USDA gun buy is symptom of too-large government but not tyranny

In recent years, a number of alarmist reports have detailed how various agencies of the federal government have planned to purchase large quantities of ammunition and weapons. The most recent such report, a solicitation for bids to provide .40 caliber submachine guns to the Department of Agriculture, was detailed in May. Many conspiracy theorists believe that the purchase orders are harbingers of the government’s intention to impose martial law and declare war on its own citizens.

The solicitation, posted on the FedBizOpps website on May 7, specifies that the weapons be equipped with “semi-automatic or 2 shot burts [sic] trigger group, Tritium night sights for front and rear, rails for attachment of flashlight (front under fore grip) and scope (top rear), stock-collapsilbe [sic] or folding, magazine - 30 rd. capacity, sling, light weight, and oversized trigger guard for gloved operation.” The posting is real and the website is a legitimate federal government website.

The previous reports of purchases of large quantities of ammunition by federal agencies as varied as the Postal Service, the Department of Education and Homeland Security, while real, have been thoroughly debunked as an indication of imminent tyranny by sites such as the conservative Breitbart.com as well the longtime debunker, Snopes. These sites point out that the conspiracy theorists underestimate the amount of ammunition required for currency and training. They also fail to account for the fact that the government contracts are multi-year purchases that specify an upper range of quantity. Ammunition, like other commodities, is purchased in bulk in order to obtain volume discounts.

An additional theory is that the government was attempting to corner the market on ammunition in order to facilitate de facto gun control. With ammunition in short supply, guns would be almost useless. Forbes found a different explanation. Record high purchases of firearms logically lead to record high purchases of ammunition. There is a shortage of ammunition because there are many new gun owners. Dean Weingarten, writing on TheTruthAboutGuns.com recently suggested that pent up demand for ammunition is being satisfied and that prices are already dropping.

Ammunition shortages are easily debunked, but why does the Department of Agriculture need submachine guns? To find out, Examiner spoke with Alison Decker, Assistant Counsel to the USDA Inspector General.

In a prepared statement, Ms. Decker said that the submachine guns were intended to replace older, semi-automatic weapons used by agents of the USDA Office of the Inspector General. The weapons are intended to be used by USDA OIG agents in conducting “hundreds of criminal investigations each year” into “criminal activities such as fraud in farm programs; significant thefts of Government property or funds; bribery and extortion; smuggling; and assaults and threats of violence against USDA employees.”

The USDA was authorized to investigate and prosecute criminal activity that affected USDA programs and activities by the Inspector General Act of 1978. According to Ms. Decker, the OIG’s law enforcement activities led to more than “2,000 indictments, 1,350 convictions, and over $460 million in monetary results” from fiscal year 2012 through March 2014.

There is no evidence that the firearms purchased by the USDA are part of a sinister plot to impose martial law or tyranny on the American people. In fact, the very idea seems to defy logic. If the federal government intended to impose martial law, there are already hundreds of thousands of combat-experienced, well-armed soldiers in the U.S. Army, Marine Corps, and National Guard. There are also thousands of armed federal agents already positioned throughout the country. It seems ludicrous to suggest that such a plot would hinge on equipping the agents of the USDA Office of the Inspector General with .40 caliber automatics.

While not a sign of imminent danger or martial law, the USDA gun procurement may be symptomatic of a too large federal government in which a myriad of federal agencies duplicate efforts. In 2011, the Wall St. Journal detailed how the sharp increase in the number of criminal laws and regulations had led to a surge in the number of federal law enforcement agents. By the Journal’s estimate, there are more than 138,000 armed federal agents from more than 70 agencies. Fox puts the number at high as 73.

The expansion of rulemaking and policing has led to more criminal prosecutions for trivial matters. Enforcement of rules that was once a civil matter can now bring a raid by a squad of federal agents armed with assault rifles. This was the case for Morgan Mok in 2008 when agents of NOAA and the Fish and Wildlife Service raided her Miami business looking for illegal coral. According to the WSJ, Mok had obtained the coral legally, but paid a $500 fine for failing to complete the paperwork properly. A similar instance from 2011 involved a raid on Gibson Guitar by armed Fish and Wildlife agents searching for illegal wood. No criminal charges were filed, but the company agreed to pay $350,000 in penalties reported CNS News. In 2012, Fox News reported that armed EPA agents in body armor descended on an Alaska town looking for violations of the Clean Water Act.

The USDA OIG website details a number of recent investigations. The majority of these investigations seem to be the equivalent of “white collar” crimes such as crop insurance fraud, SNAP (food stamp) fraud, misbranding meat or the sale of property that was collateral for USDA loans. Some investigations, such as the attempted theft of a truckload of meat, could have legitimately required armed officers.

A question to consider is whether the number of crimes that require armed intervention is enough to justify the USDA’s own armed agents. In many instances, the USDA could be backed up by local law enforcement or other armed federal agents such as the FBI or US Marshals. A Freedom of Information Act request was submitted to USDA for more information on OIG investigations and use of force, but a reply has not yet been received.

