Monday, June 25, 2012

Mr. Peterson's Endorsements: Primary Vote 2012

The primary vote is tomorrow and I encourage everyone to get out and vote regardless of who you support.

If you are undecided or having second thoughts about who you should vote for, here are my endorsements in the Republican Primary Race:


I have known Dan and seen his work at the State Legislature.  He is sharp, articulate, and experienced at handling difficult issues.  An example includes Utah's massive and toxic pension problem that Dan was able to reform successfully and keep Utah out of insolvency.  We need reformers like him in Washington. VOTE DAN LILJENQUIST!


John is another candidate that I have watched at the Capitol.  I respect John's tenacity for getting to the root of problems and making cogent and reasoned arguments for change.  He has served on the Executive Appropriations Committee (the architects of the entire State's $12.8 Billion budget) for years.  He is extremely conservative fiscally and besides being "Frugal Dougall" he has been nicknamed "Cut-Cut Dougall" by his fellow EAC members.  If you want to root out even more waste, fraud, and government misspending, VOTE DOUGALL.  He is more than just a CPA.


Sean is a good Republican and well respected in the community.  Alan Hall of Marketstar has given Sean his endorsement among many others. He is a high achiever with many professional recognitions to his name.  He is also family man.

Much has been said in the media lately about a SuperPAC smear campaign that has attempted soil Mr. Reyes reputation.  These ads are nothing more than a misleading character assassination of the worst sort.

When Mr. Reyes opponent Mr. Swallow was interviewed on the radio about the salaciousness of the  ads, Mr. Swallow's response was (paraphrasing): "Well, he hasn't refuted what is in those ads.  Oh, and by the way we are really proud of our 'clean' campaign."  When Mr. Reyes filed a defamatory claim in court over the ads, Mr. Swallows response on the radio was: "Mr. Reyes is really defaming me instead because lawsuits are a  protected form of speech and he can say whatever he wants in his suit."  Sigh...such a slippery and lawyerly explanation for NOT denouncing an obviously ugly, indecent, and toxic message .  No thank you.  VOTE SEAN REYES!


Brad is in the rare circumstance of being an incumbent in a Primary Race against another incumbent.  While both are good men, I prefer Brad's style and stance on many issues.  Brad is self employed and has worked in the real estate market for many years.  As such, he deeply understands capitalism and economics, subjects which many legislators could use some remedial education.  Brad has lived in Weber County his whole life and raised his family here.  When he is not working or legislating, you can find Brad riding horses and serving in ecclesiastical capacities.    VOTE BRAD GALVEZ!

Monday, June 18, 2012

Immigration: Inflammatory Solutions and Policy Error

Our President recently announced a “de facto amnesty” provision for young undocumented immigrants.  The provision would allow them to work legally as long as they passed a criminal background check and had graduated high school or served in the military.  While on the surface this act seems similar in spirit to what State legislation was trying to accomplish last year, the President’s actions are disappointing and inappropriate for a myriad of reasons. 

First, the way in which this provision is being enacted is completely subversive.  By using the power of the Executive Order instead of passing legislation, our president has completely circumvented the channels designed to give the law legitimacy.  Even Ronald Reagan’s “Amnesty“ of 1986 was really the Immigration Reform and Control Act which was passed by Congress on November 6 of that year.  Despite IRCA being a total policy failure, it was still debated and voted on by Congress as it should have been.  This is not the case with our current President’s new decree. 

Second, the timing of this announcement during an election year couldn’t possibly inspire more cynicism.  There appears to be in the media an open acknowledgement that this is being done almost exclusively for political gain.  Such disingenuous treatment of an important and volatile issue like immigration is frustratingly flippant and perhaps further illustrates the misguided mentality of those currently operating the Executive Branch.   

Yet, the most disheartening realization in this drama is that the sources of our immigration woes are not even being acknowledged by our President.  If we are to get serious as a nation about dealing with the immigration problem, we need to look at root causes.  What are these causes?  The answers lie in U.S. economic policy.  In the 90’s, we entered the North American Free Trade Agreement with Mexico and Canada.  Free trade should benefit everyone, or so we are told.  Unless, of course, a government distorts the market by providing subsidies to one product or another.  A good example is Japan who subsidized cars coming to America in the 90’s as we complained bitterly about it.  A better example though is ourselves.  As Japan was dumping cars in our market, we were subsidizing our corn production and flooding Mexico with it.

The result of this corn subsidy was another unintended consequence of seemingly well-intended government policies.  The ripple in the pond this time though was the massive dislocation of Mexican farmers.  Between 1996 and 2000, domestic corn prices in Mexico dropped 85%.  The farmers could not compete with U.S. corn and abandoned their farms in search of jobs.  These ex-farmers fled north as they followed job opportunities and prospects of survival in the United States.

Thus, we find ourselves in our current predicament.  We have incredibly cheap corn while simultaneously carrying the social costs of millions of undocumented immigrants who fled their homeland because we bankrupted them.  Rather than listen to rhetoric on both sides of the isle appeal to populist fervor on this issue, let’s have a real discussion about the proper role of government in subsidizing agriculture.  Reducing subsidies would return the Mexican laborer to his farm by his own volition.  Until we deal with our national economic policy and how it affects immigration, every other solution will prove to be divisive at worst and unsatisfying at best.