As the United States enters into the 2008 and another presidential election, there is widespread anxiety over the state of the economy. The subprime mortgage crisis, and the subsequent collapse of the housing market have cast a pall across even the most optimistic projections. In response, many Americans look to government to alleviate their concerns and usher in a new cycle of economic growth. Though such impulses are understandable, it would be a grave mistake to take any steps which would lead us away from the free market.

The reason to hold fast to free market principles is simple: no other institution can so effectively meet the wants and needs of American citizens.

The roots of our economic system can be found in the basic human drive to create, buy, and sell-interactions which have taken place since human beings began to form communities. These interactions are entirely voluntary-- no government ruled that they should take place; rather, they have occurred spontaneously as human beings seek to satisfy their desires for food, comfort, and entertainment.

For that reason, buying and selling only occurs when both parties stand to benefit from the exchange. The other side of the coin is that neither party is interested in paying more than he or she believes a particular good or service is worth.

In the free market system, price and value are determined by the time, labor and expenses that contribute to the finished product, as well as the total supply of such products on the market, their relative availability to the customer, and the customer's need to purchase the product. This incredibly complex latticework of variables is what sets prices and determines value in such a way that the manufacturers', the buyers', and the sellers' considerations all factor into the equation.

In short, the genius of the free market system is its ability to process and transmit information to billions of people while continuously adapting in response to the actions of its participants.

Government intervention into economic activity, on the other hand, usually results in a form of price control. In contrast to the free market, which sets prices according to the behavior of people, government's attempt at determining price is always arbitrary, for it cannot grasp the concept of value in a market system. This is why government intervention into the price mechanism usually worsens, rather than alleviates, economic crisis.

In response to the embargo set by OPEC in 1974, the United States interfered with supply and demand by rationing gasoline. There were long lines at gas stations, and citizens could only buy gas on certain days of the week. And yet, in Germany and Japan, there were no gas lines. The reason is that Germany and Japan allowed the market to continue to set gas prices. As supply went down and demand remained constant, prices went up. The increase in price transmitted valuable information to consumers: gasoline is less readily available than it was a few months ago. The United States attempted to avert the crisis by superseding the market, and paid an economic price for that action.

As the United States attempts to weather the housing crisis and the slowdown of the economy, it is important to remember that there are no quick fixes; no silver bullets. Government tampering with the machinery of the market tends to come at a steep price. The best course for now is for businesses and consumers alike to exercise caution and prudence in their dealings. The market forces will balance, as they always do, and hard work and ingenuity will continue to be rewarded in the land of opportunity.

By: Nathan Tabor
http://www.theconservativevoice.com
Nathan Tabor is the Founder and CEO of TCVmedia.com and TheConservativeVoice.com. After just eighteen months, TheConservativeVoice.com gets over 250,000 unique visitors a month, 1.7 million page views and has over 150,000 email subscribers. The Conservative Voice has over 100 columnists and features up-to-the-minute news. He is heard daily on over 250 stations nationally with AConservativeMoment.com.

It cannot be denied that Barack Obama is a well reasoned, thoughtful and ultimately powerful orator. When speaking to supporter's young and old he can be very inspirational. His appeal has been called messiah-like, by the likes of Rush Limbaugh with a surge in popularity has been nothing short of extraordinary. He is the most, win or lose, successful African American politician in American history.

Senator Obama's record of achievement has fully prepared him to lead us; to help us achieve the American Dream. Or has it?

The issues facing the next president are vast; economic slowdowns and possible recession, wars in foreign nations with no end in sight, and education system where great teachers aren't rewarded and ultimately a health care system that needs to be reworked. Let us not forget about our porous southern border, unprotected with crime rates sky rocketing in border states. Our next president will have to address these issues, especially if they campaign for "change."

Once we get passed the flowered rhetoric who really is the Senator who hopes to be President of the United States? The purpose here is to understand his plan for America that literally lacks specifics and presents a model for the future that brings down the heavy hand of government, limiting our choices and our freedoms.

Senator Obama proclaims that under his America, his changed America that all our health care needs will be met by forcing insurers to issue "fair" policies. These fair policies would include a national plan that pays for all your health care costs. These fair plans "force" private industry to provide coverage at accessible prices whether you, in your current economic state, could afford it or not. These fair policies would automatically garnish payroll budgets for employers not wishing to or able to pay for the coverage Obama deems necessary. Small businesses are obviously exempt for now; that is until another entitlement or victim is popularized by the media.

Are we supposed to so quickly forget that the government so eager to take care of health care needs is the one who has bankrupted Medicare, Medicaid and every other social program in America?

The issue of choice looms large as well. Obama promotes "proven methods" as the means to take care of things like diabetes, heart disease among many chronic diseases. Who defines what "proven methods" work with chronic diseases? What is the definition of a "proven method" when human beings react differently to different medications treating the same illnesses? When such an entitlement, which would nominally be in the hundreds of billions of dollars yearly, is running low on funds what should these patients expect as far as care? Simply put the cheapest alternative to keep you alive but not healthy.

Obama, of course has a plan for schools as well. According to his campaign site he will provide high quality care and education with his "zero to five" plan aiding all those who need assistance. His K-12 initiatives are yet another tax and spend fantasy providing expansion for after school, summer and expanding No Child Left Behind by furthering the financial reward to both failing schools and improving schools. While the Senator does astutely address teacher training with mentoring programs and residency requirements to help build a better foundation for future educators, he fails on the critical question: financing.

Our current public school system spends on average up to 10,000 per student per year and the system continues to fail. Are we to believe that throwing more money at the problem is the solution? How should those whose children do not attend public school react when their taxes are increased to meet these demands? If parents are not given the option to take their child to an improving school or given the breaks necessary to place their child in private education then the freedom of the child and the parents are imperiled. It is important to note that the Illinois Senator does not offer choice in his education plan only edicts and check writing.

Our southern border is another matter of pressing national importance. Illegal immigration, which has caused there to be anywhere between 12-20 million undocumented people within our borders, is a problem not only affecting our national identity but our national security. Some, like Pat Buchanan, see it as an invasion from Mexico. Pat Buchanan's assertion aside it is causing this nation many problems.

Illegal immigration is a burden on our school system and our health care system, not to mention many of our entitlement programs like the aforementioned Medicare, Medicaid, et al. Senator Obama on paper appears to support border enforcement and working with Mexico to curb their peoples incursions into our nation. Employer penalties are also part of the plan to eliminate the illegal alien migration.

His actions would say otherwise. Romantically and personally beholden to the immigrant story of success in a new land; Obama goes against the popular opinions about our immigration situation.

He is a vocal supporter of driver's licenses for illegal immigrants and comprehensive reform which has been labeled as a code word for "amnesty." On the floor of the Senate in 2006 he applauded the legislation that would reform our current laws instead of enforcing them. President Reagan also supported a comprehensive package known back then as Simpson-Mazzoli, that reformed our immigration laws and put an emphasis on enforcement. Here we are 22 years later facing the same issue.

Economic woes are preventing most from achieving their goals. The subprime mortgage lenders, growing numbers of bankruptcies and foreclosures have put a strain on millions. He is quick to blame the credit card companies and lenders for the financial troubles of the nation. He would rather give a fish than teach people how to fish. Instead of promoting financial education at the earliest stages of our educational lives he would rather cut a check and create funds to protect those who are either foolish or to easily swayed to spend money they don't have. The problem is not the companies that issue the credit but person who uses that credit.

As far as jobs are concerned, it can't be denied that high paying jobs are being taken overseas and that many of "the jobs Americans won't do," are being taken up by undocumented low skilled workers. Instead of promoting growth in all industries and providing incentive for corporations to retain their headquarters in the United States, Obama along with the other Democrat candidates, plan to impose tax hikes on the wealthy. He claims that investment and promotion of green technologies will create jobs while punishing companies that charge for internet services will promote growth. More likely than not tax hikes, green policies and the lack of positive job creation will lead to higher unemployment as employers cover the cost of these initiatives. That of course excludes the cost of government mandated low cost health care initiatives.

The Iraq war has been the greatest foreign policy blunder in American history. Some argue that the numbers of deaths in other wars easily trump this one with their losses of blood and treasure. Thus, Iraq is only a show of our force instead of a misguided act of ignorance. Obama rightly, smartly seeks to end this catastrophe and bring some semblance of sanity to our foreign policy initiatives.

Still there is a naiveté about his first major endeavor into changing America's presence in the world. He believes that talking to the worlds greatest dictators, heck according to reports he admires Marxist revolutionary Che Guevarra, will somehow absolve one another of our differences. He also believes that letting the world know that we will be out of Iraq in 16 months but retaining troops in the region will placate those that hate us. If he truly sought change then he would abandon all our posts worldwide and bring our boys home. Should we retire from our stations worldwide? Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul, classical conservatives and philosophical enemies of our current Military Industrial Complex, think so; then again Barack Obama may be left of Hugo Chavez. It is doubtful he would seek their advice.

Senator Obama is a man of unrivaled style and charisma. I have to admit I was moved by his speeches and I have been somewhere between a classical conservative and a neocon my entire life. Still, the prospects for our nation over the next 4 and possibly 8 years are dire. Barack Obama may be a rock star to his followers but no amount of speech making skills make up for a flawed and destructive domestic policy that is traditional tax and spend, with a touch of Marx. Our country needs help its unfortunate there are no leaders or cowboy diplomats worth their weight to assist us in regaining our national pride.

© Copyright-Alejandro Rodriguez III All Rights Reserved Worldwide

By: Alejandro Rodriguez III
Alejandro Rodriguez III is a political scientist and social philosopher. Dabbling in conservative politics and outright brazen thought he can be reached at alejandro_r_3@yahoo.com

Well the California primary and special elections are over and our good buddy Gov. Schwarzenegger and his Democrat cronies have put yet another one over on the good but not very well informed citiczens of California. The man that I (Oh, what an idiot I was) and the majority of California voters elected as our Governor made a very sweet deal, with the backing of his cronies in the Democratic Party, with four very wealthy Indian Tribes that would allow them to add thousands of slot machines to their 'gaming' casinos while paying the State of California virtually nothing for the privilege.

When they got caught making this deal, which they tried to slip through without a vote by the people of California, Propositions 94,95,96,97 ended up on the ballot. The four Indian tribes immeaditly began a advertising propaganda campaign spending between $100 and $200 million. The Governator and his buddies starting promoting the passing of these propositions and tons of misinformation and vague half truths filled the airwaves and the print media.

The biggest piece of misinformation put out was that the needy state of California would recieve through this deal a much needed $9 billion dollars. No one ever said how anyone came up with this figure of $9 billion dollars which by the way was to have been recieved over the next twenty years (something barely mentioned by the Tribes or the politicians) or how much more should have been recieved with other deals. No one mentioned that according to the State Of California, we would be lucky to recieve $250 million over the next four years which was not much more that we would have recieved if these propositions had not been passed. No one mentioned the added costs of allowing these thousands of extra slot machines to be put in play, such as additional road work and repairs, additional police, fire and other service costs to the cities and counties around where these casinos are situated. These costs will have to be spent in order to handle the problems that come up when tens of thousands of additional people invade the area in order to play those additional seventeen thousand slot machines.

I could go on and on, but let's just face it. The people of the State of California got taken once again by it's elected representatives.

Some people ask, why would our representatives to this to us. I don't know, could it be the $150 million in contributions already given to these representatives and their favorite projects. Or could it be the $100s of millions more that these representatives hope to recieve from those four Indian Tribes. And maybe it could be the $100s of millions in contributions they hope to recieve in the future from other Indian Tribes that will want the same sweetheart deals.

All I know is that it is our fault that we got taken. Too many California voters trusted our politicians (how gullible can we be?) and, as usual, too many California voters did not bother to do research before they voted. Will the voters of California ever learn? Probably not!

David G. Hallstrom, Sr.
Legal Resources and Lifestyle Information

According to Official California Voter Information Guide Prop 93 is an initiative Constitutional amendment that

Reduces the total amount of time a person may serve in the state legislature from 14 years to 12 years.

Allows a person to serve a total of 12 years either in the Assembly, the Senate, or a combination of both.

Provides a transition period to allow current members to serve a total of 12 consecutive years in the house in which they are currently serving, regardless of any prior service in another house.

Right now a politician's service is restricted to six years in the Assembly (three two-year terms) and eight years in the Senate (two four-year terms).

Under Prop 93 a politician could serve six two-year terms in the Assembly, three four-year terms in the Senate, or some combination of terms in both houses.

In my opinion Proposition 93 is not a new term limits proposition. Instead it is a way around current term limits. This new proposition would allow politicians to hold on to their seats of power in each house for a much longer period. It allows parties that controll certain areas to keep their control for longer periods and it allows committee chairmen to hold on to those chairmanships for longer periods.

While I am sure that lobbiests and special interest groups love Prop 93, I don't. I urge a no vote on Prop 93.

David G. Hallstrom, Sr.
Get Involved and express yourself at the
Political Legal and Lifestyle Forums

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said he must slash aid to poor children and the elderly, shutter state parks, shrink school funding and release 22,000 inmates early to plug a $14 billion deficit.

The governor proposed a $141 billion budget that cuts expenditures on every state program by 10 percent for the fiscal year beginning July 1. The spending plan, which doesn't include tax increases, is down from this year's $145 billion budget. He said he would halt early repayment of $12 billion in deficit bonds sold in 2004 and propose selling an additional $3 billion of the debt to help bridge the current gap.

``It would be wrong to raise taxes on people to cover Sacramento's overspending,'' Schwarzenegger, 60, told reporters in Sacramento. ``We have to control the budget because right now the budget is controlling us.''

Schwarzenegger invoked never-before-used emergency powers that would force lawmakers in the most populous U.S. state to pare $3 billion from the current budget. The Legislature has 45 days to deal with the shortfall. Should lawmakers fail to find a solution in that time, they would be barred from doing any other legislative work or adjourning. Source Bloomberg.com.

First the Governornator backs numerous bond issues putting the State tens of billions of dollars in debt, then he signs ridiculously high budgets into law, then he makes deals with Indian Casino Tribes where they control how much they will pay us and now he says oop's we're out of money so we need to cut the social spending that he approved in previous years. Leave it to Californians to elect a governor like Schwarzenegger.

By the way I'm a Republican but I'd rather vote for anyone rather than Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

By:
Darren Winslow
California Law - Legal Information