The core problem is that the federal government is too large, not that it is about to implement martial law. The answer is reform, not revolution. Law enforcement officers and military personnel are not the enemy.

Read the full article on Atlanta Conservative Examiner

Ga. lawmakers consider expanded gun rights, bath salt ban

A new bill in the Georgia Senate proposes to expand the locations where holders of a Georgia Firearms License can carry weapons.  Currently, it is illegal to carry a gun in government buildings, courthouses, jails or prisons, churches, bars (unless permission is granted by the owner), mental health facilities, nuclear power facilities, and within 150 feet of polling places.  The new bill, SB 98, would amend the current law to make it illegal to carry weapons in prisons, jails, detention centers, courthouses, school safety zones, and nuclear power facilities.  The new bill is proposed by Sen. Barry Loudermilk of the 52^nd district, which includes Rome and Calhoun.

Georgia does not require gun registration, but a Georgia Firearms License is required to carry a handgun or a knife with a blade more than five inches long.  To obtain a Georgia Firearms License, the applicant must pay a fee that varies by district.  Typically, the cost is between $39 and $47.  The applicant must pass a background check.  The license is “shall issue,” which means that the license must be issued if the criteria are met.  The license is also honored by 24 other states, including the states that border Georgia with the exception of South Carolina.

A second bill that has not yet been introduced is Rep. Jay Neal’s (R-Lafayette) proposed legislation to ban the sale and possession of narcotic bath salts.  Bath salts are synthetic hallucinogenic drugs that are marketed as bath additives or plant food.  They are sold at smoke shops and convenience stores and are marked “not for human consumption.”

In reality, the bath salts are being smoked and drank to get a legal high.  Since the product is a newly marketed synthetic drug, it is not yet covered by Georgia’s drug laws, although several states have already passed bans.  This is similar to a synthetic marijuana that the General Assembly voted to ban last year.

The bath salts cause hallucinations and delusions, superhuman strength, stimulation, and aggressiveness.  They have been linked to suicides and violent behavior, including the murder of sheriff’s deputy in Mississippi.  Many users say the experience is horrible, but the drug is highly addictive. 

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-atlanta/ga-lawmakers-consider-expanded-gun-rights-bath-salt-ban"> 

Obama's war on jobs

It is much easier for the government to screw up the economy than to fix it. This is a fact that that President Obama is probably coming to appreciate as he reaches the close of his second year in office. Although Obama almost certainly means well, the effects of his policies are what count. Overall the effect is similar to what would happen if President Obama had declared war on the national economy.

The financial reform legislation passed this week is only the most recent anti-business legislation passed by the Obama Administration. The new law guarantees future bailouts by giving the government the right to seize businesses to prevent their collapse. It also establishes new layers of federal bureaucracy to create new rules for banks and financial companies (with the notable exception of auto finance companies). The new law adds costs of compliance to business and makes credit harder to obtain in the midst of credit crisis while simultaneously failing to address the problem of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the quasi-government entities widely credited as being a root cause of the sub-prime mortgage crisis.

The war on jobs began shortly after Obama took office with the passage of the stimulus package. Obama claimed that the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act would keep unemployment below 8% (http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1910208,00.html). In reality the spending package spurred unemployment to continue rising to the 10% range, where it remains today. In Georgia, the unemployment rate has been even higher than the national average at over 10% (http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=LASST13000003).

The number of jobs created by the stimulus is disputed, but the fact is that when stimulus funds run out, so do the stimulus jobs. Jobs created by the $787 billion stimulus reportedly cost an average of $117,933 per job to create (http://knowledge.wpcarey.asu.edu/article.cfm?articleid=1857) while not creating a lasting boon to the economy.

The second assault on the economy was in the form of government interference in the auto industry. The Obama Administration pumped billions of dollars into General Motors and Chrysler in an unsuccessful attempt to prevent the companies from restructuring in bankruptcy. During this process, Obama not only interfered with the control of private companies, he also short-circuited the bankruptcy process and contract law. Obama’s bailout deal placed unions above secured creditors of the companies (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/05/07/politics/otherpeoplesmoney/main4997900.shtml, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124109550079373043.html). Ultimately, the Obama Administration even forced the CEOs of both companies out and gained the right to appoint members to the boards (http://www.worldcarfans.com/109050119091/chrysler-bankruptcy-announced-by-obama---ceo-nardelli-to-step-down, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/31/AR2009033101521.html). When the US government arbitrarily usurps contract law, it makes businesses less likely to engage in contracts that they are not sure will be honored. This ultimately costs jobs.

The third assault against the job market was the passage of Obamacare. Like the new finance reform law, Obamacare requires many new costly reports, including the new requirement that businesses issue a 1099 to every business or individual from whom they purchase more than $600 in goods or services (http://money.cnn.com/2010/07/09/smallbusiness/irs_1099_flood/index.htm). Additionally, Obamacare is already health care more expensive to businesses (http://www.businessinsider.com/henry-blodget-obamacare-already-jacking-up-health-insurance-costs-for-businesses-2010-3). As a result, businesses are cutting benefits to workers and hiring as few new employees as possible. Some companies are also considering additional layoffs to cut the new costs.

The next attack on jobs will likely come soon. It could be an attempt to ram through the carbon cap-and-trade tax bill that will dramatically increase energy costs. Hopefully, there will not be time to pass this bill before the election.

More likely, it will come in the form of the expiration of President Bush’s tax cuts. These across-the-board tax cuts that affected all Americans are set to expire at the end of 2010 unless Congress acts. If the cuts expire and taxes increase, it might suck as much as a $1 trillion from an economy that is struggling to recover. In spite of the fact that Democrats usually refer to them as “Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans,” taxes were cut for all American and if they expire everyone’s taxes will increase (http://www.smartmoney.com/personal-finance/taxes/how-the-expiring-bush-tax-cuts-affect-you/). There will be less money for consumers to spend and less money for businesses to hire new employees.

One possible cause of these anti-business and anti-job policies is that President Obama doesn’t have a single person in his administration that has ever run a business (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/619dvjlm.asp). They don’t know that their ideas are hurting the job market because they have never run a business. Obama appointees come almost exclusively from government and academic circles. They don’t understand free markets and have no idea what they are doing. The uncertainty derived from sweeping anti-business reforms certainly has a chilling effect on the economy as business owners hunker down to see what will happen next.

Sources:
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1910208,00.html
http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=LASST13000003
http://knowledge.wpcarey.asu.edu/article.cfm?articleid=1857
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/05/07/politics/otherpeoplesmoney/main4997900.shtml
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124109550079373043.html
http://www.worldcarfans.com/109050119091/chrysler-bankruptcy-announced-by-obama---ceo-nardelli-to-step-down
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/31/AR2009033101521.html
http://money.cnn.com/2010/07/09/smallbusiness/irs_1099_flood/index.htm
http://www.businessinsider.com/henry-blodget-obamacare-already-jacking-up-health-insurance-costs-for-businesses-2010-3
http://www.smartmoney.com/personal-finance/taxes/how-the-expiring-bush-tax-cuts-affect-you/
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/619dvjlm.asp

July 17, 2010
Bedford, MA



Photo credit:
graur razvan ionut
http://www.freedigitalphotos.net/images/view_photog.php?photogid=987

Morality and the Law

We live in a society where morality has been defined downward for years. Many people, elected officials included, believe that the law only applies to others. For example, Republican Senator David Vitter and Democratic New York Governor Eliot Spitzer were both implicated in prostitution scandals. Various other elected officials and businessmen have been implicated in everything from sexual harassment to bribery to tax evasion.

In truth, society is held together by morality. When morality fails, it is necessary to pass laws to resolve issues that good ethics would have prevented. The finance industry is currently in a state of chaos at least in part because mortgage companies loaned money to people who could not pay and then sold the bundled mortgages to other companies. Other companies have normal business practices that include denying legitimate claims, submitting false billing, and the old fashioned bait and switch.

The law is a good place to start in determining morality. It has been said that morality cannot be legislated, but nothing is further from the truth. Our laws reflect our national morals. When we pass laws against murder it is because we, as a republic, have respect for the sanctity of life and believe that it is wrong to deprive another of their life. When we pass laws against robbery, burglary and theft, it is because property rights are strongly ingrained in the American morality. If a limit on carbon emissions is enacted, it will be because we, as a republic, have decided that we believe that it is wrong, immoral, to allow unrestricted emissions of carbon.

What is legal and what is moral are not always the same, however. Some things are legal, but not moral. Others are not immoral, yet are still illegal.

It would be a stretch to argue that driving 56 miles per hour is immoral, but doing so in a 55 MPH zone is illegal. A law in Georgia made it illegal to buy alcoholic beverages by mail order. A similar law made it illegal to buy a car over the internet without involving a local dealer. Neither of these laws is grounded in morality or ethics, instead they were passed to benefit specific industries.

Similarly, what is legal is not always moral or ethical. One of the best examples of this is Nazi Germany. In the 1930s, Hitler’s government passed laws stripping Jews of their rights and property. These laws, which resulted in the deaths of millions of Jews, were both immoral and unethical, even though they were totally legal under existing German law.

Slavery is another example. Keeping human beings in life long, involuntary servitude was once the norm around the world, including the United States. Doing so was legal under national and international law of the times. A growing number of people around the world became convinced of the immorality of slavery and eventually eradicated it in most countries.

Today, there are several moral issues that face the United States and the world. Among these are abortion, gay marriage, pollution, terrorism, and genocide. We must decide what we believe is the moral answer to these issues and then determine what action should be taken, if any.

To lead the way, we need leaders who share our morals. Our leaders should be held to a higher standard of behavior and not given a pass based on the office they hold or which party they belong to. These leaders should set a positive example for the rest of society and initiate a return to ethical behavior from the boardroom to the classroom and beyond.

If we do not return to a moral and ethical society, the very foundations of our country will continue to erode as politicians pad their pockets at the expense of taxpayers and corporate executives sell out their employees and stockholders. The race will not be to create wealth, but to find someone from whom to take it. The resulting morass of legislation will eventually strangle more and more of our freedoms.