During the 2008 campaign I was asked how, as an Independent, would I be able to work with the two major parties and compromise to get legislation passed.  This is very simple, I don’t believe in compromise to pass legislation for two very important reasons.

1.  The success of a legislative body cannot be measured by the volume of bills passed, but rather on the quality of bills passed, which leads to the second reason.

2.  Compromise and cooperation are not the same things, unlike what we have been led to believe for decades.

I oppose political compromise because it leads to wasteful spending, uncontrolled growth of government, and erosion of the checks and balances that should exist within government to protect our rights and liberties.  Political compromise can be described as the art of one political faction agreeing to vote for it’s opponents wasteful and illegitimate bill only if they are allowed to make it worse for personal gain.  To equate what our elected officials do to that of a typical family scenario, it would be as if a couple were barely able to pay their bills and the wife informs her husband that she wants a new car.  Knowing full well there is no way they can afford a new car, the husband still consents to a new car if he is allowed to buy a new boat.  Both parties know it is wrong and know there is no way they can afford either purchase, but they both support it since they each get something out of the deal.  Political compromise is essentially sanctioned bribery that we have been told by politicians for decades is essential to passing any legislation.

Rather than bribing legislators to support wasteful spending bills and job killing policies full of pork barrel projects aimed at certain lawmakers’ districts, we should, across party lines and within each party, demand negotiations to reach a bill that all applicable parties can agree to fully without adding bribes such as the “Bridge To Nowhere” or the individual allowances we saw in the Healthcare debate designed to sway votes.  We should no longer allow our representatives to accept and vote in favor of wasteful bills simply because they think the benefits of certain paragraphs of the bill offset other sections of the bill.  In order to vote in favor of and support a bill, our representatives must support each and every part of a bill.  If there is one single section of the bill that is unacceptable, they must vote against that bill.

Within our private lives we can, for only a short time, endure the explosive spending that compromise promotes before we are unable to pay our bills.  Businesses would soon be bankrupt and no longer exist if they conducted business through this type of political compromise, so why should we expect that our government and our country be any different?

            Most people in this country and in our state identify themselves as either Republican or Democrat.  For decades we have been encouraged to support these parties faithfully, that voting for anyone else is a vote for the other side.  As far as the parties and the party leadership are concerned, they don’t really care who the candidate is or what they stand for, only how much money can they raise and if they are electable. 

            We have been led to think in terms of left and right rather than up or down, in terms of Democrat or Republican rather than relying on our own personal ideals and beliefs.  Over the years we have allowed party leadership to select their candidate rather than let the party membership elect their candidate.  As a result, we are left with candidates that don’t represent the people, we have our choice of candidates whose loyalties lie with the party leadership that selected them and provided the funding for their campaign. 

            As many voters are starting to realize, it really doesn’t matter which party is in power, the direction of government is the same.  The Progressive movement started around 100 years ago and began to fundamentally transform our government and lives.  The essence of Progressivism is that society should be controlled and designed, that when people are left to make their own decisions life is messy, inefficient, and problems arise.  Progressivism increases the size and role of government to control the lives of the people and thus attempt to create a more harmonious society.  In order to create the perfect society, Progressivism redistributes wealth so that everyone can earn a national minimum salary; Progressivism seeks to provide for all needs through the government, and seeks to protect us from ourselves through strict regulation even if it means surrendering our rights. 

            The Progressive movement has pervaded both the Republican and Democratic parties to the point that there are very few differences between the parties at all.  The previous 2 Ohio governors were both Republicans with Republican legislatures.  Yet there were no major tax cuts, no reduction in the size of government, actually under each governor state spending increased, new programs were instituted, and the state government became more intrusive in our lives.  Under the progressive ideology of both parties, we have tried to eliminate failure.  We no longer allow people to make their own decisions and take risks.  Instead, we use tax payer dollars to bailout failed business plans, but then enact broad brush regulation that restricts everyone’s behavior, even those that did no wrong.  It’s as if one person messed in their pants, so we make everyone wear a diaper. 

