A new website is offering the general public entrée to one of the Beltway’s most exclusive institutions: K Street.

When it launches next month, YouLobby will help voters pool their money to buy the sort of lobbying muscle powerful interest groups have long enjoyed. A passionate citizen can use the site to start an advocacy campaign, solicit donations and hire a professional lobbyist with that money.

The goal is to level the playing field in politics, according to founder Chris Litton, who is a lobbyist himself. Litton was inspired to start the site after he was approached by a nonprofit that could not afford his services.

Anybody can write a letter or visit a Member of Congress, but most people usually don’t have access to the back rooms where relationships are forged and decisions are often made. That’s why Litton calls lobbyists “an essential tool for the purpose of navigating Washington.”

“In advocacy, there’s all kinds of tools,” he said. “Having the ability to put a lobbyist on the ground and have a face on Capitol Hill pushing your cause takes it one step further.”

His idea relies on the ease of fundraising through online social networks. In recent years, sites such as Kickstarter have cropped up to help artists and entrepreneurs raise capital for projects from individuals rather than wealthy funders or banks.

YouLobby aims to do something similar for the public sector, where moneyed interests often prevail. Litton said the site would not exclude any issue or opinion, and that he welcomes competing campaigns to use the service. He plans to take a cut of the money raised to pay for overhead, which currently includes a staff of four based in Ohio.

The venture is just the latest in a stream of websites, including Popvox and Project Vote Smart, that are using technology to bridge the gap between citizens and government.

But YouLobby still relies on traditional lobbying to get the job done. To ensure its success, Litton has been presenting the idea to dozens of K Street firms in the hope of getting them on board.

So far, one lobbying firm, Watts Partners, has publicly agreed to participate. In addition to health care companies, colleges and NASCAR, the firm — founded by ex-Rep. J.C. Watts (R-Okla.) — already has some issue-based nonprofits as clients.

Once a YouLobby campaign has raised enough money to afford the firm’s services, Watts Partners could choose to bid on the project. The user who started the campaign would have final say on the deal.

Litton estimated that fees would fall to about $5,000 to $10,000 per month, although there are no set limits.

The obvious challenge facing the site is the snail’s pace at which Congress operates. While activists fired up by a particular cause might pay up initially, success could come only after an extended investment.

“Hiring the lobbyists might be instant, but actually seeing results might take years and more money,” said Christopher Kush, whose Soapbox Consulting trains nonprofit groups on how to lobby on their own.

And results might not come at all, a fact that could frustrate individuals who have spent tens of thousands of dollars on an unsuccessful campaign for a bill. To manage the activists’ expectations, Litton said he is requiring lobbyists to use a private blog to communicate with the campaigns’ members.

“For most lobbyists, your reporting to your client is a necessary part of your job. You want the client to feel comfortable with what you’re doing,” Litton said.

But the lobbyists won’t be required to provide a phone number. With thousands of grass-roots activists potentially involved in each campaign, the firms will have to carefully manage their availability.

For Watts Partners, it’s not just the price that would have to be right to take on a YouLobby campaign. Managing Partner Steven Pruitt said the firm would have to agree with the campaign’s goal because, “Client identification stays with you for a long time.”

“I think it’s more out of curiosity, if you will, that we’re willing to engage [in YouLobby],” Pruitt said. “If you’re on the cutting edge of some new approach, that allows you to be head and shoulders above others.”

Pruitt said he believes the site could provide an important service.

“People can get the book on how a bill becomes a law, but it doesn’t tell them about detours and bumps in the road,” he said. “What a lobbying firm brings to that effort is insight and experience.”

Kush agreed, pointing out that well-funded grass-roots groups often hire lobbyists to enhance their efforts.

“It’s so complicated to get anything done in our government,” he said. “A paid guide in a complicated system is not a bad idea.”

Original here.

After 9/11, the U.S. Congress created the Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Security Administration. America went to war, overtly and covertly, in several countries. Nearly $8 trillion was spent on what is called “security,” Chris Hellman of the National Priorities Project estimates.

Was it worth it?

Yes, in many ways, says author Ann Coulter. No, says Reason magazine editor Matt Welch.

