A real estate CEO moves to TX

.  

rex.com

Last Saturday, a CEO named Peter Rex published an opinion piece in the WSJ that attracted a fair amount of attention on LinkedIn.  The article is entitled, "I'm Leaving Seattle for Texas So My Employees Can Be Free"  . 

I believe you'll find the views expressed in this piece reasonable and factual -- but unfortunately -- not widely promulgated by traditional media.  

Read more about Mr. Rex here.  

A new book from Jonathan Hoenig

This coming November, Capitalist Pig Hedge Fund manager and business media figure, Jonathan Hoenig will release A New Textbook of Americanism: The Politics of Ayn Rand.  The book, edited by Mr. Hoenig, contains a collection of essays from notable writers in the Objectivist school, including one from Mr. Hoenig himself ("On Property Rights").  

Cover page image courtesy of J. Hoenig

Public Twitter Image - Jonathan Hoenig

A clear and present danger to civil liberties

Destruction of evidence, failure to comply with Congressional subpoenas and giving false testimony before Congress, are impeachable offenses.  One might think of Watergate, but these same offenses also apply to the IRS scandal I wrote about over two years ago ("IRS Plot Could Be Worse Than Watergate" June 9, 2013).  Little fallout has occurred since.

An article for interested readers to examine, was published in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) last month by Congressmen Ron DeSantis and Jim Jordan.  Anyone who still denies existence of a partisan scandal might want to read this WSJ article:

"The Stonewall at the Top of the IRS" -- July 28, 2015

by Congressman Ron DeSantis and Congressman Jim Jordan

(Also worth reading in WSJ: "How Congress Botched the IRS Probe" -- May 15, 2015 by Foley & Lardner attorney, Ms. Cleta Mitchell.)

Last week, during the Republican Presidential debates, Sen. Rand Paul complained about meta data collected to catch terrorists, but he said nary a word about the IRS issue. 

IRS Commissioner John Koskinen
Official photo

The IRS scandal is more tangible than any federal surveillance problems we've seen, yet Sen. Paul prefers to focus on the NSA without evidence of citizen abuse.  

To be clear, I cherish privacy rights and respect the instincts behind Senator Paul's effort, but I also wonder why he is not more troubled by what's occurred recently at the IRS. 

Spring has sprung!

While it's still too cool in southern Wisconsin to get excited about the weather, the morning sunlight streaming across my lawn is enough.  A week of travel on a sour stomach and poor weather in north Texas, makes me appreciate the moment all the more.  

Image by freepik

On a heavier note; I recently discovered a quote by John Stossel.  I don't know much about Stossel, other than he's a Libertarian.  I've only seen a few of his topical reports on television but his pithy take on the nature of taxation is amusing.  Mr. Stossel says....

"Politicians, bureaucrats and the people they 'rescue' get money through force — taxation.  Don't think taxation is force? Try not paying, and see what happens."

My take on GOP presdential candidates

Ron Paul, Wikipedia

Ron Paul -- I remain conflicted about Ron Paul.  The reasons are simple and shared by a number of GOP voters.  Let's first look at the plus side.  I love the man on fiscal policy.  As he once described his zeal to cut federal spending, “I am absolutely convinced it is the only road to prosperity.”  On monetary policy -- Ron Paul is the gold standard (pun intended).

If not for the Tea Party, I'd have bolted from the Republican Party a few years ago because I wasn't seeing enough Republicans walk the fiscal talk that Rep. Paul walks every day.  Then I discovered Ron Paul.  When Ron Paul says he'd cut a trillion dollars in federal spending year one, he even tells you how he'd do it.  When he talks about The Fed's destructive, easy money policies -- he means it.  I admire his courage and consistency.  Unfortunately, Rep. Paul's foreign policy is often, "Blame America First."  It's unfair to brand virtually all American foreign intervention as "nation building".  He's more worried about domestic TSA agents, than foreign enemies of this country.  He's obsessed with "rights" of enemy combatants (non Americans) in Guantanamo and dismisses the record of domestic security our existing policies (maintained by leaders in both parties) have engendered.  I also question his views on Israel.

I recall an attempt Mr. Paul made to appeal to Pro-Defense Republicans when he highlighted the fact he had voted to use force after 9/11.  My fear is that a President Paul would wait for another 9/11 before acting.  Ignoring one's enemies has nothing to do with Liberty. 

Traditional Republicans have significantly more in common with hardcore Paul supporters than either group has in common with Democrats -- and probably always will.  I respect the ideological purity of most Libertarians -- their loyalty and unswerving respect for the Constitution.  My differences with some of them are: a) an all hands-off position about containing evil and preserving national security, b) a failure to embrace political reality by running hopeless candidates who siphon GOP votes and c) too many of them still spout the nonsense that there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats.

Newt Gingrich, Wikipedia

Newt Gingrich -- Mr. Gingrich will not be the nominee of his party, but if you ever have the opportunity to see Newt Gingrich speak in public, you must make the time.  He's a rare breed of public speaker -- poised and colorful with an enviable command of American history and domestic politics.  I've never seen him use notes at the stump.  Speaker Gingrich also says ineffective things at the worst possible moments like his recent attacks on Romney's private equity group.  .            

Rick Santorum --

Rick Santorum, Wikipedia

A lot of Americans are getting their first taste of Rick Santorum.  He's been a part of the Washington landscape for a long time while managing to keep his nose clean and win respect from people who agree with him and scorn from those who don't.  Mr. Santorum will not be the nominee of his party either.  His character, social values and deeply-held convictions are the stuff that lands one a spot on Mount Rushmore, but we need a CEO in the Oval Office more than a role model for at-risk youths.  I'm also troubled by his explanation for a vote against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania when it tried to become a Right To Work (RTW) state.  Mr. Santorum now says he'd sign an executive order allowing all states to become RTW states. By the way, check out this site to learn more about RTW site.

