The Conservative Edge

Last Friday (June 12), the federal government enacted legislation that, according to Yahoo! news, granted itself unprecedented authority to regulate and restrict cigarettes and tobacco products. President Obama remarked that this makes history “by giving scientists and medical experts at the FDA the power to take sensible steps.”

Apparently, we are living under a 21st century version of Prohibition. Look at what the government has done for itself. It now has “unprecedented authority” and “absolute power” not just to regulate the tobacco industry, but our personal lives as well. None of the Democratic candidates for president campaigned on promises to eradicate tobacco use. Yet, the Democratic agenda is clear: destroying the tobacco industry, and our right to use tobacco, takes precedence over creating jobs.

I felt so strongly about our rights to use tobacco that I wrote an essay for one of my college classes. Some of the statistics that I cited were from a report by Joe Jackson about the lies perpetrated by the anti-smoking zealots. Here is most of the essay that I wrote:

“In November of 2006, voters in the state of Ohio approved an indoor smoking ban for all workplaces. The ban, known as Issue 5, passed by a 59-41 percent margin. Some voters believed that private clubs and family-owned businesses would be exempt. However, the fine print in the law allowed few, if any, exemptions.
“Despite the ban, tobacco continues to be a legal product sold in Ohio. Tobacco products are also heavily taxed. In January 2009, Congress again raised the federal excise tax on cigarettes, now amounting to $1 per pack. If tobacco is a legal substance and subject to taxation, then Ohio residents who pay taxes on tobacco products should have input in determining Ohio’s smoking laws.
“The anti-smoking establishment maintains that no one has the right to subject others to secondhand smoke. This idea gained traction in the 1970s, when the more politically savvy members of the anti-smoking movement realized a need to show that tobacco smoke was harmful. At a World Health Organization conference in 1975, former British Chief Medical Officer Sir George Godber stated, ‘It would be essential to foster an atmosphere where it was perceived that active smokers would injure those around them.’ But two significant studies on the risk of secondhand smoke failed to find any real danger. The World Health Organization, after conducting a 10-year European test, admitted in 1998 that it found no significant statistical proof of risk. The British Medical Journal, in 2003, published the results of a 39-year study done in California, which concluded that any risk was essentially too small to measure.
“Most studies of secondhand smoke influence are conducted by groups with clear anti-smoking agendas. These studies are usually financed by pharmaceutical companies which make money selling nicotine patches and gum. But the real intent of the anti-smoking movement is to stigmatize smokers, not to protect the public. This leads to the enactment of intrusive and unreasonable laws that restrict the freedom of American citizens. For example, the mayor of Los Angeles signed a law, effective in September of 2007, that banned smoking in all city parks and beaches, and also prohibited even the carrying, lighting, or discarding of tobacco products. As a result, individuals could be fined or arrested for carrying a product that was legally purchased at a gas station or convenience store.
“There are sensible measures that can be taken to appease the anti-smoking fanatics and avoid treating smokers like second-class citizens. Taxes on tobacco products should be used to install better ventilation systems in public workplaces and private organizations, much like using gasoline taxes to repair roads and bridges. This is a practical idea, since good ventilation systems can remove particles as small as .30 micron; tobacco smoke particles measure 1 micron. Tests have shown that, with a good ventilation system, the air in a smoking environment can be cleaner than the air in a non-smoking environment without ventilation.
“The anti-smokers have morphed into a powerful prohibitionist movement. They promote intolerance and social tension, and wield too much control over the lives of many Americans who use tobacco. Abraham Lincoln once said, “No man is good enough to govern another man without that other’s consent.” If American people consent to the bully tactics of the anti-smoking movement, many other freedoms could be sacrificed in the name of social engineering.”

Do we really want government officials and scientists to wield so much control of our lives? I hope Americans come to their senses and understand how the liberals are taking away our freedoms one by one.

On Friday, June 12, I heard Larry Summers defend the government’s involvement in private companies. Speaking at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, Summers said that President Obama “did not, as he has said many times, run for president to manage banks, insurance or car companies.”

That’s understandable. If Obama had mentioned those ideas, he might not have been elected. Like Bill Clinton in 1992, Obama campaigned on fixing the economy, but, once in office, began implementing the Democrats’ real agenda.