            Our state is in dire financial straits, if nothing is done to address our current deficit spending, it may soon be too late.  Can we trust either party to make the difficult choices to balance our budget and create an economic environment that will attract businesses to our communities?  It was Progressive ideology by both parties that has gotten us into the situation we find ourselves in today; does it make sense to expect those same parties with the same Progressive ideology to get us out of this situation?  We as tax payers and voters must return to our ideologies, we must make our choices based on the character of the individual, not their party affiliation.  We must no longer allow the mirage of big government to blind us from the reality of big government.  The choices our elected officials will need to make will be difficult and unpopular at best.  We have become accustomed to our nanny state government protecting us and providing for our needs, albeit at the cost of preventing success, weaning our society from the government trough will be painful in the near term, but is essential for the survival of our state.

I have been amazed when listening to political speeches over the last 10 to 12 years, to hear how the emphasis has changed from that of freedom to security.  I understand our basic desire for security; we are more comfortable when we perceive our jobs, our income, as well as our physical being as being secure.  We may openly want security, but what we crave is freedom.  Security is the vehicle that has allowed socialism to gain footholds and to expand in governments around the world.  Socialism promises to provide a safety net, it promises that no one will fall through the cracks of life.  Socialism promises to level the playing field, to provide for all of our needs, that no one will go hungry, no one will be in need of medical care, no one will be in need of a place to live, and no one will fail.  Freedom is risky, it allows failure, and it promotes constant growth and change.  If you do not constantly grow and change, you may find yourself or your business falling behind.  Because freedom allows for failure, it also allows for success.  Our freedoms allow us to try, allow us to make mistakes, allow us to fail, and allow us to continue trying until we have reached our greatest potential.  As a free people, our success is only limited by our desire to achieve.  The lure of financial security and job security is one of the greatest attractions to unionism.  As we have witnessed over and over, the promises of increased pay, the guarantee of a job and promotion are really only perceived securities.  When a business begins to fail, all of those promises are either thrown out the window or the business collapses under the weight of these securities.  Either way, the promises evaporate.  Our current two party political system is fed by a desire for security.  We choose a party that we think will look out for our interests.  Once we have aligned with that party, we never hold the party accountable.  When it is time to vote, we rarely stray from our party loyalty, it is safer that way.  It is risky to vote outside our party lines because our vote may be “wasted”, or it may help to elect a person from the other party.  As voters, we don’t look to see what the individual stands for, we don’t want to see what their past actions have been, and we feel secure in voting along party lines.  That perceived security is a hollow promise, the parties themselves don’t look to see what the candidates stand for or what their past actions have been, the parties’ only concern is whether the candidate is electable.

            After 9/11 many citizens felt that one of the president’s primary jobs was to keep this country and its citizens safe.  It made everyone feel better about the world around them to know that there was someone responsible for their security.  It is not the president’s or any politician’s job to keep us safe.  The oath of office that they promise to uphold says they will protect the constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic.  It is not the office of the president or any other politician that protects us; it is our freedoms that are guaranteed to us by our constitution and given to us by God that keep us safe.  Our security, real security, is provided to us by our freedoms.  Our government, just like the union bosses, cannot provide true security.  They can and do make promises that sound like they will keep us safe.  They will use the earnings that they take from us to create more jobs, to provide universal health care, to stop global warming and climate change, to eliminate guns and violence, and to end all wars.  Just like the union bosses, they cannot deliver on those promises.  When our economy has collapsed, when our currency has become worthless, and when the people no longer trust their government, all of those promises will also collapse and become worthless.

            Elections have consequences, we have elected our representatives and they are going about the business of running our country.  Just because the election is over does not mean that our responsibilities as citizens are finished.  We as voters and citizens need to turn the volume down, stop listening to what our representatives are telling us and start looking at what they are doing.  Are they expanding our freedoms, allowing us to provide for our own security through those freedoms, or are they taking away our freedoms and an opportunity for true security under the guise of government provided security.  As we then approach another election campaign season, we must decide if we are going to vote for freedom or if we are going to vote for the empty promises of perceived security. 

When the price for a barrel of oil was nearing $150 and setting new records on a nearly daily basis, we heard a public outcry for congress to investigate oil speculators. Some of our citizens felt it somehow unfair that those who make their living taking risk in speculating the oil market were earning a profit at the apparent expense of consumers. Now that oil prices have subsided dramatically, no one seems to see the need to investigate the speculators now. As I said this past summer, rather than blame the speculators, we should pay attention to what they are telling us so that we as a nation can make informed decisions regarding our energy plan. The message the speculators are now sending has never been more important.

