Skip to content

Montana Small Businesses Need Farmer John Gone!

In an election where we may need to hold our noses while we vote, it is important to keep in mind that elections at the federal level have big-picture effects on our lives. Senators will vote for (or in our case, write) legislation that will effect the national economy as well as small businesses,  widely recognized to be the engine of both our state and local economies. John Tester voted for Obamacare in a Senate vote where the leadership considered “deeming” the legislation through to passage! Republicans were told to “ride in the back,” so that, instead of taking the opportunity to pass major bi-partisan legislation that would have incorporated ideas from both parties, concepts that we could then roll out on a regional basis to see which ideas worked best, a strategy commonly used by large corporations, we are now presented with healthcare legislation containing NO bi-partisan ideas that puts a 15 person, unelected panel in charge of approving healthcare decisions.

This legislation has forced the expenditure of far more time and money than the $16,000 Denny Rehberg (RMont) is supposedly personally responsible for costing the city of Billings in his lawsuit, though while it may have been ill-advised, has not resulted in the virtual stagnation of an entire economy as, nationwide, corporations hold onto earnings while trying to decide how to pay for the healthcare boondoggle, in a time when 25 million people are looking for jobs and the American people owe $16 Trillion in debt. And somehow John Tester thought this would be “Good for Montanans?”

Politicians, and especially our farmer, Sen. John Tester, have seen the writing on the wall: if you support “entrepreneurship” or “sustainability” and involve our educational establishments in efforts called “incubators,” you can get the support of those in the business community who believe that the education/small business constituency is the primary source of small business development in our state, and although there are benefits to business incubation and the involvement of institutions of higher education, they are not the be-all and end-all of business in Montana. A far better indicator of the health of small business and small business development in Montana is the National Federation of Independent Business which has come down strongly in congressman Rehberg’s corner with an unqualified endorsement.

I contacted Senator Testor five times begging him to vote against what I saw as a major impediment to the economic growth our small businesses depend on, the highly partisan Obamacare legislation. I got letters in reply saying that Sen. Tester was sure this legislation would benefit me economically, and would I like to attend one of his small business seminars? Well, thanks, Sen. Tester, but small business seminars are not high on my list of priorities when our economy is tanking.

Please support small businesses in Montana; we need it; we’ve been hanging on for four very long years and we look at this Senate race and think: this isn’t about the Billings Fire Dept., this is about our survival! I can predict that there are many small businesses like ours which will not survive if our economy continues to limp along. We should repeal and replace this healthcare legislation with some truly entrepreneurial, bi-partisan ideas. John Tester stands as an obstacle to accomplishing that.

Sincerely,
Linlee Nelson, Entrepreneur
Missoula, MT

Advertisements

Endangered Seals

If you need something to get mad about, watch this movie.

The Park at the Convention

The pundits have found their catchphrase for the convention.  “Hit it out of the “park,” don’t hit it out of the “park,” I don’t really care; just stick to your conservative principles (i.e., Reagan) and success will follow.  In the early 1980s, with an economy in as much trouble as we find ourselves in now,  Jack Kemp brought a message to a Democrat controlled House: ‘We need to tax our people less than 30% of their income whether they earn $1,000,000 or $40,000.’  Now, tell me, Mr. & Mrs. Liberal America, how much should a person, regardless of their income, pay in taxes to the Federal Government, State Government, Local Government and all other taxes combined as a percentage of their income?  30%, 50%, 75%?  Are you really going to argue that those who are wealthy should pay upwards of 80% of their income in taxes?  Really?  It’s a losing argument, and here’s why.

The people who founded this country had come from a monarchy where their earnings were not their own, a place that, truly, protected the rich.  Our forefathers founded America on the principle of private property and justice for all.  That doesn’t mean justice only for those who are poor, it also means that those who prosper get to keep what they make.  It’s called “incentive,”  and those who believe the tripe that the supposed 99% use to support their position that Republicans care only about the rich and will balance the budget on the backs of the “poor,” are wrong, plain and simple.  Conservative economic philosophy is the only economic model that allows those with no money a chance to earn some by either working for someone who is “rich” or becoming “rich” themselves, or both.  When Jack Kemp succeeded, in a bi-partisan way (which, by the way, is how true leaders operate), in passing the Kemp-Roth tax cuts, the economy boomed…yes, you heard that right, it BOOMED!

