Food Safety Bill Fiasco in DC - Passed today 11/30/2010

I wanted to bring you all an update on something troubling.  DC is at it again, being stupid as they typically are.  Today, once again, they passed an ignorant excuse of a bill, and I'm sure most of them haven't read even a tiny piece of it.  Again, that's pretty typical, so whatever.  Anyhow, I took an older article from  downsizedc.org and posted it here so you could see what was included in this brilliant bill that passed the Senate.  Enjoy the reading, and if you want to show some support, please, get over to https://secure.downsizedc.org/contribute/ and donate a little something, if you have any to spare.  All your contributions are used to fight ignorance and abusively large government.  downsizedc.org is one of my favorite sites on the web today.  Check it out, and I bet you'll agree.

Mike

 

Food Safety: URGENT: Stop the FDA Takeover of Your Food Supply

Posted by James Leroy Wilson

S.510, the fraudulently-named "Food Safety" bill, is scheduled for a cloture vote TODAY!
We want this bill defeated, but we also have a Plan B. Amendments proposed by Senators Tester and Hagan would allay many (although not all) of our concerns with the bill. Their amendments will exempt small farms and businesses from the most onerous regulations.
And so we're asking you to you to send a letter to Congress to A) vote "no" on cloture, and B) if cloture passes, to support the Tester-Hagan amendments. You can send your letter using using DownsizeDC.org's Freedom to Farm campaign.
The hard-wired message says, "Please oppose H.R. 2749, S.510, and all other so-called food safety bills."
In addition, I added these comments, which you have permission to borrow from or copy . . .

You must support Sen. Coburn's "hold" on S.510 and oppose the cloture vote scheduled for today.
But if cloture passes, I insist that you support the Tester-Hagan Amendments to S.510.
S.510 gives the FDA authority to shut down family farms and smalll businesses, but Tester-Hagan would strip the FDA of that arbitrary power.
Tester-Hagan also relieves family farms of unnecessary regulations and burdensome costs.
One example of the harm S.510 will do if Tester-Hagan does NOT pass: the FDA estimates it will take 100 hours by a trained team of personnel to develop a HACCP (hazard control) plan for businesses making products such as leafy green salad mixes or broccoli florets. http://farmandranchfreedom.org/sff/TesterAmdFacts11-12-10.pdf
Small businesses cannot afford this kind of expense, and they will be crushed. The FDA will seize control of the food supply, and Big Ag will seize the profits. Consumers will be denied access to healthy, fresh, locally-marketed food.
I therefore insist you support the Tester-Hagan amendments to S.510. They exempt family farms and small processors who were NOT to blame for the foodborne illness outbreaks of recent years . . .
* Local markets, where producers and consumers know each other, already create strong incentives for accountability
* Small producers are already regulated by local, state, and current federal laws
Vote no on cloture, but if it passes, please support the Tester-Hagan amendments. They will prevent a flawed bill from becoming catastrophic.

END LETTER
You can send your letter using DownsizeDC.org's Educate the Powerful System.
And please also CALL your Senators TODAY. You can find their phone numbers when you are logged into the system.
And please tell your friends TODAY about this! Forward this message and post it on your social networking sites.
Thank you for being a DC Downsizer.
James Wilson
Assistant Communications Director
DownsizeDC.org

Just a few links for Constitutional Information

If you have never read the United States Constitution, you really should.  Beyond that, you should also be well versed in your state constitution, and state laws.  While I can't provide you everything you need for every state, being that I'm in Washington State, I do have just a little bit of knowledge of how to find things for here, so I'm going to share those with you.

First, if you're an Android user, you can get the US Constitution on your phone.  I have it, it's awesome, and it's very easy to navigate.  What's more, you can always learn a little more by looking things up, and it's convenient to have with you.  The one I found that I like the best is  located at http://www.androidzoom.com/android_applications/reference/united-states-constitution_kab.html, however there are a ton more that can be found just by searching androidzoom.com.  http://www.androidzoom.com/android_applications/us+constitution/by_matching is a link to the results from typing "US Constitution" in the search bar at the top of the androizoom.com web page.  There are several different free and paid versions.  The one that I found and prefer is a free app, as I don't see much reason to pay for something when I can get equal or better quality for free.

