Monday, July 30, 2012

Protecting our water

As I go door to door campaigning I have been giving out flyers with some of the things I intend to work on while in office.  The 2nd thing listed is protecting western slope water from the front range.  Nearly everyone who sees this says it is a very important issue to them and will vote for someone who offers their protection.  What then, can be done to protect our water?

Our state constitution sets the precedent for the ways our water will be protected.  Domestic use is first, followed by agriculture then industrial needs.  The courts have upheld water law protects rights on a first come first serve basis.  Unfortunately many shares of western slope water are owned by Denver or other front range communities.  They will keep getting their protection unless something is done.

Colorado is fortunate to have an easily amended constitution.  The first step is to change it so that domestic uses such as watering laws can be restricted in favor of agriculture.  Unfortunately this wouldn't go to the public until the 2014 election, but I will make sure that amendment is on the ballot.

Some things that can be focused on in the meantime are interstate compacts and agreements between water right owners.  I will work on agreements to move less water across the divide for the purpose of keeping a desert lawn green.  Golf courses are a point of contention with me but they do have a right to conduct business.  I will work to ensure they use less water than they currently do. 

I will also work to ensure that water isn't wasted by mismanaging our irrigation.  Where I am from people get fined for watering roads.  I see that going on every day during our summers.  Runoff from overwatered lawns and golf courses should also be regulated.

Years ago Colorado lost resources to maintaining stream flow to down river states such as Kansas, Arizona, and California.  We need to re-open those talks and renegotiate the compacts to allow more use by agriculture. 

Water is integral to our sporting community and those uses need to be considered as well.  Trout depend on seasonal stream flows and our endangered cutthroat will not survive if we keep impounding streams.  While our reservoirs are important to supporting a large population, we need to occasionally open them up and was the sediments towards the ocean.  I will work with reservoir owners and the Army Core of Engineers to ensure we allow a few seasonal floods to do their job in maintaining stream life.

This can't all be done at once, but I will work hard to set up a healthy long term plan for the health of this vital resource.

Robert

Saturday, July 28, 2012

Dangers of Centralized Planning

Centralized planning is a word our citizens need to be more familiar with.  Most people know what a "one world government" is but this simple term is often overlooked and legitimacy is given to a government when it isn't due.  Central planning has been in full force in our national government since 1933 and has grown in leaps and bounds every year since. 

Simply put, centralized planning is using a government bureaucracy to decide how business will be conducted rather than letting those involved in it decide.  We can see centralized planning in our day to day lives.  All we have to look at is the multitude of farm programs, oil and energy controls, tax incentives, and a multitude of other programs designed to direct the economy to the likings of our elected elite.

This has not been beneficial to our economy at all.  The right to do business has been replaced with a convoluted tax code, business licensing process, and rules for conducting business which stifles our economy.  In some cases our infrastructure was even replaced with things that would live up to government expectations.  In eastern Colorado the farmers used to grow beets.  Under the Agriculture Adjustment Act (AAA) of 1933 and again in 1938 these beets and the storage facilities were replaced with corn farms which could be regulated more fully under the usurped commodity markets.  Farmers have to go through various conservation programs to be told what they can grow and how much of it they can plant.  They have to report every detail of their farm to government agencies to receive a stipend that keeps prices artificially low.  This has eroded away the right to farm and the right of people to eat a locally grown food.  If you think the farmers wanted to grow corn we can look at a Governor's telegram in 1936 begging for FDR to return control of farms to the local population.

Centralized planning is most evident in lands which are owned by the national government.  These lands are home to some of the most abundant resources in our country.  The contain our precious metals, oil, coal, timber, headwaters to streams, and ores.  The government has an obvious right to control access and production on any land it owns, as do all other land owners.  This allows the government to create energy shortages, dead forests, water crisis and unrealistic gold prices all through fiat.  National legislators and presidents have kept Colorado from mining coal, drilling for oil and cutting timber without ever having seen our state.

By creating these problems, our government can also convince us that we must look to countries such as China or Iraq to supply the things we need.  By limiting resource production and forcing us into exports we are slowly bankrupted.  Every dollar we spend abroad which isn't in turn spent back into our economy is gone forever, unless we produce more valuable products to replace it.

