2016: Obama's America

I saw the Obama movie tonight. Very well done Neoconservative election year propaganda - it may succeed where 2004's Progressive election year propaganda film, Fahrenheit 911, failed: it may help defeat an incumbent president.

Much of the content was accurate - Obama has radical, socialist roots, and the anti-colonial mindset of many Progressives (though that term isn't used) is about punishing the rich more than helping the poor.

Nevertheless, the message conveyed by "2016: Obama's America" is very misleading, chiefly on account of what it omits. Example: the peril of our nation's escalating debt is rightly heralded. However, it is presented as exclusively the result of Obama's policies, echoing a theme of this year's GOP convention.  The fact is our journey into bankruptcy has been a bipartisan project with many villains, from Democrats Woodrow Wilson, FDR, LBJ, and Ted Kennedy to Republicans Teddy Roosevelt, Nixon, Bush, Billy Long (my congressman) and many, many others.

Likening our country to a ship, I observe that both Democrats and Republicans are diligently drilling holes in the boat. Democrats drill on the port side, Republicans on the starboard. Both are sinking us! The former oft remind us that Bush presided over the first $trillion dollar deficit, but ignore the fact that he couldn't have done so without a compliant Democrat run Congress during his last two years. The latter point out that Obama has added more debt than any president in history, omitting the fact that they currently control the House, where all spending bills originate, and that they voted to expand the debt ceiling another $2.4 trillion. Democrats cite half a truth in pointing out Bush's fiscal carelessness, but ignore the fact that they did absolutely nothing to reduce spending during the two years they controlled both Congress and the White House. Republicans rightly condemn "Obamacare" as unconstitutional, and far more expensive than advertised, yet they passed "Bushcare" - the ill conceived prescription drug plan - which, besides being unauthorized by the Constitution, burdens our posterity with $16 trillion in unfunded liabilities.

Both parties support bailouts of the uber-rich, a massive and inefficient Welfare State and an interventionist foreign policy that is both immoral and  unsustainable. Their rhetoric differs, but the fact is Paul Ryan's plan only reduces spending by $300 billion the first year, leaving intact a $trillion dollar plus deficit.  Ryan counts on future Congresses, not to be elected for decades, to finally bring spending under control. For his part, Obama promised to reduce the deficit during his first two years. He lied - his party controlled the government during that time and didn't even address spending except to increase it.

Both parties voted for the odious detention clause in the 2012 NDAA, which grants power to the president to detain any American whom he deems a  threat - indefinitely, without a trial or legal representation.  A few principled Democrats dissented, like Dennis Kucinich and Bernie Sanders, but their party leaders supported it, and President Obama signed it. Republicans claim to not trust Obama, but they too went along with this attack on liberty, with only a few exceptions, like Rand Paul and Tom Coburn.

The Democrat and Republican parties are as different as the American League and the National League. You can argue about whether the designated hitter is good or bad, but both leagues play the same game and have more in common with each other than they do with your local softball team.

The Democrat and Republican parties are as different as McDonald's and Wendy's. Each touts its own food as the ultimate value, but continual reliance on either makes us fat and lethargic.

My recommendation in the 2012 Presidential election:

Vote NO.

Steve Maxwell vs. Danny Strahan

Due to the outcome of the August 7th GOP primary, I'm opposing Danny Strahan*, the Republican nominee, for Taney County Commissioner, Eastern District.

For those on Facebook, here is my candidate page, which features updates on the campaign, position statements, personal information, and online discussions.

What are the chances of an Independent candidate winning in red, red Taney County? That depends on how many people are ready to quit doing what has always been done - I believe thousands in our county are ready for new leadership.

In the 2008 General Election, about 8,600 voted in the eastern district. In 2012, I expect a turnout of as many as 10,000. The increase will be due to population increase, redistricting, and high interest in the Presidential and U.S Senate races.

Ergo, 5,000 votes ought to be enough for me to win. In the GOP primary, there were 5,224 votes cast. The winner, Danny Strahan, got 30% of the them (1,585 votes), followed by Tim Connell at 24% (1,236), Alan Lawson at 17% (900), and the remaining 1,503 votes taken by Mike Scofield (502), Travys Saffle (426), Charlie Stiffler (411), and Walter Rogers (164).