Why have oil prices dropped to nearly one fourth of their value in just a few short months? The equation I gave last summer has not changed. Speculators buy and sell oil futures based upon anticipated future demand and forecast supply. Clearly in the last six months the forecast supply has not been dramatically increased, therefore the anticipated future demand has been greatly decreased. Inflating our tires, getting tune-ups, and parking our SUVs are not responsible for this decreased demand. What has changed is the anticipated demand in developing nations. This demand has decreased so much so that even when OPEC met and agreed to decrease production levels, the price of oil continued to decrease unabated.

Essentially, the speculators believe that the global recession has stunted growth and development to the point that even at current prices, developing nations will be unable to afford oil. It is no coincidence that as oil prices were hitting record highs, food prices were also reaching record highs. Just as the price of oil has plummeted, so has the price of commodities to farmers although consumers have not seen the level of relief in food prices as we have in gasoline. This is driven by the same economic predictions and scenario, that nations will not have money to purchase food let alone oil in the very near future.

When prices continue to drop despite reduced production of commodities, it paints a very bleak picture for not just our economy, but for the global economy as well.

Aside from the Biennium Budget, one of the hottest issues in our State House is the Pay Day Lending industry and how to close the apparent loop hole they have found. Personally, I cannot understand why this is such an issue. Opponents of these loans state interest rates of over 350% as the prime reason to shut them down and claim that these are predatory loans. A $100 two week loan will cost $15, which opponents claim is excessive and predatory. Yet, if it were not for these institutions being available to make these short term loans and a person wrote a check that subsequently bounced, the bank will charge them a $30 fee, the business that they wrote the check to will charge them a $25 fee, and they still owe the original $100. Which is worse, paying the $15 interest to a Pay Day lender or the $55 penalty fees for bouncing a check? No one is going to mortgage a home through a Pay Day lender, but this industry provides a needed service at a reasonable price that is not available anywhere else.

If the Legislature is successful in its bid to eliminate the Pay Day loan industry, where will the people who have been using their services go to borrow money? Banks and Credit Unions will not make these short term loans so the individuals that have been utilizing these short term loans will now be left out in the cold. They will not be able to purchase parts to repair their car to get to work so now they lose their jobs. I am sure that they will be thankful that the Legislature was looking out for their best interest as they lose their job and walk to the unemployment office.

            On both the state and federal level the current focus is on the economy and how to stimulate its growth.  As the details of both plans become known, it becomes apparent that these plans are really little more than thinly veiled plans to grow the size of government, increase our dependence on government, and further remove our economy from capitalism towards socialism.  In fact, whether we look at either the federal or state plan, there is very little in either plan that will actually stimulate the economy.

            As President Obama tries to pressure the Senate to quickly pass the stimulus plan before the public discovers the truth, he has tried to minimize the outcry regarding the cost and amount of spending by saying that the very basis of a stimulus plan is spending.  While it is true that an effective stimulus plan will involve some spending, not all spending will actually stimulate the economy or create jobs.  Japan tried to spend its way out of a very similar situation in the 90’s.  Japan’s problems started much the same as ours, with a mortgage bubble where property values were elevated above sustainable levels.  Japan spent trillions of dollars over 10 years trying to support property values and create jobs with no real success.  The same will happen here.  We are spending billions of dollars and in the end the only thing we will have accomplished is accumulating billions of dollars of additional debt or create massive inflation.

            Both the president and the senate majority leader have said that this stimulus bill will create 4 million jobs in the next 2 years.  They fail to mention how many additional jobs will be lost because of this bill.  As government moves corporate America from capitalism toward socialism and dictates what products industries are allowed to produce, there will be massive job losses in the industries that government has determined should go away, such as the coal and petroleum industries, conventional electrical power companies, conventional automobile manufacturing, and the airline industry.  At a cost of nearly 800 billion dollars, that equates to a $200,000 cost for every job they hope to create.  If interest is included, the cost to create one job balloons to nearly $400,000.  I fail to see how this is cost effective and I think it is very optimistic to assume that 4 million additional jobs will be created in the next 4 years much less in the next 2.