Unfortunately, the only version of the RCW (Revised Code of Washington - The State's Laws, for laymen) that I have been able to find, thus far, is a paid app.  As such, I have not tried it out.  You can find it at http://www.androidzoom.com/android_applications/reference/revised-code-of-washington_gsbn.html if you're interested in giving it a try.  It looked pretty well organized from the pictures I saw, but again, I haven't tried it.

Even more unfortunately, there apparently is NO Washington State Constitution available as an Android App.  At least, not yet.  Perhaps I'll need to get busy on that sometime soon, but I do have a lot going on already.  I think I will look into it, though, and perhaps start on something, even it if moves slow. 

I'm sure there are several similar apps available on iPhone, however, being that I don't use an iPhone, and don't feel like playing with their little marketplace trying to find those things, I'm going to leave those searches up to you folks that have the iPhone.  I'm relatively certain that it can't be all that hard, but I honestly don't feel like taking up the time to do so.

Now, for those of you that prefer a computer, or perhaps want a link you can use darned near anywhere, here are some great locations.

US Constitution:
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html - I like this one.  Neatly organized.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html - The 'official' Constitution Page.  For what that's worth.

RCW (Revised Code of Washington):
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/ - This is both official AND useful.  Well organized, easy to navigate.

Washington State Constitution:
http://www.leg.wa.gov/LAWSANDAGENCYRULES/Pages/constitution.aspx - Again, official and useful.  Amazing.  Washington State is really dumb about some things, but they certainly have their laws and legal pages neatly organized for people to search.  I gotta hand it to whichever person was most directly responsible for putting that together, they did a great job. 

For those of you who don't speak 'legalesse', may I recommend that you do a little googleing and see what you can see.  Perhaps typing 'Washington State Constitution Explained' would yield some good results that would help you better understand what you're reading.  I'm no lawyer, and I do struggle with some of the wording in this stuff very frequently.  I consider myself relatively well educated, although not formally, but it is very difficult to untangle the bologna that they throw together into a sentence, sometimes.  Just remember, google is your friend, and you can learn a lot by studying your rights.  For instance, you can learn how to defend yourself from unjust persecution by the State or Federal Government.  No small thing, in this day of continual unjust persecution of the citizens by overzealous officials.  Learn it, and be prepared to use it regularly.

Senate Elections

I know it's been a little while since I've written anything, and I apologize for that.  It's been a rather busy time for me, and I haven't had a lot of extra time for writing down my thoughts, but now I have something that I have been considering for a while, and would like to share with you.


How many of you really believe that the United States of America is a Democracy?  Really? 

I know, I know.... it's been taught to you for years, it's all over the news, and in the schools.  Democracy is good, anything else is bad.  Well, that's not true.  Actually, Democracy as a form of government is horrible.  Democracy means that NOTHING gets done without a full vote by the people.  That sounds great on the surface, doesn't it?  Until you realize that means the people can vote for ANYTHING, and it must happen.  That's called mob rule, not rule of law.  That means, if the majority of people want anyone with red hair executed, all the red heads in the country are now in danger of being arrested and killed.  Laugh all you want, it's true, and horrible things can (and have) happened in a Democracy.

This is the reason why our Founding Fathers made the US a REPUBLIC, NOT a Democracy.  Does anyone know the difference?  If you do, consider yourself above average, because most Americans don't know the difference, and many of those that do still think that we live in a Democracy, because that's what they've been told through their lives.  Here's the big difference.  In a Republic, you elect PEOPLE to pass laws, control the Government, and represent your position on things.  You vote for a person who you believe will uphold your views (at least the majority of them) on the issues you feel strongest about.  In a Democracy, you directly form the laws your darned self, and the Government blindly carries out the will of the people, without regard to justice.  Republics are (supposedly) safer, as the people are the check on the officials, the officials are the check on the people, etc.