Our economy boomed in the early 1980′s because the Conservative economic philosophy (also known as the dreaded “Trickle-Down” economics, which is a misnomer, but that’s a subject for another blog) is one that “raises all boats.”  It’s not just a slogan, it’s real.  It took place!   History supports the FACT that when you don’t penalize wealth creation, everyone who participates in the economy creates wealth; everyone, not just the supposed 1%.  The poor get less poor, the middle class thrives, and, yes, the rich get richer, and praise be to God for that.

It is a sad day in America when we hear that if Barack Obama is re-elected, small businesses will close, in droves.  After much consideration and thought, my husband of almost 20 years and I who have run a business for almost that long have decided that we too will close our doors if the Progressive agenda wins the day this November.  Our business closing won’t rock the world; however, it will rock our world.  If businesses close like I think they will, “in droves,” it might rock the world a little.  It might just make a dent in the hard-headed progressive agenda because without our many small businesses who find no incentive in this Progressive economy, the Progressives won’t be able to distribute our wealth to the 99% any more.  What will happen if we all become the 99%, where will the money come from then?  Jack Kemp knew and so did Reagan.

These great men who held Conservative principles knew that they didn’t have to hit it out of the “park,” they simply needed to convince America that Conservative economic principles apply to the 100%, and THAT is the park I want to play in!

The Tea Party’s Party


The “Tea Baggers” as Bob Bechel lovingly refers to the now infamous Tea Party, are made up of those who want our country to return to a constitutional republic.  And yes, we need to return to it because we have moved far afield and in order to be limber, react well to challenges, and maintain our entrepreneurial spirit, a Republic that limits the power of a central government will encourage these desired behaviors.  There are some who argue that Democracy is better than our current form of government, but they’re wrong.  Madison particularly mentioned Democracy and its devolution into chaos.  So, we the people enumerate powers that the Federal Government may use for such important tasks as protection of our borders, etc.  Who wants the Federal Government to be all powerful?  Who?  Do you really want our Feds to run the show?  Why?

And why is Bechel threatened by the Tea Party so much that he resorts to name-calling?  Perhaps he is annoyed by the individuals who lack political experience and have rankled the political elite who think these rubes need to return to their small businesses and leave government to those who know better?  (that’s a horrifying thought) Maybe he thinks the Tea Party is out to get him?  More than likely, however, is that Bob Bechel is threatened by the Tea Party because they are, in essence, conservatives who have recently awoken from a very long sleep and will now exert enough power to end the stranglehold Mr. Bechel’s compatriots have had on our political institutions for the last 4 years.  He should be grateful.  His party took a sharp left turn, a turn that, I believe will lead to the devastation not only of his party, but of our nation and its world leadership in so many areas.

Enter Pat Cadell and Doug Schoen.  Yes, I know what you think, Bob, they are just conservatives in democrat clothing; but these guys are not conservatives!  They are supporters of government sponsored education, government welfare programs (with the work requirement), and have said, clearly, that the Alinsky model is not an acceptable political model in their political opinions.  They do not want the “system” destroyed, and have not embraced the politics of personal destruction so prevalent in the Alinsky model.  Deception is the name of Alinsky’s game, and his disciples play hardball.  David Horowitz, a once communist leader of the Left, gives some advice in his recent publication about the Alinsky model, “Be ready to fight against deception and lies.”   The problem, he continues, is that conservatives believe in our system of government and the Alinskyites do not.  They don’t fight in the world of ideas, they fight to destroy.  This doesn’t sound like any of the liberals I know, the main one being my father.  The battle of ideas has always been first and foremost and though we may disagree about socialized medicine, we do find points of agreement about society and what the government can and can’t do well.