There’s no reason at all that the bureaucratization of security is going to make us any more safe,” Welch said. “All we have to do is go on an airplane … to see that there’s a difference between security and security theater, between federalizing a problem and actually solving the problem.”

Coulter thinks the government got lots of things right.

“Whatever liberals screamed bloody murder about was very important on the war on terrorism,” she said. “I think Iraq was a crucial part … .” Welch dissented.

“We’re on the verge of bankruptcy. … We are at the sort of tipping point of imperial overstretch.”

Imperial overstretch? Welch has a point. Politicians talk about tight budgets, but National Defense Magazine recently ran this headline: “Homeland Security Market Is Vibrant Despite Budget Concerns.” I fear this is the military-industrial complex President Eisenhower warned us about. Military contractors collude with politicians to keep the money flowing.

I blame the politicians. The contractors just do what they’re supposed to do. The politicians are supposed to spend our money well. They don’t.

After 9/11, the Senate voted 100 to zero to federalize airport security. Then-Sen. Tom Daschle said, “You can’t professionalize if you don’t federalize.”

Nonsense. Before TSA was created, private contractors paid airport inspectors not much more than minimum wage. They weren’t very good. Now we spend five times as much, and they’re still not very good.

Today even the TSA knows that private security is better. In one of its own tests, its screeners in Los Angeles missed 75 percent of explosives planted by inspectors. In San Francisco, one of the few cities allowed to have privately managed security, screeners missed 20 percent.

In a reasonable world, the government would disband the TSA and move to a private competitive system.

But we live in a Big Government world.

Randolph Bourne, who opposed U.S. entry into World War I, said, “War is the health of the state.” He meant that in war, government grows in power and prestige — and freedom shrinks. As Robert Higgs documents in “Crisis and Leviathan,” government never recedes to its prewar dimensions.

Shortly after Sept. 11, Sen. Charles Schumer declared that the “era of a shrinking federal government is over.” This was more nonsense. The government hadn’t been shrinking. But for politicians like Schumer, 9/11 was an excuse to take more power. Price was no object.

I can’t tell you what Homeland Security does with your money. Much of its spending is secret. Certainly much is wasted. The department made a big fuss over its color-coded airport security system, then scrapped it because it provided “little practical information.” The department spent billions on things like special boats to protect a lake in Nebraska, all-terrain vehicles for a small town in Tennessee and 70 security cameras for a remote Alaskan village.

That’s what politicians do. Members of Congress say: “You want my vote? You’d better give my district some cash.” And when people are scared, they let bureaucrats spend.

This played into Osama bin Laden’s hands. In one videotaped message, he talked about “bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy.”

The attacks on 9/11 were largely a failure of government. Our so-called “intelligence agencies” knew nothing about the plot. The Immigration and Naturalization Service, charged with keeping track of foreigners who overstay their visas, didn’t pay attention to the 19 hijackers. And as Rep. Ron Paul points out, history did not begin on Sept. 11. Part of the failure was America’s interventionist foreign policy, which needlessly made enemies.

So government failed on 9/11, and yet the politicians’ answer to failure is always the same: Give us more money and power. And we do. When will we learn?

In the midst of all this media hype of the debt apocalypse with it’s Twittering moron followers to thank the people who are trying to bring accountability to Washington by making Washington live within it’s own financial means. This entire debt ceiling debate has been enlightening – both of the political parties and of the uneducated American public.

For nearly the dawn of our country we have had a two party system. In recent times – Republicans versus Democrats. With the election of 2010, we had a shift in the candidates with the movement of the political ideology of the Tea Party. Now, the Tea Party isn’t really a party at all, it is more of an outcry against RINOs/Neo-cons and a desire to return to classical Republicanism. It is this group who was voted into power by demand that Washington downsize. To me this signals that the public is tired of the Washington gravy train and has spoken via votes to stop that train. This political phase shift, especially in the House, has caused the GOP to re-evaluate their platform.

For every election that I can remember people have complained about politicians campaigning whilst riding a magic carpet of promises of which they would not or could not keep when elected. So here we have these “Tea Party” candidates faced with an important vote – to vote to expand Washington or to downsize it. Unlike most groups, this group has chosen to uphold their campaign promise even if it means their demise in the coming election. For that alone, you are my heroes! You have been elected to represent and you are doing just that despite the public outcry for your heads.