When the US was formed, they took it a step further.  Instead of just having a Senate that controlled things, with maybe an Emperor or President or Prime Minister sitting as the 'Head of the Senate', the Founding Fathers wanted to have checks and balances on the checks and balances.  So, things were divided thusly.  The House or Representatives would be formed to allow the PEOPLE of the several states to elect a person from their own individual districts that would best represent the will of the people of that area.  These individual districts are referred to as Congressional Districts, and are redrawn every 10 years following the census.  Each elected representative has roughly 650,000 people that he or she represents.  Each state must be allowed at least one (even if only 5 people live in that state, they get one), but will be allowed more and more representation as their population grows.  For instance, California has 53 representatives, where Montana has 1. 

The Senate was formed to represent the interests of the States.  The will of the people is not always the best thing for the state, and the will of the state is not always the best thing for the people.  In order for anything to really get done, the Senate (made up of two people from every state) and the House (based on population, as described in the paragraph above) need to agree on it.  As the Senate was formed to represent the States interests, the Senators were originally elected BY THE STATES GOVERNMENTS, NOT BY THE PEOPLE.  This was changed in 1913, and the election of Senators was given to the people (mob rule) instead of being an appointed position from each states legislature, as was intended.  (http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Direct_Election_Senators.htm).

Now, I'm sure some of you are wondering what the problem is with this.  Let's break it down a bit.  If you were going in for a hearing on child custody, and you had a lawyer, and your crazy hooked on crack ex had a lawyer, and you wanted to make sure that you had a fair hearing, and that you got your case across as effectively as possible, so that the judge could make the right decision, would you allow your lawyer to be paid for (and thus, representing the best interests of) your crazy ex?

Perhaps that sounds a little out there, but I assure you, it isn't.  By taking the naming of the Senators away from the States, and giving that power to the people, that means that the States have NO REPRESENTATION IN WASHINGTON DC.  This means that the rule of the people, even when unjust (and sometimes flat out ignorant) will be imposed on everyone else, even when it's discriminatory, illegal, violates their civil rights, or violates the constitution.  I submit, as example A, the new 'Obamacare' law that REQUIRES all Americans to purchase health insurance.  A flat out violation of our liberties as an individual.  We are required to make a purchase, or pay a fine to the IRS (which is completely unrelated to the health care industry, and also a huge violation of our civil rights, as it forcibly removes our money from us before we even see it - IRS = Wealth Redistribution System = Communism..... and yet, we all silently submit for fear of prosecution).  Many states have joined together to challenge this retarded law, at least in part, and we wait to see what will happen with that, however, if the STATES had the representation in Congress that they were originally given, and should still have, this law would have been challenged back and forth between the House of Representatives and the Senate until there was something agreeable to both, which then would have passed.  Certainly, health care reform is something that could benefit millions of people in this country, but what gives anyone the right to STEAL from you, to give to someone else? 

YOU give the GOVERNMENT the right to STEAL from you, if you choose to do nothing and allow the same things to continue happening. 

The Problem with the Washington State Primary

How many of you have ever wanted a different choice in the general election, but have been stuck with Republican or Democrat, and no other options?  Lord knows I would LOVE to have other options.  There are MANY other political parties out there, the largest of which is the Libertarian Party.

The Libertarian Party is the 3rd largest political party in the nation (after Republicans and Democrats, of course) and also the fastest growing party.  Here's where it gets REALLY good.  The Libertarians believe in personal freedom and responsibility for your actions, and small government.

What does this really mean to you?  It means much lower taxes, because the government doesn't have it's hands in everything.  It also means that you will have a much higher level of personal freedom.  You have the ability to make choices in your own life, without the government telling you what to choose.  Libertarians typically believe that drug control is a wasted policy, and people should be free to do what they want to do.  If you feel like smoking a joint when you get home from work, that is your choice.  Whatever choices you make in life with have natural consequences that you have to live with.  If you OD on Heroine and end up mentally handicapped because of the experience, then that was your choice, and you are suffering the natural consequences of that decision. 