Please note that the anti-Strahan vote was 70%. Were Missouri a runoff state (some states require a runoff between the top two candidates if nobody garners 50% of the vote) it is nearly certain that Tim Connell would beat Danny Strahan, and be the nominee. (Although I publicly endorsed Alan Lawson, and stated my intent to stand down if he had won, it is also likely I'd have withdrawn had Tim Connell won.)

For me to win 5,000 votes, I'll need most of the 3,600+ who voted against Danny Strahan in the GOP primary, plus a great majority of the 4,000+  Democrats, Libertarians, and Independents who will vote on November 6th.

Doable, I say!

*NOTE: I DON'T MEAN TO DISMISS THE CANDIDACY OF PHIL BEVERS, WHO WILL ALSO BE ON THE BALLOT - I SIMPLY DON'T KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT HIS VIEWS TO COMMENT. FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, IF HE TAKES,  SAY 1,000 VOTES FROM STRAHAN, THEN I ONLY NEED 4,500 VOTES. 

Corruption, cronyism and the Taney County Commission

The Taney County Commission has decided to move forward with plans for Enhanced Enterprise Zones. The Commission apparently is unaware of any downside to the potential blight designations for several areas of our county, or of any hardships established businesses might face. It's the yellow brick road, leading to the magnificent Emerald City, where industry is plentiful and everyone is happy.

Here's a guy concerned about a  downside (scroll to the bottom of the page) to this rapidly advancing trend. But the wizards on the county commission would prefer he stay away from the curtain behind which they hide, and of course the wizards say "pay no attention to the men behind the curtain!"

Sorry to say, we have been compliant sheople, and have paid no attention to the men behind the curtain. I am as guily as anyone, and more than most.

Shame on us. However, let us now follow Toto's good example, and begin to pull on that curtain, endeavoring to ignore all the smoke and mirrors employed by the wizards.

The EEZ plan has the potential to punish some established businesses, while purporting to boost others. It is local government emulating the national government by attempting to stimulate the economy, and will likely have the same net result: it will worsen the situation rather then help. Why do I say this? Because you cannot create a net gain in capital by manipulating tax policy to the detriment of some and the benefit of others. Such schemes redistribute wealth - they do not create it.

Our local economic malaise has been foisted on us from higher up, by the likes of Barack Obama, George Bush, and Ben Bernanke. Their foolish monetary policies of credit expansion, "stimulus" spending, and increasing the number of bureaucrats overlooking our affairs have debased our currency and scared investors. Local economic enterprise zones are not the solution to this problem - the problem of a shortage of capital. A return to sound money, and a departure from central planning, are what is needed to restore free enterprise. This calls for changes at the national level. The best thing local government can do is to move towards weaning itself from federal largesse (I realize that isn't going to happen overnight, but a mindset towards that end MUST be adopted), and concentrate on providing services citizens have traditionally expected: police, fire, libraries (yes, a county library system would be a good thing in Taney County), etc.  Providing tax incentives to one enterprise, to the detriment of another, is antithetical to America's foundational principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Our economy is weak because central planning "experts" have presumed to pick winners and losers, counting themselves as wiser and more just than the free market. These planners, historically operating out of the federal bureaucracy, are now appearing at the local level with no apparent affiliation to the national government - until one looks a little closer.

The EEZ is no grassroots effort - it is part of a national trend to promote a symbiotic relationship between government and business, to the detriment of free market capitalism. It is a grave threat to property rights, as shown here, and the fact that a third of the state of Missouri has already been classified as "blighted" should have any freedom loving person - "liberal" or "conservative" - alarmed, as it portends massive future abuses of eminent domain, to the benefit of businesses who are cozy with their government. The loser is the free market. The fact that an all Republican County Commission is all agog about it demonstrates that FDR and LBJ would feel right at home in today's Republican Party, while stalwart free market advocates like Robert Taft, Barry Goldwater, and Ron Paul would be/are marginalized.


It is likely that Presiding Commissioner Ron Houseman is the driving force behind the expansion of local government oversight of business, given his oft touted connections to Washington, D.C. Remember that Mr. Houseman, prior to being elected presiding commissioner, received the honor of being hired by the County Commission to help our area obtain its portion of federal stimulus funds through his marvelous connections. Commissioners Strafuss and Strahan bestowed that honor on him.

A little historical review regarding Mr. Houseman is in order at this point:

Houseman was the Taney County Clerk for several years, until his involvement in a money scandal resulted in his defeat in the 1998 GOP primary.

