Welcome to
Dale Ogden’s Blog on
www.dalefogden.net

DFOgden107x130.jpg (3267 bytes)

I want
Individual Freedom
Minimum Government
Minimum Taxes

Dale Ogden for Governor
of California 2010
www.dalefogden.org

“Small Government is Beautiful”

For more information, e-mail
info@dalefogden.org

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents...” --James Madison

“Any alleged ‘right’ of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of another, is not and cannot be a right.” — Ayn Rand

“Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition.” --Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, Query 19, “Manufactures” [1781]

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed, and hence clamorous to be led to safety, by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” – H.L. Mencken

“The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning, but without understanding.” — Judge Louis D. Brandeis

2/8/2010: Public-sector Unions Bleed Taxpayers to Help Dems by Michael Barone

Summary: "Private-sector unionism is adversarial... Public-sector unionism... is not adversarial but collusive... The results are plain to see. States like New York, New Jersey and California, where public-sector unions are strong, now face enormous budget deficits and pension liabilities. In such states, the public sector has become a parasite sucking the life out of the private-sector economy... Americans have been steadily migrating out of such states and into states like Texas, where public-sector unions are weak and taxes are much lower... Public-sector unionism tends to be a self-perpetuating machine that extracts money from taxpayers and then puts it on a conveyor belt to the Democratic Party..."

Growing up in Michigan in the heyday of the United Auto Workers, I long assumed that labor unions were part of the natural order of things.

That's no longer clear. Last month, the Labor Department reported that private-sector unions lost 834,000 members last year and now represent only 7.2 percent of private-sector employees. That's down from the all-time peak of 36 percent in 1953-54.

But union membership is still growing in the public sector. Last year, 37.4 percent of public sector employees were union members. That percentage was down near zero in the 1950s. For the first time in history, a majority of union members are government employees.

In my view, the outlook for both private- and public-sector unionism is problematic.

Private-sector unionism is adversarial. Economic studies show that such unions do extract premium wages and benefits from employers. But that puts employers at a competitive disadvantage. Back in the 1950s, the Big Three auto companies dominated the industry and were at the top of the Fortune 500. Last year, General Motors and Chrysler went bankrupt and are now owned by the government and the UAW. Ford only barely escaped.

Adversarial unionism tends to produce rigid work rules that retard adaptation and innovation. We have had a three-decade experiment pitting UAW work rules against the flexible management of Japanese- and European-owned non-union auto firms.

The results are in. Yes, clueless management at the Detroit firms for years ignored problems with product quality and made bonehead investment mistakes. But adversarial unionism made it much, much harder for Detroit to produce high-quality vehicles than it was for non-unionized companies.

As economist Barry Hirsch points out, non-union manufacturing employment rose from 12 million to 14 million between 1973 and 2006. In those years, union manufacturing employment dropped from 8 million to 2 million. "Unionism," Hirsch writes, "is a poor fit in a dynamic, competitive economy."

Moreover, federal laws passed since the 1950s now protect workers from racial and sex discrimination, safety hazards and pension failure. They don't need unions to do this any more.

Public-sector unionism is a very different animal from private-sector unionism. It is not adversarial but collusive. Public-sector unions strive to elect their management, which in turn can extract money from taxpayers to increase wages and benefits -- and can promise pensions that future taxpayers will have to fund.

The results are plain to see. States like New York, New Jersey and California, where public-sector unions are strong, now face enormous budget deficits and pension liabilities. In such states, the public sector has become a parasite sucking the life out of the private-sector economy. Not surprisingly, Americans have been steadily migrating out of such states and into states like Texas, where public-sector unions are weak and taxes are much lower.

Barack Obama is probably the most union-friendly president since Lyndon Johnson. He has obviously been unable to stop the decline of private-sector unionism. But he is doing his best to increase the power -- and dues income -- of public-sector unions.

One-third of last year's $787 billion stimulus package was aid to state and local governments -- an obvious attempt to bolster public-sector unions. And it was a successful one: While the private sector has lost 7 million jobs, the number of public-sector jobs has risen. The number of federal government jobs has been increasing by 10,000 a month, and the percentage of federal employees earning over $100,000 has jumped to 19 percent during the recession.