Our Supreme Court once upheld that conducting business was a right invested in private contracts.  U.S. v Butler overturned the first AAA and set the government back on its true path.  This was overturned through Wickard v Filburn in 1941, which decided that our government has so much central planning authority that it could prevent people from having a garden due to it keeping them from buying that product.

The only way to battle this problem is to regain ownership of these lands and to remove government agencies from private contract markets.  The Constitution strictly limits government ownership of land to military related lands and post offices.  It doesn't include land rich in resources and of course regulating commerce "among" the states doesn't include regulating the means of producing said commerce.  We know this by looking at the failure of the Articles of Confederation to regulate foreign commerce when it wasn't given any power of interstate commerce.  Our state needs to stand up and demand a return of these lands and demand the USDA divest itself from our commodity markets.

Only through an unregulated market will our prices ever stabilize, our exports increase, and our energy be produced locally.  I know my family farm has barely weathered the storm of government interference.  How has your life been affected by centralized planning?

Robert

Friday, July 27, 2012

Protecting Colorado Energy

Energy production is something we see politicized almost daily.  Whenever we turn on the news we can see stories about foreign oil, or high gas prices, or problems with offshore drilling.  Colorado is no exception to the energy debate and my district contains several coal mines, numerous oil shale wells, and potential for hydroelectric and solar power.

When I am elected, I will work hard to ensure we have a strong source of domestic energy production.  I will work to ensure Colorado stay as independent as possible and is an exporter of energy.  Each source has needs which should be taken into consideration by our legislature.  I will not allow our public to be misled by fantastic stories or misstated facts.

Coal mines and gas wells will benefit greatly from my policy of returning control of BLM lands to state control.  We see in the Constitution that the national government doesn't have the authority to own BLM or forests and my policy is to return them to local control.  This would allow Colorado to sell back some of these lands to the private sector which would greatly benefit our mining and drilling industries.  Companies will be more free to explore lands which they own or lease under a private contract.  Regulations preventing them from polluting water and destroying the environment will still be in place.  Colorado will benefit by having a more prosperous industry and having private lands to collect taxes from.  State and Federally owned lands work the other way and take tax money to manage.

I will also work to ensure the Uravan areas continue to be open to mining uranium for power plant use.  I will work with local authorities and the public to bring nuclear plants to our state and produce efficient, clean energy.  France currently uses nuclear and has some of the best energy production in the world.  As the son of a nuclear engineer I can say with certainty that when proper safety guidelines are followed (not building a reactor in a tsunami flood area, not building on a fault) that nuclear is a very inexpensive form of electricity and also quite safe.

I support hydroelectric power, but we must first protect our western slope water from front range interests to ensure we have adequate stream flow.  I will work on incentives for companies to invest into hydro power plants and possibly retrofit some of our existing dams into power generating systems similar to what other states have.

Fracking has been controversial and everyone seems to have an opinion.  Colorado requires a public report including the chemicals used each time a frack is done.  I support this level of visibility into that industry.  I have seen many studies about the number of chemicals found in the atmosphere after a well is fracked but they invariably fail to say how many of them were present before the well was fracked.  I will require studies used by our legislature to provide clear before and after measurements so we know they are not biased.  I also know for a fact that a great many of the fracking chemicals are already present in the tens of thousands of chemicals in the oil and I will require fracking companies to list them as naturally occuring.  Studies on natural oil seeps have shown that most of the chemicals in oil evaporate into the atmosphere within minutes of exposure.  I want the public to know what is natural and what is man caused.

http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewArticle.do?id=57272

I do not support wind power.  I have thoroughly studied all sides of this and feel the public has been grossly misled.  All wind farms which I have studied have taken more electricity and BTUs of other forms of energy to build than they will ever produce.  Some of the elements in the high efficiency generators create extreme environmental hazards when mined.  When the wind does not blow, they need a backup coal, gas, or nuclear plant to produce electricity.  Turning these plants on and off as needed is extremely inefficient and has led to major increases in pollution already compared to the baseline numbers when they are running at peak power.  The only reason the following report is controversial is that it doesn't line up with what our consumers have been trained to believe.  It claims that wind produces zero pollution but, as I mentioned earlier, we still have to mine materials to build the wind turbines and that does take energy and cause pollution.  Another problem with wind power is the sheer size of the farms.  Those farms displace our valuable agriculture and drive our food production to other countries acre by acre.

http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/2010/04/21/controversial-report-wind-energy-causes-pollution/   

Monday, July 23, 2012

What about our schools?