As County Clerk, Houseman appropriated hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars to himself. He did this along with then County Collector, Dwain Basham, by taking commissions from taxes collected on behalf of municipalities around the county. Houseman's salary was in the 40-45 thousand per year range in those days. But the involuntary contributions of Taney County taxpayers gave him a six figure income.

The court case against Houseman was dismissed, and I'll be happy for legal scholars to explain that event. I'm not arguing the legality of what Houseman did, but that it was egregious enrichment of himself at taxpayer expense, notwithstanding the success of renowned defense attorney Dee Wampler in extricating him from legal consequences.

I've actually heard locals here justify Ron Houseman's actions, or say they were "legal." But I'll donate $100 to the favorite charity of any elected official who will publicy affirm the following statement, and allow me to quote him/ her: "It would be right and proper for the current clerk and collector to prosper themselves the same way Houseman and Basham did in the 1990's."

The point in rehashing old history?

Several points:

1. It is relevant to note that current commissioners Strahan (running for reelection) and Strafuss, (running for the State Senate) honored Houseman with a paid position, despite the aforementioned scandal.

2. Due to a lame local media, an influx of new people to the area, a substantial number of people who live in a state of denial, and the help of his cronies, the egregious actions of Houseman were out of the public mind enough for him to win a very close election in 2010 to the position of Presiding Commissioner.

His cronies provided valuable assistance. Commissioners Strahan and Strafuss helped by trying to frame previous presiding commissioner Pennel as a liar (Strahan) and/ or a criminal (Strafuss) during the "check controversy." (In fairness, it must be said that Pennel did greatly err in that matter, albeit not criminally, as Strafuss apparently hoped). A couple of years previously, before Strafuss became a commissioner, Houseman informed the commission that there was evidence of nepotism involving then Presiding Commissioner Pennel. Houseman used the term "egregious" to describe Pennel's misdeeds. What was this "egregious" nepotism? Commissioner Pennel's wife, experienced kennel owner and animal lover, was caring for stray, sick dogs on weekends when the county had no resources to do so. Mrs. Pennel did this on her own time, in her own vehicle. Houseman and his former nemesis, turned lapdog, Bob Shanz, knew their accusations were groundless, as subsequent investigation showed them to be. The purpose was to damage Pennel's reputation. Houseman lost two close elections to Pennel in 2002 and 2006. By engaging in a smear campaign against his once and future opponent, he succeeded in swaying enough votes that the third faceoff between the two men went his way.

3. Houseman wanted to be elected to the commission so badly, that he was willing to destroy the man who stood in his way.

4. Given the history of scandal, and the lust for power exhibited by Houseman, it is not unreasonable to be extremely suspicious of which devils might be in the details of any major change advocated by him and cronies such as Strahan and Strafuss.

It is an unfortunate fact that incumbents are very difficult to remove from office, even in the face of blatant cronyism. This year is no different. While western commissioner Strafuss is not running for reelection, opting to run for the State Senate, eastern commissioner Strahan is up for a third term, so as to help promote Houseman's agenda for our county. It is most unfortunate that instead of one good opponent, Strahan is being challenged in the primary by six opponents, of various levels of suitability for office. Since a plurality, not a majority, is all that's required to win the primary, this gives Strahan a real advantage. Of the seven running, the candidate most able to change the direction of county government is clearly Alan Lawson.  For one thing, he is the only one of them to publicly voice the possibility that the EEZ may not be an unassailable panacea. Please give a listen to him on the matter here.



I will vote for Alan Lawson in the primary. It saddens me that his chances are diminished by the split in the anti-Strahan vote. It encourages me, though that he seems to be gaining support as we approach primary day.



I've filed nominating petitions as an independent candidate for eastern commissioner. Should Alan win the primary on August 7th, I will be delighted to stand down.I really urge you to vote for Alan.





Otherwise, I'll be on the November ballot. I don't have an impressive resume of business experience, but I'm not a potted plant either. I have politics in my blood, and an ability to receive input from a variety of perspectives and interests. I believe in the safety of a multitude of counselors, and do not think anyone can be an expert in all matters with which the County Commission deals.  Common sense and an innate savvy about politics will serve me well, enabling me to serve you well.  I know, for instance, that when something sounds too good to be true, like the proposed EEZ, it probably isn't true.