The Tea “Baggers,” Mr. Bechel, are participating in the world of ideas.  We are not seeking to destroy our system and, though there are those who break from the truth, we live in the world of what we at least perceive as the world of ideas, truth, solutions, and, most of all, freedom.  We don’t believe that a strong country taxes those who prosper prohibitively, and, at least in this case, taxing the rich is a straw man argument.  You couldn’t tax the rich ENOUGH to dig your way out of the hole we as a country have dug for ourselves, so let’s talk about IDEAS and SOLUTIONS.  And that, my friends (and Mr. Big Mouth) is what the Tea Party is all about.  We want our economy back, we’re not willing to settle for socialism’s idea of an economy, and we believe in rugged individualism; yep, work hard and save your money.  I don’t know what Liberals are thinking, that Obama is some kind of middle of the road Democrat, but if you’re thinking that, you haven’t been paying attention.

It’s Not Fair! (Revised)

Fairness in Webster’s Dictionary is defined as follows: “free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice: a fair decision; a fair judge.” Now this is only the first definition, but since anybody’s definition of “fair” is subjective (an important point in this essay), we have to establish some basis to counter the nuance in President Obama’s claim that “everyone deserves a fair shake.” That shake, I assume, means “chance in life,” right? So, we should, as citizens of the U.S. of A., have a chance in life free from bias, dishonesty & injustice.  Sounds pretty good.  Who would argue that we should be subject to bias, dishonesty and injustice in our “chance at live?”  I see nothing, zip, nada, to support the argument that an American’s “chance in life” is free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice, well, except when they wake up in the morning, of course!

Everything we do is subject to bias, dishonesty and injustice!  We do our best to live our lives without becoming victims of bias, dishonesty and injustice (BDI), and our court system can provide some relief from BDI based on laws already in effect.  But our President is not suggesting that we find BDI in a courtroom with current law.  No, he is suggesting that the federal government step into your life and change it, for the better, of course.  So, with the flourish of a pen (or printers grinding out thousands of pages of new laws, regulations, and mark-ups…did I mention regulations?), our government is now ready make your life better!   There are good arguments to be made that regulations in sectors of our economy are good for society.  To defend regulatory mayhem and thousands of pages of rules by claiming that it will enhance “fairness,” is not a good argument.

BDI are generally civil matters and are addressed in our courts with tort law. Does it seem sometimes that the tighter the laws, the harder it is to ensure fairness by convicting and punishing those who are dishonest? Our judicial system is pretty mucked up and President Obama has done literally nothing to look at tort reform and other legal reforms that would support “fairness” in our courts.  Being a lawyer himself, one could expect that he would support the interests of lawyers, in this case represented by the Trial Lawyers Association. The TLA has always donated heavily to the Democrat party and they have successfully prevented tort reforms that would help us to ensure “fairness.”  Doesn’t seem fair, does it?

An interesting example of how tort reform might help to ensure a “fair shake” came up yesterday when a long-time customer came into my shop and told me she was being sued. She has a pub, so naturally I assumed it was due to a drunk driving complaint, but she said, “Oh no, that’s what you would think, but it’s far more benign than that.” She went on to explain that last winter an older gal had accidentally pressed the gas pedal instead of the brake and rammed through the front of her building where the hair salon is located. It was a terrible accident and did incredible damage to her salon, but no one was hurt, and the little old lady’s insurance paid for the repairs. At the time, no one went to the hospital, no injuries were reported, so after the repairs were done, she thought that was the end of it. Not so. A lady who had been in the salon tried to sue the lady who had driven through the front, but because the old gal had no money, the lady decided to sue my friend claiming that she did not provide a safety barrier between the parking lot and the salon. This gal is now claiming that she was injured and that she deserves $100,000 for her pain and suffering. My friend had to leave the lawyers office lest she be sick when the insurance company started negotiating a settlement. As much as she would like to have gone to court to fight the gal, who was not really injured, she will never get the chance. The economics of our system of law make it easier for the insurance company to settle with the uninjured injured party. These types of frivolous lawsuits are reflected in the insurance rates we all pay, but she will get her money, precedent will be set, and others will sue in similar circumstances.  Is this what President Obama is talking about when he talks about “fairness?” I doubt it, because frivolous lawsuits are, in fact, patently unfair to us all!