But really, the public is all about the gravy train when it comes to their feeding cycle at the Washington trough. It reminds me of war in that many people are eager to go to war so long as it doesn’t affect them. Much of the media and many others (including the President) have whipped up a crazy scenario to drive home fear of the American household – doom and gloom. To me it seems like they are all saying one thing, “Give us more money or you will be unprotected and starve.” It seems to smack in the face of what our government is and what it should be. Our government is not our daddy and certainly not our daddy that gives us allowance. So why is it that we are all sitting around biting our nails that our government will “shut down”? What ever happened to the Power of the People? Or, the People running society and being the muscle of America (hello, Rosie the Riveter)?

While this does not pertain to a physical safety issue I find this quote to be ever so true today. Benjamin Franklin said, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Likewise, I think those who are willing to allow our government to give up their duty to maintain a positive fiscal policy deserve neither liberty, safety, or the gift of living in America. America isn’t about jockeying for a handout – corporate or individual - it is about living the American dream that if you put in hard work you will reap the benefits. I am not quite sure that is the case any more.

I hear a lot of crying from people about our AAA rating being ruined if we don’t increase the debt limit. I call horseshit. If you haven’t noticed everything is rising in price – check the commodities and see for yourself. We have a bad addiction to debt and sooner or later we must pay the piper. What then? We print more money to pay it off? Yes, that will be our government’s answer. Inflation will be the real ruin of our credit rating, not us refusing to be more fiscally responsible and to hold our government more responsible.

So in conclusion, thank you to those members of the House for standing strong while your own party badgers you, the mainstream media badgers you, the Democrats badgers you, the President badgers you, and the uneducated Americans badger you. I support you.

Thanks to the following Representatives for voting NO on S. 627.
Justin Amash (Mich.)
Michele Bachmann (Minn.)
Chip Cravaack (Minn.)
Jason Chaffetz (Utah)
Scott Desjarlais (Tenn.)
Tom Graves (Ga.)
Tim Huelskamp (Kans.)
Steve King (Iowa)
Tim Johnson (Ill.)
Tom McClintock (Calif.)
Mick Mulvaney (S.C.)
Ron Paul (Texas)
Connie Mack (Fla.)
Jim Jordan (Ohio)
Tim Scott (S.C.)
Paul Broun (Ga.)
Tom Latham (Iowa)
Jeff Duncan (S.C.)
Trey Gowdy (S.C.)
Steve Southerland (Fla.)
Joe Walsh (Ill.)
Joe Wilson (S.C.)

I hate to break it to these guys, but this isn’t just about changing some numbers to increase a limit that limits our drunken spending – it is a litmus test of how our government views itself. And with the hostage-like situation of “raise the limit or the world is going to shit” talks I can only think that our leaders don’t think we are smart enough to know that regardless of the debt number, we know we (and especially our children) are going to have to pay that back sometime. MAybe, finally, we are beginning to see the debt as something fundamentally wrong with America. We can’t continue to live in a indebted society if we want to be free.

Enter Ron Paul. First it was the Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009 (HR 1207) which allowed us to audit the very people who manipulate and indebt us – the Federal Reserve. Despite overwhelming support from the Congress (Democrats and the Republicans), Barney Frank still managed to stall it out in committee. years later we still have the money manipulators at hand and Ron Paul again comes out with another gem – The Free Competition in Currency Act of 2011 (HR 1098) which would allow the fiat currency issued by the Federal Reserve and backed by the US Government to be challenged and other stronger currencies take their place. But, I doubt that our government will see this through – especially Obama who believes that we are all little children who don’t understand the graveness of this situation.

Original article below seen here.

The end of June marked what is hopefully the end of the Federal Reserve’s policy of quantitative easing. For months the Fed has purchased hundreds of billions of dollars of Treasury debt, enabling the government to fund its profligate deficit spending, push the national debt to its limit, and further devalue the dollar. Confidence in the dollar is plummeting, confidence in the euro has been shattered by the European bond crisis, and beleaguered consumers and investors are slowly but surely awakening to the fact that government-issued currencies do not hold their value.