Obama and his party are acting in collusion with unions that contributed something like $400,000,000 to Democrats in the 2008 campaign cycle. Public-sector unionism tends to be a self-perpetuating machine that extracts money from taxpayers and then puts it on a conveyor belt to the Democratic Party.

But it may not turn out to be a perpetual-motion machine. Public-sector employees are still heavily outnumbered by those who depend on the private sector for their livelihoods. The next Congress may not be as willing as this one has been to bail out state governments dominated by public-sector unions. Voters may bridle at the higher taxes needed to pay for $100,000-plus pensions for public employees who retire in their 50s. Or they may move, as so many have already done, to states like Texas.

Obama's Democrats have used the financial crisis to expand the public sector and the public-sector unions. But voters seem to be saying, "Enough."

2/8/2010: The Last of the Big Spenders - D.C. Current - J. McTague

NO WONDER THE TEA-PARTY CROWD is boiling: Congress, like King Louis XIV, is so insulated from the world at large that, despite sympathetic mouthing and multi-billion-dollar stimulus bills, it has spent freely on itself throughout the recession.

While most Americans have been making tough choices in their daily lives, Congress has been spending on itself and its institutions as though nothing ever happened. In fiscal 2007 though 2009, when businesses were slashing overhead and laying off hundreds of thousands of workers each month to stay afloat; when households were penny-pinching to keep food in their freezers; when charities were being overwhelmed by pleas for bread and shelter, the legislative branch raised outlays for itself by nearly 10%, to $4.7 billion.

This covers salaries, basic office expenses, trips to the gym for lawmakers and their staffs, maintenance, security of buildings and grounds, and the operations of the Library of Congress, Government Accountability Office and Government Printing Office.

The estimate for fiscal 2010, which ends Sept. 30, is $5.5 billion -- up more than 15% in a single year. In short, Congress has operated as though the recession was meant for me and you, not them.

President Obama's proposed fiscal 2011 budget, in a largely symbolic gesture just in time for the midterm election season, suggests the House pare its salaries and expenses by 5%, to $1.4 billion. The Senate would enjoy an increase in salaries and expenses of roughly 3%, to $191 million.

How dramatically out of character it would be for the House to comply or the Senate to voluntarily reduce its own budget. The members mostly behave like the colleague of the fictional Sen. Jack S. Phogbound of Dogpatch who, in a 1947 Li'l Abner comic strip, caved in to the backwoods legislators' demand for a $2 million earmark to build Phogbound University in exchange for a key vote -- one to keep congressional proceedings from being broadcast on the radio.

Phogbound's colleague reasoned, "It isn't as though it were my money -- it's just the taxpayers' money."

Even if Congress were to scramble aboard the austerity bandwagon, it's probably too late to avoid being flayed by the tea-flinging rabble-rousers. According to the Progressive Policy Institute -- a nonpartisan think tank trying to puzzle out what it calls "a third way beyond the liberal impulse to defend the bureaucratic status quo and the conservative bid to simply dismantle government" -- the unemployment rate will climb to around 10.5% by the third quarter of this year and remain in the high 9% range in November, when Americans head to the polls.

The forecast allows for the continued impact of the last year's $787 billion stimulus. But the folks at PPI think the stimulus was designed poorly, as evidenced by the relatively scant 600,000 jobs it has saved or created so far. According to my solar-powered calculator, that's $655,000 per job. Better, says the PPI, to have given direct aid to the states, which now must slash workers to balance their budgets, worsening the employment outlook. The president, aware that the initial dose of stimulus proved a dud, is proposing a $100 billion booster shot. Economist Robert Gordon of Northwestern University, speaking last week at a PPI news conference on the employment outlook, estimated that the government would have to spend at least $150 billion to curb rising joblessness.

PPI's pessimistic view is that we will be lucky to be down to 8% unemployment by 2011.

HIGHER TAXES, REQUIRED TO pay down our debt, will be a further drag on the economy and private-sector job creation in the years ahead. One would hope, then, that President Obama would rouse his inner Ronald Reagan and attempt to shrink the federal government. He easily could save us billions of dollars each year if, in addition to promoting thrift in the House, he were to eliminate one or two executive-branch departments. Instead, he has roused his inner Al Gore, who spearheaded the drive to "reinvent government."