Our children really are our future and running for public office means I will have influence on the spending and rules that govern their education. It's important then to share with you where I stand on this critical investment.

Public school systems are just that: public.  They are a necessary form of socialism that each district pays for and looks to the state for help with so I think it only fair that the educators answer to the state legislatures rather than school boards for many rules.  Current rules are designed to protect teachers rather than students.  Even with reforms that Governor Hickenlooper signed recently, the teachers have ample protection.  It currently takes two consecutive years with poor reviews for a teacher to even be considered for the chopping block.  A teacher can literally sit in the corner and let the kids sleep for an entire year and not be punished for it.  What is more, the teachers unions are fighting hard to protect the salaries of these individuals at the cost of our students.

Teaching is a privilege and should be treated as such, instead of as a right.  It is time our government set strict rules to the public system that reflect this.  I will work hard to completely remove the teachers unions and tenure from our public schools. Neither one are in the best interest of the students.  At the same time I would work to provide incentives for teachers whose students had consistently high marks.  This will be a multi-stage process to get the focus of schools entirely on children.  The first law that needs to be implemented will prevent future teacher contracts from allowing participation in unions or receiving any form of tenure.  The second step will lock all raises for current teachers dependent on one of two conditions; they voluntarily give up their tenure and union contracts or lose state funding.  The third and final step will implement punishment for teachers who are fired for things such as conduct unbecoming, sexual contact with students, moral turpitude, and other criminal activity; they will have to give up the portion of their retirement benefits paid by the school.  You may think this amount of regulation is contrary to my small government stance, but remember that public education is an entirely socialized activity with an entirely government regulatory scheme.

It seems that the basic structure of our schools is meant to benefit only certain people, as well.  Emphasis is placed on the importance of going to college regardless of the degree and much money is spent, which does not help the student in the real world.  I believe the answer lies in modeling a new style of education system similar to Germany's.  Not all students are created equal.  Some are destined to just get through high school while some are destined to be doctors. Some people are destined to be mechanics while others have an aptitude for teaching or another degree-based career.  I envision a system with a more seamless flow from high school into the college program best suited to the individual's career ideals.  Students with learning deficiencies would be able to receive a modified style of diploma for passing the 11th grade, much like Germany.  Students destined to a skilled labor job will be directed to trade schools and technical schools based on placement testing and desired career.  The same would apply to those who want to be doctors, teachers, engineers, pilots or any other career.

Another idea to improve student performance is to model a program off of the single room schoolhouses of old.  The idea in those days was that the best way to learn was to teach and the teacher was tied up with all grades and couldn't help everyone at once.  Kids were expected to help those under them and learned quickly by tutoring the next lower grade.  A similar system in our schools, which encourages kids to help tutor, would be beneficial to all.  The time to do this already exists in most schools during study hall hours.

Overall these programs will get the foundation of our public education system back on par with the private systems, which perform so well and are prohibitively expensive to most families.  This reform is a great investment into the future of Colorado.

Thursday, July 19, 2012

2nd Amendment thoughts

As a very avid hunter and gun owner this one really touches my heart.  I often get asked if I favor totally de-regulating the gun market and making ownership available to anyone.  The answer is a bit complex but in a nutshell yes I do.  Here are some reasons why.

I believe to answer this question you must first know what the 2nd Amendment really is.  The Supreme Court recently found that the right is one of individuals.  Why did they do this?  If we look back in history we find Thomas Jefferson saying "the strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."  It is immediately clear that our founding fathers meant for the people to stay armed.  Had they not been armed we may well still be under the British Crown.  

One common theme I hear is that we need stronger gun laws to prevent crimes.  Recently our state legislature took up this issue.  Here are some of the findings.  They quit allowing concealed carry permits to be displayed to all law enforcement on the Crime Information Computer because people who had a permit were extremely unlikely to commit a crime.  The fiscal note for the elimination of carry permits found that when someone was found committing a crime with a concealed weapon they had invariably already committed other crimes than just the possession of the weapon.  This means our current legal gun owners are following the laws.

