Category Archives: politics

It’s Time for All Americans to Occupy Washington, DC

By John W. Whitehead

“We need to put pressure on Congress to get things done. We will do this with First Amendment activity. If Congress is unresponsive, we’ll have to escalate in order to keep the issue alive and before it. This action may take on disruptive dimensions, but not violent in the sense of destroying life or property: it will be militant nonviolence. We plan to build a shantytown in Washington, patterned after the bonus marches of the thirties, to dramatize how many people have to live in slums in our nation. But essentially, this will be just like our other nonviolent demonstrations. We are not going to tolerate violence.”—Martin Luther King, Jr. (April 1968)

The ongoing recession, continuously high unemployment, home foreclosures, congressional intransigence, and the circus of electoral politics are symptoms of a disease so widespread as to have rendered the government altogether incapable of carrying out its mandate, which is to protect the rights of its citizens, individually and collectively. This disease, brought about by the government’s abject collusion with corporate America, has so corrupted the system, which has grown bloated, lumbering and inefficient with time, that there can be little hope of a full recovery. John Winthrop’s bright vision of America as a shining city on a hill is no more.

That said, however, while we may not be able to return to a time of smaller, limited government, free from the cloying influence of corporations, there may still be hope of restoring some semblance of that social contract which once reigned supreme and which held that political authority must be derived from the consent of the governed.

Initially, it was hoped that the Tea Party would serve as a bulwark against tyranny, but their lofty ideals quickly became subsumed by a political agenda that did little to distinguish them from their Republican counterparts. Now we have the fledgling Occupy Movement, such that it is. Whether the Occupy Movement proves to be anything more than a footnote in America’s unrelenting march toward complete control by the corporate-state will largely depend on its followers’ willingness to resist the siren song of politics and be apolitical and nonpartisan, confrontational yet nonviolent, inclusive rather than exclusive, and strategic yet visionary.

It has been done before. It can be done again. And the place to start is by studying the tactics of past protest movements such as the Bonus Army, the Civil Rights Movement, and the 1960s anti-war movement, all of which involved occupying public spaces, participating in civil disobedience, and speaking truth to power. Indeed, Occupy Wall Street and its sister protests are merely the latest in a long and historic line of populist protests to use sleep-ins, sit-ins and marches to oppose government policies, counter injustice and bring about change outside the confines of the ballot box.

For example, in May of 1932, more than 43,000 people, dubbed the Bonus Army—World War I veterans and their families—marched on Washington. Out of work, destitute and with families to feed, more than 10,000 veterans set up tent cities in the nation’s capital and refused to leave until the government agreed to pay the bonuses they had been promised as a reward for their services. The Senate voted against paying them immediately, but the protesters didn’t budge. Congress adjourned for the summer, and still the protesters remained encamped. Finally, on July 28, under orders from President Herbert Hoover, the military descended with tanks and cavalry and drove the protesters out, setting their makeshift camps on fire. Still, the protesters returned the following year, and eventually their efforts not only succeeded in securing payment of the bonuses but contributed to the passage of the G.I. Bill of Rights.

Similarly, the Civil Rights Movement mobilized hundreds of thousands of people to strike at the core of an unjust and discriminatory society. Likewise, while the 1960s anti-war movement began with a few thousand perceived radicals, it ended with hundreds of thousands of protesters, spanning all walks of life, demanding the end of American military aggression abroad.

What these movements had, which the present Occupy movements lack, is a coherent message, the mass mobilization of a large cross section of American society, what Martin Luther King Jr. called a philosophy of “militant nonviolent resistance” and an eventual convergence on the nation’s seat of power—Washington, DC—the staging ground for the corporate coup which has driven America to the brink of collapse. This is where the shady deals are cut, where lobbyists and politicians meet, where regulators are captured, and where corporate interests are considered above all else.