Currency is sound only when it is recognized and accepted as such by individuals, through the actions of the market, without coercion. Throughout history, gold and silver have been the two commodities that have most fully satisfied the requirements of sound money. This is why people around the world are flocking once again to gold and silver as a store of value to replace their rapidly depreciating paper currencies. Even central banks have come to their senses and have begun to stock up on gold once again.

But in our country today, attempting to use gold and silver as money is severely punished, regardless of the fact that it is the only constitutionally-allowed legal tender! In one recent instance, entrepreneurs who attempted to create their own gold and silver currency were convicted by the federal government of “counterfeiting”.   

 Also, consider another case of an individual who was convicted of tax evasion for paying his employees with silver and gold coins rather than fiat paper dollars. The federal government acknowledges that such coins are legal tender at their face value, as they were issued by the U.S. government. But when it comes to income taxes owed by the employees who received them, the IRS suddenly deems the coins to be worth their full market value as precious metals.

These cases highlight the fact that a government monopoly on the issuance of money is purely a method of central control over the economy. If you can be forced to accept the government’s increasingly devalued dollar, there is no limit to how far the government will go to debauch the currency. Anyone who attempts to create a market based currency– meaning a currency with real value as determined by markets– threatens to embarrass the federal government and expose the folly of our fiat monetary system.  So the government destroys competition through its usual tools of arrest, confiscation, and incarceration.

This is why I have taken steps to restore the constitutional monetary system envisioned and practiced by our Founding Fathers. I recently introduced HR 1098, the Free Competition in Currency Act. This bill eliminates three of the major obstacles to the circulation of sound money: federal legal tender laws that force acceptance of Federal Reserve Notes; “counterfeiting” laws that serve no purpose other than to ban the creation of private commodity currencies; and tax laws that penalize the use of gold and silver coins as money. During this Congress I hope to hold hearings on this bill in order to highlight the importance of returning to a sound monetary system.

Allowing market participants to choose a sound currency will ensure that individuals’ needs are met, rather than the needs of the government. Restoring sound money will restrict the ability of the government to reduce the citizenry’s purchasing power and burden future generations with debt. Unlike the current system which benefits the Fed and its banking cartel, all Americans are better off with a sound currency.

Independence Day marks the founding of a nation uniquely based on liberty, limited government and rights derived from our Creator. During this July 4th weekend, Americans rightly celebrate American exceptionalism and our hard-won freedom from European dominance. That’s why President Obama’s promise to “fundamentally transform America” into a country of Dependence Day and European-style socialism won’t be fulfilled.

Mr. Obama’s vision of relegating free citizens to serf status under an all-powerful government is un-American at its core. He has sold this dangerous doctrine via prolific lies, distortions and class envy. But socialist economics always fails because it violates human nature. Obamanomics is no exception.

The proof is in the rotten pudding he has served up: a prolonged recession, high unemployment, staggering debt and an incoherent foreign policy. His own party in the Senate has not even produced a budget vote for more than two years. The $1 trillion stimulus has failed, and Mr. Obama wants to increase taxes to expand government even more.

Surveys show that people are not buying it, and Mr. Obama’s response has been to try to distract from this sorry record by deploying socialism’s pet, the green dragon of envy.

His latest venture into class warfare was this gem from Wednesday’s press conference:

“If we do not have revenues, that means there are a bunch of kids out there who do not have college scholarships. [It] might compromise the National Weather Service. It means we might not be funding critical medical research. It means food inspection might be compromised. I’ve said to Republican leaders, ‘You go talk to your constituents and ask them, “Are you willing to compromise your kids’ safety so some corporate jet owner can get a tax break?” ‘ “

Mr. Obama smacked around corporate-jet owners three more times in a performance that would have made Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro envious. It’s a wonder he didn’t go after anyone who puts Grey Poupon on his hot dogs. Where are the guillotines when you need them?

Does anyone seriously think dunning corporate-jet owners will make a dent in our $14.3 trillion national debt?

But abetted by a media that’s a megaphone for Mr. Obama’s Marxist economics, this kind of socialist tripe plays well among left-wing-dominated unions and people dependent on working people’s dollars seized by our confiscatory tax system.

The whole socialist scheme envisioned by Mr. Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Charles E. Schumer is immoral. It is not only un-American, but it violates America’s Judeo-Christian heritage. This is not just a polite disagreement. And let’s dispense with the notion that the president is above criticism. This is America, not Europe. Excessive deference to a chief executive is a leftover from the monarchy and has no place in a nation whose Constitution begins with “We the People.”