We already have laws to keep guns out of the hands of felons.  Felons are not allowed the right to vote or possess firearms.  This is a sort of lifetime sentencing which allows the convicted to retain certain civil rights and avoid a life in prison while still being punished.  I support this fully.  There are also a multitude of other crimes which are inherently wrong and against our criminal code without the need to address gun ownership.  Murder, armed robbery, and assault are just a few.  We have gun laws in place to prevent people from possessing a gun when they commit these crimes but the criminals always seem to find a gun when needed.  Again Jefferson said "laws that forbid the carrying of arms..disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one."

We see that the real problem with gun violence is the failure to prevent the crimes in the first place and the failure of the justice department to punish those crimes.  The only true way to make our communities safer is to hire police officers whose only interest is protecting the public and appointing judges whose only interest is punishing crime.  My owning an "assault rifle" doesn't make my community less safe.  It does make my home very unsafe for a potential burglar.

So do I favor de-regulating the gun market?  Yes.  Absolutely.  Why should I have to pay for a right, or jump through hoops for a right, or, God forbid, give up the right so our police can avoid having to enforce things that are already illegal?

Robert Petrowsky

Wednesday, July 18, 2012

Some thoughts on partisanship...

A few days ago I was talking to my girlfriend about hosting a debate with the other candidates for my house district.  I had her ask me a few questions that may come up during a debate so I could practice answering them.  One in particular that grabbed my attention was what I would do to stay bipartisan.  I thought a while about this and came to the answer of "why would I want to do that?"

I see all of the partisan problems going on in politics now and everyone is saying they want a bipartisan solution and to end the bickering.  I don't see this as a solution at all.  Our government wasn't founded so we could compromise on every little detail.  It was designed so that enough people would be represented that unless a problem was big enough that every person would benefit from the solution that it would be hard to find a solution.  Our problem isn't too few laws being passed, it is too many laws being passed.  I fully support politicians who gridlock the process and don't allow the frivolous laws to make it the the president or governor to sign.

So far I have posted on issues that everyone can agree is an issue.  I haven't taken up social issues because I feel that we don't really need these things in our government.  Let social engineering happen at home.  We need a government that will take on the real issue of our dead forest, or the economic crisis we are facing, or the energy problems, and ignore the other b.s. that politicians like to fight over so much.

Like I told my girlfriend, I may make a few compromise votes on unimportant stuff to get people onto my side when it matters but I will not waste constituent's time or money on unimportant things when we have real solutions to find.

Robert Petrowsky

Thursday, July 12, 2012

Where I stand on issues

There are a great many issues of interest in both national and state politics.  Here are a few of mine.

Economy:  This is probably the toughest one to sum up.  Everyone is aware of the problems with the national economy.  If we trace it back we can link all of the problems back to 1 or 2 root laws.  The deregulation of the banking system is probably the single factor that I blame over all else for our problems.  When the Glass-Steagall act was eliminated and the derivatives market took hold our debt ratios began to spiral out of control.  With something over 600 trillion in debt to 6 trillion in net worth it isn't hard to see how there will never be enough money to pay off our debt.  Looking back we can see the Glass-Steagall act was put in place to protect our economy against the problems associated with the new money that started on March 12, 1933.  If we look at the laws that created that money we come to the root of the problems with banking.  Our banking system is now funded off of a series of takings whenever the debt gets too high.  You may argue this but look at the wealth of the banking system and the corporations they fund versus the wealth of the average person.  Colorado, as well as every other state, had to give permission to the national government to implement that money supply because it is against the Constitutional mandate of the states using "gold and silver coin".  I intend to do away with the permission we have given and take back a legal banking system in this state.

Small Business:  My plans on small business go hand in hand with my plans for the banking system.  The same act that allowed the banking system to start using fiat money to finance itself rather than the people it pretended to support did away with the common law which allowed corporations to be chartered for only 20 years.  Now corporations exist en perpetuity and overwhelm the small business community.  I plan on doing away with regulations which stifle day to day business as well as simplify the tax code to a flat rate similar to what people pay.  I also plan on enforcing regulations over our commodity markets that to sell within this state, because the companies on the market all buy at the same cost, that they will have to sell at the same cost.  What I mean by this is that a commodity buyer won't be allowed to pass the cost of bulk discounts on coffee to Starbucks to a smaller coffee buyer, thus making a lopsided market situation.

