Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Conservative Think Tank - Seeks Comments, Founders, Writers
Vanity | 11/16/2012 | Self

Posted on 11/16/2012 11:48:09 AM PST by PieterCasparzen

I'm exploring a startup entrepreneurial, free-enterprise, Judeo-Christian advocacy group, a think tank of, by and for non-elites.

If you have either a little time or a little money (or both) that you can dedicate to a strictly right-wing think tank, you may be interested.

Some are no doubt familiar with my focus on NGOs (non-governmental organizations), the most infamous of which being the Soros network. While many are leftist, there are also those that purport to be right-wing, though most often they are heavily influenced by big business and academia - and virtually not at all by real-world small business viewpoints.

I'm developing a model for countering the influences of NGOs that, among other things, hurt small business, which negatively impacts families and local economies.

It struck me that small business offered a more manageable member base than the general public and also closely aligns with principles of the rule of law and economic liberty. By being by, for and of small business pure academia is avoided.

Interested parties, constructive comments are sought at this time.

So far in the exploratory phase, this is a high level of the vision (see first post):


TOPICS: Chit/Chat
KEYWORDS: business; conservatism; jcsbthinktank; solicitation; vanity
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-91 next last
A) A small business, privately-held, that is an advocacy group / think tank - but organized as a for-profit small business - who's mission it is to end the influence of NGOs.

I'm sick to death of this not-for-profit disaster we have going - it is completely corrupting. Thousands of stinking "non-profit" elitist institutions, think tanks, etc., present some kind of marketing boondoggle for wealthy liberals and some big businesses which they use to pretend they are somehow "doing good", when in reality they're just pushing one diabolical yet idiotic scheme after another through Congress and State legislatures that enrich themselves - and squeeze the daylights out of most American's wallets and rights.

NGOs have got to go, that's my slogan.

This is an opportunity for local businesses to have their own advocacy group that has tremendous political influence - WORKING FOR THEM instead of against them.

There are many small business groups, some very large. If they're large - does the individual small business person GET HEARD ? No. If the small business advocacy group is small enough for the individual member to be heard - can the group defeat BIG non-governmental organizations like the Soros network, unions, etc. ? No.

In my State, New Jersey, there are hundreds of thousands of small businesses. Congressional staffs simply can not listen to 200,000 ideas. The 200,000 ideas can be used, however - with ORGANIZATION that smart people in the private sector can figure out. It ain't rocket science. This can work as a for-profit corporation full "C" corporation that has the right idea and executes it.

There are several competitive differences between this group and other advocacy groups that will allow it to scale to a point where it can both have significant impact and yet still provide responsiveness to members (these will be kept private at this point).


B) Full Public Cisclosure

Not of internal working documents - but correspondence with a legislator, where we provided expert opinion or advice. No "backroom" deals. Public, in the open, where pressure comes only through marketing and influencing thought leaders in society until there is enough public support.

No one who was ever elected to any office will be a shareholder, employee or paid contributor or consultant in any way, shape or form, as this is not a lobbying firm.

Any and all pressure is out in the open pressure, not secret pressure or secret deals. We are not asking for special treatment, only a level playing field, the rule of law and getting government out of the way of everyone, so these things can be asked publicly.

Publicly disclose ownership, resumes of fellows, funding, etc. That is really a key part of the marketing - it's a small business about small business, not a front for some mega-corp or Dr. Evil.

If NGOs operated completely in the public - and their recommendations received the media attention they should - at least the public would have a chance to call their Congressman and voice any response or opposition, but that is not the case. Most people are unaware what is in bills except for behind-the-scenes players until laws quietly get passed - if then. Only advocacy groups can affect legislation significantly, and small business is woefully under-represented in that arena.

This group would not be trying to "sneak" bills into law, but the opposite: garner public support to "sweep" bills into law. A slower process, to be sure, but a legitimate process.


C) No asking for any government money for support, nor are donations to the company tax deductible.

Revenue is from real people who want to support the effort, not get a tax deduction. And no donations or management can be from large corporations. This is not an effort by big business, it's an effort by small business and real people who are not uber-wealthy. Donations, membership options, etc., need to be of set, limited sizes.