Wall Street may embody corrupt business practices, but Washington, DC, is where the collusion between government and business occurs, and that is ultimately what the Occupiers should be targeting. The government leaders and agencies responsible for this collusion are easily identifiable—they are entrenched in the White House, Congress and the courts—with Barack Obama at the front of the pack, having raised more money from Wall Street than all of the current Republican candidates combined.

The balance of power that was once a hallmark of our republic no longer exists. James Madison’s warning that “the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elected, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny” has, regrettably come to pass. A silent coup has taken place, transforming our once-representative government into a corporate police state. The system cannot be fixed from within.

The only hope now rests with the determination of “we the people” to wrest back control of our government. A broad-based coalition is slowly forming, but time alone will tell if the Occupiers can maintain their resolve, develop a cohesive agenda, effectively communicate their message, and remain apolitical and nonviolent.

No matter what your political persuasion might be, this is no time to stand silently on the sidelines. It’s a time for anger and reform. Most importantly, it’s a time for making ourselves heard. And there is no better time to act than the present. As Robert F. Kennedy reminded his listeners in a speech delivered at the University of Cape Town in 1966, “Hand in hand with freedom of speech goes the power to be heard, to share in the decisions of government which shape men’s lives. Everything that makes man’s life worthwhile—family, work, education, a place to rear one’s children and a place to rest one’s head—all this depends on decisions of government; all can be swept away by a government which does not heed the demands of its people.”

What can ordinary citizens do? Instead of sitting around and waiting for someone else to change things, take charge. Never discount the part that everyday citizens play in our nation’s future. You can change things, but there can be no action without education. Get educated about your rights and exercise them. Start by reading the Bill of Rights. You can do so online at www.rutherford.org. Or, if you want a copy to keep with you, email me at johnw@rutherford.org and I’ll send you a free one.

Most important of all, just get out there and do your part to make sure that your government officials hear you. The best way to ensure that happens is by never giving up, never backing down, and never remaining silent. To quote Dr. King, “If you can’t fly, run; if you can’t run, walk; if you can’t walk, crawl, but by all means keep moving.”

It doesn’t matter whether you’re protesting the economy, the war, the environment or something else altogether. What matters is that you do your part. As that great revolutionary firebrand Samuel Adams pointed out, “It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brushfires in people’s minds.”

Take some time right now and start your own brushfire for freedom.

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. He can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org. Information about the Institute is available at www.rutherford.org

Collective Bargaining versus Obamacare

By David Zanotti, CEO, The American Policy Roundtable

Partisans and pundits heralded the 2011 Ohio election as a “bell weather indicator” of the 2012 election to come. Ohio voters may have thrown the pundits a bit of a surprise. On Election night Ohio voters threw out Issue 2, a collective bargaining reform bill but at the same time issued a resounding rebuke to Obamacare.

Issue 2 was a referendum against a statute passed by the legislature. Big labor gathered and paid for the petition drive and the ballot campaign. The collective bargaining statute they were protesting was 300-pages long. Ohio voters have a long tradition of voting “No” on any measure that is not clearly presented and well understood. People did not know what was in the statute. Both sides amplified this voter confusion by spending millions on negative commercials. The issue was doomed from the start and the Republicans walked into this defeat with an amazing lack of clarity. In spite of all the above, 39% of voters supported the collective bargaining reforms in Issue 2. A clear 61% rejected Issue 2 and sent it resounding defeat.

Issue 3 was a constitutional amendment placed on the ballot by citizen petition. It was a referendum on Obamacare seeking to exempt Ohioans from mandatory nationalized health care. Granted this is a symbolic approach given that federal law trumps state laws and Ohio is not exactly a bastion of states rights advocacy. The fact the measure passed is remarkable in such a pro-union turnout model, especially since the pro-Issue 3 campaign had no money to spend. That Issue 3 passed with a higher majority (66% for) than the defeat of Issue 2 (61%) is even more substantive. In other words, there was a 5% greater animosity toward Obamacare in the Ohio electorate than the animus toward Governor Kasich’s collective bargaining reforms. In this off election year where union turnout dominated the day, Issue 3 passed in all 88 Ohio counties.