If Obama had been completely honest, before the election, about the liberals’ real intentions, he would have told us that (among other things):

• They would impose outrageous and illogical taxes on tobacco products (supposedly to fund health insurance for children), with further tobacco regulation directed by the FDA.
• They would decimate the American auto industry, causing the additional loss of thousands more jobs. They would have the authority to fire the CEO of GM, and arrange the sale of Chrysler’s assets to a foreign car maker. They would increase the regulation of the auto industry, with the EPA to be in charge of auto emissions.
• They would permit the White House to oversee the upcoming Census, removing the Department of Commerce oversight.
• They would increase spending and our national deficit, leading to inflation and higher interest rates.
• They would refuse to expand the exploration and utilization of our energy resources, risking our national security and maintaining our dependence on foreign oil supplies.

That’s been the focus of the administration during the first few months. There doesn’t seem to be much emphasis on job creation. We were supposed to get a “quick jolt” to the economy, but I haven’t noticed it yet. Most of the new jobs the Obama administration takes credit for have come from preparation for the Census. Unemployment has spiked well beyond government estimations. And the run-up in oil prices means that the markets are anticipating increases in inflation, due to the massive amounts of new money being released by the government.

It gets worse. If the Obama administration authorizes the pending cap-and-trade legislation, we will all be spending more on energy to heat and cool our homes. That’s besides the higher gasoline prices that are sure to come, because the Democrats refuse to capitalize on American resources. The real growth we are witnessing is not in job creation, but in the size and authority of the Federal government. God help us.

Winston Churchill once said that “The farther backwards you can look, the farther forward you are likely to see.” He meant, of course, that history is a great teacher. Even the Old Testament philosopher said that there is nothing new under the sun; everything we see now has happened before.

And so it is with the American auto industry. With GM’s bankruptcy now likely to occur, many people may be wondering if we will ever again have a vibrant auto manufacturing industry. There are thousands of people losing their jobs, not just with GM or Chrysler, but at the smaller factories where parts are made and then sent to the big auto plants. Everyone from machine operators to engineers, from electricians to toolmakers, are seeing their jobs disappear.

And now, here comes our government to the rescue. But it almost seems that the car companies are making deals with the devil. In exchange for government loans to continue operations, the companies are essentially giving up the right to make the kinds of cars to satisfy market demands. They are also being told that the government can fire their CEOs, and tell corporate officials how much money they can make. Maybe Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank will start sketching prototype cars on the backside of bar napkins, and then send them to GM for manufacture.

Let’s look back a number of years to find a similar crisis facing a car company. In 1979 and 1980, there was much anxiety over the fate of Chrysler. Lots of experts were wondering how Chrysler could get in such sorry condition. There seemed to be some agreement that Chrysler’s problems stemmed from a combination of poor management and excessive government regulation. Lee Iaccoca came to Chrysler in 1979, and brought along some talented people from Ford, which resolved much of the management problems. But the company needed capital to stay in business long enough to revamp its product line. The federal government agreed to guarantee Chrysler up to $1.5 billion in loans.

In September, 1980, Ed Lapham wrote in Car and Driver that as part of the agreement, Chrysler had to get more than $450 million in wage and salary concessions from its employees. Chrysler then had to arrange $650 million in concessions from 400 banks; that was hard to do in times of high inflation and interest rates, especially with Chrysler’s credit rating. But the company eventually met all of the requirements for government loans. Iaccoca also worked hard to get everything in order. But his biggest challenge was holding his tongue while certain government officials inspected his company and then made public sport of it. Sound familiar?

In December, 1979, Tony Hogg said in Road and Track that “As far as government regulation is concerned, meeting a bunch of ill-conceived regulations…(is) absolutely devastating as soon as a business takes a turn for the worse…” Hogg also quoted then-Senator Carl Levin as saying “This situation was caused in part by the government…I think the government has an obligation to get Chrysler out of its problems. This is not a bail-out, but government help to solve a problem government has created.”

In 1980, a couple of months before the election, Iaccoca said “I suggested that we’ve had so much regulation in this country, how about declaring an economic crisis for 24 months and freezing all regulations in place. Everything. The air won’t get dirty. More people won’t get killed because side beams or bumpers aren’t meeting the new requirement.” Indeed, this whole realization that government was regulating the life out of American industry is what helped propel Ronald Reagan to the presidency.

But the Obama administration is set to add MORE regulation and legislation against American industry. How many millions of dollars will corporations have to spend to meet new piles of regulations, and to protect themselves against litigation? When you add these new costs to the higher taxes being imposed, it’s no wonder the American manufacturing industry is in such disarray. The auto industry revived in the 1980s because of a cooperative government (remember the repeal of the 55-mph speed limit). The auto industry will be crushed in the years ahead by an oppressive, anti-business government.

Churchill was right. History is a great teacher.