            The whole goal of a state or federal stimulus bill in theory is to create jobs.  Government does not and can not create jobs.  Businesses create jobs, therefore the most effective way to create jobs and stimulate the economy is to allow businesses to be successful and encourage growth here within our borders by reducing the corporate tax rate and eliminating the restrictions that are choking small business growth.  This approach is needed in Ohio as well as at the federal level.  Very few of the jobs that left Ohio went overseas, most were relocated to other, more business friendly states like Texas and Tennessee.  By reducing the state and federal corporate tax rates, we will allow businesses to reinvest in themselves, creating a need for additional employees, which will revitalize our communities and in the end increase potential tax revenues.

            The election is over, the dust has settled and most of the campaign signs have been harvested.  While the results of my campaign were less than what I had hoped for, I feel I ran a good campaign.  Looking back there is very little that I would change and I have no regrets about the campaign that I ran.  I want to congratulate both Jeff and Wanda for good campaigns and best wishes for Jeff over the next two years.  The hard work is just beginning and I wish him the best of luck in that endeavor.

            I want to take this opportunity to thank all of those who helped me during this campaign.  There have been so many people that have contributed their time, energy, and money to this campaign by collecting signatures, putting out signs, handing out leaflets, telling friends and neighbors, and knocking on doors.  To each of you I sincerely thank you.  I want to especially thank my wife Liz for her assistance and tolerance, and my campaign treasurer and mother-in-law Jane for all of her support and assistance.  Without them, I could never have attempted this endeavor.

            To those who followed my web site, thank you for your comments and support.  I will keep this website active and will continue to write posts as events take place and issues arise.  I do not expect to write as often as I have during the campaign, but I will address issues that affect us on a state and federal level.

            Thank you all, and God Bless,

               Mark Smith

            As far back as the ancient Greeks, it was known that a true democracy can survive but only a few years before the population will begin to vote to raid the treasury and bankrupt the country.  As such our form of government, a republic, is designed with checks and balances to prevent such detrimental decision making.  We trust our representatives at all levels of government to uphold the constitution and make decisions on our behalf for the greater good of all citizens.  Therefore, one of the most critical duties of State and U.S. Representatives is that of drafting legislation and passing laws.  There have been numerous instances where well-intentioned legislators drafted and subsequently passed bad laws.  Nearly all of these laws at first appeared to improve some aspect of society, but then in practice either did not work or created such problems as to be counter productive.  In my judgment good legislation consists of 5 basic criteria that must be addressed before the legislation should be considered for law.

1.      The legislation accurately addresses the problem or issue.  An example of bad legislation that does not address the problem is zero tolerance laws in our schools regarding weapons on school property.  Zero tolerance toward weapons sounds like a good idea; after all, what parent does not want their child to be safe at school.  In reality, zero tolerance laws have proven to be ineffective; they have not reduced school violence, and have only made criminals out of innocent students.  There is no evidence that this law has ever prevented any school violence or attacks anywhere, nor can it.  If a person has made the premeditated decision to bring a gun, knife or other weapon to a school, shopping mall, or any public place for the purpose of doing harm to others, they have already made the decision to break numerous laws including assault and murder.  Merely having a zero tolerance law against bringing weapons onto school or public property will not change their motives or prevent them from carrying out their evil plans.  Instead, all this law has accomplished has been to make criminals of students who have brought a butter knife to school in their lunch for the purpose of putting peanut butter on a cracker, or have inadvertently brought a pocket knife to school when they forgot it was in their pocket.  This logic also applies to zero tolerance toward drugs at school.  There have been as many students suspended for bringing over the counter medications for legitimate purposes as there have been for bringing illicit drugs for nefarious reasons.  Zero tolerance laws have not and will never address the real issue of making our schools or public property safer.

2.      Unintended consequences are minimal and are addressed in the bill.  There are abundant examples of legislation that when passed, created new, unintentional problems that were worse than the original problem.  Prohibition was one such example.  The 19^th amendment created so many problems with organized crime and boot legging, that just a few short years later the 21^st amendment had to be passed to suspend the 19^th amendment.  Recently, the law prohibiting smoking in all public places including private businesses has created unintended negative consequences.  Restaurants and bars have lost customers, lost revenue and many have gone out of business.  Diseases related to second hand smoke exposure have reportedly risen in children because people that previously smoked in bars and restaurants are now smoking more at home, thereby increasing their children’s exposure to second hand smoke. 

