OK so full disclosure, i’m a business administration guy who took probably too much econ to be impartial when it comes to regulations on business.

According to the Labor Department, small businesses employed more than half of the nation’s nonfarm jobs and accounted for 64% of the jobs generated between 1993 and the third quarter of 2008 (http://www.foxsmallbusinesscenter.com/finance/2009/12/28/did-big-banks-lend-small-business/).

The recent passage of the health bill is only going to hurt both small and large businesses by requiring them to pay more for health coverage for their employees.  (see my rampage on health bill in earlier posts).  This is another added cost to do business on top of the down turned economy, which has already raised their costs.

The credit crunch is making it more difficult for businesses to get credit.  Without the surety of getting credit, they can’t fund business expansion.  Most successful businesses rely on their revolving credit to make major purchases of equipment, repairs, and other large expenditures.

When businesses aren’t sure if they credit is going to be there due to new credit regulations imposed by the federal government, they hesitate to use current credit or open new lines of credit.  This stifles expansion and new project create that could otherwise be more lucrative.

With all the rumblings in DC of cracking down on the “big banks” businesses are again afraid to make a move.  More and more regulations on businesses handcuff what they are able to do to increase their bottom line earnings.  Like it or not, that is the whole premise of business, to make money.  Incorporated companies have stockholders they are accountable to, and it is their job to ethically make as much money as possible.  If they can’t get the credit they need, have government mandated increases in costs of  production, and other government imposed restrictions business will suffer.

Big banks like Bank of America, JP Morgan, Wells Fargo and Citi have lent over $31 billion in 2009.  If the federal government steps in and starts imposing harder sanctions against banks, it is going to reduce their bottom line, which will reduce the amount of money they can lend.  This ties up credit, which small businesses can’t get, which means less expansion, less money for the business, and the fewer full time employees they can hire.

The Montana Connection:

Sen. Tester is on the senate banking committee.  I received a letter from him in response for my encouragement of limited financial form, basically stating he supports working with the Obama administration in creating more government regulation and sanctions against banking.

Sen. Baucus not surprisingly followed suit, essentially echoing those sentiments.

Those positions are going to hurt the expansion of mines, lumbermills, construction companies, and other small businesses that employ a majority of the Montana workforce.  By choosing to side with the Democrats and the Statist regime in power they both have s chosen to ignore the well being of their Montana Constituents.

Again I urge you all to sign the petition recalling Sen. Baucus, and to join any for Tester.

Big business has never reacted well to government intrusion.  Is some regulation based on facts necessary?  Yes.  Should the government over power business with those regulations?  No.  Look at the Soviet Union, they used centralized planning, and they completely fell apart.

Say no to Soviet style planning America.

As most of you politically savvy individuals know, the health care bill passed the house along partisan lines.  This could not have happened without pro-life democrats caving in and being appeased by Obama promising to write an executive order not allowing federal funds to be released for abortions.

Now there are several things that are wrong with this idea.

1)  Executive orders are very controversial.  It is an implied right from the constitution in article II, section 1, clause 1 for “executive power”.

2) Executive orders only apply to agencies in the executive branch.

3) Funds are only controlled congress.  Hence the executive branch has no control over what the congress spends money on.

To use a quote from Judge Andrew Napolitano, Fox’s senior Judicial correspondent:

“An executive order is a direction from the President to employees in the Executive Branch of the Government to do something or not to do something.

For example, when Bill Clinton was President he ordered that whenever outside vendors are hired by the government they have to be unionized. When George W. Bush was President he ordered that you don’t have to hire unionized people.

How could they do that? Because the law itself is silent, and the President has discretion in that area; and a subsequent president, as Bush did with Clinton, as President Obama did with President Bush, can undo a presidential executive order.

And this President could undo his own executive order – if he wanted to – the day after he signed it. But the legislation that the House passed last night, which the President will sign tomorrow, uses federal dollars to pay for insurance policies which provide abortion coverage for any reason permissible under the state law of the state in which the abortion is to occur… If Congressman Stupak thinks that the President’s executive order can stop that, he is sadly mistaken, because the performer of the abortion and the payer of the abortion is not the federal government. It’s a doctor employed by an insurance company whose policy has been purchased by the federal government. So the President can’t stop that with an executive order… So what did Congressman Stupak and the other so-called pro-life Democrats get? They got a fig leaf. They got a little political cover.”

I could get into how that whole thing works, but basically just know that it’s something that is outside the executive branch’s control.

Also let’s talk about Obama’s track record.  According to obamapromisewatch.net he has made approximately 342 promises since he began campaigning on his 142nd day of federal service.  He has only “addressed” 98 of these promises.  This does not mean he “kept” those promises, only addressed them.  This is about a 29% rate of “addressing” issues.  Additional research is needed see what he promised to address within his first year, or during his administration.

Obama is also the guy who said that things relating to when life begins is “above his pay grade”.  Remember all the times that Obama voted “present” in his state senate seat?  According to factcheck.org, he voted “Present” 130 times as an Illinois state senator.  However on some of the key issues he did vote on help establish his views on Abortion.

He voted “No” on the Born Alive Act, which would recognized babies that were “born” in a botch abortion as living.

He voted “No” on prohibiting minor children from going across state lines to seek an abortion without their parents knowledge.

He appointed Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff.  He has a 0% rating on abortion issues from the National Right to Life.

He appointed Sen. Tom Daschle as the Health and Human Services secretary, who has been a long standing pro-abortion advocate.

He appointed Emily Moran as the White House communications director, and she was a director of the pro-abortion group Emily’s List.

The Department of Justice Review team had Dawn Johnsen appointed as a member.  Later she was appointed as Assistant Attorney General of the legal counsel for the Obama Administration.  She is a former legal counsel for NARAL.

The director of the Domestic Policy Counsel was appointed Melody Barnes, she is a former board member of Emily’s List.

Sen. Hillary Clinton was appointed Secretary of State who has a long record of pro-abortion stances.

Jeanne Lambrew was appointed as the deputy director of the White House Office of Health Reform.  Health reform?  didn’t the congress just ram that through?

The record goes on…and on.  Obviously as part of the socialistic agenda Obama has attempted to stack the administration with pro-abortion advocates.

Read into it what you may.  I believe it is an attempt to dismantle the conservative frame work of America.  If we completely submit to the socialist will and surrender our dissent to the federal government, we begin to lose our individuality.  The more reliant we become on the government, the smaller we become as individuals.  The bigger the government, the smaller the individual.  Soon they will begin to dismantle the rest of our individual rights.

We have to take a stand as conservatives and make sure the government understands that they derive their power from the people!