Photo by David Shankbone

The political climate of this country is full of tension and anger.  Whether one considers themselves to be on the left, right, or something else altogether, they are undoubtedly fed up with this current system.  There is no better display of these emotions than the current Occupy movement, now spreading across the country and the whole world. This Saturday was the kickoff of Occupy Pittsburgh.

Being that I count myself among the fed up, I wanted to attend. The political ideologies represented at the Pittsburgh rallies and marches on Saturday were varied. Most people participating no longer trust either political party to represent them anymore. There was popular sentiment that corporations have now bought the vast majority of politicians and that corporate money needs to be barred from flowing into the campaign coffers of these politicians.

The above message I can agree with, but it is the other solutions that many Occupiers advocate that I strongly disagree with. It was my impression that a good majority of the protesters wanted higher taxes for the “rich”, more regulation of the economy with special emphasis on the banking sector, and more socialized programs like universal healthcare.

“The rich are hoarding all the wealth and must be forced to give it up and pay their fair share.” “Government needs to crack down on the banks and regulate them more because they are now allowed to gamble away peoples’ savings in the derivatives market with impunity.” “The greedy healthcare companies are raising the cost of healthcare and forcing the poor to go without, therefore they must be restrained or the government should provide all medical care.” Many of these same people were calling for an end to capitalism altogether.

But how do these individuals define capitalism? Most point to the current form of a state-regulated market economy and say that it does not work. They say capitalism has failed the average person and enriched the top 1%. Millions are unemployed, millions are on government assistance programs, and banks get bailed out while the people are sold out. Those that do have work are paid scraps while the “capitalist class” siphons off the surplus value they create for themselves.

If this is one’s view of capitalism then I cannot blame them for hating it. I hate it as well. But I would not call our current system capitalism. Quite the contrary; what we have now is a situation where the corporate and political power structures are so intertwined that they cannot survive without each other. However, this system is more accurately termed corporatism, mercantilism, or fascism.

In this system, the corporations get the regulations they want by buying off politicians with what are essentially bribes in the form of campaign contributions. Bureaucrats and politicians alike are given high paying jobs as rewards with the same corporations that they pushed the regulations through for.

A great example of this is Michael Taylor, the current Food Safety Czar under the Obama Administration. In the 1980s-90s, Taylor was a corporate lawyer and lobbyist for Monsanto, the notorious bio-tech giant responsible for Agent Orange, Roundup, most of the questionable genetically modified crops (GMO) in America, as well as the dangerous rBGH growth hormone given to cows to increase their milk output.  He moved in and out of the FDA every few years pushing through necessary regulations to allow GMOs onto the market without any safety standards at all. He then became Monsanto’s vice president on public policy in 1998. Now he heads up food “safety.”

This guy epitomizes the revolving door of government and industry, which is the same no matter the department. The people in the regulatory agencies today are the executives of the corporations tomorrow.  The Occupiers who naively want to give more power to these regulatory agencies are asking for the top 1% to further press the boot down on their necks.

Real capitalism would free the 99% from the authoritarian controls of the top 1%. In a free market, big companies would not give millions of dollars to politicians because there would be no benefit. The no-bid contracts, favorable regulations, tax loopholes, and subsidies that give big business the advantage over competitors would all disappear. There would finally be a level playing field so that small and medium sized businesses could compete more effectively, thus bringing better services overall to us, the consumers.

In the market, profits come from providing high quality goods and services at low prices, not from bribing the controllers of the public trough. The consumer is king and decides where their voting dollars will go. Reputation matters and companies will do what they can to keep them spotless. Innovation and creativity are unleashed for the benefit of all.

Capitalism is responsible for the relatively easy lifestyles we live today. Corporations, government, and the Federal Reserve have been ruining capitalism for generations and things have finally come to their inevitable destructive end. The choice now is not to overthrow “capitalism” and embrace socialism. The choice is to overthrow the corporatist/mercantilist/fascist system and embrace true free market capitalism where people are free to pursue prosperity and happiness in peaceful competition and cooperation.

Bernanke announced that the Fed will be leaving interest rates where they are. That monetary policy is worrying many people though. Commodity prices have been rising sharply in the last few months, which many see as a direct result of easy money coming from the Fed. What did Bernanke have to say about inflation?