Said another way, 34% of Ohio voters favored Obamacare while 39% of Ohioans favored the collective bargaining reforms. Thus, the pro-union, anti-Kasich turnout on November 8, 2011 is even more distrusting of the current nationalized health care plan than collective bargaining reforms.

Governor Kasich and his allies got their clocks cleaned on Issue 2 on November 8th. If this election is an indicator of things to come, however, the 2012 election may actually become a referendum on Obamacare. Not even the pro-union crowd in Ohio seems to like that idea.

David Zanotti serves as CEO of The American Policy Roundtable an independent, non-profit, non-partisan education and research organization that has been active in Ohio public policy and ballot issues since 1980.

Election Results: The Issues (updated)

The latest report from the Secretary of State shows the following:

Issue 1, the Constitutional Amendment increasing the age of at which a person may be elected or appoinnted judge, is losing. The percent of votes against the amendment are 62% and votes for it 38%.

Issue 2, the referendum to repeal the public employee collective bargaining reform law SB 5, is also losing. The percent of votes against SB 5 becoming law is 61% to 39% of the votes in favor of it.

Issue 3, the proposed Constitutional Amendment to preserve the freedom of Ohioans to choose their health care and health care coverage, is winning by 2 to 1 margin. The percent of yes votes are 66% and 34% of the votes are against it.

The latest Greene County Board of Elections report shows the following levy results:

County Issues
Issue 14: Greene County Career Ctr – 52% for and 48% against
Issue 15: Greene Memorial Hospital – 61% for and 39% against

Local Issues: Xenia
Issue 13: Xenia Schools – 34% for and 66% against

Local Issues: Others
Issue 5: Cedarville Twp & Village – 69% for and 31% against
Issue 6: Jefferson Twp Fire – 68% for and 32% against
Issue 7: New Jasper Twp Roads – 45% for and 55% against
Issue 8: Spring Valley Twp – 65% for and 35% against
Issue 9: Sugarcreek Twp – 46% for and 54% against
Issue 10: Xenia Twp – 53% for and 47% against
Issue 11: Beavercreek Schools – 44% for and 56% against
Issue 12: Greenview Schools – 36% for and 64% against
Issue 17: City of Bellbrook – 46% for and 54% against
Issue 18: City of Bellbrook – 56% for and 44% against
Issue 19: City of Fairborn – 53% for and 47% against
Issue 20: City of Fairborn – 58% for and 42% against
Issue 21: Bowersville Village – 67% for and 33% against
Issue 22: Bowersville Village – 63% for and 37% against
Issue 23: Spring Valley Village – 66% for and 34% against

Voters apparently intend for their cities and villages to maintain services. Thus far, voters seem to be telling school districts they have already voted for enough emergency, operating, permanent improvement, and renewal levies-enough is enough. As far as the Career Center is concerned, it is still too close to call for the GCCC, but county votes apparently want Greene Memorial Hospital to keep up its facilites.

Voters appear to have bought the union message as well as the call to maintian personal freedom over health care choices. Could there be a contradiction or confusion of views here?

Issue 16, What’s the Problem?

Issus 16 will enable Greene County commissioners to negotiate with electric power suppliers on behalf residents and businesses. Electricity aggregation, as it is called, will make those suppliers compete for the business of both residential and commercial consumers. Electricity aggregation also will lower the cost of electricity of Greene County energy consumers who participate in the program.

The passage of Issue 16 gives county residential and commercial energy consumers a choice. Those who prefer to pay less for electricity can and those who prefer not to participate can choose to opt out.

Here is a win-win opportunity for citizens and businesses of Greene County.

So what’s the problem?

The problem is not every resident or business in Greene County may participate in the electricity co-op. Although every voter in every Greene County city, village and township will see Issue 16 on their ballot, only the votes of those who live in non-incorporated townships or villages will count.

