides as “share the wealth” and “fairness.” His Senate record of voting “Present” was no help pointing out the direction he would take the country. Yet he was able to inspire people and assure them that he was the savior they had awaited for so long.

This election we have a chance to make real changes in Washington. We have the House already, and a Senate majority is within reach. Hopefully both will be dominated by rock-ribbed conservatives. The problem is our ticket for the White House. None of this lot really inspires the base, in general. Sure each has their supporters, but none seem able to coalesce the base into a political machine. Each will have to rely on a fear of four more years in the Obama wasteland to keep their detractors in check, pushing them to show up at the polls, nose held tightly to cast their ballot. But show up they must. This is because while there they will vote for something even more important than the butt parked in the Oval Office. Every member of Congress and 1/3 of the Senate are up to reelection. Remember, the House initiates all appropriations bills (they hold the checkbook) and the Senate must approve all court nominees and treaties (they hold the keys to our freedoms).

The most important thing the GOP candidate can do is motivate. Rather than running as the Anti-Obama, this person must run as America’s answer—inspiring hope. Ronald Reagan did not simply run against Carter. Yes, his quip about a recovery being defined as Jimmy Carter losing his job was funny and creative—and oh, so very true! However, he spent most of the time playing up America and the bright future that was ahead for her if only the people would put him in office. We had just ended the long bloody Vietnam conflict. Inflation was rampant, unemployment through the roof. Things were so bad that previous laws of economics were rewritten giving us the previously unknown “stagflation.” After Nixon’s shenanigans, Ford’s questionable pardon of him, and Carters general ineptitude, people had a deep distrust for politicians. Well guess who is back. We have Jimmy Carter the sequel. It is time to send this guy off into the private sector, once and for all. The way to do that is to take a play from the Gipper and inspire. Don’t play on our fears; draw from our hopes.

Somehow I’m having visions of 2008 all over again. It looks like, just like in 2008, we will have our candidate chosen by the media. Once he has secured the nomination the media will turn on him fiercely and protect their candidate Barack Obama. While current polls show Romney as a serious contender for Obama this lasts only until the media make him their favorite whipping boy. I know the party apparatchiks who support candidates like Romney expect us in the libertarian/ conservative camp to hold our nose and support the centrist candidate. I know the alternative, if we take our toys and go home, is four more years of economic lunacy and Chicago style politics; however, I want to ask, when will the GOP centrists hold their nose to support our candidate? I’ve been around long enough to know the answer to this involves a cold day in a hot place.

In nine short months a fertilized egg becomes a fully formed human being. The transformation from single cell to sentient intelligent being is an amazing miracle to consider. Compound that complexity with the quickness of the process and awe is only natural. The mother feels her bond grow daily as her child develops; a father’s first experience of the child is at birth. Just as the bewildered father finds himself bewildered by miracle that has changed him from man to father and feels mixed emotions as he realizes the weight of his new responsibilities, a society can find itself overcome by the changes wrought in a few months by a misguided agenda.

The last few months of US history are a perfect example. We have seen changes in the land unforeseeable only a few years ago. I still remember the days when the media was bemoaning the destruction of the Democratic Party and declaring that the whole country had taken a sharp turn to the right. With the leadership of the American Triumvirate (Obama, Reid and Pelosi) we face a brave new world—not so brave, and if you listen to Solomon, not so new.

Over the last few months the following has come to pass under the leadership of the most left leaning president and Congress in history:
• American’s largest auto manufacturer is majority owned by the federal government.
• The President of the United States has removed the CEO of a major corporation.
• The financial industry is under the heavy hand of the fed.
• Major segments of society are being managed by Czars, not one of them elected.
• Veterans who served their country have been labeled potential terrorists.
• A government website has been established for reporting opposition.
• The government is poised to expand its control of our healthcare.
• War has been declared on the entire health insurance industry.
• Members of previous administrations are being criminalized for policy differences.
• Business is being attacked with higher mandatory wages and proposed new requirements.
• Our children’s wealth has been spent before the children have earned it.
• Government debt has risen to unprecedented levels.
• Art and education are being suborned to speak in support of the president and his policies.
• Our economy is being sacrificed to the new religion of Global Warming.

As if this isn’t enough, imagine what a few more months will bring. Already, in 2010 taxes will increase without any action by the Congress or President. This automatic tax increase will kick in when the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire. It will be spun by Obama and the boys as not being a tax cut, but if your taxes are one amount this year and nearly double next year what do you call it? It is a tax increase and it will be Obama, Reid and Pelosi’s baby.