D) Advocacy Focus and Efforts

1) Produce white papers written by "experts". However the "experts" will not be from academia or the big business world. Anyone can be a member, but the "fellows" who write the papers must have some demonstrated record in small business, no matter how brief, and their resume can not be one of pure academics or working for mega-corps. It's an "everyman's think tank", and it's not about fantasies or cronyism, but reality and legitimate business.

Small businesses that are members are assured that their input will be read along with every other member's input. Through collaboration and meetings their voice will be heard. Some will not want to take the time, and don't want to make input - but they will be able to know that the group is working on their behalf. They will be privy to internal publications - so they will know what is going on in many areas that they are concerned about and impacted by, both nationally and locally.

2) Identify, expose and oppose the activities of any groups or persons that:

Present challenges in and barriers to entry to marketplaces for SPHB (including, but not limited to, bureacracy and regulation, unfair competition, extortion, corruption, etc.)
(these challenges and barriers may originate locally or from outside the local marketplace and from within the public or private sector)
Oppose Judeo-Christian principles, principles of Western Civilization
Have undue or secret influence on legislation and policy and are unelected, as this activity works in opposition to SPHB, Judeo-Christian principles as well as American principles

3) Market and Advocate for:


Public disclosure of all sources and influences on legislation and government policy (who is doing what)
Small, privately-held business (SPHB)
True free enterprise
Net-balanced trade
Judeo-Christian principles, principles of Western Civilization such as the rule of law, true liberty, etc.
Citizens who rely on and benefit from SPHB and free enterprise (including, but not limited to, employees, consumers, retirees, students, etc.)
Local issues as gleaned from member input

4) Provide collaborative information management environment for members, fellows, researchers, writers, etc.

5) Publish a Journal

6) Partner with other like-minded organizations

7) More, of course.
1 posted on 11/16/2012 11:48:13 AM PST by PieterCasparzen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: PieterCasparzen

I would prefer action instead of words words no matter how truthful are and have been falling on dead ears and empty deeds from both sides ...

There’s another thing SIDES that’s a word for a whole new Conversation about Conservative and Liberal thought !


2 posted on 11/16/2012 11:54:29 AM PST by ATOMIC_PUNK (100% voted Obama in precincts in Ohio ? NOPE i don't believe it ! someone CHEATED !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: alpo; newheart; DuncanWaring

ping


3 posted on 11/16/2012 12:00:40 PM PST by PieterCasparzen (We have to fix things ourselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie; Nachum

ping.


4 posted on 11/16/2012 12:02:15 PM PST by PieterCasparzen (We have to fix things ourselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: PieterCasparzen

If you include the non-profit organization called the emergent church, count me in.


5 posted on 11/16/2012 12:03:16 PM PST by Truth2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PieterCasparzen

I’m in. I write a mean editorial.


6 posted on 11/16/2012 12:05:44 PM PST by Lazamataz (Abandon all hope.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy; Morgana

ping


7 posted on 11/16/2012 12:05:53 PM PST by PieterCasparzen (We have to fix things ourselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PieterCasparzen

I think it’s going to tank.


8 posted on 11/16/2012 12:07:01 PM PST by Misterioso ("Evil requires the sanction of the victim." -- Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PieterCasparzen

bookmark


9 posted on 11/16/2012 12:09:18 PM PST by RobertClark (Inside every "older" person is a younger person wondering what the hell happened?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PieterCasparzen

Bookmark for later.


10 posted on 11/16/2012 12:19:45 PM PST by SatinDoll (NATURAL BORN CITZEN: BORN IN THE USA OF CITIZEN PARENTS.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PieterCasparzen

Thanks for this thread. I am interested in some of your main ideas, but have a few reservations.

For example, in the market place of ideas, NGOs are one group that we would be: 1.) Joining; 2.) Competing with; and 3.) according to you, trying to Abolish.

That 3 pronged approach of Join, Compete and Abolish would dilute our efforts, if my understanding of your NGO statements is correct.

Is the topic of NGOs a sidetrack or a main track issue?

I would prefer that discussion of apparent conflicting goals be discussed and resolved, before a unifying set of goals be codified.

I would prefer to assist a narrow focus, sparse number of clearly stated goals entity in the market place of ideas.

