Monthly Archives: February 2012

How We Power Our Homes & Individual Rights

Another Guest Blog: This time…Aaron Matthews. Aaron has worked in government affairs for over ten years, in states all across the United States. An avid student of Objectivist philosophy and economics, he’s constantly on the lookout for issues affecting individual rights at the Georgia State Capitol.

You might think Georgia, being a bastion of conservatism in America, would be a place where innovation can prosper. You might think that Ronald Reagan’s statement that the best minds are not in government, or else businesses would steal them away, was something that Georgians could take comfort in. You would think, but then again, you would be wrong, at least when it comes to the choices about how we power our homes. In Georgia, forty some odd lobbyists and millions of dollars at the Gold Dome stand in the way of market economics from allowing consumers how their property is powered. This is wrong, and the bill winding its way through the Georgia Senate that would allow for solar power purchasing agreements (SPPAs) is a step in the right direction.

Briefly, PPAs are essentially private agreements between owners of electricity generating systems and an individual consumer. On one hand, the seller agrees to front the capital costs associated with the power generating system (in terms of solar – photovoltaic cells, mounting brackets, etc.). On the other hand, the buyer agrees to compensate the seller a fixed cost based on the output of those systems. The seller gets the benefit of all the tax credits and income from the solar systems, and the buyer gets the benefit of contractually fixed cost electrical prices for the long term. The best part, the agreement is completely voluntary. Buyers need not worry about such agreements if they do not choose to do so. It’s an arrangement so great that 46 states in America legally allow these agreements. Georgia, unfortunately, is not one of them.

This brings us to the topic of Georgia Power, which is essentially a state protected monopoly. Want to turn on your television? Talk to Georgia Power. Need to open your garage to get work? Hope you paid your Georgia Power bill. Do you like having air conditioning? Well, Georgia Power will be happy to make sure you don’t bake through the summer month. And just to make sure you enjoy Georgia Power’s monopoly even more, you are paying monthly fees on your energy bill each month to construct Reactors 3 and 4 and Plant Vogtle. If you move away from Georgia, you don’t get that money back.

With a room packed full of lobbyists this past Thursday, they collectively expressed their disdain for a rider attached to SB 459 by Buddy Carter. Originally SB 401, this bill would allow Georgians to express their economic rights like citizens of nearly every other state do by allowing Solar PPAs to finance private solar energy systems. As it stands, Solar PPAs are not something Georgia Power is very fond of. Why should they? When the state protects your monopoly, anything that allows consumers to reduce the power you hold is a realistic threat to your state guaranteed bottom-line. I wish we were all so lucky.

Flat out, Georgia Power is wrong. They are wrong on the facts and the philosophy behind their stance on this issue.

Georgia Power claims this will drive up retail rates for consumers, particularly those that do not choose to install solar panels. In terms of dollars, the cost of energy per BTU in Georgia is right in the middle, meaning states with solar PPAs rank both higher in lower. Georgia’s price per kilowatt hour is also higher than twenty-eight other states according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. When looking at the prices of energy, in fact, the prices are greatly impacted by the availability of energy sources – coal, petroleum, hydroelectric – which explains why states like Idaho and Washington (hydroelectric), North Dakota (petroleum), and Wyoming (coal) all have much lower energy prices for consumers.

The philosophy of state protected monopolies is what is most bothersome here. To put it bluntly, it is downright immoral for our elected officials to dictate who we purchase our services from in Georgia. Their fundamental responsibility is to protect our rights to choose the options that are best suited for our lives, not protect us from ourselves and what could amount to be bad choices. It’s the philosophy that underlies the higher power bills you’re paying to Georgia Power.

Let’s make our energy cheaper than the talk of elected officials. Solar PPAs are good policy. They help to drive the costs of electricity down to consumers who choose them, and they help to build jobs around the production, installation, and service of these systems. Contact members of the Senate Regulated Industries and Utilities Committee and let them know you support SB459.