3.      There are no existing laws that address the problem or issue.  Numerous recently passed laws were unnecessary because the problem had already been addressed in previous laws.  Many states and cities have passed gun control legislation when existing laws against assault and murder already were in place.  This type of legislation is usually just feel good legislation that allows lawmakers to appear that they are taking action and expand their resume’ of accomplishments while really not doing anything.  A proposed ban on using cell phones while in a car also fails to meets this criterion of good legislation.  The basic reason for the bill is to prevent reckless driving.  There are already several laws making it illegal to drive in a reckless and risky manner.  Yet people still engage in distracting activities such as applying makeup, eating, talking to passengers, disciplining children, changing the radio or CD, and even reading books and newspapers while driving on our roads.  The existing laws regarding reckless driving, speeding, tailgating, failure to signal, etc… already hold drivers accountable for their actions and choices without needing to create more laws.

4.      The proposed law is enforceable.  If a law sounds good, but can’t be enforced, then what good is that law?  A Missouri State Representative has proposed a bill making it illegal for a restaurant owner to serve anyone that is obese.  There is no way to enforce this type of legislation.  Will restaurant owners be required to weigh customers before taking their order and then keep a record for the Department of Health’s statistics?  Who will decide if a customer meets the definition of obese?  In my judgment this is a classic example of an overreaching government trying to apply itself to a realm of citizen’s private lives where government has no right to be.

5.      The proposed law is constitutional.  Sometimes we try to address problematic issues but in the process the proposed law violates the rights and freedoms of the citizens.  Ultimately these laws are addressed in the judicial system, but only after copious tax dollars and years have been spent in debate. 

     The role of government is not to impose ever increasing restrictions on the population, elevating government’s self importance in the process.  Rather, government’s role is to protect the constitution and the rights and freedoms that document guarantees us; to enforce our existing laws, and to create an economic and social environment that allows for economic success. 

            In my previous post I explained my view on the direction America’s energy policy needs to go.  Some of the responses to my post expressed concern as to what can be done to reduce energy prices while we develop and improve new technologies.  In order to explain this we must first examine what is applying downward pressure on our economy, creating the rampant inflation we are experiencing, and elevating oil prices to unsustainable levels. 

            As you know all too well, it would be difficult to exaggerate the impact that escalating energy costs have on our economy and the lives of Americans.  Our dependence on foreign oil has added to our trade deficit which has contributed to the declining value of our dollar and led to our highest rate of inflation in recent history.  Excessive energy costs have created a downward economic cycle that is at risk of spiraling out of control.  As energy costs rise businesses pass the cost on to the consumer.  Consumers, who are facing increased costs and limited resources, are conserving where they can and limiting discretionary spending.  This in turn is reducing business revenues in nearly all industries causing large corporations and small businesses alike to reduce their production, shrink their workforce, declare bankruptcy, and in some cases go out of business altogether.  Of course this further reduces consumer spending and the downward pressure on our economy continues.  We cannot simply save our way out of this cycle.  While individual conservation will have some effect on our personal finances, it does nothing to substantially reduce the price of energy.  Few businesses can significantly reduce their energy consumption without severely impacting production levels.  Shrinking production to the extent necessary to affect energy usage will result in vast layoffs, increased unit costs to recover fixed overhead costs, and therefore compound our rate of inflation.  Oil is the life blood of economic growth and the unintended consequences of elevated energy prices, such as inflation, are already proving to be disastrous. 

            The good news is we do not have a shortage of oil at this time.  There are no reports of fuel rationing, no gas lines like we saw in the 1970’s, and no gas stations are running out of gasoline to sell.  In the short term, there is little that we can do to affect the price of oil today outside of reducing restrictions and regulations on domestic oil drilling and on building additional refineries.  The current price of oil is driven by the futures price of oil.  Oil futures are driven by speculators and based on future supply and demand.  Rather than blame the speculators, we need to pay attention to what they are basing their decisions on.  Soaring oil prices fueled by speculation means that based on expected global oil production capacity and anticipated global oil consumption, demand will exceed supply in the future.    What the speculators are telling us and what we need to respond to today is that there will be oil shortages in the future unless we start doing something now.  It is no coincidence that since President Bush repealed the Presidential ban on offshore drilling, oil prices have receded by nearly $30 per barrel.  If our government will simply allow oil companies to locate, drill, and refine oil, they will effect a change in the global oil production capacity portion of the speculation equation which will cause oil futures and thus current oil prices to be reduced now even though they may not actually be able to produce that oil for several years. 