But that’s okay, because all Greene County voters can show their support for the electricity aggregation program by voting Yes on November 8. And, I’m sure the Board of Election officials and volunteers won’t mind it too much if their ballot counts show large support for this issue.

Some may be wondering whether Xenia and other incorporated municipalities have or can have their own electricity aggregation program. Everyone wants lower electric bills, right? Could it be possible for cities like Xenia to join the county program?

According to a Dayton Daily News article written by Katherine Ullmer, it is possible. “Since the county commissioners do not have jurisdiction over cities, city officials would have to place a similar issue on its ballots to seek authority for a similar electrical service agreements.” Bill Bradish, energy consultant to the County Commissioner’s Association of Ohio, also informed her “some Greene County cities might pursue this next year.”

Another good article on Issue 16 written by Megan Bachman can read by going to YSNews.com.

Issue 3, Why Vote Yes?

Issue 3 seeks to preserve the freedom of Ohioans to choose their health care and types of coverage by an amendment to our state Constitution. Issue 3 aims at preventing the democratic party’s socialist version of health care reform from being forced on the citizens of Ohio. As proven in Europe and Canada, compulsory health care increases the overall cost of health care while reducing the quality of care. Those costs have contributed to the severity of the economic turmoil in the Europe.

The compelling case argued for the Obamacare is its claim that no one with an existing medical condition can be denied coverage and that the millions of poor Americans and their children will gain access to adequate health care. Those are two benefits touted by the media and all other proponents of Obamacare.

Obamacare law is supposed to prevention bankruptcy due to catastrophic illness and it will help small business provide health insurance to its employees.

It is also true that Obamacare will cost business more money to implement Obamacare. It will penalize individuals for not signing up for health care and small businesses for meeting the laws imposed of them. Physicians and other health care professionals support Issue 3 for similar reason–it will cost them too much financially and professionally. It will benefit insurance companies by increasing revenues to compensate for insuring people with preexisting illnesses. However, wealthier Americans will pay more for health care in order to compensate for the higher costs incurred by doctors, other health practitioners, and by government. Government-run health care will require more people and resources to run completely socialist health care system. Consequently, Obamacare will require more taxpayers funding. As Obama and his party associates in Congress have made clear, the wealthy are the taxpayers of choice.

Because of bureaucratic inefficiencies, corruption, high costs, fewer quality health professionals and the like, waiting long periods for treatment is common. That is why similar health care system in Canada and Europe are known for “rationing” services to the elderly and disabled. The same is expected under Obamacare, or rationed care.

On principles of inherent human rights alone, a Yes vote is necessary to preserve the enjoyment of what freedom we have left. With regard to efficiency and economy, a Yes vote will ensure government bureaucracy doesn’t destroy the quality of health care we already have.

Health care certainly needs improved, but Obama’s version will not provide it.

Why Vote Yes on Issue 2? Here Are Some Facts to Consider

Issue 2 is a referendum on the newly passed collective bargaining and other public employment contracts reform bill titled SB 5. The bill was passed in order to enable state government to reduce labor costs, balance the state budget, make public jobs more competitive and performance oriented, and attract as well maintain good workers.

One of the ways the governor, legislators, and many local officials agreed would enable them to accomplish these goals was reform the standards and practices of public workers.

Two organizations are leading grass root campaigns with regards to the passage of Issue 2. The union backed organization “We Are Ohio” lead the ballot referendum, wrote ballot argument opposing the SB 5, and produced most of the media ads seeking to persuade a no vote on November 8. “Building a Better Ohio” is the organization promoting the new law. “A Better Ohio” is behind the media ads, telephone calls, and literature campaign in favor of SB 5. It also has written the ballot argument for making it public law.

When in it comes to truth-in-advertising, “A Better Ohio” gets an “A” but “We Are Ohio” has earned an “F”. That is, statements and arguments made by “A Better Ohio” tend to be true while statement by “We Are Ohio” often have been shown to be false. The Plain Dealer’s PolitiFact Ohio is the source of these observations.

A number of other news, public policy think tanks, and other organizations have been focusing on this issue. They include Buckeye Institute (see links in right column above), Principled Policy Institute, Ohio Farm Bureau Federation, Dayton Chamber of Commerce, and others.

The ballot text voters will see presents two arguments. The “Vote No on Issue 2, Repeal SB 5” arguments make the following claims. SB 5 puts our families at risk by making it harder for fire and police to negotiate for needed safety equipment. Issue 2 also makes the nursing shortage worse by making it illegal for nurses, hospital and clinic workers to demand reasonable staffing levels. PolitiFact Ohio proves these arguments are clearly false. SB 5 specifically states safety employees DO have bargaining rights over equip and related issues (in section 4417.08 of the bill), and only about 10% of all nurse work for the state. What administrator is going to deny a real need for more nurses if a genuine health and safety issue can be proven? The state has monitoring mechanism to deal with such issues.

Another argument is that Columbus politicians exploited a loophole, giving a special exception to the same standards. As PolitiFact Ohio shows, politicians have always been exempt. The politicians already pay 15% into their healthcare and 10% to their pensions. And, they never can give themselves raises. Current politicians can only increase pay for future elected officials.

What is unfair about Issue 2 is the unions attempt to deceive voters into opposing the savings SB 5 will produce by making government more efficient.

A careful reading of the final argument against SB 5 is that Columbus politicians giving corporation tax-break incentives to moving businesses to Ohio, start new businesses, expand business operations, and keep them in Ohio is reason for Ohio economic problems. Union members should not be penalized for problems created by big business. Yet, politicians like Kasich are creating policies to curb corporate lobbyist influence peddling. Politicians like Kasich are not attempting to reduce pay but rather make public compensation, especially benefits, as fair as those creating profits that grow the economy. No public employee produces profits. As necessary as fire fighters, police, teachers, and support personnel are, public employee pay reduces available income or pay of all profit-makers, from the low-wage earner to the over-paid CEO.

Voting Yes on Issue 2 will NOT hurt us all. Ohio government made more efficient and public employee benefit package comparable the private-sector will not hurt us all either. It provides the necessary incentive for improving the quality of local education as well as all other sectors of government by making teaching and all other jobs based on results rather than mere tenure.

Yes on Issue 2 will provide more equality in union bargaining. Local communities and their representatives will be in a better position to handle economic down-turns when increasing taxes is reasonable. Taxpayers, in other words, will gain better legal standing regarding local government, schools, unions power, and taxation.

Preserving Iraq’s Assyrians: Federalism

by Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi

As U.S. troops continue to pull out from Iraq, it is worth visiting the question of what future there is, if any, for the country’s Assyrians. Since the 2003 American-led invasion, the Christian population has declined from some 1.2-1.5 million to 400-800,000 today, and it is undeniable that Christians constitute a disproportionate percentage of Iraqi refugees. In fact, it is thought that around 40% of refugees are Christian, even though prior to the war they comprised at most 5% of Iraq’s population of roughly 30 million.

Since the end of 2006, there has been a marked decline in violence, for most of the Sunni insurgents began to realize that they were losing the sectarian civil war for Baghdad against the Shi’a militias and thus appreciated that survival depended on working with the central government against al-Qa’ida.

However, Iraq’s Assyrian community still faces two problems. Outside of the areas administered by the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG), there is the threat of al-Qa’ida, which is still able to extort money around $150 per month from most businesses in Mosul and is capable of carrying out mass casualty attacks and hostage takings. The most notorious recent example is undoubtedly the attack on the Our Lady of Salvation Assyrian Catholic Church in Karrada on October 31st 2010.

Although the Iraqi security forces were able to take out 8 militants and relieve the hostage crisis, the terrorists nonetheless detonated their explosives prior to being killed, leaving 58 dead and 67 wounded. The attack was followed by 11 roadside bombings and mortar firings on Christian neighborhoods in Baghdad that killed 5 more civilians and injured 20. Consequently, around 133 and 109 Christian families registered as refugees in Syria and Jordan respectively. More recently, two churches were bombed in Kirkuk last August, leaving 23 wounded in the first attack and damage to the church in the other (a third plot was foiled after the bomb was defused).

The KRG areas have provided a safe haven for many Assyrians fleeing the threat of Islamist violence further south since 2003, and the former KRG Minister of Finance- Sarkis Aghajan- did use some KRG funds to finance a Christian defense militia in Mosul and help rebuild a few churches and villages. The KRG hoped that these limited initiatives would win over the Assyrian (also known as Chaldean and Syriac) Christians to submit to Kurdish rule and authority, at the expense of marginalizing the Assyrian Democratic Movement (ADM).

Yet many Assyrians justifiably complain of problems of discrimination. As a 2007 report by the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom notes:

“KRG officials were also reported to have used public works projects to divert water and other vital resources from Chaldo-Assyrian to Kurdish communities…leading to mass exodus, which was later followed by the seizure and conversion of abandoned Chaldo-Assyrian property by the local Kurdish population.”

The anxieties of some Assyrian leaders over these issues are apparent in disclosures from the Wikileaks cables. Consider a message from the Ninewa Provincial Reconstruction Team:

“In a July 3 meeting with PRT and US Army civil affairs personnel, Mayor of Tal Kaif [Tel Keppe] District (and Provincial Chairman of the Assyrian Democratic Movement) Basim Bello said Assyrians in Ninewa Province feel intimidated by the Kurds and suffer from a lack of essential services. Bello said the solution lies in the inclusion of all groups in the provincial government. He said civil rights protections for Christians will continue to be a concern whether predominantly Christian areas remain part of Ninewa or join the KRG. He reiterated his party’s position that the Christian areas of Ninewa should form an autonomous region under Article 125 of the constitution.”

In light of issues highlighted above, one can only agree with the ADM’s proposal that the only viable way to preserve Iraq’s fledgling Christian population is the creation of an autonomous province, based on Article 125 of the Iraqi Constitution, which affirms that the “Constitution shall guarantee the administrative, political, cultural, and educational rights of the various nationalities, such as Turkomen, Chaldeans, Assyrians, and all other constituents, and this shall be regulated by law.” There are of course several predominantly Christian towns around which this autonomous region could be based, including Alqosh, Batnaya, Tesqopa and Baqofa. The question now arises of how the prospects for attaining this goal can be raised.

The answer lies in one word: federalism. According to the constitution, provinces can break away into separate autonomous regions (or in groups) subject to a referendum. Calls for federalism have a long history in southern Iraq, especially in Basra province since 2003. Continue reading

Cost of Living Adjustment for Seniors in 2012

By Senator Sherrod Brown

For too long, seniors have faced rising costs for prescription drugs, utilities, and food, but a monthly Social Security check that has not risen accordingly. That’s because the formula that determines whether Social Security recipients will get a COLA is not properly aligned with the costs facing most seniors. I’m fighting to reform this flawed formula so that seniors are not left in the cold.

I’m glad to announce that the Social Security Administration will provide a 3.6 percent cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) to seniors in 2012.

Seniors, who earned Social Security by paying into the program during their working years, not be forced to shoulder an outsize budget during their retirement. No elderly American should have to choose between paying for medicine and a meal. That’s why I’m fighting to preserve Social Security and Medicare by rejecting plans to privatize them, cut benefits, or raise the retirement age.

After the House of Representatives passed a plan that would dismantle Medicare as we know it, I encouraged 50 of my Senate colleagues to sign a letter pledging to reject this dangerous scheme. And raising the retirement age for Social Security might sound okay to Washington politicians who don’t have to work on their feet all day, but it’s a non-starter for hard-working Ohioans employed at our manufacturing facilities, farms, or restaurants. Ohioans who work hard and play by the rules believe that their elected officials should do the same. That’s why I’m also fighting to pass a bill I introduced that would tie the age at which members of Congress can collect their own retirement benefits to the eligibility age for Social Security. If a steelworker has to wait until she is 66 years old to receive retirement benefits, then so should members of Congress – especially those who want to increase the retirement eligibility age.

Across our state, I’ve met with senior citizens who have worked all of their lives to be able to retire with dignity. They never asked for a handout. They never expected a free pass. They worked diligently because, in Ohio, workers are the backbone of our economic strength.

Free Trade Benefits Ohio

By U.S. Representative Steve Austria

Recently, Congress came together in a bipartisan way to pass crucial free trade agreements between the United States and Panama, Colombia and South Korea. These trade agreements will help create good-paying jobs in the United States without another government spending plan. It will also boost economic growth by opening new markets for U.S. goods and services.

According to this administration, an estimated 250,000 jobs will be created, and every additional $1 billion in exports generates 25,000 new jobs in the United States. These will be long-term, sustainable jobs in the private sector – not temporary government jobs. Compared to the so-called “job-creating” stimulus spending plan that I voted against, this is a significant opportunity for agriculture, manufacturing and many other industries to competitively export their goods – creating private sector jobs in the process.

These trade agreements do not pick winners and losers, nor do they give any preferential treatment to companies in the United States – it simply levels the playing field with other countries. When given the chance to compete on the same level, American products and companies can succeed and remain leaders in the global marketplace.

Unfortunately, we are losing too many jobs and businesses to other countries. The burdensome, unnecessary government regulations that are being implemented by bureaucracies such as the EPA, combined with high tariffs on our exports, and one of the highest tax rates of any industrialized nation in the world, are driving companies out of the United States and overseas.

The free trade agreements will help shoulder that burden, by competitively pricing American exports. Furthermore, it will allow us to produce more goods in the United States without the barriers that drive up the cost of exports and make our country less competitive in the global marketplace.

In my district alone the benefits of international trade are enormous. There are approximately 89 businesses exporting more than $3 billion of products which support more than 9,700 jobs in our area.

I have always believed that when private businesses are given the opportunity to grow and succeed, they will. Take Bluegrass Farms of Ohio, a food grade soy business from my district. This small business currently employs 17 people in Jeffersonville and contracts with more than 40 local farmers to grow their products. Over 90 percent of the soy they produce is shipped to Asia, and a free trade agreement with South Korea could easily double their exports. The more we relieve the restrictions on allowing products to be exported throughout the world, the more small businesses like Bluegrass Farms can grow and hire locally right here in the district.

Similarly, these trade agreements will help American manufacturers like Ohio-based Procter & Gamble. Over 40 percent of their jobs in Ohio support their business outside of the United States in fields such as R&D, design, logistics, and marketing. They also export products like the Gillette Fusion from the United States to 92 countries. The Fusion is manufactured in two places; Boston, Massachusetts and Berlin, Germany. Both Korea and Colombia have tariffs on razors of 10 percent and 15 percent, respectively. The European Union’s FTA with Korea took effect in July, and its agreement with Colombia will follow shortly. According to Proctor and Gamble’s own analysis, had we not passed these trade agreements, the razors that are made in Germany would have been 10-15 percent cheaper to import just because their politicians were able to pass their agreement, and ours weren’t. Workers in the United States are the most productive in the world, but even the most productive who pay a 15 percent penalty, just for being from the United States, will have a hard competing in the international marketplace.

Many people have been asking for a solution to the economic downturn, and letting the markets work their will is one of the best ways to achieve it. The passage of these free trade agreements brings a host of opportunities for businesses in Ohio and around the country – and most importantly, the opportunity for more American jobs, here in America.

Ron Paul’s Plan to Restore America

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-2Zs0-N1dA&w=420&h=315]