There is no reason why the government should be involved in many of the things that it deals with every day.  You would be free to make your own decisions, and reap the rewards or suffer the consequences of those decisions.  Gee, now why didn't anyone else think of that?  Wait!  They did.  More than 200 years ago, a rather large group of people thought of that, and drafted a document founding a nation on those very same ideals. 

However, in Washington State, we have what is known as a 'top two' primary.  This means that the candidates that receive the highest and second highest votes are automatically the only two candidates listed on the general election ballot.  Even if the third highest was only one vote behind the second highest. 

This almost always means that every position will have a Republican and a Democrat, and nobody else listed for the general election ballot.  Theoretically, you could have two people from the same party, but that's almost as likely to happen as having two people that are neither Republican or Democrat on the ballot.  It's just highly unlikely.

So, at least for now, you will be stuck with the choice of Republican or Democrat on the general election ballots in Washington State.  The other options are blocked for you, because of how our government chooses to run elections here.

To find out more about what the Libertarian Party believe in and stands for, check out http://www.lp.org/issues.

Washington State Minimum Wage Law - Friend or Foe?

I recently had a rather lively discussion with a family member regarding minimum wage.  She was arguing that the minimum wage law in Washington State was a good thing, I was arguing quite the opposite.  As I get rather lively while arguing anything regarding laws that I think are ridiculous, I'm happy that my family members are a little more in control than I am, and she simply backed down from the argument saying 'we're obviously not going to agree', and we dropped it. 

That gave me the idea to write a brief article explaining exactly why the law in Washington State is stupid.  Feel free to send in whatever comments you want supporting either my opinion, or your own opinion on this, but if you think I'm wrong, I can explain to you in no uncertain terms why I'm not. 

The law in Washington State, adopted by a vote of the people 1998 (Initiative 688), requires L&I to make a cost-of-living adjustment to the minimum wage each year based on the federal Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W).  What this means, in normal language, is that every year in October, the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries figures out what the inflation for the year was, multiplies that by a really long number, and figures out how much to increase the minimum wage. 

The initiative was passed into law by a vote in 1998, and became effective January 1st, 1999.  The law initially raised minimum wage from $5.15 an hour to $5.70 an hour in 1999, $6.50 in 2000, and then started the calculations based on inflation for every year thereafter.  Since the law was passed, 2010 was the only year that the wage did not increase, owing to the fact that the inflation rate actually decreased.  For 2011, the wage is set to increase, once again, to $8.67 per hour.  While you may look at this and see 'only' a $0.12 per hour increase, lets do the math for a small business owner.

Lets say that you own a small sporting goods store.  You employ 15 people, not counting yourself, and you act as manager for your store.  Of those 15 people, you can safely assume that 10 of them are making minimum wage.  We'll further assume that those 10 people all work about 20 hours per week.  This is not at all an unlikely scenario, although most businesses would have more than 15 people running the place.

A $0.12 per hour increase, times 20 hours makes $2.40 per week.  Multiply that by 10 people, you're looking at $24.00 per week.  Now, multiply that times 52 weeks per year and you have a net loss of  $1248 per year.  So this business owner, through no fault of his own, has lost $1248 a year from either his income or his business operating budget for the year, depending on how he has things set up. 

Whoopy, $1248.  Not a lot, right.  Ok, so if your employer comes up to you and says that they're cutting your wage by $100 a month, what are you going to have to say about it?

Let's take it a step further.  What if minimum wage went up $0.48 (like it did from 2008 to 2009)?  Well, that same scenario above would have lost the small business owner $4992 a year, or $416 a month.  How many of you want to lose $416 a month from your income?