Socialism is an elaborate socioeconomic structure that arises out of envy: It’s not fair that you have more than I do. I want it (or at least some of it) and you must give it or I’ll take it from you – at the point of a gun. If the government wields the gun, then I’m not morally culpable.

But socialism’s lure goes deeper than envy. By replacing God’s rules with man’s own, it frees man to pursue any vice he desires, no matter how perverse. In fact, the desires in and of themselves are often cited as validating consequent actions. It’s no accident that the same people promoting unlimited abortion, homosexual “marriage” and pornography are pressing for more and more government. They know that destroying moral foundations creates rich soil for government dependency.

Socialism is at bottom a rebellion against God and God’s clear words regarding morality and economics. You can find them all over the Bible but especially in the Proverbs and in the Apostle Paul’s admonition that if you don’t work, you don’t eat. That’s why so many socialist philosophers were virulently atheist or tried to co-opt God. Today’s “social justice” advocates, such as Mr. Obama’s former pastor Jeremiah Wright, frequently invoke the Almighty for unholy purposes such as redistribution. The problem is that when man becomes a law unto himself, he winds up under other men’s tyranny.

America’s great hope is that enough people see the financial and moral abyss and will not follow Mr. Obama’s green flag of envy over the cliff. Hungary unveiled a Ronald Reagan statue this week in Budapest’s Freedom Square. It would be shameful to allow the current occupant of the White House to keep marching us toward the kind of government we defeated when the Berlin Wall fell in 1989.

A great way to celebrate July Fourth would be to get involved in a Tea Party. It will take all of us working together to stop the socialist juggernaut that seeks to turn our national birth remembrance into Dependence Day.

“This is a disaster,” said Mark Miller, the Wisconsin Senate Democratic leader, in February after Republican Gov. Scott Walker proposed a budget bill that would curtail the collective bargaining powers of some public employees. Miller predicted catastrophe if the bill were to become law — a charge repeated thousands of times by his fellow Democrats, union officials, and protesters in the streets.

Killing another human being is something that isn’t really in our nature as a coherent and conscious being. We have to be trained to tricked into doing this. One of the easiest way of doing this is to call them names. In the Army, we wern’t killing people, we were killing terrorist. Likewise, the opposition called us desert pigs.  You see, it is easy to kill a terrorist or a desert pig – it is difficult to kill a Doug, Charlie, Mohammed, or Aban.

The same goes for any group that you want to demonize and justify causing some sort of harm to them. Enter politics. For some time now there has been a class warfare system going on. With Marxist beliefs on the rise – people are finding new ways to demonize groups so that the general population feels better about restricting or taxing them more. After all, if our government simply says that we are going to now tax your neighbor Jim more because he drives a Porsche and you drive a ford, then that is personal to you because you know Jim as a good guy. However, if we say that we are going to tax people who fly to work on private-jets, then we can now demonize them because we make them seem less human – in this case, less of a practical human being.

It is no secret that the magic number Obama has chosen as being too rich is $250,000/year. Anyone with any know-how knows that $250,000 a year, while is a nice amount, is not really “rich.” Many of these “rich” people simply “make” that much because they own a small business. But Obama can’t say that we are going to tax small business owners so instead he says that we are going to tax private-jet owners.

Obama is pushing the emotional buttons of Americans and saying, “Democrats are for kids and Republicans are for fat-cats with private jets.” This is class warfare – rich versus poor. Bourgeoisie vs Proletariat. Obama has his welfare state and many people are depending on it; however, the coffer is drying up and he needs to refill it. to refill it he has to take from somone and his number is $250k or more and to justify this he is saying that all people that make over $250k are jet-owners.

When are we going to realize that we can’t tax people simply because they have more than us? It is like going back to the playground when I was 3… Johnny has a new toy, I want it, so I cry until someone takes his toy and gives it to me. In this case, Johnny makes over $250k, I want it to pay for social programs, so I cry and vote for people who will take it and give it to me.

Here is a related article.

President Obama has a new term for the people he wants to tax more: jet owners.

In his news conference today, the president said: “I think it’s only fair to ask an oil company or a corporate jet owner that’s doing so well to give up that tax break….I don’t think that’s real radical.”

(Courtesy of JetSuite Air)Asking private-jet owners to give up tax breaks may not be that radical. And it probably would be supported by the vast majority of the nonjet-owning voters.

The problem is that most of the people that would be subject to the higher taxes the president wants aren’t likely to be private-jet owners. Someone earning $250,000 a year–among those scheduled for a tax increase in 2012–is unlikely to afford a jet–or even a few charter trips on a jet.

For those, like the president, who may not be well-versed in Jetonomics, here are some of the basics. The numbers come courtesy of Jay Duckson at Central Business jets:

COST OF BUYING A JET

New Citation CJ (entry level jet)–$5 million. Annual operating costs (fuel, hangar space, pilots) about $500,000.

Cheapest Used Jet–$100,000 to $500,000. Annual operating costs (hangar, pilots, mechanics, fuel) about $1 million a year.

COSTS OF CHARTERING A JET

Typical charter–$3,000 an hour

It is possible, of course, that someone earning $250,000 a year might spend 5% to 10% of their annual income on a single flight by chartering, in which case we could call them “corporate-jet fliers.” But it is unlikely. Even more unlikely is someone earning $250,000 a year paying $500,000 to $1 million a year to operate a jet–even if they received it free.

According to Mr. Duckson and others, most of those who own their own jets have net worths of $100 million or more and earn more than $10 million a year–minimum.

The President may be right that is fair to tax private-jet owners. He may even be right that it is fair to raise taxes on those earnings more than $250,000 a year. But the only kind of jet owned by people earning $250,000 a year would be the kind that sits on your desk.

How rich do you think you have to be to own a jet?

ADDITIONAL NOTE: While Obama was referring in part to the Democratic effort to close a tax loophole for jet owners, known as “accelerate depreciation,” the loophole would raise only $3 billion over the next decade. The larger point is that his “jet owner” comment blurs the lines between super-rich jet owners and the far lesser rich, whose whose taxes would go up under the Democrats plan.

This is when everyone gets angry at me because I am somehow raising taxes for them or someone they know.

 

But government spending needs to be reduced. We make $2 trillion and spend $3.5 trillion.

 

That is simply too much money. China has four or five times the population of the U.S. and spends less than we do.

Shared sacrifice requires all people to give up something so the prosperity of this fine nation can be maintained.

My first idea is to cut every government employee’s salary by 5 percent and those government salaries above $125,000 by 10 percent.

 

All members in Congress, however, would lead by example and take a 40 percent salary cut. The pay for their staffs and budgets would be cut by 20 percent.

However, in years when the government runs a deficit above $500 million, government salaries in the next year will be cut by an additional 10 percent and congressional salaries will be cut by another 40 percent.

This will make government employees think twice before foolishly spending money or attempting to expand government.

However, in years when the United States has a surplus above $100 million, government employee salaries will increase by 30 percent during the next year from the previous year and congressional salaries will expand by 50 percent.

This idea will put government’s interests in alignment with the rest of the country.

My second idea is for any government official who is convicted of accepting any bribe to receive a 10-year prison term. They also should serve the first 9 months of their term in the general prison population.

Idea #2: Any member of Congress convicted of accepting a bribe will get a 20 year minimum prison term and will be forced to serve the first one year in the general prison population — and not some federal prison with tennis courts.

Politicians and government officials should get harsher sentences than some poor scared teenager who steals to feed his family. This will guarantee that government workers will be less apt to sell their power and will think twice about doing anything dishonest.

 

In the old days folks who committed treason were hung and disputes in Congress were fought with duels.

My third idea is for a flat 15 percent “death tax” for all estates above $10 million, even if it is given to charity.

Warren Buffett talks about paying his fair share but skirts the estate tax with the bulk of his wealth. This behavior is incongruent and unfair.

If Mr. Buffett wants to give his $70 billion estate to charity, let the country get $10.5 billion and the charity get $59.5 billion.

 

If your estate is less than $10 million, why should you pay a 55 percent tax if you want to give it to your family, while the richest men like Bill Gates and Mr. Buffett pay nothing?

Under my plan, below $10 million, you would pay nothing. After all, you have been paying taxes all your life on the income.