The Final Fight

Today my heart is heavy for the Roswell Chicken Man, Andrew Wordes. His eviction date, after many pushbacks and set backs, is set for today, Tuesday February 21.

After many injunctions and attempts of injunctions, Andrew was refused a continuance when his attorney was not in attendance, despite the fact that the mortgage holder had appeared in court a total of ZERO times. The judge stated that this was the end of the line.

This, however, has not discouraged Mr. Wordes who has continued to reach out to friends, politicians and news outlets. Yesterday, Maggie Bean, a journalist for the Examiner, wrote a fabulous article on the trials and tribulations of Mr. Wordes fight and CBS also covered the story last night. Still, the fight goes on.

Local politicians have chosen not to get involved in fear of backlash. The Senator for the district has ceased his activism in the case. Roswell City Officials are responsible for this mess and the abhorrent public servants that could help don’t want to speak out ‘unless someone else does’. (read: useless) People are scared and won’t help Andrew…but YOU or I could be the next Roswell Chicken Man. Easily. Like I’ve said time and time again, we’re all one perceived violation away from where Andrew is. (And with the increased regulation of today, the idea is not so far-fetched.)

What Andrew needs now is public attention from a national media outlet. There is some fearless attorney out there that will take the bull (the City of Roswell) by the horns and legally annihilate them for what they have done. If you were in Andrew’s position, would you want to fight the good fight alone? The City of Roswell isn’t going to stop until Alpine Lane is green space and time is running out.

—-
For Chicken Man history, read the following Perspicacious Conservative articles from August 6thAugust 14th  and November 23rd. You can also follow the cause on Facebook.

The Little Red Hen

The Little Red Hen…

What a fabulous story: The Little Red Hen plants, reaps, and carries the wheat as everyone sits around watching and unwilling to help. When it is time to sow, turn the flour into dough and bake it, still-no one offers to help. But when the bread is warm and ready, EVERY ONE is willing to come join and enjoy the feast. Sound familiar?

How about the 47% of Americans who don’t pay income taxes? Many of them contribute NOTHING to the government money pit and reap significant benefits. They wait for the 53% to plant, water, reap, carry, transform and bake. They expect the wheat to be morphed into warm bread and then they are willing to help consume! Much like when those dependent on social services watch as entrepreneurs, business persons and blue collar workers alike work tirelessly day in and day out to support themselves and their families. They form companies, establish business relationships and are the powerhouses of the private sector. 53% have to cook the bread but are forced to feed the remaining 46%. My favorite part of the story? When the hen says, “NO! I’ll eat it all myself”. I wish that would happen here on a larger scale.

Why do I have to share my bread? I grew my own wheat! What happened to ‘every man for himself’? When did we become victims of a nanny state and country full of people who cannot manage for themselves?

Maybe a simple story of capitalism, such as this, would make it easier for people to understand. It’s certainly better and more informative than ‘The Lorax’ or ‘Dear President Obama: Letters from Children Across America’. The Little Red Hen is a fantastic analogy to the foundations of our country and economic system. The only difference is that now we aren’t allowed to hoard our own bread. We have to give upwards of 30% of it away.

Conservatives and proponents of Capitalism should push harder to distribute this book. I want to see it in all preschools and elementary schools across the country. I’ve got a copy! Maybe I can volunteer to read it at the next Democratic National Convention? Can I get an Amen??

The Real Housewives of the White House

20120217-073843.jpg

I never really feel bad for victims of political mudslinging because running for any political office is not only a family decision but a privilege. So in the recent months of primary candidates spouses at the forefront of so many new articles, I have to ask: What is the role of the spouse of a political candidate?

We’ve all heard the recent annihilations of Karen Santorum with her anti-torte reform chiropractic lawsuit and her abortion-performing lover of her twenties. We’ve seen Callista Gingrich painted as ‘The Other Woman‘: classless and unfit for the White House and everyone anxiously awaited Gloria Cain’s response after reports of harassment and infidelity broke. And no one can deny the role that Marcus Bachmann’s pyschological clinic played in the demise of Michelle’s campaign.