We tie “justice” to “fairness” closely because in the case of both civil and criminal life, fairness is adjudicated in the courts, in the mediation sessions, and in arbitration cases across this land. Because “fairness” is subjective, we ask a jury of our peers to weigh the arguments.  My question is how, with our cumbersome system of law with all its inadequacies, President Obama’s current solution to the “unfairness of it all” is going to bring justice to our citizenry?  I think, first, that there should be an injustice before we start trying to correct one.  Is it unjust when a CEO is payed 10 Million dollars and a Janitor in his building is paid $20 an hour?  Sorry, I don’t see how those two things are related.  If you would please bring your arguments to this blog site and tell me how you think this is a source of injustice in our society, I am ready to listen.  I have no idea if the CEO’s salary is equitable, I don’t know anything about the circumstances, and, frankly, neither do you.  CEO salaries are dependent upon the demand for proven CEO’s in a very small market that has strict criterion and for whom the market makes its own judgments, not taking into consideration, I am sure, that a Janitor in the building is making $20/hour.  What does that have to do with anything!  What does what I get paid have to do with what you get paid?!  I am fairly certain that I could find an injustice here if I yelled loud enough!!  In fact, what I feel like yelling about the most is the issuance of exceptions to the Affordable Care Act!!  How are exceptions to a law “fair?!”

So, when you hear the word, “fairness,” beware!  Fairness is subjective.  My Economics professor at Purdue once asked us to define fairness.  What a jumble of mucked up answers we gave!  That’s because “fair” is not easily wrangled into a standard box and applied to our general population.  I think what the President should be saying is that we all need “opportunity,” which is a whole different idea.  If you substitute “opportunity” for “fairness,” you get a better argument and one that does not support raising taxes on the rich and calling for class warfare in order to support our safety net.  In fact, it does exactly the opposite.

The “rich” create opportunity when they invest in their own ventures instead of sending money to our least efficient institution, the federal government.  Taxing the rich necessarily “taxes” the poor.  When the rich don’t spend money, the poor suffer.  Therefore, the argument that opportunity is squashed by high taxation on higher income brackets is valid.  President Kennedy knew it, so did Ronald Reagan.  But President Obama is not interested in “fairness,” (please explain how exemptions from Obamacare are “fair”), he is interested in increasing the size of government and thereby consolidating power in the hands of those he agrees with.  He believes without a doubt the social democrat thesis that the workers are depressed by the system and should be shouldered by the government.  I don’t give a darn about his political leanings and people like him never have an “end” in mind (ask them, they don’t), but I do care about our economy because it’s killing us.

So get a grip on Economics 101 and QUESTION what your vaunted leaders are selling you.  It’s not about “fairness,” it’s about opportunity and creating and environment in which businesses will continue to employ people and bring new ideas to market.  The former is one of my pet peeves regarding this administration.  Obama sounded so good on the campaign trail when it came to entrepreneurial ventures and small business.  He was “hip!”  He was into the entrepreneurial thing!  His record in the entrepreneurial environment has been dismal and many small businesses are left feeling angry and resentful about the lies he told during the campaign.  And to now bring up “fairness?”  Really?  I guess I’m done with this whole philosophy touting fairness at its base, and I can’t wait to see the back end of this guy.

Who is Compromising in Washington?

I finally figured it out!  What has been bothering me during these last three years, other than the fact that the executive branch is not in the hands of conservatives who believe and feel the way I do about things, is the argument that it’s all the Republican’s fault, or someone other than who is in charge, anyhow, and it is their fault because they refuse to compromise which has led to gridlock, and that this argument is false, and deceptive.  We live in a constitutional republic, last time I checked, and our representatives, those people whom we have entrusted our money, our lives, and our country are not behaving as if they legislate in a bicameral fashion.

Neil Cavuto, using his traditional satirical humor, during the “closed door” sessions when Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and who knows who else, were sequestered in an office on capital hill, put a camera on one of the doors in the Senate and proceeded to comment about the fact that he had not been invited behind that door to judge the decisions that these people were making.  Now, of course, who would invite Neil behind that door?  He didn’t have the right to go in there, right?  Absolutely he had the right!  That door should never have been closed, and God Bless Him for bringing to the world’s attention that this country’s government was closing its doors in sessions where Neil was not invited (he even tried to deliver a pizza).  So, the closed doors bother me, but it’s more than that.