BTW, put me on you PING list, as I think that your basic idea has merit.


11 posted on 11/16/2012 12:33:00 PM PST by Graewoulf ((Traitor John Roberts' Obama"care" violates Sherman Anti-Trust Law, AND the U.S. Constitution.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PieterCasparzen

Much appreciate the ping and invite. Will give this a good thorough read later, and get back to you.


12 posted on 11/16/2012 1:08:29 PM PST by Alex Murphy ("If you are not firm in faith, you will not be firm at all" - Isaiah 7:9)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: PieterCasparzen

I like some of your ideas but am unsure why you lump all non profits together.

I operate the Silver Star Families of America for our wounded, ill and injured vets and we were born right here on FR.

I am interested but need more info


13 posted on 11/16/2012 2:03:35 PM PST by Steve Newton (And the Wolves will learn what we have shown before-We love our sheep we dogs of war. Vaughn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

ping


14 posted on 11/16/2012 2:16:58 PM PST by Morgana (Time to play cowboys and muslims.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: PieterCasparzen

I totally agree.

In fact, many or most NGO’s are actually recieving government funds. How can something fund by government be considered an NGO? That is my big question? Why are these pressure groups allowed any access at all to the levers of power?


15 posted on 11/16/2012 2:21:22 PM PST by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Morgana

thanks


16 posted on 11/16/2012 2:25:04 PM PST by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Steve Newton
Silver Star Families of America

I'm not including non-profits that have purposes truly aligned with "good" purposes in terms of Judeo-Christian Western Civilization ethics in with the concept of "bad" organizations.

Non-governmental organizations, or NGOs, is used to refer to organizations that have, as their true purpose, political, economic and moral influence; they are not part of a government, yet they have tremendous influence over governments - and this influence is largely what is called "hidden in plain sight" from the public. The Council on Foreign relations is one such organization. It's papers and experts guide the foreign policy thinking of many nations, including the U.S. government.

Non-profit charitable organizations that are truly charities are obviously not the targeted group.

I'll put you on my ping list.
17 posted on 11/16/2012 3:23:31 PM PST by PieterCasparzen (We have to fix things ourselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Graewoulf
Thanks for the excellent questions that get to the heart of the matter.

Thanks for this thread. I am interested in some of your main ideas, but have a few reservations.

For example, in the market place of ideas, NGOs are one group that we would be: 1.) Joining; 2.) Competing with; and 3.) according to you, trying to Abolish.


Joining: well, on a simplistic level, we would be
a) a think tank / advocacy group (as we have a right to)
b) outside the government,
c) we have a goal of effecting policy changes and
d) we aim to establish a good reputation as policy experts

It may help to think of the name of the group as Small Business Policy Institute, Inc.

We are in quite a different brand image category - we're a "small business" advocacy business. Our members - business owners, free enterprise aficiandos and other interested parties - can collaborate online and in seminars and meetings. They can voice their ideas and challenges about the environment their business operates in. Our group - real people in business - will at least listen to our members and are likely to understand their issues and put in the full effort to effect changes that will help.

Also, our principles are sterling compared to the "bad" NGOs I'm talking about...
a) NGOs "hide in plain sight", that is they obfuscate their true motives when they create public campaigns and efforts. For example, they may say "spread democracy" on the website and to passersby, but such a public campaign might have a corresponding low-profile initiative more aptly titled "starting a revolution" internally. The vision I have for advocacy is no "alterior motive", "internal" initiatives; we either do the initiative publicly or we don't do it at all. And if we say, for example, we're "promoting business education in schools", we do what we say with no "shadow initiative".
b) Transnational NGOs often have more diabolical internal goals because they have zero allegiance to any one nation. The ones that would high on the list to expose are those that are of that nature and that promote schemes which are quite obviously working to the extreme detriment of citizens in one country or another. Of course, since our company would be U.S.-based, we would focus on NGOs that harm American free enterprise and the individual, small business owner sector of the economy.
c) My vision is to operate as a for-profit full C Delaware corporation to make things straightforward from a legal perspective and to remove the conflict of interest of advocating for "smaller government" then asking government for support. I think it is also very much "putting our money where our mouth is", that is, if business is such a good idea, why not organize as one. It would be straightforward to develop a various product and service revenue streams and simply keep spending within them to prevent losses.