So how much is too much? How heavily should we weigh the decisions, actions and lifestyles of spouses? I think it’s a really tricky question that I may not necessarily know how to answer. I don’t like Michelle Obama for a number of reasons but how big of a role should that play into my perspective of Baracks candidacy? Should we strike Rick Santorum as a potential Republican candidate because his wife was pro-choice in her earlier, pre-Rick life? Should we discredit Newt’s positive points because his ex-wife claimed he wanted an open marriage?

My concern is that the issue is a double-edged sword. I try to remind myself that the spouse isn’t running for office and if elected, said person will be surrounded by informed staff to help in decision making. But if you consider a typical family, so many choices are made as a team. At some point, I have to wonder how much influence a spouse could have over decisions and policy issues. Or more…does the spouse represent the true feelings of their political counterpart and they just publicly state otherwise? It’s a very fine line.

What I do find fascinating is the Bill Clinton effect on Hilary’s campaign. It was almost nonexistent. I’m not sure if people were just unwilling to beat a dead horse, if they thought Hilary was a strong enough woman to remain unaffected herself or of they simply didn’t care.

I think the lucky candidates are the ones whose wives (or husbands) don’t have a murky past or aren’t currently doing something controversial (I.e. Marcus Bachmann). Sure, the other candidates will look to dig up dirt wherever they can, but it often begins as a distraction effort and then spirals out of control and divert attention away from other things happening in the campaign. It’s certainly ridiculous to consider a spouse’s actions prior to a marriage when evaluating a candidate.

Teresa Heinz Kerry was at the center of the media in 2004 because her late first husband was a Republican and John McCain had a VERY outspoken daughter. Neither of these instances had significant impact on the ultimate direction of the campaign but they were nice distractions at the time.

Unfortunately, the media plays a strong role during election season in deciding what we see and hear about. I ask that you refrain from letting your own personal opinion of each candidate interfere with your evaluation of the role of the spouse and vis versa. I would also ask that you ignore the media reports pertaining to spouses and stay focused on the candidates that are so eager to distract and deceive you.

20120217-073900.jpg

STAY OUT OF MY LUNCH BOX!!

It appears I should change the name of my blog to The Perspicacious Choices, not Conservative…because all I really argue about anymore is the right to make choices for myself. I’m sure you’ve all heard by now, but a 4-year old’s lunch was sent home in North Carolina recently because a state inspector ruled it unhealthy. A turkey and cheese sandwich with a banana, potato chips and apple juice did not meet U.S. Agricultural guidelines.

Excuse me? What the hell are they talking about? That sounds like the lunch I ate everyday from age 5-18. Do you know what they replaced the child’s lunch with? Chicken fingers. I’m sure they were organic, unprocessed and free of any additives,right? We all know how healthy chicken nuggets are when purchased in bulk and frozen. AND they were charged for the cost of the school lunch!

Now, according to North Carolina CHILD CARE RULE .0901- Food from home- “When children bring their own food from home for meals or snacks to the center, if the food does not meet the nutritional requirements outlined in the Meal Patterns for Children in Child Care, the center must provide additional food necessary to meet those requirements.”. I’ll be darned if the school I send my children to will decide what they can and cannot eat….The state, with oversight from the federal government, WILL NOT dictate who eats what in my family.

The story brought back memories of 7th grade when I was called to the Principals Office for wearing a sleeveless turtleneck sweater with jeans. The Principal saw me in the hall in between classes and quickly established that my outfit was “too revealing”. (A turtleneck? Really?) The issue was soon put to rest when my mom showed up to school, livid and wearing the same sweater in another color. Yes, a professional, working woman wearing a sweater in the workplace but it was not appropriate for middle school. Mom sent me back to class as she battled with the Principal. The issue was never brought up again.

There is simply too much discretion and regulation in schools. Each child is different and who knows them better than their own parents? And who is obligated and rightfully the ones to make those decisions? Parents.

We, as a society, get to make fewer and fewer decisions for ourselves every day. Think of all the things that are regulated by discretion: the Internet, roads, schooling, zoning permits, architectural plans, dog shots & registrations, cars, food, clothing, real estate, alcohol…….

America….Land of the Free!!!!

The Karen/Komen Stunt

 

I have avoided the Pro-Life/Pro-Choice argument because on both sides, most people are pretty set in their ways and there’s no sense in trying to convince people one way or the other. That being said, I’ve about had it with Karen Handel, Komen and Planned Parenthood.

A couple different aspects to consider:

Karen Handel: She is a quitter, so naturally, she would resign from Komen. She quit Commissioner for Secretary of State. She quit Secretary of State for her run for Governor. She also wasn’t the one to propose the defunding of planned parenthood (it was a decision made long before entrance into the organization) but she is suddenly the conservative hero for resigning. This is her M.O….on to something better. No one should be surprised.

The stance of Mrs. Handel, on behalf of Komen, during this debacle has been that Planned Parenthood cannot receive funds from SGK because while they are earmarked for services related to breast cancer testing and awareness, the organization than has available funds to perform and advocate abortion, something Mrs. Handel is vehemently and openly against.
However, in 2005, while serving on the Fulton County Commission, Karen Handel voted to funnel federal funds through the county to Planned Parenthood, but “not for abortion funds”. Isn’t this a direct contradiction of what she JUST said last week?

How many of you donated to Komen before this big mess?My guess, based on the wealth of the organization, is millions.

It just goes to show you: no one does research for organizations they offer donations to. Komen has granted funding to Planned Parenthood for years. Cuisinart,the NFL they all support Komen and you support those companies. And there are HUNDREDS of other organizations and corporations that do the same. Here are just some of the other Planned Parenthood contributors:

  • American Express
  • American Home Products (chef boyardee, Pam cooking spray, Advil, Chapstick, etc)
  • AT&T
  • The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
  • Buffett Foundation
  • Ben & Jerry’s
  • Bristol Meyers Squibb (ironically, the makers of Enfamil and Gerber foods)
  • Citicorp
  • Disney
  • Dayton Hudson (owner of Target)
  • eBay
  • General Mills
  • Hewlett Packard
  • Johnson & Johnson
  • Liz Claiborne
  • March of Dimes
  • Nationwide Insurance
  • Nike
  • Pepsi
  • Rotary International
  • Quaker Oats
  • Whirlpool
  • Whole Foods

Now what, folks? Many of the above have earmarked their funds to NOT be used for abortion, but like Mrs. Handel has stated, it frees up other funds to advocate abortion.
So, are you going to follow  through with boycotting all of these organizations as well? Are you going to cancel your AMEX., switch from Lucky Charms to Frosted Flakes, stop going to Disneyland? If you’re going to talk the talk and annihilate Komen, then walk the walk and be an equal opportunity hater. If not, understand how corporations and organizations work.

It was all a publicity stunt and both sides are milking it, as is Karen Handel. The losers in this story?  The people who are still uninformed.

The Real Detriment to Society

One of the things I’ve enjoyed most while writing this blog is exploring my own views. Trying to explain WHY I feel the way I do about certain issues has really forced me to delve into my own morals and foundations. I’ve always been conservative but I just continue to move further right as each day, regulation and policy passes.

As someone who has never tried it and has no desire to try it, I feel as though I can offer an unbiased, logical argument as to why the motion to legalize marijuana should be exercised.

Some may say this is against several conservative values. It’s not. Consider the TRUE foundations of what conservatism is supposed to be: freedoms and choices.

People seem to think that if something is ‘legalized’ that means everyone will do it. That’s simply not the case. The people who smoke marijuana will do so whether it is legal or not. Fact. So all we are really doing is creating a database of millions of extremely minor offenders and flooding our criminal justice system with pricey maintenance, paperwork and overcrowding.

The National Organization to Reform Marijuana Laws (NORML) reported that in 1965, there were 2 marijuana arrests an hour in the United States. In 2008, there were ~100 arrests per hour. HOW RIDICULOUS. Did you know that the majority of marijuana arrests are related to other charges like loitering and speeding? Everyone preaches about ‘victimless crimes’ yet the government monitors them through jail time and probation like they are sexual predators. Why? Police and justice system resources could be allocated to more serious violent crimes instead of needlessly sending ‘offenders’ into the system for victimless crimes.

Now, some say that medically it’s detrimental. According to the National Commission on Marijuana, “No significant physical, biochemical or mental abnormalities could be attributed solely to their marijuana smoking…Neither the marijuana user nor the drug itself can be said to constitute a danger to public safety…” Regardless of the overabundance of research saying it doesn’t, let’s say that marijuana did cause a plethora of health problems…so does excessive alcohol use, cigarette smoking, many FDA-approved prescription drugs, McDonalds (and other fast food restaurants), pollution and sticking your head in an oven…but they are all legal and people do them. So please, government, don’t tell us you’re looking out for our best interests. And what happened to choices?

I’m surprised democrats aren’t jumping for joy to support this. The logical, financial side of legalization? Like everything else in the United States, we could just tax it. The lottery, cigarettes, alcohol…what’s the difference? Those are legal now and marijuana isn’t. (Recall that the lottery and alcohol were once illegal, though). They’d also be able to regulate it. Marijuana is a $36 billion a year industry. Illegal marijuana ‘trading’ right now funds gangs, a real problem in many areas of the country. MJLegal.org says, “We currently spend billions of dollars every year to chase peaceful people who happen to like to get high. These people get locked up in prison and the taxpayers have to foot the bill”. It’s expensive to keep up with roughly 900,000 ‘offenders’ every year!!

Now I’m not suggesting that we advertise on billboards or sell it at the local Publix and BP Stations or allow people to light up at Chili’s. But people should be allowed to do as they please on their own time in the privacy of their own property when they are not affecting others.

Marijuana’s actual impact on society does not justify a social policy designed to seek out and firmly punish those who use it. So it’s true, the real detriment to society is the War on Drugs. And it’s not just a detriment, it’s a complete and utter failure.

FDR Didn’t Want Big Government

I have decided to document all the ridiculousness, half-truths and outright lies my teacher feeds to me in class. From now on, I will highlight the quote and follow it with why it’s not true. I think we will all be amazed by how skewed and biased the classrooms really are these days.

Last week, we started class by discussing the State of the Union. If you read State of Ridiculousness, then you certainly know how I felt about it. My teacher wanted us to voice this. Turns out, I’m in the only one in class who watched the SOTU. Yep, that’s right. In a class dedicated to fiscal policies in a program dedicated to public affairs and policy, I’m the only one who watched. Granted my class is only 4 people, but consider the program!! That being said, my teacher attempted to explain how much Obama referenced the debt issue in his SOTU. It took my printing of the transcript for him to finally cave and admit that the debt ceiling was never mentioned in the SOTU. Why? Because it was a campaign speech.

-“FDR didn’t want to make the government larger…he had to for the well-being of the people”
And besides…I ought you liked big government? Now you’re trying to say that there it happened differently and it was an accident not a carefully calculated plan? Interesting. The largest government expansion in history was an accident.

-“We cannot blame Obama for the current financial problems. Before Bush II, there was a surplus. George W. came in and wiped out all of the money.”
-HALF TRUE….it’s true that there was a small surplus in 1999 and 2000, but the last TRUE surplus for the overall budget was in 1959. If you’re referring to the stimulus package, TARP and AARA, it is correct that George W. signed that into law, however, it originated in a very spendy Democratic Congress. Essentially, the Bush years contributed to the deficiet (mostly by fighting 2 wars) however, it is ridiculous and ignorant to fully blame or fully exonerate ANY president over the last 50 years, as they have all played a significant role.

“The second amendment was for the old days. Now we have the police department.” Actually, sir, that is NOT true. As of publish time of this blog, we had not revoked the Constitution in this country. As it stands, we have the fit to bear arms. Also, they may not teach you this where you come from, but the right to bear arms was actually created in the Bill of Rights to protect the American people from police and military personnel that infringe upon our rights.

My teacher also attempts to use The Bible against the conservative movement. Focus focus focus on the separation of church and state, but as he says “Check Bible and conservatives wrong”. Meaning, The Bible would lead us to want entitlement programs. No no no.

Now that my teacher knows that I’m “not a democrat” he uses me in examples all the time. “You’re a millionaire who has a factory and several unhappy workers because you’re rude and mean….” or “You own a company that was handed down to you from your grandfather and you’ve never had to work…” yes, let’s attack the 1%. Let’s attack those who work really hard. Wealth is bad!!! Reminds me of my favorite OWS quote. A protestor interviewed on Wall Street said “It’s so hard to find these corporate executives. They’re already at work when I wake up and they stay here until long after I go home at night.

I also think it’s truly ridiculous that I have a teacher who is clearly a socialist teaching the foundations of American fiscal policy. His accent is so thick, unless I tune in, I cannot understand him. Ausority (authority) and Assens (Athens, Greece) don’t quite add up for me when I can’t decipher the words coming out of his mouth. And if you don’t agree with the ideologies of America, you should at least not sit and attempt to indoctrinate young minds.

20120202-094513.jpg

Sandy Springs is going to take your stuff…

There are a lot of things I dislike about government but in my Top 25 of Least Appreciated Aspects of Government, eminent domain would probably be very high on the list.

Eminent domain is “an action of the state to seize a citizen’s property, expropriate property or seize a citizen’s right in property with due monetary compensation, but without the owner’s consent”. It happens all the time. The government swoops in to build highways, public utilities and railroads. Sometimes eminent domain is also used for public safety purposes.

Now, the City of Sandy Springs is attempting to do this in an effort to build a City Hall. (yes, i just gave you the reasons for eminent domain. Did you see building a ‘a city hall’. Let’s get a couple of things clear…The original place is the old Target shopping center that’s been vacant for a good while now. It would be beneficial to have the current vacancy filled with something that isn’t ten feet down the road (I.e. another Target or Trader Joe’s). But Sandy Springs doesn’t want to stop at the Target. According to WSBtv, Will Smith’s Master Kleen dry-cleaner has operated at the corner of Roswell Road and Mt. Vernon Highway for 43 years but Mayor Eva Galambos is trying to attain the whole block. She said, “You don’t exactly want a tattoo parlor as the entrance to your city complex. So, some of it is we want something people can be proud of.” Really Mayor? What about the business owners that are proud of their shops, businesses and city?

It would be a different story if Sandy Springs was making reasonable offers, but they are lowball ing the heck out of owners. [Also, Sandy Springs brings in plenty of revenue via traffic tickets. Their cops are everywhere. They can afford to offer these business owners a reasonable price.] So just to fully understand this: Sandy Springs wants to low ball property owners in an already struggling economy, where property values are far below what these people paid, but the City wants to offer them even less than that and essentially force them to move their business elsewhere to build a City Hall that Mayor Galambos can be proud of…even though many of these businesses existed well before the City did?

What about the 5th Amendment in the Bill of Rights? Stating…” …nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Do we really think the GOVERNMENT should be the people to decide what is just compensation?

There are some loonies out there that say we don’t really own anything because the government can come in and take part or all of things at any given time. The City of Sandy Springs gives a little more merit to that.