Agriculture:  My agriculture plan is very similar to the market plan for small business.  I want to eliminate ALL taxes on agriculture for good and eliminate some of the bad press our farmers have gotten through the organic community.  I plan to require grocers to post signs on the organic section that states the produce may contain chemicals which have not been tested for safety so that uneducated people don't put undue pressure on our farmers.  I also intend to increase the amount of loans available to starting farmers so that a new generation can take over.  I wish to issue something closer to bonds than a loan.

Forests:  I read the Constitution quite a bit and have never seen forests or BLM land in the enumerated properties our national government can own.  I intend to take the control over these lands back to the state and implement logging and other use programs which will help both the local economy and the sustainability of our forest.  The dead trees will be sold and used under my leadership.  What is more our mining and oil industry won't be able to be punished for imagined crimes in another state on public lands.  Currently our president only needs a signature to shut down these activities on public land.  Under local control it will be left up to the voters here which are much more informed on the issues.

PERA (Public Employee Retirement Accounts):  Colorado currently has guaranteed benefits for its public employees.  I disagree with this since the investments have has zero return in the last several years but those employees still receive tax dollars to fund their retirement.  I will implement a slow switch to a guaranteed contribution plan which will save tax payers millions.

Education:  I see each school district as having its own unique challenges so I disagree with national solutions such as no child left behind.  I also disagree with tenure since it protects teachers but not students.  I will work to ensure that our kids come first.  As for post secondary education I feel the original intent was to ensure locals were educated first so I will make sure out of state and undocumented students pay their fair share.  I support an education system similar to Germany's which places kids in the college program best suited for them.  Some people are destined to learn a technical skill so why waste their time encouraging them to pay for an education they won't use?  Instead focus them on the technical skills they will need to function in the job they want.

Drugs:  We currently have a drug war which is killing citizens on our border with Mexico.  It didn't exist prior to making drugs illegal.  Why is it a war though?  It took a Constitutional amendment to make alcohol illegal. I intend to end that war and tax the manufacture and sale of drugs.  We are loosing revenue in a multi billion dollar industry that won't go away just because we don't like it.  When drugs are controlled through the state the safety also goes up because people know what dose they are receiving and know it is pure.

There are many more topics which I will focus on another time.  I hope this has given you some insight into who I am.

Robert Petrowsky
candidate State House district 61

Tuesday, July 10, 2012

Political Bio

A little about me:
I am running for the Colorado House of Representatives District 61 as the American Constitution Party candidate.

I come from a small family farm in Kansas and moved to Colorado in 2003 at the age of 21.  Growing up on a farm in the 80s and 90s teaches you a lot about how the economy really works and how economic pressures can influence best practices free from government regulations.

Because of the poor farm prices (corn in 1980s was the same price as in 1914) many farmers were pushed into groups to fight for better prices and less regulation.  My dad was one and quickly joined the American Agriculture Movement started by Gene Schroder and they began working together researching the underlying laws that allowed our federal goverment to plan and regulate individual farms.

I grew up sitting at the law library at Wichita State University highlighting important things from laws and the minutes of congress regarding agricultural planning.  I learned quickly at a young age that there are underlying laws and court desicions regarding them that support the national government taking on the role of a central planner.  People may get mad and shout about the wrong-doing but they will never get anywhere without knowing the history that created te problem.

The culmination of that research came when I was in high school and college and old enough to start participating in things.  My father along with 3 other farmers sued the USDA and President for price fixing, market manipulation, failure to obey parity laws, and other things.  We made it to the Supreme Court fairly quickly.  Facing injunctions against the USDA and massive reparations to the farm community, the highest court had no choice but to review that suit quickly.  To this day we hold the record for the fastest a case has been reviewed by te Supreme Court: 10 days from filing.  We lost based on what amounted to purjury by the U.S. attorney but learned invaluable lessons on how the states could fight these problems.