In terms of competing with and trying to abolish:
If there are any NGOs whose purpose is attacking our members, we: Identify, Expose and Oppose. That is, IMHO, advocating for our members. Take New Jersey small business. Say we have a critical problem of healthcare costs and availability resulting from continual efforts by a few NGOs who keep pushing legislation quietly through the legislature. It's either small business or this NGO, somebody is going to lose. We identify, expose and oppose, using all the resources we can muster with our membership. Only with a concerted, long term effort at providing our own solutions that are better and exposing all the dirt and using it to rally public opinion will politicians start to listen. Otherwise, individual small business are helpless and no current organizations have efforts that are creative and energized enough (or care for that matter).

That 3 pronged approach of Join, Compete and Abolish would dilute our efforts, if my understanding of your NGO statements is correct.

I'm thinking of my own vision, not thinking about joining or competing. The group would simply have members and do it's work.

Is the topic of NGOs a sidetrack or a main track issue?

A main track for those that oppose our members' interests and operate in the shadows. If, theoretically, they pack up and leave a certain State, then we would simply continue advocating for regulatory rightsizing. If we wound up with some sort of ideal small business-friendly State somewhere, say Texas, for example, the organization could simply shrink back it's operations to a shell that maintains copies of our writings for posterity. I doubt we'll get to that point soon, however.

I would prefer that discussion of apparent conflicting goals be discussed and resolved, before a unifying set of goals be codified.

Did the above clear things up at all ? I will continue. Also, do you have thoughts about a set of goals after reading this thread so far ?

I would prefer to assist a narrow focus, sparse number of clearly stated goals entity in the market place of ideas.

I had the same thoughts as you while developing the idea. Did the above help ?
18 posted on 11/16/2012 8:01:20 PM PST by PieterCasparzen (We have to fix things ourselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: PieterCasparzen

I’m a Type “B” person, so I’ll think about this and then reply.

____________

Here is a real life situation: 1.) USA Small businesses are being crushed by Obamanation Communism: Communal Control of Medicine and Insurance (=Obama”care,” and Dodd-Frank (=unending regulations).

2.) After much discussion, our Group decides that the most helpful thing that we can do for USA Small Businesses is to support the idea that Obama should be Impeached in 2013.

3.) After much debate, 3 questions are chosen from an award winning entry by a very old graewoulf as follows:

” - - - Three questions for Benghazi-Coward Obama:

1.) Are you HIDING INFORMATION from the US Congress about the Benghazi Massacre?

2.) Have you been LYING to the US Congress, The Media, or the American Public about the Benghazi Massacre?

3.) Were you, as Commander in Chief, GROSSLY NEGLIGENT about your responsibilities to protect and assist those four Americans who subsequently were murdered in the Benghazi Massacre?

BTW, the large cap words were the same as the 3 charges handed down yesterday to BP for punishment of their Gulf of Mexico underwater blowout, a while back.

Since the US Government is going to hold a company accountable for their poor decisions, then it should hold its CIC accountable his poor decisions, AND use the same legal charges. - - - “

________

Here is my question to you :

“How would this Group put (=mechanics, procedures, division of labor/duties, methods, etc.) those 3 questions to use to achieve the Group’s Goal of Impeaching Obama in 2013, and thus help Small Business in 2014 and beyond?”


19 posted on 11/16/2012 8:44:32 PM PST by Graewoulf ((Traitor John Roberts' Obama"care" violates Sherman Anti-Trust Law, AND the U.S. Constitution.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: PieterCasparzen; Pelham; Ohioan

You are going to have to be prepared to dump all the PC stuff the mainstream Conservatives are saddled with.

and boy are they showing their true colors this week

gonna have to get mean and say things...truthful things that folks have been browbeaten for two generations now to ignore even if staring them in the face

You up to that Peter?

if not then you are just more of what has lost our nation

we lost our country because we were afraid to take on minority victimhood culture head on

it’s that damned simple

fighting white liberals is easy

talking straight talk with non whites is where whites go wobbly

so far I have seen few up to it

some sites banned here, Mark Levin(sorta)...Michael Berry(pretty open about it)..our own Bill Flax and Matt Bracken

otherwise

what’s the point...just more losing strategy


20 posted on 11/16/2012 8:52:59 PM PST by wardaddy (wanna know how my kin felt during Reconstruction in Mississippi, you fixin to find out firsthand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Graewoulf

I’m smilin’ that’s a great question. I’ll work on an answer.

