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

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 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 |
|
Read Blogs from Prior Months |
Other Information about Dale F. Ogden
Dale F. Ogden for Governor
of
California 2010
www.dalefogden.org
Dale F. Ogden & Associates
Actuaries
& Management Consultants
www.usactuary.com
Dale F. Ogden, Libertarian, for
California Insurance
Commissioner, 2006
Dale F. Ogden, Libertarian, for
California State Senate, 2004
Dale F. Ogden, Libertarian, for
California Insurance Commissioner,
2002
Dale F. Ogden, Libertarian, for
California State Assembly,
2000
Dale F. Ogden, Libertarian, for
California Insurance
Commissioner, 1998