As we explore and drill, we must continue our research to discover and refine sustainable sources of energy.  One source of sustainable electrical power that is readily available is nuclear.  It is clean, cost effective, and safe.  Western Europe produces most of its electricity from nuclear power; France generates nearly 80% of its electricity from nuclear power.  Current power plant design is safer and more efficient than any of the nuclear plants we are currently operating and can be constructed and on line within 5 years, unless our government burdens the construction and approval process with excessive restrictions and regulations.

While calling on all Americans to inflate their tires may not have much of an impact on the cost of energy or our economy; there are options available to us that will result in more affordable energy, reduce our inflation, and provide much needed relief to all Americans.  We must demand that government create a comprehensive energy plan that reduces crippling restrictions and regulations to allow the United States to become energy independent and to allow all Americans to go about the business of growing our economy and pursuing our goals and dreams.

A popular topic today revolves around energy policy and fuel prices.  As the price of a gallon of gasoline exceeded $4.00, the focus of the Presidential candidates as well as the media shifted almost exclusively to energy plans.  We have heard plans that include non-existent technologies to plans that are outright ridiculous in nature.  We have seen the oil company executives called before congress and the oil speculators are next in line for scrutiny.  The circus atmosphere surrounding this debate is taking away from the real issues.

            The real issue is that we must do what we can today to minimize and ideally eliminate our need to import foreign oil.  To increase our self reliance we must drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), drill off shore, drill in the Gulf of Mexico, sign claim rights and drill in the Arctic.  Processing the oil shale in Colorado and the oil sands in Canada are viable options that were not economically feasible just a few years ago.  Refineries to convert coal to gasoline and diesel fuel and additional nuclear power plants are current technologies that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil.  As we shift to domestic oil production, simultaneously we need to continue to develop more advanced technologies for sustainable energy in an effort to become energy self sufficient.  Currently we are spending billions of dollars each year to import oil.  This is not a “transfer of wealth” as some would lead us to believe; rather it is an exchange of wealth, using our dollars to purchase the energy that fuels our economy and way of life.  In the past it has been less costly to purchase foreign oil than to produce our own oil, this is no longer the case.  Many of the countries that we have conducted business with for years are now or are becoming anti-American. 

As we sit idly by arguing the virtues of non-existent technologies, Russia and China are quietly purchasing and claiming oil and mineral rights all around the world.  If we continue to be blinded by reality we could easily find ourselves at the mercy of these countries, depending on them to provide us with the very life blood of our economy and way of life.  While the price of gasoline and the resulting rampant inflation has awakened America to our weak energy policy, the real issue is not necessarily that of mere economics, but on a larger scale of national security.  Our total economy, and thus the strength of our nation are fueled by energy, primarily oil.  If we do not take steps now to start to become more energy independent, we will in the not too distant future become totally dependent upon anti-American countries to provide us with oil. 

            The United States defeated communism and caused the fall of the Soviet Union not through her military power alone, but rather by causing the former Soviet Union to collapse it’s economy through excessive spending.  We are currently on the other end of that same tactic.  Russia, Venezuela, and Iran are earning billions of dollars in oil revenues as we sit on our own untapped resources, increasing our trade deficit and further devaluing our currency.  Yes, it may take years to build the infrastructure, nuclear plants, and refineries; but every day we delay is another day further from completion.

            The first step toward achieving energy independence is for government to remove the barriers to our energy companies.  Congress must repeal the ban on domestic oil exploration and drilling.  The approval process for new refineries and nuclear power plants must be streamlined.  American businesses and people must be allowed to do what we do best; create superior products and processes through risk, innovation, and hard work.  Given the opportunity, Americans can and will overcome this latest attack on our very way of life, but government must get out of the way to create that opportunity.