Obama says in his budget that he plans to deliver high-performance government, but the document tolerates many wasteful redundancies. For instance, three separate departments are spending hundreds of millions each to promote renewable energy programs: the Department of Energy and the Agriculture and Interior departments.

Interior and Agriculture are expending millions of dollars each on water-conservation and water-quality programs. Agriculture is spending billions on food programs, and the Commerce Department is spending millions on fish management. I'm not claiming to be an efficiency expert, but wouldn't it make sense to fold the Interior Department into the Agriculture Department and give Agriculture authority for the fishing industry?

2/3/2010: I finally figured out the correct term for Obama:

“Ventriloquist Dummy-in-Chief.”

Just like any other dummy, Obama can’t speak without a ventriloquist; they use a euphemism and call them “teleprompters.”

2/3/2010: Incentive to pay the “voluntary” income tax?

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) intends to purchase sixty Remington Model 870 Police RAMAC #24587 12 gauge pump-action shotguns for the Criminal Investigation Division. The Remington parkerized shotguns, with fourteen inch barrel, modified choke, Wilson Combat Ghost Ring rear sight and XS4 Contour Bead front sight, Knoxx Reduced Recoil Adjustable Stock, and Speedfeed ribbed black forend, are designated as the only shotguns authorized for IRS duty based on compatibility with IRS existing shotgun inventory, certified armorer and combat training and protocol, maintenance, and parts.

2/3/2010: SEIU Fat Cats Behind First Lady’s Anti-Obesity Campaign
by Michelle Malkin

Behind every seemingly good deed in the Obama White House, there’s a deep-pocketed, left-wing special interest. Take first lady Michelle Obama’s crusade against childhood obesity. Who really benefits from the ostensible push for improved nutrition in the schools? Think purple -- as in the purple-shirted army of the Service Employees International Union. Big Labor bigwigs don’t care about slimming your kids’ waistlines. They care about beefing up their membership rolls and fattening their coffers.

Mrs. Obama earned a State of the Union address shout-out from her hubby for taking on the weighty public policy issue of students’ physical fitness. The East Wing is now in full campaign mode -- leaning on the nation’s mayors, traveling with the surgeon general and meeting with Congress and cabinet members to reauthorize the Lyndon Johnson-era Child Nutrition Act, which provides government-subsidized meals to more than 30 million children. It’s part of the Obama administration’s self-proclaimed “cradle-to-career” agenda for America’s youth.

For decades, school administrators have criticized this Great Society relic for outgrowing its initial conception. The program was originally created to use up post-World War II food surpluses. In the late 1970s, New York principal Lewis Lyman skewered it as a federal “boondoggle” in a seminal essay for the education journal Phi Delta Kappan. But Democrats demagogued the GOP’s responsible attempts at financial reform during the Clinton years as “starving the children.” While spending on youth nutrition and wellness have ballooned, so have the kids. Nearly one-third of U.S. children are now overweight or obese. The feds spend $15 billion a year on nutrition in schools; the White House wants at least a $1 billion increase this coming fiscal year.

The well-intended program to feed poor kids has morphed into an untouchable universal entitlement with a powerful school-lunch lobbying coalition of Department of Agriculture bureaucrats, food-service industry executives and union bosses. Enter the SEIU. Headed by the White House’s most frequent visitor, Andy Stern, the powerful labor organization representing government and private service employees has an insatiable appetite for power and growth. Working alongside the first lady, the SEIU unveiled a major ad campaign this week demanding reauthorizing and funding increases in the Child Nutrition Act.

What’s in it for Big Labor? SEIU Executive Vice President Mitch Ackerman explains: “A more robust expansion of school lunch, breakfast, summer feeding, child care and WIC (the federal Women, Infants and Children nutrition program) is critical to reducing hunger, ending childhood obesity and providing fair wages and healthcare for front line food service workers(emphasis added).”

There are 400,000 workers who prepare and serve lunch to American schoolchildren. SEIU represents tens of thousands of those workers and is trying to unionize many more. “More robust expansion” of the federal school-lunch law means a mandate for higher wages, increased benefits and government-guaranteed health insurance coverage (the more luxurious the better now that SEIU has negotiated its Cadillac Tax exemption from the Democrats’ health care takeover bill).

The SEIU’s front group, “Campaign for Quality Services,” is clamoring for “the right to sick days and training” for school food-services workers. Never ones to let a crisis go unexploited, SEIU sent its members to lobby in front of Chicago public schools last year and scare parents into supporting their labor agenda. They accused the school system of “putting our kids at risk” during flu season by resisting the SEIU’s sick day coverage demands. “Without sick days, I can’t take a day off, so I have to bring germs to school,” an SEIU janitor lamented.

Along the same lines, they are casting food-services workers as indispensable saviors. The union has rallied behind P.R. efforts casting them as superheroes “serving justice, and serving lunch.” Opposing the union means opposing children’s health. SEIU propaganda features New Jersey school cafeteria workers like Leslie Williams of Orange, N.J., lamenting: “I love my work, but it’s getting harder to prepare nutritious meals on the low budget we’re working with. … It breaks my heart to see a child who’s hungry. As I see it, part of my job is to make sure the kids are well-fed.”

Actually, that’s the primary job of parents. Mom? Dad? Remember them? But the more responsibility we demand of parents, the less power and influence SEIU bosses are able to grab. Unionized school dietician and nutrition jobs are booming. And in addition to school breakfast and lunch, the SEIU is now pushing subsidized dinner plans and summer food service to create a “stronger nutrition safety net.” Translation: Perpetual employment for big government and its public employee union au pairs.

Cede the children, feed the state.

2/3/2010: Global Warming Update by Walter E. Williams

John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel, in an hour-long television documentary titled “Global Warming: The Other Side,” presents evidence that our National Climatic Data Center has been manipulating weather data just as the now disgraced and under investigation British University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit. The NCDC is a division of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Its manipulated climate data is used by the Goddard Institute of Space Studies, which is a division of the National Aeronautical and Space Administration. John Coleman’s blockbuster five-part series can be seen here.

The Coleman documentary presents research by computer expert E. Michael Smith and Certified Consulting Meteorologist Joseph D’Aleo. During the 1960s and into the 1980s, the number of stations used for calculating global surface temperatures was about 6,000. By 1990, the number of stations dropped rapidly to about 1,500. Most of the stations lost were in the colder regions of the Earth. Not adjusting for their lost made temperatures appear to be higher than was in fact the case. According to Science & Environmental Policy Project, Russia reported that CRU was ignoring data from colder regions of Russia, even though these stations were still reporting data. That means data loss was not simply the result of station closings but deliberate decisions by CRU to ignore them in order to hype their global warming claims. D’Aleo and Smith report that our NCDC engaged in similar deceptive activity where they have dropped stations, particularly in colder climates, higher elevations or closer to the polar regions. Temperatures are now simply projected for these colder stations from other stations, usually in warmer climates.

Mounting evidence of scientific fraud might make little difference in terms of the response to manmade global warming hysteria. Why? Vested economic and political interests have emerged where trillions of dollars and social control are at stake. Therefore, many people who recognize the scientific fraud underlying global warming claims are likely to defend it anyway. Automobile companies have invested billions in research and investment in producing “green cars.” General Electric and Phillips have spent millions lobbying Congress to outlaw incandescent bulbs so that they can force us to buy costly compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFL). Farmers and ethanol manufacturers have gotten Congress to enact laws mandating greater use of their product, not to mention massive subsidies. Thousands of major corporations around the world have taken steps to reduce carbon emissions including giants like IBM, Nike, Coca-Cola and BP, the oil giant. Companies like Google, Yahoo and Dell have vowed to become “carbon neutral.”

Then there’s Chicago Climate Futures Exchange that plans to trade in billions of dollars of greenhouse gas emission allowances. Corporate America and labor unions, as well as their international counterparts have a huge multi-trillion dollar financial stake in the perpetuation of the global warming fraud. Federal, state and local agencies have spent billions of dollars and created millions of jobs to deal with one aspect or another of global warming.