The blame game has put the conservatives directly in the cross hairs and the target is a shiny distraction.  “Look everyone, the conservatives are causing gridlock,” says the media, “Our government isn’t working because the conservatives won’t agree and have passed bills that are ridiculous!”  OK, let’s examine just that sentence alone: passed bills, won’t agree, ridiculous.  What I find ridiculous is that Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, George Washington, and a host of other beleaguered, hard working, intelligent folks took the time, effort, and at great personal expense in some cases to create a government of shared powers with a bicameral legislature and we, the people, have turned it into the lobby manufacturing machine.

Our representatives, in both the House and the Senate are supposed to create and vote on law, these are called bills.  You remember the Saturday morning cartoon with Mr. Bill (maybe that was Saturday Night Live…”ooooh noooo,…”)?  We have a process!  A process that gives our representatives a chance to stand for something!  NONE of the Senators currently in session have STOOD for ANYthing!  None of them have signed their names to a bill!  Zero, zip, nada!  This is the political strategy of Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid (NV).  If they don’t STAND for anything, they can’t be BLAMED for anything.  Brilliant, and cowardly.

In our government, the House passes a bill (thereby standing for something, i.e., this is what we want to do), then the Senate passes a bill (you remember, the H stands for House and the S stands for Senate) and then what happens?  Oh Yeah!  They meet in the middle in a place called “Conference.”  Wow, who thought this stuff up?  Oh, the founding fathers, who also fought against tyranny, thought each man (well, at the time, each white male) should have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, all of which involves private property rights, habeus corpus, etc., and they deliberated for many months trying to come up with the best possible solution.  And it worked!  For 230 years, it worked.  But for some reason, Sen. Harry Reid (NV), has decided to circumvent 200 years of established constitutional procedure, not to mention politically accepted leadership and moderation principles, and has found a way for his vulnerable Senators (one of whom is from the state of Montana) to take a position on absolutely nothing for almost 2 years.  Amazing.

So, the next time you hear the media telling you that the conservatives are mucking things up, ask yourself when the last time you remember your Senators and Representatives meeting in conference was, and you will have successfully used your noggin to figure out that the “gridlock” is due to one person, Harry Reid; and if you want to see compromise in action, write a letter and tell him that without a Conference, where the American people can see what is actually in a bill and what parts their representatives believe in, you don’t believe their claim that it’s all one side’s fault.

The Life of Julia — Barack Obama’s Utopian Lie

http://www.barackobama.com/life-of-julia

This piece of propaganda tripe describing utopian wonderville is beyond comparison except, perhaps, to George Orwell’s 1984.  The lie has been refuted in so many ways and in so many countries in the history of our world that I continue to be amazed that Americans of any stripe believe it!  Someone actually wrote this “thing” and I’m guessing that they are counting on the general ignorance of our public high school educated populace to believe it. 

May I please start with the argument that WE. CAN’T AFFORD UTOPIA!  We can’t afford the tax rates that will demoralize the business creators in our free country.  We cannot afford the weight of the institutions necessary to deliver utopia to Ms Julia because as DeToqueville rightly argues, “men are not always moral and with power ($), they will be corrupted. (Paraphrasing).
I guess the reason this is so completely obnoxious is that its presented as if Americans are simpleton fifth graders and must have a chart of Obama good, Romney bad in order to understand their platform.  It assumes that there is nothing at all wrong with government having more power and you having less, a dangerous assumption at best.  And to cap it all, it makes no mention of the competitive, efficiently run private charities that provide so much to so many people on a shoe string.  Nope, they are not the answer, government is, and you’re an idiot if you don’t fall in line.

With this kind of propaganda, there will be a revolution, hopefully peaceful, because I will not live in a society that takes my freedom from me and hands me second rate healthcare on a heavily laden silver platter.  Nor will I support the statist crap line that says my government, in all its wondrous glory, is the only answer to my future happiness in this world.  I wont stand for it and neither will the majority in this country who refuse to see our country coopted by fat cat politicians who enrich themselves on the backs of entrepreneurs and call it utopia.

%d bloggers like this: