The Reality of I-1100 and 1-1105 and Four Lokos

Basic facts; "I-1100 privatizes the sale and distribution of liquor and eliminates the state’s “three tier” system of control, which segregates manufacturing, distribution and sales".

"I-1105 also privatizes the sale of liquor in the state of Washington. Rather than eliminating the distribution “tier” of the state’s control system as I-1100 does, I-1105 requires that all sales of alcoholic beverages pass through a middleman distributor from the producer to the retailer.

Source: Informed Voter Guide from Evergreen Freedom Foundation.

I'm not writing for or against Initiatives I-1100 and I-1105. In light of the Four Lokos party that happen at Central Washington University the topic of alcohol and minors acquiring it has been all over the news. It has been on the radio, in the paper, and on facebook. Every where I look I hear the same basic ideas, "If we privatizes the sale of liquor things like this will get worse!"....However that is very wrong. I have gone to a party school from most of my college experience. From my experience 90% of all alcohol supplied to minors comes from friends or family. So changing the location of distribution will not increase the number of minors drinking. If you have a State Run Liquor store next door to Safeway how is it any different from having Liquor available in Safeway? If someone is buying liquor for the minors how is changing the location going to change that fact? I get tired of people that are promoting for or against these initiatives using  stories such as the party at Central to "prove" how horrible the privatizing the system would be. Lets stop kidding ourselves the rate of minors drinking is not going to sky rocket anymore then obesity did when Safeway started to sell fried chicken. Lets have a real discussion, what will the initiatives do for our economy?

The Liberal Immune System

 

"America is now an uncharacteristically uncertain place. Abroad it seems unsure of who its friends and enemies are. At home there are too many imponderables: over how the health bill will play out in practice; over what might happen to energy prices if carbon-pricing is resurrected via executive action; most of all, over what Mr Obama can do about those yawning deficits. People do not like uncertainty; so if Americans are angry, it is hardly surprising." The Economicist

How do we change the problems our nation faces? Is it the fault of the Republicans or the Democrats? In all truth its a little of both. It would be fitting to see the solutions to our nations problems come from both sides of the political spectrum. However as it stands now compromise is not  the method of American democracy. Having debated people from all side of the spectrum, it is fun to see how close minded the "open minded" people are. From my experiences in academia and on the campaign trail, the majority of the left will in no way entertain or even discuss the ideas of the other side. The majority of the liberal people i have talked with have an almost Immune like response to outside information. If you ever suggest anything counter to there values they reject the view almost instantaneously. In class if you challenge the teacher, your instantly crazy or a racist. If you talk about the founding fathers or less taxes, your instantly labeled a "Teabagger". I find it funny that the left preach open mindedness, but as soon as something counter to there beliefs come to their mind the Liberal immune system kicks in.

As the magazine The Economist stated we need change.  As we enter uncharted waters of our future we have to be open to other ideas of how to best remedy the situation we are in. As it stands now the left will not compromise or consider the idea of free markets or less taxes that  that are being promoted by the liberation and conservative movements. Instead the try to whip out any notion of opposition just like the body does to a virus.

The Everyday Voter

More Videos at Getfree.TV

Government Job Destruction

Can the government create jobs? Can the government create wealth? If so what is the government "selling “or what does the government pay people to do that "makes wealth" in America?

This question surprising is not asked very often. What Do government jobs do for the nation? First we have to classify what are government jobs do. Except for the military, the government is a regulatory organization. In other words, their purpose is to regulate. So more recent jobs have gone away from this basic view of what government is responsible for. The government has programs that to this day are controversial, such as welfare and "economic stimulus programs". Those programs operate by taxing money from one group and putting it into an organization that distributes it to another. The irony with that system is that it’s not even a one-for-one, only a small percent of the overall funds actually go to the distribution program. For every dollar given, the majority of it is used for operational costs or hiring people to do the job.

For example, if you want to give money to the poor, do it through as few channels as possible, that way less of it is used up in operation cost. So if you really want to take care of the poor you can do it far more effectively then the government can, because when you give someone a dollar that is what they get. When the government does they get about a 10th of that dollar .

Along the same lines can government create jobs? The government can only create regulator jobs, or temporary labor for government jobs. The government can't create long term jobs without a permanent funding source, also known as more taxes. After all that is what funds our government, our money. So if the government is to "create" more jobs then they have to take more of your money. Real jobs and wealth can only come from the private sector, because when a private sector job is created so is a need, so it doesn't go away unless the need does. New private sector jobs are created and paid for with people’s money in the same way as a government job is created. However the job created is not the only benefit. With a provide sector job you also create wealth, or the item of value that that person created.

For example, if everyone in town loves cupcakes, someone might start up a bakery. All of those people that get hired as bakers now have jobs and create cupcakes! Yum. In comparison a government job that is created takes away money that could be spent on ...well...cupcakes...and instead is spent on the government workers. The government workers wealth or (cupcake) is regulated which in turn makes it harder to do business. Thus less people will be hired by that over regulated businesses. So the more government jobs are created, the less private sector jobs are created. So does the government spending make more or save jobs?…..Only if those jobs can continuously be paid for with taxes. With the current growth in government and deficient spending, we can no longer afford to pay for the government programs and workers we have today. The bigger the deficit gets the less money we will have in the future to create private sector jobs. So when the people talk about raising taxes to increase spending, remember that's one less dollar to spend on the things you enjoy and one less dollar to go towards someone’s salary or business.

Talk Back On Economics

Check out more videos at Getfree.tv

We Cant' All Be Sheep: Obama Protest

President Obama came to the University of Washington last Thursday to promote the campaign of the Democrat's senatorial candidate Patty Murry. People were camped out the day before in order to get as close to the president as possible for his speech. Some of my like minded political friends and I decided to come to the rally to express our view of the president's work so far in office. The three of us ended up representing a large cross-section of those in the middle and to the right of the political spectrum. Me being a more traditional right winger and the others being much more of the liberation bent provided contrast to what some would call the "radical" opposition.

Once we arrived at the rally we saw other protesters and were surprised, by the radical nature of the groups that were there. Most surprising were some of the radical leftest groups that were there protesting the unsuccessful implication of their leftest agenda. In a jest we decided to make a quick sign stating "I'm not crazy I just don't like Obama". This sign was meant to provide commentary on the radical nature of the other protesters. Overall our message was successful received. We were given the "bird" a few times and a few people yelled comical phrases such as "If it wasn't for Obama you would live in the streets"

. Our goal was to get people to think more realistically of the policies that Obama and the people in power are trying to implement. With the high level of unemployed among college graduates and young adults, you would think they would wonder what was causing this horrible economic climate. Even with only three of us, we were interviewed by the majority of the news organizations and was quoted in the Seattle Times, until the quote was removed later by the editor to make room for the Republican chairman comments. Before we were "edited out of the event" i got a copy of the online article. The online article stated:

‎"Alexander Smith, 21, from Olympia, heads the Student Freedom Project, a conservative student group. He came to Seattle from Washington State University and was standing outside Hec Ed with two UW students.

"We're here to have an academic debate. We're not crazy," said Smith, who carried a sign saying, "shortchanged by ...Obama." -Seattle times

We were also interviewed by Q-13 ,Fox, The Daily, Associated Press, and other local press. Surprisingly they were more interested to learn more about our views then the radicals only ten feet away. Over all our small protest made a bigger impact then we originally imagined and was a worth while event. I will be interested to see the college students reactions to the November election and how they will feel with the new people in office. Will they then see the problems our nation is going to face around the corner or will they turn another blind eye?

The Failure of Debate

I attend a debate at the University of Washington this weekend. The Debate was the College Republicans vs. the Young Democrats. The issues in question were the Bush Tax Cuts and I-1098 ( the income tax). Going into it I was optimistic about the quality of the debate.  Having been in debates at Washington State University looked foreword to the verbal jousting that is debate. The debates I participated in, in the past had a more diverse groups in attendance then this one.  The Democrats lined the left side of the room and the Republicans on the right. There were no moderates to be seen. The debate ended up being more of a pep rally then a competition of ideals. One group would attack the other and their supporters in kind. "The Republicans hate the poor" yelled the Democrats, "The Democrats, hate small business" counter the Republicans. The debate over the issues was anything but a debate. It quickly turned into childish attacks and name calling. Ironically this debate was not to different from the campaign debates i have seen this election cycle. So it is not to shocking that the next generation of political minds acted the same way. It seemed with each point and counter point provided by the panelists, that the divide between the two groups grew and grew. By the end the audience was on the edge of their seats waiting for the  moment when the other groups would be ridiculed and belittled thus proving their moral superiority.

This debate gave me a great deal to think about, not because of what they said but what they did. For a democracy to work you have to have compromise and mutual respect. It seems that those two values are all but lost by the majority of those that choose to represent us. But then the question arises; do we not choose the leaders to represent us? Are not the values and flaws that we see nothing more then our own? Is the great divide we see on C-SPAN and on the floor of the legislature, the creation of the electorate or perhaps an embodiment of something more to come. The time honored ritual of scholarly debate and compromise is something our leaders must once again learn to use. Our nation faces monumental problems that we can not just pass off to one group or the other. In order to fix the issues we have in our nation we must come together. But as it stands know, I worry that the middle ground is no longer obtainable.