It’s deeper than just money. Schoolteachers have created polar-bear-dying lectures to frighten and indoctrinate our children when in fact there are more polar bears now than in 1950. They’ve taught children about melting glaciers. Just recently, the International Panel on Climate Change was forced to admit that their Himalayan glacier-melting fraud was done to “impact policy makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.”

What would all the beneficiaries of the global warming hype do if it becomes widely known and accepted that mankind’s activities have very little to do with the Earth’s temperature? I don’t know but a lot of people would feel and look like idiots. But I bet that even if the permafrost returned as far south as New Jersey, as it once did, the warmers and their congressional stooges would still call for measures to fight global warming.

2/2/2010: Deep Thoughts on Coexistence by Mike Adams

I’m having difficulty understanding why the last two parking spaces in the parking lot in front of the Cameron School of Business were taken up by a single car this morning. It’s even more perplexing that the car is a Prius. If you can’t fit a Prius into one space, should you really be driving at all?

I understand why people buy the Prius. It’s because they want to preserve Mother Earth for future generations. You don’t want to hog up everything for yourself. So, why can’t you fit that little car into one parking space? Isn’t single parking a better way to make sure you aren’t hogging up more scarce resources than you should?

And what about that bumper sticker that says “Coexist” on the back of the Prius that is currently double parked in front of the business school? How can we coexist if you can’t keep your Prius in a single parking space?

I have a bumper sticker that says “Protected by Glock” on my Honda. Am I more or less likely to be car jacked than the guy who has a “Coexist” bumper sticker?

Is there really any better way to coexist than having a concealed weapons permit? Don’t these permits have a better track record of preventing crimes than the United Nations does in regard to preventing wars?

Recently, one of my students asked his professor whether the United Nations could have prevented World War II if it had been established prior to 1945. She got mad and refused to answer his question. How can we coexist when our progressive professors refuse to answer questions calmly and without anger?

Woodrow Wilson was a progressive. He also went into World War I thinking it would be the war to end all wars. How is that working out so far?

Why did Woodrow Wilson undo years of Republican progress on race by re-segregating the civil service? Did he think we could all get along better if blacks and whites were segregated? Did he think that was best because blacks are intellectually inferior to whites?

If Woodrow Wilson were alive today would he drive a Prius with a “Coexist” bumper sticker? Would he double park his Prius in front of the United Nations building in Manhattan?

Why is the guy who sports a “Coexist” bumper sticker always the same guy who wants to ban a nativity scene from the public square?

Do you mind if I put a “Honk if I’m paying your mortgage” bumper sticker next to your “Coexist” bumper sticker? How about a “Keep honking, I’m reloading” sticker? Could my bumper stickers coexist with your bumper stickers?

How can we coexist if you keep trying to force me to buy into a government health insurance plan I do not want? Why do you insist that I say “yes” when I keep saying “no”?

Would the world be a better place if rape victims would just say “yes”? Would it help them “coexist” with rapists?

Aren’t rapists, like all other criminals, just victims of society? Don’t they deserve treatment in a single payer system just like the victim of rape?

A Muslim-American called my office screaming one day because he thought I called the prophet Mohammad a “queer.” But I didn’t call Mohammad a “queer.” I probably called him a pedophile. Regardless, how can we coexist if you think you have a right to live in this country but have no corresponding duty to learn English?

The angry Muslim started to use threatening language when he called me on the phone. I told him that if he came after me I would let him choose the weapon I would use to protect myself. I asked whether he would prefer a .44 magnum or a .45 ACP. He hung up and never called back. That day, my Smith and my Springfield helped make the world a better place. You could say they helped promote coexistence.

Isn’t a woman who drives a Prius more likely to get an abortion than a woman who drives an SUV? Why can’t the feminist coexist with the fetus? What is all this “my body, my choice” nonsense?

My neighbor is opposed to the Second Amendment. He used to have an “Obama” sign in his yard. Now he has a “Coexist” sticker on his car. I plan to put one of those signs in my yard that says “My neighbor wants to ban all guns. His house is unarmed. Out of respect for his views I promise not to protect him” with a big arrow pointing to his house.

I think people with “coexist” bumper stickers are probably the people Muslims would most like to kill – because of their views on gay rights and abortion. So, maybe they should take the Muslim portion off their “Coexist” stickers.

Maybe “O-exist” is the best kind of sticker for today’s progressives. Doesn’t it make sense given the name of their true Messiah?

2/1/2010: Obama Lied: Welcome to the ‘Lawyer Economy’

If You Need Legal Advice, You Need a Good Lawyer. If You Want to Run an Economy and Create Jobs, Run away from them!

By Wayne Allyn Root, 2008 Libertarian Vice Presidential Nominee

You know what they say about lawyers…their greatest talent is their ability to quote their fees without smiling. Well after watching Obama’s State of the Union speech last week, you can add a new talent to the list: Obama should win an Academy Award for the role of a lawyer lying about the true “state of the union.”

Obama said that his stimulus added 2 million jobs. Really? Where? In some alternate universe? Certainly not in America. We’ve actually lost several million jobs since Obama passed his stimulus plan. There is no hard evidence that any private sector jobs were created. Just another lawyer lie.

Obama said that he was freezing discretionary income to reduce the deficit. Really? So with Obama’s version of math, saving a few billion dollars will cut a $1.6 trillion deficit? Just another lawyer lie.

To further prove my point, only one week after stressing deficit reduction in his State of the Union address, Obama released the biggest budget in U.S. history ($3.8 trillion)- complete with the biggest deficit in U.S. history ($1.6 trillion). Give Obama credit- when he lies, he really lies big!

Obama talked about creating jobs. But the problem is that government doesn’t create jobs. Government spending and record deficits takes money away from the private sector- thereby killing job growth. Obama’s proposed tax increases are in actuality what is stopping business from adding jobs. Just another lawyer lie.

Obama talked about helping small business by making it easier for banks to offer loans. Ask any small business owner- they will tell you that access to bank loans is the smallest piece of the puzzle. Obviously Obama is trying to help small business, without ever actually speaking to a small business owner. Ironically, it is Obama’s universal health care, tax and spend, cap and trade, card check, and expansion of government that are standing in the way of a small business recovery. With friends like Obama, who needs enemies? Just another lawyer lie.

Obama said that any student that takes out student loans and goes to work for government, should have their student loan forgiven. Only in Obama’s radical socialist world does that make sense. Mr. Obama forgot to mention that there are already almost 20 MILLION government employees on the federal, state and local level. And that it is their bloated, obscene salaries, pensions and free health care that is bankrupting America. He forgot to mention that each new government employee adds to our deficit. States have no idea how to pay for their current government employees. Why on earth would anyone want to encourage the hiring of more? Obama is trying to obscure the difference between jobs that cost taxpayers nothing (private sector jobs)…versus jobs that cost taxpayers money and lead to higher taxes and record deficits (government jobs).

Obama said that the recession is over. Well maybe it’s over for Obama’s biggest campaign contributors (who are living on stimulus and bailouts)…but it’s certainly not over on Main Street. We are far from out of this economic Armageddon. And by the way Mr. Obama…it’s not a recession. It’s a depression. Just another lawyer lie.

Obama is living proof of that famous saying…You know what the difference is between a lawyer and a liar? The pronunciation.

Now don’t get me wrong. I like some lawyers. I count lawyers among my best friends. My sister is an attorney. My daughter Dakota intends to get a law degree (which I encourage). My personal attorney is my most trusted advisor. When any of us needs an attorney, we want a good one. But let’s be honest- lawyers are paid to twist the truth around to the point where you no longer recognize it. That’s their job. Creating jobs, running businesses, running an economy- those are all far afield of their areas of expertise.

That explains our problem- our country is being run by lawyers who know nothing about how to run an economy; nothing about how to run a business; nothing about how to motivate small business; nothing about how to create a job; and who now longer recognize the truth.

Wayne Allyn Root was the 2008 Libertarian Vice Presidential candidate.

His new book - The Conscience of a Libertarian: Empowering the Citizen Revolution with God, Guns, Gambling & Tax Cuts talks about his hopes to make America far more Libertarian.

For more Wayne visit his web site at: ROOTforAmerica.com