First off, sounds like you could make some interesting contributions to the white papers the group would publish.


21 posted on 11/16/2012 8:56:51 PM PST by PieterCasparzen (We have to fix things ourselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy
You are going to have to be prepared to dump all the PC stuff the mainstream Conservatives are saddled with.

...

You up to that Peter?

...

otherwise

what’s the point...just more losing strategy


You've wacked the nail on the head... precisely.

That is the point.

Now, I've remembered some "basics" about gettin' things done; this is not nearly as bad as it might at first appear.

"You're crazy Pieter". No way, it's possible.

Easy: minority conservatives. Remember them ? What we're for is the truth - free enterprise is colorblind.

You don't have to make relationships with every single person in town. You just need to start making relationships, one at a time. Those people become the leaders in their town. Think about it - every city and town across the whole nation - has small businesses and small business owners, and more than a few will agree with the worldview of basic Judeo-Christian Western Civilization. They do not like lazy people mooching their tax dollars from the government, or unnecessary regulation shakedowns, or corruption, or crime, or sending tax dollars overseas to foment revolution, or one-world government, or high property taxes, or not being able to defend their shops and stores, etc.

A big opponent will be unions, as well as the radical left. Big time.

But we're a think tank. Our journal of white papers will be sold by subscription - to those who want to read it. Our papers will be written in a scholarly manner, not in a vulgar manner. They need to be researched so they present data, facts, analysis and perhaps hypotheses. We're seeking to convince intellectuals with them. As far as marketing campaigns or symposiums, marketing is not developed to turn people off, but to convince them to agree. I envision seminars or symposiums, but they will be business get togethers where you have to pay a few bucks to get in. I frankly see no issues there. People listen to the speakers, clap at the end and then discuss. I can think of dozens of ways to go with that in terms of gaining interest and generating revenue while we're at it.

Other groups that agree with our viewpoint or mission may have relationships with us. Well, if we find some, and they can use policy and strategy consulting or offer some service to us - great. They may be doing more active advocacy, like say organizing rallies. They might see confrontations, but a think tank is "thinky-work", we won't.

Perhaps you're concerned about having a website shut down, or getting sued over it ? The public site is only going to have the "convincing" marketing (the journal in it's entireity would be pay-only). Take the idea of welfare "victimhood". The argument there is made that welfare is actually hurting it's recipients, as well as the rest of society, and our papers lay out the case for helping everyone. We would not be saying anything nasty about the recipients, but the government and it's backroom influencers that foist addiction to counter-productive behavior. And most every small business (insert researched percentages here) pays for that with higher taxes. That gets passed on to consumers. And high prices hurt people more the poorer they are. Good business is good for everyone. Efficient and effective government is good for everyone - and by definition (since government's only revenue source is a burden on everyone either directly or through higher prices) that means the smallest government that can deliver what it needs to. (By government I mean government and it's law book).

Perhaps it's a bucket of ice cold water in the face, but it's well-written, matter-of-fact analytical tone.

Perhaps you're thinking of the possibility of watered-down principles showing up in the white papers ? I have some good starter ideas on selecting an editorial committee and thorough review process for papers to be accepted for publishing. If some contributors can't seem to get papers accepted by the committe they get dropped. Ownership will be only staunch supporters of pure, radical small business free-market principles. Large corps, politicians - and other potentially conflicted supporters - would only be "subscription-only" members and pay a nominal subscription fee. This and other restrictions will prevent any conflicted interests from having any influence on the organization.

This is a very high-level effort, very long-term, with a very broad scope of effect. It starts out having no influence on anything. It gets built into a well-known and respected brand that 1/3 the population says yuck to but another 1/3 loves. My vision is investigative research second to none in terms of subject matter, accuracy, truth and integrity which will eventually turn the group into the premier source for policy analysis and advocacy relating to free enterprise. Long term this will effect hearts and minds in business, schools, universities, churches and other segments of society (of course, some of the group's white papers will deal with bringing about such effects). The organization is not so much a solution, but a solution to generating and then disseminating solutions. I know New Jersey has a lot of people who would love to see the economy spruce up - it is in the cr@pper. Many people would like to get something going and they're willing to listen - especially those whose income would double or more (back to where it was) if things perked up. Many politicians who may not have the stomach for conservatism would have some big ears open if things could improve on their watch. If things work, suddenly everybody agrees with them. The whole point of this group is to explain the arithmetic of why most of our wacky liberal laws are working directly against us economically and need to be completely gone, not just moderated.
22 posted on 11/16/2012 10:49:21 PM PST by PieterCasparzen (We have to fix things ourselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: PieterCasparzen

You are welcome to use any of my posts against government K-12 education. Use them at any time. I simply want the ideas to get out. I have no interest in getting personal credit for them.


23 posted on 11/16/2012 10:55:52 PM PST by wintertime
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Graewoulf
Ok, here we go.

The idea I'm discussing is not a political action committee - it will not target any specific election or candidate (or politician) for support or opposition. If it supported or opposed in that way it would have to be organized as a PAC and abide by all applicable regulation.

The organization also could not lobby (approach specific members of Congress and urge that they vote yes or no on specific legislation or urge the public or our membership to support or oppose specific legislation), or it would have to operate as a registered lobbying firm, which is entirely different from a think tank.

A think tank undboubtedly can have more effect than lobbying in the long run, since it is not focused on particular legislation but instead becomes a very influential thought leader in society. An example of a think tank is The American Security Council at the following link:

https://www.ascfusa.org/memberships/join_ascf

This is the text from that Join page that tells what they are all about:

"The American Security Council Foundation is an organization whose sole purpose is to educate and inform Americans and our political leadership about the global challenges to the national security, economic security and moral leadership of the United States. To this end, the ASCF sponsors research, holds conferences, and publishes books, monographs and articles. Distinguished scholars, policy makers, lawmakers and citizens participate in these activities. The American Security Council Foundation has had a profound impact on the history of the United States and its global leadership role. In fact, it is difficult to think of an important foreign policy or national security program since World War II where the Foundation did not have a prominent role. We depend on the support of individuals across the nation to achieve these goals.

As a member of the American Security Council Foundation, you will join thousands of like-minded individuals across the United States who share in the common belief that "Peace Through Strength" should be a leading principle in American foreign policy."

Here's their wikipedia article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Security_Council_Foundation

You can see from their history in that article that they do indeed influence policy and they are an expert resource that is made use of by thought leaders in their field.

They did not help elect Reagan, but his administration used them as an important source for expert advice. The organization, however, only seeks to "educate and inform Americans and our political leadership". Every President and Congressman seeks expert advice in order to understand issues and potential solutions; the experts do all the "figuring" and convey this through the polician's legislative aides. The politician then has their political advisors do some political calculus to figure out what they actually want to adopt as their own position. So the expert advice that's available kind of defines all the possibilities for what can come out of a legislature or Congress. The politician often only knows their talking points, with very little detail; they just select a viewpoint option provided to them by experts. This is my big beef with the way things work: the politician we elect does not come up with their own ideas, the people coming up with the ideas are not elected, and the communication between them is not disclosed to the public. As long as the policies work out well the public has not been harmed, but if the policies that become law actually harms the citizenry (like Obamacare) - the dang thing was actually the brainchild of people who were not even elected and are essentially kept secret from the public.

A think tank as I am describing would be working on a long-term basis that continues on through all politicians as they come and go. It would just keep on, in this case:

a) pointing out other policy-making organizations or specific policies that are contrary to small business and free enterprise (especially if they try to stay out of the public eye)
b) researching and publishing policy papers providing excellent solutions for an improved small business environment
c) holding conferences and otherwise promoting policy that fosters small business

With this sort of mission, specific issues can change over time and vary by region. Healthcare is big now, as is atrocious government spending on bailouts, social programs, bureacracy, excessive regulation, dysfunctional families, socialism, unions, law and order (self defense); there are tons of potential issues that would be prioritized based on what was hurting business most in which region. Inner cities may have crime problems or corruption problems, while suburbs may have property tax problems. Most areas are affected by education problems, which lowers the quality of the workforce thereby decreasing labor efficiency.

Take inner city crime: research papers could be written about self-defense as a way of reducing crime, and creative ways to reduce drug addiction and therefore reduce the number of customers and the demand for drugs. This will lower street prices and make it more competitive, but after a period of perhaps more violence, with the total market permanently smaller, some sellers would drop out of the market. Alternative opportunities for sellers could be explored in the research. As a city "cleans up", legitimate business improves dramatically, resulting in higher per capita incomes. If the right businesses can provide the right jobs at the right times, the rebirth can be improved even more. Business and investing education for inner city youths is also a great idea, and local Churches are key partners in these efforts as well. We would want to build our membership rolls by approaching leaders and citizens in the community (without respect to specific elections or legislation) and would offer student memberships as well. The think tank is laying out position papers, research, ideas, collaboration, etc., to partners in the community.

As you can see, long term the overall picture starts improving dramatically on all fronts, and the political ground starts shifting under the politicians' feet, even though there was no lobbying or PAC activity.
24 posted on 11/17/2012 1:28:24 AM PST by PieterCasparzen (We have to fix things ourselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: PieterCasparzen

Count me in Pieter.

I don’t have any money, but I can give some time.


25 posted on 11/17/2012 7:43:31 AM PST by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy
Since you pinged me, I will invite you to visit the thread that I have started on my lasted Feature, "Obama Or America, Etc.

Clarity On Irreconcilable Differences.

Not sure if the link will work. I will try & check back.

It does seem to work.

William Flax

26 posted on 11/17/2012 10:15:25 AM PST by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: PieterCasparzen
It gets built into a well-known and respected brand that 1/3 the population says yuck to but another 1/3 loves.

Your understanding that we do not have to appeal to all--the all things to all people fallacy--is the right one. After all, only 1/3 of the American people actually supported the successful Revolution.

But when you talk about an intellectual effort--as opposed to a form of mass appeal, in today's dumbed down intellectual climate--you cannot really target anything like a third, even of the small business community you seek to revitalize. The key is reaching & arming (intellectually) an articulate minority. In this, we may even learn something from the hard-core enemy playbook. Lenin took over Russia with 40,000 Bolsheviks working in concert at the end of 1917; but the force that actually built up to that, numbered only about 10,000, a year & a half earlier.

Just focus on what, say 50,000 articulate & informed Americans, working cohesively & persistently, to counter the prevailing economic & social fallacies, could accomplish. The broader sampling would more likely be several million Americans who loved the effort of that working group; several million who hated them; and 200 million, totally indifferent, watching their entertainment TV, and wondering (in moments of idle curiosity) what the future might hold.

I used to refer to the latter, in drawing historic parallels to the destruction of our heritage, as "cottage gawkers" in olden times, wondering what the invading army marching into their valley might mean for them, when trying to motivate student groups, etc.

William Flax

27 posted on 11/17/2012 10:46:42 AM PST by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: PieterCasparzen; VinL; ex-snook; sport; INVAR; ejonesie22; Colonel_Flagg; Washi; vmivol00; ...

Excellent Idea Ping!


28 posted on 11/18/2012 3:09:29 PM PST by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PieterCasparzen; Springfield Reformer

SR,

This should be right up your alley!


29 posted on 11/18/2012 3:10:29 PM PST by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PieterCasparzen

I’ve got a few thoughts on the way forward that I wouldn’t mind adding. Not everyone will like them and one or two I’m not especially thrilled with but I do think they’re worth a fair hearing.


30 posted on 11/18/2012 3:31:00 PM PST by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

Thanks for the ping, SoCon!


31 posted on 11/18/2012 3:54:39 PM PST by Colonel_Flagg ("Don't be afraid to see what you see." -- Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie; PieterCasparzen

Intriguing. Thanks for the ping, SoCon. I’d like to help however I can. Sounds like a good idea.


32 posted on 11/18/2012 5:40:51 PM PST by Springfield Reformer (Winston Churchill: No Peace Till Victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: PieterCasparzen

Thanks for your well-thoughtout replies to all of us.