Amazingly the Fed’s medium to long-term projection for inflation is still 1.7 to 2.0%. To many it may seem that the Fed is disconnected from Main Street. Ask your neighbor how much their cost of living has risen in the last 6 months and they will tell you it’s much higher than a 2.0% annualized rate. Why the discrepancy?

The Fed Chairman can often be heard talking about “core inflation” and its use as a gauge of inflation overall. If the Fed sees low inflation in the core, which it has, then they can keep up the stimulus of low interest rates and QE2.

When one looks at what is indexed in the core, it becomes clear why the average person says inflation is high while Bernanke says it is low. The core does not include important items such as food and energy which have the largest impact on everyday life for Americans.

Real inflation as calculated using 1980 methodology is closer to 10%. Earlier this year many foods were rising in price upwards of 5% in a month.  This is a bit staggering when you consider that the Fed is supposed to provide stable prices as part of their mandate. It is safe to say they have failed in this regard.

The other part of their mandate is to foster maximum employment. In his press conference, Bernanke cited the official unemployment rate of 8.8% as reason to continue a loose credit policy and QE2. He said that unemployment will continue to decrease as the economic recovery continues.

Taking into consideration the disingenuous inflation statistics and rhetoric, can we trust Bernanke and the government to give us accurate unemployment statistics?  Unsurprisingly, no we cannot.

Real unemployment is around 22%. The official statistic (U3) of 8.8% excludes discouraged workers and treats those who can only find part-time work as employed. U3 was redefined in 1994 so as to show lower rates.

Can we at least take Bernanke at his word that the economy is recovering at a moderate pace? According to the Fed’s outlook, the economy will sustain moderate growth this year and accelerated growth in 2012 and 2013.

This hopeful projection is coming from a man who was saying the economy was sound even in late 2007 as the recession began and the housing bubble started to burst. His track record is one of complete inaccuracy and number cooking; there is no reason to think that has changed.

Instead of letting the market work out all the bad debt and deflating the bubble in 2008, the government and the Fed combined forces to bail out the “Too Big To Fails” on Wall Street. The fundamental imbalances of the system have not been addressed. In addition, the politicians in Washington refuse to reign in out-of-control spending.

What happens as Social Security and Medicare require money that simply isn’t there? Are we going to continue to have a military budget that accounts for 43% of world military spending? Are we going to continue to borrow $1.6 trillion a year even as China, Japan, and others begin to reduce their purchases of treasuries and actually reduce their holdings of dollars? Will the Fed continue buying treasuries thus enabling this runaway spending and devaluation of our currency?

These are serious questions that need to be dealt with. It is far more preferable to deal with them now and in an orderly way rather than being forced to by the market and our creditors. Sadly it appears the President, Congress, and Bernanke are not up to the task.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Considering our audience, perhaps it seems unnecessary to quote what is possibly the most famous portion of the United States Constitution.  But as Pittsburgh recently experienced a case involving free speech, it might not hurt some (the Pennsylvania State Police and Pittsburgh Police Department, mostly) to have a brief refresher course.

Even though City police claim to have stopped issuing tickets or citations for swearing at police way back in March 2009, it took until January of this year — and the involvement of the ACLU — to get the state to agree to the same policy. While swearing and making obscene gestures towards law enforcement may be an unwise move (not to mention something your mother would surely disapprove of), there is nothing inherently illegal with expressing yourself with words or body motions.  Of course, these rights do not extend to when these expressions begin to threaten someone.  But when the safety and property of those around us are not being threatened, why should there be legislation governing what we can say?

But let’s not think that this is an isolated case of an assault on free speech.  The Foundation published a piece a few weeks ago on the dangers of an Egyptian-style shut down of the Internet.  We’ve seen the local police union threatening felony charges for those responsible for a satirical Fraternal Order of Police press release.  Local citizens, hoping to do nothing more than civilly express their opinions to their local council have been arrested for doing so.  And in recent years, we have seen the push to limit how citizens and corporations express their political views with campaign finance “reforms”.

Quite often, laws flying in the face of free speech are often sold as doing a public service.  Take for example last year’s frenzy in Pennsylvania to stop and prosecute the sending of sexually explicit text messages.  Yes, perhaps this bill is accomplishing a noble goal.  But would it not be far more noble for parents and their children to assume the responsibility to not participate in such activity (unless, of course, you want to; this is America after all).  Parents, perhaps wanting their children to be “scared straight” in regards to sending or receiving such messages, support such a bill without considering the sweeping effects it could have.

Where do we go from here?  When one of the most basic and accepted rights we have is being slowly chiseled away, what can the electorate and the population as a whole do?  Now, more than ever, it is time for Pennsylvanians to take control and be diligent regarding such Constitutionally-prohibited cases especially at the local and state level where lawmakers and law enforcement are more accountable and accessible.

Image by Lvklock

As introduced in a previous article, the issue of Marcellus Shale continues to occupy not only media outlets, but the topic has also reached the Governor’s desk and is the talk of many rural towns.  New information and rumors seem to appear daily, but on the political and environmental fronts, battle lines have been drawn.

Even before taking office, the Commonwealth’s new Republican Governor, Tom Corbett, promised that he would not add or increase taxes.  Though this conservative fiscal philosophy sounds simple enough, the recollection of the first President Bush’s “No new taxes” mantra and subsequent broken promise is fresh in many people’s memory.

Given the struggling state of the economy, it seems as if a tax on this new resource would be practical, as neighboring states have brought in hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenue from Marcellus Shale.  Such a tax is feasible, as natural gas production companies themselves are even willing to be taxed on the state level as a purchase of political capital in exchange for limits on local regulations and zoning prohibiting drilling for Marcellus Shale.

Of course, if a tax were to be raised, who would see the revenues?  Though a large majority of Pennsylvania residents are in favor of such a tax, only a few are actually in the crossfire of the debate.  A clear answer to this media-proposed taxed has not been reached, although it is obviously against Governor Corbett’s campaign pledge and generally business friendly approach.

A compromise on this issue of taxation, however, is a good possibility.  Corbett and his newly- established Marcellus Shale Advisory Committee are considering an “impact fee.”  Such a measure would require drilling companies to sign over a portion of their profits to local communities that face the greatest impact from natural gas procurement.  These funds would be directly applied to rebuild roads damaged by heavy construction equipment and compensate for the use of the area’s infrastructure.   This compromise seems to be a viable way to protect local communities while maintaining the Governor’s promise, though its negative implications between drillers and local communities are interesting.

As the Governors debate taxes in Harrisburg, environmentalists have whipped the Southwestern part of the Commonwealth into a fury.  Eager to connect any negative environmental attribute to the Marcellus Shale wells, environmentalists and state officials alike are warning of the potential dangers of this activity.  The usual suspect environmental classes of migratory birds, amphibians, and wetland habitats, have already been brought to attention as potentially being affected adversely by Marcellus Shale drilling. Contextualizing these warnings though is the fact that, although natural gas is procured from Marcellus Shale using technology that many find new and unfamiliar, it is essentially less invasive than traditional petroleum wells.  Additionally, it should be noted that many of the animals that call Pennsylvania’s lush habitats home are experienced adapters and can handle the disturbances of drilling.

The environmental debates do not end with wildlife disruption.  Many landowners and rural residents are concerned with the natural gas extraction method of hydraulic fracturing.  This process requires a large amount of water being forced down the well, often laden with chemicals, and pressures the shale formations, causing cracks that allow the natural gas pockets to escape.  The major concerns over this process include the supply of the water, which normally comes from landowner’s wells, and the escape of the carcinogens into the water shed.  Pennsylvania regulations prevent landowners from selling their water, though they may include these clauses in their leases and certainly may prevent a company from accessing their water supply.  The second concern, over the pollution of the water table, is still on the table and will continue to be a controversial issue as Marcellus Shale becomes a household name and driving force in rural economies.

As the debates surrounding Marcellus Shale continue on many fronts, one should approach the controversy with a cautious course.  Landowners should make well thought out decisions, balancing the profitability of a Marcellus Shale lease on their property while weighing the potential environmental impacts.  On the broader level, it will certainly be interesting to see how first-year Governor Tom Corbett officially weighs in on the issue politically and economically.

One of those criticisms leveled at the president is that he failed to consult Congress before committing the US to military conflict. Under Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution, the power to declare war is specifically granted to the Legislative branch. This was to ensure that the peoples’ representatives are the ones to make such a commitment.

President Obama utterly ignored this provision of the Constitution when he deployed US military forces against Libya. The White House has responded by invoking the War Powers Resolution of 1973.

The War Powers Resolution grants the executive the power to commit military forces to a conflict for 60 days at which time a declaration of war or authorization of force must be granted by Congress. The President is allowed to exercise this power only when the US is under attack or there is an imminent threat of one. Reiterating the objections of many Americans: what threat did Gaddafi pose?

To save face, Obama mentioned several times in his speech that Libya presented an “imminent” threat to the US. He failed to define what that threat was, making only vague references to refugees that might go to neighboring Tunisia or Egypt and destabilize the region.

In a weekend interview, Defense Secretary Gates admitted that Libya “… was not a vital national interest to the United States.” Gates also put forward the argument that international approval and humanitarian reasons were enough cause to intervene.

In 2007, then candidate Obama said “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” Regrettably, it would seem that he has forgotten his own advice.

President Obama and Secretary Gates fail to realize that they are not answerable to the UN or any other country. Their job is to follow the Constitution and serve the American people and their interests. Firing hundreds of millions of dollars of missiles and bombs into Libya without Congressional approval is unacceptable.

This is not the first time the president has violated the Constitution in favor of the UN either. In 2009, Obama became the first US president to accept the chairmanship of the UN Security Council. Traditionally, the US Ambassador to the UN would chair the council. Article 1 Section 9 of the US Constitution forbids a member of the government from accepting “…Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”

A second issue the President did not address in his speech Monday was the fact that we do not even know who the rebels are or what kind of government will be installed once Gaddafi is gone. The Telegraph recently reported that Al Qaeda fighters who previously were battling against Coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan are fighting on the frontlines against Gaddafi.

A top US NATO commander, Admiral James Stavridis, testified to the Senate that “we have seen flickers in the intelligence of potential Al Qaeda, Hezbollah.”

In 2007, a West Point study was done on the backgrounds of fighters crossing the Syrian border into Iraq during the 2006-2007 timeframe, under the auspices of the international terrorist organization Al Qaeda. The authors report that Libya is the number one country for radical jihadist recruitment per capita. The primary recruitment grounds are in the east of the country, specifically the cities of Darnah and Benghazi. These are two of the focal points of the rebellion against Gaddafi.

It would be foolish to think that all the rebels or their leaders accept this form of radical Islam, but do we know what portion of them do? How do we know that the new government will not be worse than the current secular dictatorship?

These are but two criticisms of Obama that went unaddressed in any real sense during his speech. There are other logical inconsistencies in the President’s actions including the fact that Obama attacked Gaddafi but not other rulers who are killing their people in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, or Oman. One might point to the hundreds of thousands that have died and the millions displaced as a result of US involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan as hypocrisy as well.

Also, the fact the United States is bankrupt has to be addressed as well. The President likes to pay lip service to reducing spending, but a deficit of $1.65 trillion is unsustainable. Borrowing from China and others to fund new wars is reckless to say the least.

Certainly, Gaddafi is a heartless killer and deserves to go, but getting involved in a civil war in a country that poses little or no threat to this nation is ludicrous to say the least.

Missouri was the first state to explore film subsidies when it started offering $1 million in film incentives to production companies in 1999. Pennsylvania instituted similar incentives in 2004 and expanded them three years later under Gov. Ed Rendell. Under the program, filmmakers can apply 25 percent of production expenses in Pennsylvania to offset other state taxes, provided at least 60 percent of total production expenses occurred in the state.

When Gov. Tom Corbett gave his 2011-2012 budget address on March 8, he announced that he would keep the program. “The film tax credit, which we are retaining – and never thought to do otherwise – will attract jobs and pump money from outside the state into our economy.”

Corbett’s budget continues the tax credit in the amount of about $60 million. According to the governor, however, this is merely an investment that will have greater returns for the state by bringing the film business to Pennsylvania. He argues that the personnel hired and some of the taxes raised should create a net gain for the state.

It is the same argument made by the other 42 states engaged in subsidizing the film industry.  Many take issue with this and consider it a fallacious claim.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) does research and analysis on fiscal policy and public programs that affect low- and moderate-income families and individuals. The CBPP recently reviewed some of the only independent and empirical studies done which found the film subsidies to be wasteful and ineffective. The report reviewed various claims that advocates often give.

Job creation for PA residents is one of the leading justifications for the tax credit program. The CBPP report found that while this is true, the hiring of Pennsylvanians is largely for menial tasks that are part-time and low-paying. The better paying jobs require skills that residents here tend not to possess. Talent from Hollywood and New York City is often brought in to fill these positions.

As a result, the portion of the payroll going to residents amounts to a relatively small amount. In a Massachusetts study, residents earned only 40 percent of the total payroll generated both directly and indirectly by the Commonwealth’s film tax subsidies. Temporary low-paying jobs are not exactly a foundation for economic growth, especially when $60 million in taxpayer money is being used to fund them.

Another oft given reason for having the subsidy is that it is a “win-win” situation for the industry and the state. The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) claims that governments generate enough tax revenue from film productions so that they can expand services even as they offer film producers generous subsidies.

The CPBB found otherwise though. Their report shows that Pennsylvania only recoups $0.24 for every dollar given as a subsidy. The state also loses approximately $13,000 in tax revenue for every job created.

The studies that the MPAA and others rely on were also reviewed by the CPBB. The group found that these were commissioned by either the MPAA or state film offices. These studies of course show that there is a net gain in tax revenue for the states and local governments. The CPBB found them severely flawed, however, having looked closely at their methods.

The CPBB reported that tactics such as double counting money spent in the state as well as making unexplained “adjustments” to key figures such as salaries and spending were used. The lack of transparency is telling. Many of these studies grossly overestimate tourism revenue brought in due to filming as well.

The continuation of this largess is indefensible. The truth is that this program wastes money that the state cannot afford to lose.  As Nathan Benefield of the Harrisburg-based Commonwealth Foundation said, “A tax break for the film industry requires higher tax rates on everyone else, hindering job creation in other sections of the economy.”

That this film subsidy program is a waste of $60 million of the taxpayers’ money should be apparent to everyone in Harrisburg. If tax breaks are to be given out, they should be given to the hard working people of this state who are struggling through the current depression and not to film producers. Iowa, Kansas and others have dropped this program. Pennsylvania should join them.

Within hours of this budget proposal becoming public, Pitt Chancellor Mark Nordenberg sent students an email in which he claimed that the budget cuts would not only impose a “severe and unfair burden on our students and their families” but also “undermine economic growth in Pennsylvania.” Nordenberg also made it clear that the University will attempt to orchestrate student protests and a massive lobbying effort to defeat Corbett’s proposed budget.

As a Pitt student, I will not be joining in those manufactured protests nor will I be participating in lobbying activities like Pitt’s yearly “Harrisburg Day” when the University spends money to send busloads of students and administrators to the state capitol to lobby for increased funding. Indeed, as a Pitt student, I think that Corbett is doing the right thing.

As a senior at Pitt, I’ve seen tuition increase each year beyond the rate of inflation even when the University had secured significant state funding. Whatever Corbett chose to do, tuition was going to increase again for Pitt students next year by some five percent.

While I’ve seen tuition increase every year at Pitt, I’ve also seen the quality of education decrease every year. I’ve seen class sizes expand, I’ve witnessed a greater reliance on adjuncts rather than tenured faculty and I’ve encountered professors whose basic factual knowledge of their subject is lacking.

Certainly, I’ve also been lucky enough to have some truly outstanding teachers during my time at Pitt but their talents go consistently unrewarded by a university system that values seniority and publishing over teaching. For this reason, my best teachers are lecturers who are paid less than their tenured, full-professor counterparts who do little teaching themselves.

The root of Pitt’s problem is not that the Commonwealth isn’t providing Pitt with enough taxpayer dollars but that Pitt is no longer an institution dedicated to teaching. Instead, like many institutions of higher education in our country today, Pitt has become, in part, a playground for young people seeking to avoid the real world and real work for four (or five or six) years. Indeed, the amount of money that Pitt spends on concerts, carnivals and golf simulators speaks directly to this point.

This isn’t to say that many Pitt students are not dedicated to learning or are not dedicated to realizing a career that requires extensive education. Many are. That being said, many students who attend Pitt, like many students who attend colleges and universities around the country, do so not because they are pursuing a career but because college has become a societal-mandated four years of socialization and the flood of taxpayer subsidies to higher ed has made it affordable enough that, even if your career goals don’t require a college degree, you might as well go to college anyway.

Not only does societal pressure for every young person to attend college do a disservice to taxpayers who foot the bill for much of the experience, it also does a disservice to millions of young people who incur thousands of dollars in debt to either never finish their degree or graduate with a degree that they will not use. After all, half of all college students never finish their degree and one third of all college students drop out during the first year, U.S. News and World Report reported.

Now, there is nothing wrong with an individual choosing to attend college as a social experience and there is nothing wrong with a University providing entertainment to their student body as long as it is the individual student and the University as an institution that is providing the money for these activities. But the use of taxpayer dollars to encourage college enrollment and to help turn those colleges into bastions of entertainment insulated from the real world and the real job market does a disservice to college students and a disservice to taxpayers.

Corbett’s budget is not perfect but reducing higher ed’s reliance on the state and reducing state subsidies to higher ed is a step in the right direction. Those who have portrayed Corbett’s budget as an assault on higher education fail to recognize that institutions such as Pitt are no longer primarily educational institutions but instead insulated communities dedicated partly to education but also largely to entertainment, socialization and the self-aggrandizement of the institution itself. As a Pitt student, I regard the partial withdrawal of state funding from state-supported universities as an essentially moral action that protects taxpayers and will ultimately benefit young people.

Image by M. Foli

Last month we saw Egyptians of all political leanings rise up for a single purpose: the overthrow of dictator Hosni Mubarak. There was much bloodshed and violence, usually instigated by pro-government groups or the police. Mubarak was well-entrenched and exercised all means of power in order to quell dissent and rebellion. One of his tactics, shutting down the majority of internet access and telecommunications in Egypt, received widespread international condemnation.

The Internet provided the means through which protestors were able to organize and share information amongst themselves. Social networking sites like Twitter and Facebook were the main vehicles for individual citizens to mobilize against government tyranny. Who knows whether this revolt would have been possible or succeeded without the technology of the Internet?

Among those critical of Mubarak’s heavy-handed approach was the United States. However, any call for democracy or the rights of the people out of the US government carries the bitter taste of hypocrisy these days. Politicians here are constantly pushing for more government regulation and power including over the Internet.

Introduced last summer by Senator Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine), the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act would give the President of the United States similar draconian powers to those President Mubarak utilized. The bill would give the Department of Homeland Security the ability to create a list of systems or assets that constitute critical cyber-infrastructure. The President would in times of emergency be able to control those systems including having the ability to turn them off — a ‘kill switch’ as it has been dubbed.

Additionally, the bill specifically prevents any judicial review of what the president and DHS consider critical infrastructure. What defines “cyber-emergency” is also left vague.

Senator Lieberman among others has been a staunch advocate of the surveillance national security state. In an interview on CNN last year regarding the proposed legislation, he stated that “Right now China, the government, can disconnect parts of its internet in a case of war. We need to have that here too.”

It is true that China has that power. They frequently use it to stifle dissent on their heavily filtered internet in politically sensitive times, not just in a case of war. It is disconcerting to see a member of the US Senate advocating becoming more like China’s authoritarian government.

China has also started requiring its citizens to log in to news sites using their real identities. Such a move is designed to chill free speech and track opposition.

Perhaps not surprisingly, the Obama White House has started pushing for “internet IDs” to be implemented through the Commerce Department. “Possible methods of creating a ‘trusted identity’ could include issuing a ‘smart card’ or digital certificates that would prove that online users are who they say they are.” All of an individual’s internet activity could end up being attached specifically to their ID. The Commerce Department was quick to assuage fears of a Big Brother system, but how can the American people believe what they say when taking into account past grievances?

Just over five years ago the Bush era warrantless wiretapping scandal was just the beginning.  Soon after, AT&T whistleblower Mark Klein revealed that the National Security Agency (NSA) receives all Internet traffic including emails, searches, etc from even domestic traffic. This scandal came to involve virtually all major Internet and telecommunications companies. Congress granted retroactive immunity to these companies in 2008.

In March 2009, the director of Homeland Security’s National Cybersecurity Center, Rod Beckström, resigned alleging that the NSA “effectively controls DHS cyber efforts….” He was sharply critical of this power grab and refused to be a part of it.

The DHS recently began exercising its self-proclaimed authority by seizing dozens of domains it accused of copyright violations. One site, a search engine named Torrent-Finder.com, “neither hosted copyrighted material nor directly linked to places where it could be found. Instead, the site opened new windows to sites that did link to file-sharing materials.” Another site, RapGodfathers.com, complied with copyright laws, but its users had posted links to sites that did not.

Website owners had no prior warning to the seizure and many never received a complaint. The seized domains display a message from DHS.

It is clear that the national security apparatus is increasingly being pointed at the American people.  Total internet surveillance along with such things as internet IDs and government control over the infrastructure make for a frightening combination.  Factor in the continual power grab being made by the DHS through the TSA and America is looking more like Orwell’s 1984 than a free country.  Let us learn from Egypt and prevent that future from manifesting.

Image by Dincher

Over the past few years, there have been multiple food safety issues involving everything from peanut butter to lettuce to eggs.  In response to these issues, Congress recently passed the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) in a supposed attempt to get safety concerns under control.

This legislation requires more frequent inspections of, seeks to establish new standards for, and levies fees on food production facilities of various kinds.  It also grants the government the power to declare mandatory recalls of foods.  This legislation will cause undue and perhaps unintended hardships for smaller farming operations.

It is important to note that the repeated food recalls rarely if ever result from problems at small farm operations but rather from problems at large industrialized farm operations.  Small farmers growing crops organically already must adhere to state and local standards as well as those of their customers. They also have to pay money to get certified as Naturally Grown (the organic certification commonly used for small farms). With this new piece of legislation, another layer of regulation will be added.  At first it looked as if the mountain of new regulations was going to swallow up all of the small and mid-level farms until Congress approved the Tester amendment to the bill.

The Tester amendment will “exempt small farmers who make less than $500,000 a year in revenue and sell directly to consumers, restaurants, or grocery stores within their states or within 275 miles to avoid expensive food safety plans required of larger operations.” However in order to obtain this exemption, farmers will have to apply to the FDA which will impose upon them much burdensome and time-consuming paperwork.

Also, why should small farmers or co-ops be artificially limited to $500,000 in revenue?  And why should they be restricted as to whom they can sell their crops?  This is a sad in a state that is supposed to be one with free market capitalism.  The sale of organic foods is rapidly expanding and much of these foods are grown in small farm operations like these.  Why should these farms have an artificial limit placed on their business growth when it is quite possible that demand for their products will explode in the next few years? It is also not prudent to set a nominal cap on revenue when inflation and food prices are both rising. Because of this, the $500,000 will not equal the same amount of produce in coming years.

Small farms are not and will not be exempt from inspections for which they are billed, licensing requirements with expensive quality controls, product confiscation without cause or recourse, and even armed raids. Worse, these extreme impositions on entrepreneurs, including armed raids on small farms, are already happening.

For example, in Oregon last year, county health inspectors felt the need to shut down a 7-year old girl’s lemonade stand. First they asked to see her vending license, which would have cost her $120, and then they threatened to fine her $500 which sent her away in tears. Officials were subsequently forced to publicly apologize for their conduct.

Around the same time in Venice, California, an organic food store was raided.  The store was selling raw dairy products, foods with growing demand among health conscious consumers. The security camera caught the raid on film and it is clear that the police were overzealous, even checking under store fixtures with guns drawn.

Here in Pennsylvania similar acts take place as well.  In 2010, the FDA twice went to Dan Allgyer’s farm in Kinzers, PA and accused him of conducting interstate commerce by selling his raw milk. Allgyer is Amish and claims he does not sell his milk to the public at all. He was harassed on two separate occasions and the FDA agents also harassed a visitor to Allgyer’s farm. This resulted in the police being called to deal with the unruly FDA agents.

If such acts are already taking place on an increasing basis, how can we trust the FDA with the greater regulatory and enforcement powers granted to it in the FSMA?  It appears that the federal government has been on a crusade against small organic farms and those that sell their products for years.  A partial exemption for these farms now does not mean that the FDA has any intentions of letting Pennsylvania small farming operations continue operating with what freedom they have left.

The federal government has no business deciding what Pennsylvania citizens can and cannot consume. It is also not the government’s place to be involved in our state’s local operations where farmers are already accountable to the consumers and stores that buy their food.  At best the legislation will make food prices more expensive across the board in a time when most Americans are already struggling financially as well as place an undue burden on family farms -likely shuttering those barely scraping by. Overall the bill gives Americans less choice and competition for the foods they eat.

Giles is one of just four students across the nation to receive an individual nomination based on strengths shown with “hard work, organizational skills, value creation, innovation and entrepreneurship.”

Nominees are voted on through the Students for Liberty’s website for the award, and voting is ongoing until the event.

The winner will be announced during the 2011 conference on Feb. 18. Please visit SFL’s website and show your support by voting for Giles.

http://studentsforliberty.org/college/awards/

About Students for Liberty: Founded in 2007 and hosting its first conference on Feb. 22, 2008, Students for Liberty has grown into a nationally-recognized forum to promote liberty in college and university settings.