In 2009 I started working on a ballot initiative for the 2010 general election in Colorado.  It would have revoked a document found in the state archives from 1933 that gave permission for the national government to enact emergency legislation in any area affecting economics including the Agricultural Adjustment Act that we had been fighting.  This bill would have eliminated the underlying emergency legislation and made it a crime for anyone in our state to bypass the Constitution.  Unlike other laws such as the Arizone immigration law, the U.S. attorney's office knew it couldn't be fought in court.  I recieved a call saying I would rot in prison if it passed.

Unfortunately that bill never saw the ballot.  It takes massive amounts of signatures to make it onto the ballot and obviously it takes time and money to go out and get them.  The bill did start a discussion amongst many people about what to do to restore Constitutional freedoms rather than just knowing they were gone.  Coming into the election cycle this year I was blessed to be a member of a party that had just gained major status and was guaranteed a ballot spot.  After speaking to the chair of the party I decided to run knowing the political climate is ripe for Constitutional ideals to return to government.

I hope this gives you a good idea of my political history and why I am running.  I will get into the specifics of my goals another day.

Thank you and God Bless!
Robert Petrowsky

Monday, July 9, 2012

Problems with positions of other candidates...

I am a firm constitutionalist for a good reason.  I have read every word of the constitutional conventions several times as well as the Federalists, Anti-Federalists, James Madison's papers, and Thomas Jefferson's papers.  I understand fully well what the Constitution was meant to be.  I also have read a vast number of Supreme Court descisions through the years and know what the Constitution has turned into, sometimes through threats.

When I listen to or read what other candidates in my race have said I constantly see holes in their arguments because they either don't know what they are talking about or don't care.  Debra Irvine has even gone so far as to say all that really qualifies her for office is her tough skin.  Try telling that to our Founding Fathers on the day they debated what the oath of office was going to include.  They wanted every elected official to know what they were swearing an oath to.

I want to address a few of the holes I see the most of.  The one most dear to me is going to the national government for funds for something just because we don't control it now at the state level.  This one is shot to hell in my books.  Use whatever justification you want, but the ORIGINAL meaning of the Constitution is very clear about what can be controlled or owned by the national government.  Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution lists that the national government has exclusive right to control commerce between foreign nations, indian nations, and among the states.  It also spells out in detail what lands the government can own and excercise its jurisdiction over.  We have generally lost sight of this as a nation. 

A reading of the Federalist number 42 will show that James Madison intended the commerce clause to be a remedy to the Articles of Confederation.  The U.S. only had control of commerce among foreign nations and indian nations but not among the states.  This limited the control of the rest because they didn't have any control over the states.  He went on to say that the new Constitution gave zero control within a state for this same reason.  James Madison, who wrote the document, was strict in the interpretation of only given powers and not implied powers. 

We can see that the courts started to erode that as the progressive movement took over early in the last century.  The last stand against federal encroachment came in U.S. v Butler challenging the Agricultural Adjustment Act of May 12, 1933.  The decision stated that the national government could not expand the power of the commerce clause to include central planning of agriculture or other business.  This changed in 1937 when Franklin D. Roosevelt threatened to pack the court and Wickard v. Fillburn decided that the national government even had the power to compel a farmer not to grow his own food.

The problem we have with candidates today is that they understand the Constitution as it exists according to recent court decisions.  They actually believe that the national government always had the power but restrained from using it despite a history of the highest court throwing out many laws.  Kathleen Curry talks about going to the U.S. legislature for funds to manage our forest despite the obvious failure and death of many trees along with recent drastic wild fires.  She never once considders that forests aren't in the enumerated properties the U.S. government can own (Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, Dock-Yards, and other needfull buildings, which we can see from the previous sentence must be purchased with the consent of the state).

Debra Irvine isn't much better.  She pretends to know a lot but simply goes to court decisions for how things should be treated.  She doesn't seem to realize that the legislature is not bound to the court.  She also misses the point that the only time a court decision that doesn't decide constitutionality is valid is for the time the same legislation is valid.

Either way you look at it the candidates are missing some very important points that would prevent them from performing well in the state legislature.  You can talk all you want about the things they agree or disagree with and how right they are.  Without having more knowledge of the Constitution they claim to support that is meaningless.  After all the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Robert Petrowsky
Candidate HD 61