It keeps going from there.  How about when the owner is barely scratching by, and just can't take that loss to his income.  Well, there's one sure way to make that money up.  If you lose $4992 a year based on something you can't control, and you have 500 sales a month that average $50 per sale, you can make up the difference by increasing your costs.  Just add another $1 per sale, and that will cover it.  So now the owner is forced to spend time going through his inventory and determining which items he can increase the price of without making too many customers angry, and without affecting his overall customer base.  So now costs go up. 

How is inflation calculated?  It's based on costs.  If costs go up because of a law, that causes inflation.  If inflation goes up, then next year when L&I calculates the minimum wage, it's going to go up.  This, in turn, causes small business owners to have to increase their prices, or close their doors, which in turn causes yet more inflation.  Are we seeing the pattern here yet?

This example was based on one small business, with one owner who operates as the manger of the store.  Several years ago, I managed a restaurant, and the owner of this restaurant owned two others in addition to the one I managed.  The one I managed lost him about $32,000 a year.  The other two combined gave him a net income of about $25,000 per year.  When calculating the minimum wage increase one year, I found that it was going to cost him $34,000 to pay the increases, and this was assuming that we didn't increase the wages for the people who were making more than minimum wage at that time.  So that would have reduced his net income to -$9,000 per year.  Hmmm..... Seems to be a problem.  Once again, prices were raised to compensate for this discrepancy.  Of course, we couldn't raise prices enough to take up all the slack without alienating a lot of customers, so he ended up losing money in the long run, once again. 



Yet, the most frequent arguments I hear FOR this ridiculous law is 'people can't live on that'.  I'm going on the record, and my official campaign will be based on this.  Duh.  That's the only response I can possibly make to such a over exaggerated, simplistic view point.  Minimum wage was NEVER intended to be a 'living wage' for your average US worker.  Minimum wage was established to prevent employers from taking unfair advantage of industrial workers in 'sweat shops', which were mostly staffed by women and children who, at that time in history, had no real power in the world at all.  People were being worked for 18 hours a day, and paid little to nothing.  Some of these places had cots where people would sleep between shifts, and some people lived there full time because they could afford nothing better.  It was the equivalent of indentured servitude, and was a very harsh way of barely surviving.  Minimum wage and labor laws, specifically child labor laws, were passed to prevent this atrocity from continuing.  Slowly over the years, the focus has shifted to the point where people believe that it should be a wage that a person can support their family on.  This notion is patently ridiculous, and just not possible.  How in the world can you require employers to pay such a wage, for what is an unskilled profession (face it, if it was skilled labor, or something requiring specialized knowledge, they would be making much more than minimum wage)?  Who would then be making MORE than minimum wage, and thus be able to afford the products of the businesses that are paying minimum wage?  The is no way, economically, this could support itself. 

Minimum wage is a STARTING WAGE for people just entering the work force, with little or no specialized skill, training, or knowledge.  Anyone who is a hard working, contributing member of society, will be able to earn more than minimum wage simply by showing their bosses that their output is of higher quality, or they are more productive, or have the ability to do more than the other people working there.  However, if you're working for a minimum wage job in Washington State, it's difficult to every advance, because every year that industry is hit with a cost increase that they must somehow attempt to absorb and continue to be in business. 

The people who work their entire careers, going from one minimum wage job to another, never getting much more than that, never making it further ahead in live, are the people that the voters in Washington said needed a little extra 'help' by increasing the Minimum Wage.  They are also not helped one bit by the wage increases, that are constantly offset by price increases every year.  They WOULD be helped by specialized training, or education of some sort that made them more productive, and allowed them to contribute more to a business, thus being more competitive in the market place, and being able to earn a higher wage.  Most people have the ability to help themselves, if they'd just look for ways to do so, and they choose not too.  Very few people have no ability to help themselves, and those people are the ones that we should offer assistance too.  The people that choose not to try, even though they have the ability to do so, have absolutely no right to complain about their 'lot in life'.  If you're unhappy with your life, try to do something to change it.  Learn something new.  Seek advice from somewhere.  Ask friends, family members, or even total strangers for ideas. 

Here's a novel concept.  Take responsibility for your own position in life, and do something about it.