Interview With Herman Cain on Minorities & the Conservative Movement

Thanks to Allie Winegar Duzett for the video.

Interview With John Stephen, Republican Candidate for Governor in New Hampshire

Dustin Siggins: So, I guess my first question, it’s a pretty simple one- you’ve run for Congress in the past, and this is a very pro-Republican/pro-conservative year in Congress. Why run for governor? Yes, the tide is anti-incumbent, but New Hampshire has a tendency to buck trends, and Governor Lynch has won by two huge margins in his last two election runs.

John Stephen: Well, you know, my background and experience suits me well for running for governor. You know, I ran the largest state department, Health & Human Services, and was able to run it with fiscal discipline and return $143 million over four years, and kept my budget flat each year, and when you deal with Health & Human Services spending, you’ve gotta make sure that you take care of the people in need, but yet, if you can return value to the taxpayers, and be more efficient, that’s what people expect. And then I was also at the Department of Safety as Deputy Commissioner. I was the first Homeland Security Coordinator, and I’ve done a lot, you know, and I was Assistant Attorney General, prosecutor, Assistant Attorney General- appointed by Governor Gregg, and then appointed by Shaheen, who’s a senator, a U.S. Senator- she was governor at the time- a Democrat governor. Then I was appointed by Republican governor Craig Benson, and I’ve had governors on each side come to me and appoint me to positions.

In the last two years- roughly two years- I’ve been working as a health care consultant for a firm in Boston called The Lucas Group, and I have private companies I consult with, to help them grow, and to help them achieve success in terms of the bottom line, and I do a lot of consulting with venture capitalists, and things like that. It’s been a tough economy, as you know, but yet we’ve been working hard with private business. But then I also had the opportunity as head of our government team at The Lucas Group to work with three governors over the last couple years and help them save, in one case, in two cases, over a billion dollars, putting them on a road to savings of a billion dollars or more. And just by coming up with ideas that I know well in terms of efficiency. I started out in my mom and dad’s restaurant business, washing dishes, mopping floors, so I started out with a small business perspective- watching budgets, making sure we controlled spending. So I took that conservative- that fiscal conservative- thought process and values, the values I share, all the way to the government positions that I’ve held. And running for governor, is like, you gotta make sure you run it like a business. I helped other governors do that, but problems in Washington have come to New Hampshire. High taxes and spending, here in New Hampshire, are choking jobs, they’re hurting small businesses. We had this governor, in the last four years, has passes 84 new taxes- 84, in small New Hampshire? A 24% increase in spending? At the same time, I was working with other governors- one a Democrat in Illinois, with his Taxpayer Action Committee, and also Governor of South Carolina, helping re-engineer his state government. Employment commission and also helping the governor of Rhode Island get a health care waiver that saved millions of dollars for his state.

I had my hands in savings opportunities and seeing these governors in other states cut spending, seeing what’s coming ahead, knowing that you can’t tax your way out of a recession. At that point, a number of folks from the New Hampshire State Republican Committee contacted me, and I have two young daughters here, and I live here, I love this state, I was born in this state. This is not the same New Hampshire I was born and raised in. And I was contacted by folks from all over the state to take that experience that I’ve garnered, or gained, over the years, and bringing value to taxpayers, to come back to New Hampshire and do the same thing again, ‘cause now’s the time. We need to stop the spending, stop the out-of-control spending in New Hampshire, stop the excessive taxation that’s hurting our culture and our New Hampshire way of life, and you know- coming from Littleton, Dustin- New Hampshire’s a low-tax, limited-government state. Live Free or Die. We were the first state to declare its independence from Great Britain, the first colony, and we always pride ourselves on being first in the nation, well- I’m running so we can get back to the first in the nation, and showing the entire United States what it’s like being from New Hampshire. Independent, cutting spending, and also returning value to taxpayers.

DS: Which is great. My only question is, that’s what the guy ran on in 2006. I forget the guy’s name off the top of my head- he ran on a similar platform. I interviewed him for my campus paper [DS: Correction. I organized an event on my campus for the candidate, one Jim Coburn, and a campus news reporter interviewed the candidate. I apologize for my bad memory.] He got shellacked. Governor Lynch won a record re-election in the state. It was something like 74, or 76, percent. [DS: 74%-26% was the margin between Lynch and Coburn- I guess my memory improved.] And obviously now, it’s 2010, it’s a different year, different political culture. How do you plan on taking this and saying to New Hampshire, “Hey, the guy you voted for three times in a row isn’t the right guy?” And a lot of people, you know, 84 taxes, it’s hard for people to grab onto what that means-

JS: Well, first of all, when Governor Lynch ran against those other two candidates, we didn’t have the environment. Like you said, 84 new taxes and fees. We didn’t have an environment of a 24% increase in spending in four years. We didn’t have an environment where our limited liability companies in New Hampshire- which are the bedrock of New Hampshire’s small businesses- received an income tax passed by Governor Lynch during the deepest recession of our time. I mean, times have changed. And another thing is, Governor Lynch is running for an unprecedented fourth term. That’s unheard of in New Hampshire history. He’s had his chance, and we can’t afford two more years- and the people are responding. In the latest Rasmussen poll, the poll showed that 47% are supporting him on re-election. And that number is going down. He’s had 70% approval a little more than six months ago, so we’re starting to get our message out, and today- or as of the latest poll- he’s at 51% approval, which tells you, Dustin, his support is diminishing. What you had said was absolutely correct- those candidates, during those times, the message didn’t work, the fact is that people weren’t paying as much attention to what was going on in Concord, the liberal spendthrift agenda was starting to percolate, but it hadn’t come to the point where it actually was hitting their wallets and their pocketbooks.

Today, ask any person in New Hampshire that has legally registered a car how much they had to pay. Ask the guy from Rochester that has to go to work in Boston every day, how his toll prices have gone from five hundred dollars to $1,500 in four years. Ask Andy Crews, who owns AutoFair in Manchester- car dealership- who, he had some extra money a year ago to buy another dealership a year ago, and his accountant told him because of the LLC tax, not to buy the dealership. He would have been able to grow jobs- create jobs- and ask the 50,000 people in New Hampshire that are out of work today if they like what Governor Lynch has done the past few years. You know, it’s all about government being fiscally responsible and creating an environment- because government doesn’t create jobs- creating an environment so that small businesses can flourish and create jobs. And that’s what our campaign’s gonna be about- low taxes, limited government, creating an environment to grow jobs by having tax cuts on employers- and those are the things that Governor Lynch does not support. Those are ideas that Governor Lynch does not support. He has shown his penchant for big government, and so there is going to be a very stark contrast in New Hampshire now- believe it or not- and I don’t like to say this, but it’s true, according to the Tax Foundation, has the highest business tax rate in the country. Now when we start telling people en masse about this issue in New Hampshire, I believe strongly this is the last term of Governor Lynch.

DS: When I left New Hampshire, the spending was just starting to increase- I left in 2008. And I talked to Corey Lewandowski from Americans for Prosperity-

JS: Yes, Corey’s a good guy.

DS: And he explained to me how the LLC tax is only going to go on for a year, I believe- that it was only going to go on for a year, and it was going to be dropped because of opposition from New Hampshire citizens.

JS: Correct.

DS: So that’s at least a good thing, that that tax is going away. What would you say- and just briefly, I only have a couple more minutes with you- briefly, what’s the one tax that you would eliminate, and also, what’s a program you would cut to offset the revenue lost from cutting that tax? What’s a program you would cut or streamline?

JS: Well, first of all, I’m gonna be putting out a plan on Monday with a number of ideas, but I would definitely work to restructure and modernize state government. And one big area I would move forward on is managed care for Medicaid. And Anthem did a report a few months back that indicated we could save $300 million in New Hampshire a year- now, Dustin a year!- if we were able to have what 40 states have in this country- a Medicare managed-care product; which means, mainly, that the 150,000 (roughly) lives that in New Hampshire are on Medicaid- the people, that are on Medicaid- that they have to go through a gatekeeper, like we do for health insurance, like everyone else. Right now there is no gatekeeper. They go to emergency rooms if their child has a cold, or, you know, there’s no program like that. So that alone is one area. Then there are other areas where can consolidate functions- backroom functions- every department has HR, every department has business office, every office has attorneys- we are going to look at doing a lot of things that the private sector is doing in terms of efficiency. And I would work to eliminate the Business Enterprise Tax, which is hurting a lot of small businesses. And I would eliminate it for those businesses that pay taxes after their year-end shows a loss. Even if they lose money, they pay taxes in New Hampshire, which is just unconscionable, as far as I’m concerned.

Many of the other taxes that passed, most of them need to be looked at. And one that- I mean, there are many that I would roll back and repeal. But I would want to have a tax holiday for rooms and meals. We increased the rooms and meals tax by 12% under Governor Lynch just last year. I’d want to go back to no rooms and meals tax, zero, no tax, during certain periods of the year when we want to increase tourism during the slow periods. And I would be the first governor in this state to basically stand up and say, “No rooms and meals tax.” We’re going to look at restricting the tax code on businesses as well.

DS: And would that lead to an imbalance in the budget? I mean, I believe New Hampshire’s Constitution says it has to be a balanced budget, and so if you obviously cut taxes without cutting appropriate spending- you mentioned $300 million a couple of minutes ago- cutting all of these taxes, would you still have a balanced budget?

JS: Absolutely. Absolutely. Not only will- these tax cuts will stimulate job growth, they’ll help employers make more profit to give to their communities, employees, and the state, for the business profits tax. And what it will also do is start to create an environment where, overall, we’ll have more and more job growth through creation of new lines of business. People will start coming into this state. I think that’s important. But we’ll no longer have the highest business tax rate in the nation. We’re going to turn it around and have one of the lowest in the Northeast. That alone will stimulate job growth. And what will happen is people who are working outside the state will start thinking about coming back here, and more people will be working in New Hampshire, and that leads to more revenue. But also, you’ve got to control spending. Yes, the spending can be controlled. You absolutely can make reductions, even across the board. We’ll keep spending in check, balance the budget, and begin to restore the Rainy Day Fund. And when New Hampshire companies are going to Massachusetts- which I heard, throughout this campaign trail- they’re going to Massachusetts to do business rather than in New Hampshire, that’s a problem. And once you fix that problem, and you create jobs, New Hampshire will, once again, be the envy of the nation.

DS: Well, I guess I have one last question for you, and it’s not economics-related at all. The conflicts and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq- as the governor, you’re in charge of the troops from New Hampshire, correct?

JS: That is correct.

DS: Do you support being in Iraq and Afghanistan, until at least the July 2007 deadline [DS: Clearly, I meant the 2011 deadline…I have no idea why I said “2007.”] and beyond that, if necessary? Do you believe that’s a worthy cause for New Hampshire citizens to be fighting over and dying for?

JS: As the Commander-in-Chief for the state, I’m gonna support the decisions made in Congress.

DS: Even despite the federalism that is allowed to you?

JS: I mean, first of all, I’m a big supporter of the 10^th Amendment, and I believe strongly that we also need to have a strong national defense. And, you know, I’m going to work alongside and with the federal government to make that we follow the lead of the United States federal government in terms of national forces.

DS: Okay. Thank you very much

The Facts About Social Security (Update- Transcript Added)

I was recently able to interview James Agresti, the founder of JustFacts.com, about the dark future facing Social Security.

The audio can be heard here. The transcript is forthcoming, and will be up ASAP.

*Originally published at The Daily Caller.

thelobbyist Interviews Congressman Ed Royce

thelobbyists’ Dustin Siggins had the pleasure to interview Congressman Ed Royce this past week.  You can find the transcript of the interview below and the audio file (Click to stream or Right-Click, Save as.. to download the .mp3) here: Siggins-Royce Interview.

Representative Ed Royce (R-CA) is a nine-term Congressman who serves on the House Foreign Affairs and Financial Services Committees. For more than a decade Royce has called for a stronger federal regulator to limit Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s excessive risk taking at the expense of taxpayers. In 2003, he offered the first legislation that sought to bring Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Bank System under a strong federal regulator.

Siggins: So I don’t know if you remember but I asked one or two questions when you spoke at the Heritage Bloggers Briefing?

Royce: I do. I do remember.

Siggins: I asked you about mark-to-market Accounting.

Royce: Yes.

Siggins: So that’s really the basis of some of the questions I wanted to ask you about. Obviously the financial reform is one of the biggest deals going through Congress right now.  And it’s going to have very many, long term consequences if the current bill passes…mostly negative.

You had talked a lot about Freddie and Fannie.  And I know the Gregg bill was shot down in the Senate.  And I read an opinion online that said it was a bill that people on the right and the left agreed would have very negative effects because it wound Freddie and Fannie down too quickly.

So I didn’t know if you might be able to explain what your House Republican view is on winding down Freddie and Fannie in an appropriate way so that it wouldn’t hurt the housing market but would allow better lending standards so that we don’t have a repeat of ’08.

Royce: Well it wasn’t just the lending standards that were the problem.  That was part of the problem.  But just to recap very quickly, the other aspect to the problem was that Fannie and Freddie were pushed off of their primary line of business which was very safe 30-year fixed mortgages into a virtually unknown portion of the market at the time.  And that was subprime and ULTA loans.  It’s important to remember that it was Congress that passed that legislation in 1992. That was the Government Sponsored Enterprise Act which the Democrats passed.  And it was that legislation that put in place the current regulatory structure over the GOC’s, and basically had them going into the business of arbitraging and overleveraging and 100 to 1, and placed on them mandates that eventually led to 50% of their portfolio being subprime and ULTA loans. Those portfolios exceeded $1.6 trillion.

As a consequence Fannie and Freddie took this decisive step into the junk loan market to meet their affordable housing mandates instituted in the early 1990s on them by Congress.  Once the government backed Fannie and Freddie got into the junk loan market it was believed throughout the financial system that there was little risk associated with these types of mortgages. And that false assumption was exactly what Fannie and Freddie and their allies in Congress were hoping for. They were eager to signal to the rest of the financial sector that the junk mortgage loans were actually safe investments.  What we are dealing with now is the aftermath of the meltdown where a trillion dollars in value was lost as a consequence.

So certainly there were other mistakes made along the way.  But the distortions of the mortgage market caused by Fannie and Freddie along with the excessively low interest rates pursued by central banks; the FED and the European central banks, were at the heart of the inflated housing bubble; and the financial collapse that followed.  What we are now trying to do is to slowly, slowly un-wind this catastrophe.  Deleveraging is always very painful and it’s going to take awhile for this to work its way out in the marketplace.  So it is not possible right now to convince investors to go back into the mortgage market.  One of the additional reasons investors are on the sidelines, is because you also have legislation advocated by Chairman Barney Frank to reduce the principle amounts on loans. There is legislation on what is called a mortgage cram down which would allow those that borrow money to simply come back and have part of the principle that they borrowed removed.

And so the very actions Congress is taking right now, or at least actions of the House, this passed in the Senate, have created this apprehension on the part of investors.  And so as a corollary to that, the market is going to be very slow to respond because investors don’t know what additional surprises Congress may have in store for them.  And certainly removing the protection of the sanctity of contract is one thing that is being pursued with gusto.  We find ourselves in a very tough predicament without investment capital coming back in the housing.

Siggins: How would you wind them down though?  Obviously, you have talked about the difficulty in doing so and their involvement in the 2008 crash. Republicans who comment verbally, their rhetoric, and what you said at the Heritage Bloggers Briefing, was that we have to get rid of them.  And I happen to agree with you.

Royce: Long term we have to basically privatize them.  Long term we have to create a situation where they evolve into businesses that don’t operate with the mandates that Congress put on them to put them into arbitrage.  To put them into a situation where they go into arbitrage and over leverage in order to compensate for the risk that they take on because of mandates from Congress.  In other words we need to allow them to be run like a business rather than to be run on the basis of whims of Congressmen who decide that 3% or zero down payment loans would be nice rather than 20%, and mandating that half of their portfolio be in sub-prime and all-day loans. It would be an advantageous step for affordable housing. We cannot have them run as an experiment in government intervention into the economy- where we introduce that sort of moral hazard and systemic risk. Instead, they should be converted into businesses that operate on market principles. The problem is that when Freddie and Fannie were finally taken over by the government, they had more than ten million subprime and other weak loans- either on their books or in the form of mortgage-backed securities that they had guaranteed. So it is going to take a while to handle this situation, and I think the first step is for people to really comprehend how much difficulty we are in right now, as well as the reasons for it- because almost 2/3 of all the bad mortgages in our financial system, many of which are now defaulting at unprecedented rates, were bought by government agencies or required, basically, by government regulation. So this is the crux of the problem.

Siggins: So how long- in a one, two-word answer- how long would this take if we did it efficiently?

Royce: It’s gonna take the return of the private market.

Siggins: Oh. So that could be decades.

Royce: Well, not necessarily. If we take the right steps, a market will return, but at this point it’s gonna require a return of investors into the market. And it’s gonna take careening, or moving away, from the government policies that create the moral hazard to begin with.

Siggins: I think I’ll have about two minutes more to your time. Two final questions. The first one is: you had mentioned, I believe, at the Bloggers Briefing, that the Federal Reserve was really at the crux of the problem.

Royce: Right.

Siggins: Artificially-low interest rates and other issues with it. I happen to agree with you, as well. But, what do you think of the Senate, the very weak audit of the Fed. Do you think Rep. Paul- Rep. Paul wrote an opinion piece on The Daily Caller the other day saying it was basically a worthless audit, because a one-time deal and then forever nothing else happens. What do you think of the audit and, just very briefly, how do you think we should be looking at the Fed?

Royce: Well, in the first place, there is little question that excessively-low interest rates resulted in an excess of credit throughout the economy, and I think- the theory behind allowing the Federal Reserve to manipulate interest rates is that, if used correctly, the central bank can ease ups and downs that are natural in an economy. But unfortunately, because it is politically unpopular to slow what appears to be a strong economy, the Federal Reserve tends to err toward interest rates that are lower than appropriate, and this was one rationale behind the Federal Reserve and other nations’ central banks setting real interest rates at a negative level from 2002 through 2006, so when adjusted for inflation those interest rates are negative. And the effect of these negative interest rates were [sic] devastating; and if we go through this cycle again, it will have similar consequences. Instead of mitigating the ups and downs of the economy, the Fed’s actions often lead to the opposite effect. So what Ron Paul would like to get to, and what I would like to see as well, is an understanding on the part of the Fed governors that, for example, Ben Bernanke’s agitation in 2002 for negative real interest rates- we’d like to see an understanding on their part that that intensified the boom-and-bust cycle, and encouraged excessive risk-taking throughout the economy, and an understanding of what that means in terms of the effect of that balloon on the financial sector and on housing. And we don’t see an admission out of the Fed as to the nature- that would indicate they understand what economists understand. And we don’t see an admission on the part of the Federal Reserve as to this problem. This is why we want to see an auditing of the Fed and a real understanding as to the consequences of these perennial policies that compound the boom-bust…help create a boom-bust cycle in real estate and the marketplace. So this is, and again, there were other mistakes made along the way. I think we need to point that out. There were speculators in the mortgage market, and large banks on Wall Street-

Siggins: Well, plus mark-to-market accounting.

Royce: And mark-to-market accounting. But these were symptoms of a much deeper illness. The distortion of the mortgage market caused by Fannie and Freddie, and the excessively low interest rates pursued by central banks- as I said- were at the heart of the inflated housing bubble, and the financial collapse that followed, and it’s the inability of participants in the Fed for the culpability of the Fed with the low interest rates or in Congress- in terms of the abilities of Members of Congress to admit their mistakes in terms of the 1992 GSE ACT that caused Ron Paul and me great concern.

A great concern over the ability of people in government to learn from mistakes that were so recently made.

Siggins: OK, I guess I have one last question, which is: I’m sure you’re involved with the program coming out of the Whip’s office?  YouCut- where Americans tell Republicans what programs they want to cut out of the federal budget. Steve Benen is a writer for PoliticalAnimal.com, calculates $1.1 Billion a year in cuts (I think it’s closer to three billion, personally) but I don’t know the exact number. But, of the five cuts, they include a half a million here, $600 million there, $2.5 billion- none of it is really getting at the systemic problem of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, perhaps high defense spending (depending on who you talk to). I was wondering, briefly, about what your thoughts were about the YouCut program, and second of all, if you think it will lead to real systemic reform in Congress?

Royce: Well, first, remember that in addition to the unfunded liabilities and Social Security and Medicare, and that will come about as a result of the passage of the Health Care entitlement, you also are facing a situation where we have deficits that will, this year, will total over $1.5 trillion. So in terms of focusing on the ongoing growth of these appropriations, we see these double-digit increases in appropriations bills- that’s where you see the increases in the deficits over recent years. When the Democrats took over Congress the budget deficit was $162 billion, and at the time I and other fiscal hawks were decrying the $162 billion deficit. Today it’s ten times that. And so, the spending bills  coming out of Congress are increasing government agency funding by double-digits and I think that one of the advantages of the YouCut program is getting the American public to better understand that aspect of the problem, which is half of the problem. The current deficits are half of the problem. The other half of the problem, as you correctly point out, is the unsustainability of Medicare and Social Security, long term; because the debt held by the public is going to double over five years, and it’s growing to triple over 10 years, at this rate of growth and the consequences of that are not unlike what we see in Greece today. So at some point we are going to have to come together with a Base Commission type of procedure, or a more recent example would be the Base Closure Commission process. We are going to have to- I would argue- everything would have to be on the table. You would have to get both Democrats and Republicans involved in the process, with an eye toward sustainability, or an eye toward the requirement that we reform these entitlement programs. I would also argue that if Republicans do retake the majority in the House or the Senate, I expect the first order of business to be the repeal of the Health Care entitlement legislation that passed, so at least that portion of the problem would be removed in the future but that still leaves….and at some point we are going to have to have a President elected that would sign it.

Siggins: I was going to say the Senate has too many Democrats to over-turn a Presidential Veto…

Royce: Right, right, so at some point after we pass it initially, and then we are going to have to wait until we have a Republican or a New Democrat (and I don’t see a lot of those around recently), or a New Democrat as president who is going to take a different tact, and move back to the issue of fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets. But, the first half of that is getting the budgets balanced- that is essential. The second half of it is doing something about the long-term legacy costs, or the long-term entitlement costs; we have to do that sooner than later, because as you see in Greece today if you put it off, if you continue to put it off, and continue to build entitlements, it’s…

Siggins: Devastating.

Royce: Yeah, it’s devastating and eventual government expands to a point where, how many people are working a 32 hour work week in Greece and are expecting to retire at age 52? So you set up this expectation for early retirement, for basically part-time work, and you create an entitlement mentality on top of the entitlement itself. So when you go and try to go in, and address the entitlement, the entitlement mentality floods out into the streets of the capital, as you see in Athens, with “No Compromise” as the rallying cry. I think that this tells us why it is so important to address this immediately rather than putting it off.  We are not going to get Speaker Pelosi’s attention on this because she is busy building entitlements. But come the aftermath of November’s election, I think it has to be addressed immediately.

Haiti Relief Aid

Some of us here at thelobbyist were interested in helping spread the word about what all of us can do to help with relief aid.

You can also join the A Million Dollars For Haiti Facebook group created by dustin siggins and sponsored by thelobbyist here.

During Katrina and the Asian Tsunami disaster the top three supporters via money and teams on the ground were:

The Red Cross – Direct link to donation information.

The Salvation Army – This is their blog with constant updates on how to donate with links.

Baptist Global Response – This links to all resources and information for donations via the Southern Baptist Conventions Global Response Team.  This was one of the first teams into Haiti out of Florida.

Faith Based Organizations

Samaritan’s Purse – Links straight to donation form.

Catholic Relief Services -  This links to CRS’ front page blog with updated information for donations and action relief.

Compassion International – Information about the children of Haiti.

Other Organizations

Action Against Hunger

Doctors Without Borders

Habitat for Humanity

Project Hope

——————————————————–

thelobbyist does not endorse donations to the U.S. government, the Haiti government, or the United Nations because of out flowing evidence this week that corrupt officials have been squandering and stealing resources sent to Haiti in recent months.

Best of thelobbyist 2009

Thanks to all our readers for making 2009 a great year for thelobbyist.? Below you will find the top post from each month during the 2009 calendar year.

January – 8 days until EPA annihilation of America?Stop Them! – nick r. brown

February – Pseudo-Scientists Kill Possum (Not to be confused with Opossum) – nick r. brown

March – Conservatives Just Don?t ?Get It? – nick r. brown

April – Pay for Performance Act of 2009: An Encroachment of a Free Society – sam theodosopoulos

May – ?I?d Pretend I Was One Of Those Deaf-Mutes.? – nick r. brown

June – Fox News Presents Obstacle For NH GOP Opportunity – sam theodosopoulos

July – Tie: The Personal Democracy Forum Doesn?t Help Conservatives & Personal Democracy Forum: The Future of the Conservative Movement – nick r. brown

August – The Moore You Know About Obama? -? tom qualtere

September – Conservatives Are Right On Gay Marriage – dustin siggins

October - We?ve Never Begged For Money? – nick r. brown

November – An Actual Solution To Health Care Reform -? nicholas j. rohrhoff

December – Pro-Life IS Pro Health Care Reform – dustin siggins

-nick

The Lisbon Treaty Passes Its Last Hurdle

H/T to Nick R Brown for letting me know about this.

Czech President Vaclav Klaus, an ardent opponent of the Lisbon treaty and the expanded powers it gives the newly-empowered European Union over the 27 sovereign nations that are part of the EU, has signed the treaty. He was the last holdout for the document to be legal.

There are disagreements among conservatives as to what this means- for example, Nick thinks?the?treaty is?terrible, but?a?friend of mine involved with foreign policy in Europe?I spoke to a couple of weeks ago thinks it’s going to have a minimal effect on the United States?and?the sovereign nations it will directly effect. Myself, I don’t have a strong opinion, though I think my friend’s opinion is correct in the short-term and that?Nick’s opinion (as well as The Heritage Foundation’s)?is concerned with?the worst-case scenario should everything in the treaty go bad.

Whatever one’s opinion is, we should all have one- this treaty really is a big deal, and unfortunately?the American?media has done almost no reporting on it.

-dustin siggins

– ——————————————————————————————————————-

Dustin’s contacts are most likely looking at the economic impact of the treaty.? In this area, the treaty will create tax free zones that will be very attractive to companies, especially those that are global.? The potential competition here is fantastic and aligns with my free market principles.? It may in fact force the U.S. to create tax free zones, tax breaks, or reduce trading tariffs on our own end.? The results of which would be a significant boon to our economy.

My greatest concerns regarding the treaty is the fact that it allows for the European Union to become a country. Think the United States, but instead of Georgia, New York, Virginia, etc, the member states are France, Germany, the Czech Republic, and the rest of the EU member states.? This treaty not only allows for the EU to become its own country, but additionally allows for the creation of an EU military, the election of an EU President (if it declares nation-statehood), currently banned execution of criminals, and forced declaration of insanity of citizens that refuse drug treatments like the Swine Flu vaccine.? My contention is that the drastic and potential dangers in this treaty should not be taken lightly or ignored.

-nick r. brown

IS THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE AS UNFAIR AS CONSERVATIVES FEAR?

[Editor's Note: The following is accompanying material to a post by Dustin Siggins for his article on NewMajority. -nick]

In 2007, Senators John McCain and Ted Kennedy, along with former President Bush, attempted to pass controversial immigration reform. The Heritage Foundation, combined with talk radio personalities such as Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham, have since been credited with the grassroots reaction that caused legislators to shoot the bill down in the Senate. Since that time, liberals and Democrats have worked to reinstall the Fairness Doctrine. Despite what Representative Mike Pence (R-IN), former President Clinton, Senator Debbie Stabenow, as well as many others on the left and right think, the Fairness Doctrine is never coming back. Whichever party attempted to bring it back would quickly find itself out of power.

The bigger threat to talk radio- the only area of media dominance by conservatives, and more importantly an area of media that should remain as free as the Internet, television, newspapers (for now), books, magazines, movies, etc.- is what has been coined as “localism.” In 2007 the Center for American Progress came out with the liberal blueprint for policy designed to diminish the hold conservatives have on talk radio- the report decries the Fairness Doctrine but pushes for 24-hour on-duty personnel, localism boards to guarantee minority opinions are heard, and regulations on how many stations may be owned by one corporation in a particular area.

During my time as an intern in Regulatory Policy at The Heritage Foundation, I conducted a partial case study of Littleton, New Hampshire- a town of 5,845 according to the 2000 census- and how localism regulations would affect radio stations in the area. Below are my results:

A Brief Look at Littleton, New Hampshire

Littleton is one of the most popular tourist attractions in New Hampshire. Boasting a population of only around 6,000-the official U.S. census stated 5,845 residents in 2000-Littleton has three gigantic advantages over most towns its size. The first is its location, only 15 minutes from Cannon Mountain, where Bode Miller grew up. 25-30 minutes from Bretton Woods, a mountain part of the Mt. Washington Grand Hotel. It is also accessible from New Hampshire’s only interstate highway, Interstate 93, through multiple exits.

A second advantage is Chutter’s Candy Store. Started in 1995 as a small local store, it expanded to possessing the world’s longest candy counter at over 112 feet before its founders retired. A huge draw both locally and with tourists, Chutter’s sells everything from high-end chocolates to penny candy to novelty Littleton, North Country, and New Hampshire souvenirs. Over a dozen unique stores such as The Village Book Store, Littleton Bike Shop, and “Today’s Movies At Yesterday’s Prices” Jax Jr. Cinemas complete the ensemble of small, unique New Hampshire tourist and local attractions.

The third advantage is Littleton’s status as a perennial contender for the Great American Main Street Award. It has been names the #1 Main Street in the nation at least once since 1997, and boasts a 2% retail vacancy rate on Main Street, down from 20% in 1992. (http://www.golittleton.com/littleton_main_street.php) This status, and the publicity therein, make Littleton a necessary stop for Canadians passing through to the rest of America, as well as many Americans going to Quebec and other southeastern portions of Canada. Traditional visitors who enter New Hampshire for its foliage, great skiing, and famous hiking locations also make Littleton a regular stopping point.

Back in the 1990s, Littleton struggled with unemployment and sagging local support. One of its big turnaround points was the opening of Wal-Mart, which draws shoppers from as far away as an hour on a regular basis. Since 1998, when Wal-Mart opened its doors, Littleton has replaced Berlin, NH has the hub of activity in the White Mountains of New Hampshire. Applebees, Lowe’s, Home Depot, Ninety-Nine Restaurant, and over a dozen chains have entered the town, boosting population, employment, and tourism rates.

Background of Major Littleton/North Country/New Hampshire Media

Newspapers

According to local author and bookstore owner Mike Dickerman, The Littleton Courier used to cover six high schools; now, since it is owned by a New Hampshire-based corporation with 11 North Country newspapers under its name, only three are covered. Mr. Dickerman, a former writer for the newspaper, explained that while the corporation allows for greater profit for the local newspaper, the amount of local news is lacking. Furthermore, since the corporate-owned papers trade articles, many locals are seeing the same articles twice in the same week. The Coos County Democrat, owned by the same corporation as The Courier, is one such paper located only two towns away from Littleton. Dickerman feels, as many do, that repetitive articles take away from the amount of news covered locally.

Eileen Alexander, the Democrat’s editor, says that since 1990 her paper dropped its coverage from the entire North Country-approximately 90 minutes of driving, from end-to-end, and many towns-to the several towns in the local school district as well as three towns close by and big news in neighboring Vermont.

John Harrigan, former 2^nd-generation owner of the Colebrook News & Sentinel in Colebrook, NH, believes that the Localism laws would have no effect on ability of papers to be local; he makes the claim they already are. According to Harrigan, weekly papers outnumber dailies 11-1; approximately 13,000 to 1,200. Dailies are less profitable than weeklies, because they offer much of the same information as other dailies, whereas weeklies cover what the local people want in a unique fashion. Furthermore, on the business end, corporations have little effect on newspaper ownership, because the public chooses what it wants. The New Hampshire Sunday News columnist believes there are always opportunities available to entrepreneurs who want to open a newspaper in the modern world and serve a market better. Harrigan states without equivocation: “I don’t give a fly about the FCC.”

Few other newspapers reach into the Littleton area. Some of the larger papers, such as The Boston Globe and The New York Times, have their typical presences, but other than The New Hampshire Union Leader-NH’s largest state newspaper-and The Caledonian-Record, a medium-sized paper out of St. Johnsbury, VT with a circulation of just over 10,000 daily papers, (http://caledonianrecord.com/main.asp?SectionID=14&SubSectionID=467&ArticleID=60&TM=53123.72) other printed media presences are limited primarily to several small, free papers.

Radio

In radio, however, things are very different. Presences range from ultra-local to locally regional to multi-state regional. Also, while change takes place, there is a free-flow of stations and interchanging ownership.

Recent examples of the ever-changing, as well as growing, evolution of radio in the Littleton, NH are omnipresent; the following are just a sample. 106.3, WMTK’s, move to its base of operations one town over to St. Johnsbury, VT; however, it still plays Classic Rock in Littleton and the surrounding towns. Two new radio stations-one, an Oldies station, and the other, a Classic Rock station-have opened in the area in the last twelve months, owned by the same radio company that owns 96.7, WLTN and 1400 A.M. A small, privately-owned station started a summer program of music within the last several years on 91.7 FM. 107.5, Frank FM, an Oldies station out of Portland, Maine hit the airwaves several years ago, and has expanded to around half-a-dozen stations in Northern New England. Also, 96.3, WJJB, out of Gray, Maine changed from Fox Radio to Sports on September 1^st. A light rock station, 94.9 WHOM, the largest radio transmitter in the nation-which reaches five states & parts of Canada-and country station 103.7, WOKQ, are both located on Mt. Washington, the tallest mountain on the East Coast. Both reach from Massachusetts to the North Country. Kiss 102.3, WXXS, plays modern pop music, and has been in the area since 1998. Other stations include Star 92.9, WEZF Burlington, VT and 90.5 WCKJ-owned by Christian Ministries, Inc.-out of St. Johnsbury, VT.

A number of local stations cover local events, news, etc. 106.3, WMTK, covers Littleton-Chevrolet events, as well as daily updates on local restaurants and specialty stores. 1400 AM covers all Red Sox games, as well as Littleton High School basketball games. 103.7, known as 97.5 in the southern part of NH, covers events at the local airport and other locations, in addition to all New England Patriots games. New Hampshire Public Radio also covers many different events.

A number of those involved with the radio industry agree the changes would have some negative effect. The General Manager of Nausau Broadcasters: Frank FM, Patrick Tyrrell, in Portland, Maine, for example, believes that “The customers get what they want. If they want local, they will go local. If they don’t, they will go non-local.” Meanwhile Andy Phillips, a 17-year veteran of Littleton-area radio and a former radio personality in northern Vermont, believes that harm will depend on the station; some stations still fully staff, so variety is present. Also, the effects of localism will affect these stations minimally. The Main Studio Rule would only apply if on-air, so closing at night gets rid of expense problems.

One of the strongest opponents to localism regulations was Barry Lunderville, owner of Barry P. Lunderville, LLC and several area radio stations. He believes that localism boards put stations out of business, and that greater ownership in the Littleton area increased by anti-conglomeration regulations would create less of a piece of the pie per company would also but stations out of business. In fact, Lunderville stated that “centrally-located” business will be impossible with the type of regulations the FCC proposed in December of 2007.

Television

There has always been a local television channel in Littleton, for selectman’s meetings, etc. WMUR-TV, an ABC-affiliate owned by Hearst-Argyle with two other locations in Boston, MA and White River Junction, VT, made a return to the North Country of New Hampshire in 2005. (http://www.wmur.com/station/5013678/detail.html) It provides state news on its TV station and website, as well as locally-focused programs such as “New Hampshire Chronicles.” It has three repeaters located in the North Country; two are in Littleton, and a third is in Berlin, New Hampshire. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WMUR-TV)? Also, New Hampshire Public Television goes all around the state, often in the North Country.

Internet

The lack of high-speed Internet has been a point of concern for years in New Hampshire, especially in the rural North Country. However, recent efforts by New Hampshire Senator Judd Gregg and former Senator John Sununu have brought broadband Internet access to the North Country. This had been previously unavailable, leaving Dial-Up as the primary Internet access speed to towns without the (relative) economic influence of large towns/small cities like Berlin, North Conway, and Littleton. Many people, from business owners to public officials, believe this will improve the economies and opportunities of and in rural New Hampshire. (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa5283/is_200712/ai_n21277993)

Several new and influential sites are www.bluehampshire.com, a liberal blogging/grassroots website, and www.polickernh.com, a takeoff from www.politicker.com. BlueHampshire, started several years ago, gained notoriety when a former staff member of former Representative Charles Bass went on the site to blog against Bass’ opponent, current Representative Paul Hodes (http://bluehampshire.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=85) Politicker, on the other hand, bills itself as a “virtual watercooler for the state’s political elite.” Its opinions and biases appear moderate-they make no official statement on their site regarding leaning left or right-and it runs daily polls, weekly “winners & losers” within New Hampshire, and has numerous articles and opinions from local to national influence and scale.

Littleton and its neighboring towns have added websites promoting themselves; the sites range from relatively simple and straightforward- http://www.whitefieldnh.com/ -to comprehensive and vibrant-www.golittleton.com. These sites are incredibly useful to the thousands of tourists who visit the area every year, as well as the many actively involved and culturally inclined local citizens.

Telecommunications

One issue of great contention across Northern New Hampshire for the last several years has been telephone company Fairpoint’s plans to buy Verizon’s northern New England telephone network. Many New Hampshire residents and organizations opposed this, and took many steps to prevent its passage. (http://www.nhpr.org/node/13987)

The FCC eventually signed off on the deal in early 2008, but it still needed state support and approval. (http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2008/01/09/fcc_oks_fairpoint_verizons_new_england_phone_deal/) Since then, New Hampshire has accepted Fairpoint’s offer (http://www.nhpr.org/node/14351), which critics have called a positive for Verizon-which is trending away from residential phone lines-and a negative for everyone else, especially consumers. (Investors appear to feel the same way; the day the FCC approved the deal, Fairpoint’s stock dropped while Verizon’s went up). The deal also includes some Internet services. Since then, the issues have not stopped for Fairpoint, including some customers claiming they have not received bills in months (my parents and some of their friends, for example) and accusations of “cramming” onto bills. (http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Fairpoint+bills+%27crammed%27+with+bogus+charges&articleId=a4cde5ad-bf43-49aa-bb6a-3e57f7b6d9f1)

Conclusions

Localism and localism-related concerns are largely invalid. Rules such as main studio, 25-mile radius, and ownership limits are far too expensive for single-station and other small radio companies to follow and still be in business. Local boards will also be expensive, as radios will lose market share, in addition to limiting what consumers within the market listen to. After all, if the majority of a particular market ignore what the minority wants and listen to what they want anyway, a station that listens to minority opinions on local boards will be out of business in a very short time.

In regards to the Littleton, NH market specifically, there are more radio stations now than ever before. Also, with the Internet, TV, phone lines, and cellular phones become more modern, more numerous, and more prominent than ever before, information can be gathered more effectively, quickly, and thoroughly than those trying to pass localism regulations realize. Localism rules, the Fairness Doctrine, etc. are limiting to small companies and consumer choice, not liberating.

One of the other arguments used in support of the aforementioned regulations is that in small and/or rural markets greater risks of conglomerate monopolization exist. While such business practices DO take place, by and large it is medium and small businesses that are present in small towns. Also, should a conglomerate monopolize a region and bring a product-in this case, listening material-different than what is preferred by the target market, consumers will not listen because they have so many different options of media. This will cause the company to lose profits, and therefore either modify to the market or sell that particular location. Lastly, between 1970 and 2004, in the era of deregulation of media, the number of radio stations has actually increased, putting a lie to the idea of conglomeration preventing radio growth and diversification. (http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-at040928.pdf)

ONE LEGITIMATE CONCERN: If there are no other choices, people may HAVE to listen…they may not care enough to demand change. However, there will always be a disgruntled listener, risk-taking entrepreneur, etc. to bring a product the target market will enjoy and partake of. Furthermore, with current technologies including television, Blackberries, and computers, the negative effect of a dominant radio conglomerate is very limited.

-dustin siggins