Some used to be say, “One election doesn’t matter; how must damage could be done in four years?” If the last few months are an example every election counts because the damage done can be irrevocable. Mister Obama, “I’ll keep my current health coverage, my current income and my current freedoms; you can keep the change.”

Like many of the current proposals on healthcare, the Baucus plan forces all Americans to purchase health coverage. Your employer might provide it, but if not, you would be required by federal law to purchase it yourself. This means that choosing to be uninsured will no longer be an option—find a job that provides it or find a way to pay for it.

On the surface it sounds good that all American’s will have coverage and it would solve some of the problems of the industry, but at what ultimate cost? Several problems would arise out of this requirement.

First, let’s look at the enforcement nightmares. Like all laws, this one is only as effective as the ability to enforce it. No matter how good a law sounds on paper, or in sound bites, if it is unenforceable there is effectively no law. Many who support this requirement compare it to mandated auto insurance, but there are some glaring differences. For one, there is the issue of opting out. If I want to avoid buying auto insurance I can choose to not drive. I can shop and work close to home or live in a community with mass transit. Either way I have a choice if I don’t want to fork out the money for auto insurance. Another difference is the issue of enforcement. In states where auto coverage is mandatory you show your insurance when getting your car inspected or registered. You also display proof of coverage when pulled over for an infraction or, in some states, at random check points.

With health coverage you will not have random check points to check insurance cards—we hope. The only option would be to report violators at the point of service. The doctor, hospital and clinic will be responsible for this. So instead of taking care of your needs, medical personal are converted into agents of the state. One may argue that checking for and reporting insurance noncompliance would be in the interest of the doctor because by this they can ensure a higher percentage of patients paying their bill. Part of the cost of health care is the number of people who opt out of coverage and choose to use the emergency room as their family physician because they can’t be refused care for an emergency. Requiring everyone to get coverage would handle this and supposedly reduce costs. What this will actually do is discourage those without coverage from seeking medical care even for true emergencies. In many communities hospitals and doctors are forbidden to report alien status. This is to protect those who are here illegally. It is assumed that if seeking medical care will get one’s illegal status discovered would keep those who need care from seeking it, endangering people’s lives and health. This is being overlooked in the case of mandatory coverage. So it is alright for the liberals to tie the doctor’s hands when it comes to reporting alien status, but then the doctor will be required to report anyone, including those here legally for not having coverage. People without coverage will be less likely to see a doctor for treatment until the danger is high enough to offset the cost of discovery.

Another problem is the negative impact to employer provided coverage plans. Most people with coverage provided through their employer pay a portion of the cost with the remainder paid by the employer. If everyone is required to have coverage the employer is empowered to transfer more costs to the employee because they have no option but to purchase coverage. They can choose to pay more though the employer or pay much more directly to the insurance company selling the policy.

Neither will this requirement reduce costs to the consumer. It is true that mandated coverage will reduce medical costs impacted by care for the uninsured. Providers will no longer set charges assuming a certain number will not pay. For example, suppose Doctor Jones knows that providing x level of coverage to n number of patients with appropriate profit requires c dollars. If Doctor Jones knows that 10% will not pay then he either finds a way to operate on less or increases by 10% his charges for those who d pay to offset the non-payers. By lowering this pool of non-payers through mandated coverage it is hoped that this transfer will no longer be needed. This will of course reduce the price of care, but only to those paying the bill—the insurance company. This decrease may lower premiums, but don’t forget that all Americans will be captive customers of the insurance companies. If they want to see the doctor without fear of being reported they must pay for insurance. Does mandating insurance lower or increase premiums? When anything is mandated those who provide it are able to demand higher prices for it, because opting out is no longer an option.
Finally, the greatest threat from this mandate is what it will do over the long haul. As people get tired of being forced to pay for insurance and accept more government interference in their health choices, the calls for a public option will grow. If you can’t convince the American voter to accept plan A just pile on more requirements until plan A becomes attractive. Those in the middle, squeezed because they don’t qualify for a subsidy, but can’t afford the cost of the coverage they are forced to buy, will begin to clamor for the system that has been planned by the left all along—a one-payer system with government control over the medical industry. Don’t be fooled. This effort to mandate health coverage in place of a public option is just one step to forcing government control of the health industry down the throats of the American people.

He overlooks the fact that it is not his townhall meeting and it is not his congressional office. The office is the property of his constituents and townhalls are where he stands before the consituents to account for his actions and to seek their continued support. Hopefully his voters will get the hint and send him home next election. Such arrogance needs to be responded to.