Mitt Romney --
That brings us to Mr. Romney.  Words that come to mind are: urbane, wealthy, smart and energetic.  Of course, that's not enough to win.  I hope Governor Romney's commitment to balanced budgets will remain as pure as Governor Scott Walker's performance here in Wisconsin. 

By the way, I'm now awarding an annual Maddente.com MVP Award for public adherence to fiscal responsibility under adverse conditions.  Mr. Walker earns the inaugural award -- hands down -- for his 2011 performance.  Taking a $3.6 billion dollar deficit to a $300 million dollar surplus, without raising taxes, against a Tsunami of cheap legislative stunts and vicious public union attacks, has re-defined courage and leadership in this state.

But back to Mitt.  There's much more to learn and discuss about Mitt Romney, of course, but for now I'll close with this thought: Mr. Romney will be the GOP nominee facing Barack Obama in November and if elected, he'll become an infinitely better President than his predecessor.

National security vs. civil liberty in America

Published: Sept. 20, 2007 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

It is a solemn anniversary each year, the kind where you hold your breath hoping that you won't hear a news report about a terrorist bombing or some other horrific act. I'm talking, of course, about Sept. 11, a date that will remain seared into our consciousnesses for the rest of our lives.

Understandably, the date also has devolved into a ritualistic debate regarding the competing ideals of national security and civil liberties. Here's my take.

Civil liberties, including the right to privacy, are critically necessary in any free society. The ability to express myself through this column is an obvious example. However, civil liberties should not in and of themselves supersede national security. And some of the clamor about domestic surveillance has gone from making my eyes roll to making my blood boil.

Under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA, enacted in 1996, the government reserved for itself the right to comb through your medical records without court approval if such an action is deemed potentially useful to a federal investigation.

I wasn't particularly concerned about that in 1996, nor am I now. How many abuses of that law have been documented in the past 11 years? Consider the entire domestic surveillance hubbub we hear today and ask: Do you really think the CIA cares about phone calls you have made or books you have checked out from the library?

Of course not, and I don't want to hamper its efforts to locate people who would hurt innocent Americans. Vice President Dick Cheney can pore over my phone logs whenever he pleases. If I have nothing to hide, I have nothing to fear.

So frisk me! If it makes us all safer, it's worth it. Blame terrorists and their supporters for the circumstances that gave rise to these extraordinary precautions; don't blame policy-makers trying to keep us safe.

A related concept in the civil liberties controversy is the notion of racial profiling. The idea that added scrutiny is given to some purely on the basis of ethnicity is not new, and, in practice, it arguably can be quite troubling.

During World War II, for example, many Japanese-Americans and some German-Americans underwent humiliating treatment in this country to ensure that they possessed no loyalties to the Emperor or to the Führer.

That's a sad chapter for us, but it's not at all what I am advocating. There are no internment camps today for Muslim-Americans. No reasonable person would support such measures.

On the other hand, our country was not attacked by radical fundamentalist Norwegians. I doubt you'll find many Nordic sleeper cells operating around the world. So if I am acting suspiciously in an airport like the six Muslim men in the Minneapolis airport last fall, the fact that I am drawing comparatively more attention than some platinum blond named Sven makes sense to me.

Letter writer Patrick Collentine put it thus in the Sept. 16 Journal Sentinel:
"Since there have been countless attacks thwarted and none executed in six years, I think it is obvious we are more safe today because of the USA Patriot Act, domestic wiretapping, aggressive interrogation and holding suspected detainees until we are sure they pose no threat to America."

He added, "There has been one case in six years that the Justice Department has prosecuted for the infringement on civil liberties. I'll take that trade-off any day."

So will I.

Views on domestic surveillance

Civil liberties, including the right to privacy, are critically necessary in a truly free society.  On the other hand, civil liberties should not automatically supersede national security concerns without the application of rigorous and transparent reasoning by parties operating in the collective interests of the people. By using the term "civil liberties" in this post, I am writing primarily about the right to privacy guaranteed under the Fourth Amendment.

National security only trumps the right to privacy when the party imposing security measures (e.g. the U.S. Government) is truly functioning in the interest of the people it is imposing such measures upon, to protect them from those who would do them harm (e.g. Terrorists).  That is the circumstance we are faced with today.  Some of the current clamor on domestic surveillance ignores the greater risks and evils we face.

For example, with enactment of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act in 1996 (better known as HIPAA), the government reserved the right to review your medical records without court approval, if such an action is deemed potentially useful to a federal investigation. I wasn't particularly concerned about that in 1996, nor am I now. How many abuses of that legislation have been documented in the last five years?  Ten years?  In many cases, I think our right to privacy -- concerning one's health records and profile were dramatically strengthened by HIPAA, as opposed to invading our privacy on health matters. 

Now consider the loudest domestic surveillance concerns we hear today and ask yourself if you think the CIA or NSA cares about phone calls you have made, or books you have checked out?  I prefer to believe that only those people trying to harm freedom-loving good citizens like us, should be the ones worrying.  At least that's the way I feel today, but governments can and do change into despotic forces so we should always look over their shoulder(s) too.  This is not a static issue.

Dick Cheney, Wikipedia

In sum, I appreciate the slippery slope argument against domestic surveillance, but at this point, I am more worried about hampering efforts to locate people who would hurt innocent Americans.  Dick Cheney can check my phone logs (as long as someone I trust can check his).