I gleaned this nugget from your replies:
“ - - - A think tank as I am describing would be working on a long-term basis that continues on through all politicians as they come and go. - - - “

IMHO, 1.) the National Election of 2008 was about the 30 % loss of wealth in home values caused by Sub-Prime Federal Laws;
2.) 2012 was about the majority of voters that chose to have their children and grandchildren continue to loveingly burdened with the debt from their own welfare greed;
and 3.) 2016 will be about the 40 % loss of wealth to the US Dollar due to the 2015 collapse of the US Treasury Bond Market.

Thus, the only chance that we have is the 2014 Mid-term National Election.

This is a long way around to ask you what YOU think it is that your group will probably accomplish in < 2 years?

Tick-Tock


33 posted on 11/18/2012 9:42:43 PM PST by Graewoulf ((Traitor John Roberts' Obama"care" violates Sherman Anti-Trust Law, AND the U.S. Constitution.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Graewoulf

Thanks for the question.

IMHO...

First, of course, it’s a Christian thing. Even if we are sure that we are doomed, we are called upon to persevere as we see our duty plainly before us, and thus in either case we glorify God. This is not to say that are suicidal, for unto the end we have hope. Hope with the firm assurance either of deliverance or sacrifice. And this touches a very important concept, that of “how is it that I win, or succeed ?” Subtle, yet magnificent. We are commanded to remember at all times to not trust in what we see in the enemy’s capabilities or the hurdle to overcome. Even for a moment. And not our own capabilities. We are taught that anyone can have faith when success is plausible. Confidence is hardly faith in that case, but God desires that we trust in him when our defeat looks certain.

Those in the military, forgive my presumption, but they would, I am sure, concur that the seemingly hopeless situation calls for holding until relieved. Right to the end... thinking of this bothers me... you know who I’m referring to. It makes me angry that four people were wilfully abandoned. God bless those guys and their families.

I’ll just list one more reason, the fact that non-linear changes, if we can get one started, can be difficult to estimate in terms of their growth. Businesses can go from start to billions in sales in what is a shockingly short time, trends can spread increadibly fast, etc. We simply have no way of perceiving future possible events or effects that may give us more time or perhaps quickly change the situation in a dramatic way. The WH and Congress are not in control of all events, nor can they accurately predict the actions of individual (300+million) citizens. This link

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol50no4/using-prediction-markets-to-enhance-us-intelligence-capabilities.html

shows the CIA trying to figure out how to predict future world events - when the U.S. government is working with NGOs and jihadists to CAUSE the future events.

They don’t even try to pretend they have real jobs, by sitting still and folding their hands, now they just sit blabbering all day publicly, clearly demonstrating that it is high time for most non-military government to get downsized.

Of course, there’s a chance, given the type and size of problems we face, and the direction in which we would be focused, that we would be the critical factor that saved the day.

IMHO, this is not that kind of situation, needing to be “saved”. Congress goes to think tank experts to get their legislation written, then needs to pass it. This is at least a 1-year turnaround. To start to see the effects would be a second year. The only emergency thing they can do is just what Hank Paulson told GWB, give me 700 billion dollars.

IF things got really bad, we’ll all continue what we’re doing, we’ll just be dressed like the Little Rascals and riding on a scooter made from a broken roller skate and a peach crate.


34 posted on 11/18/2012 10:32:52 PM PST by PieterCasparzen (We have to fix things ourselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: PieterCasparzen

BTTT.


35 posted on 11/18/2012 10:41:06 PM PST by exit82 ("The Taliban is on the inside of the building" E. Nordstrom 10-10-12)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: PieterCasparzen; LucyT
Are you familiar with the Newcomen Society of the United States? It sounds as if you are thinking of replicating what they tried to do.
36 posted on 11/18/2012 11:29:16 PM PST by Daffynition (Self-respect: the secure feeling that no one, as yet, is suspicious. ~ HLM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Daffynition; PieterCasparzen; MestaMachine; KC_Lion; Godzilla; Domestic Church; Rushmore Rocks; ...

.

Hey y’all. Here’s a thread; check it out.

Thanks, Daffynition.

.


37 posted on 11/19/2012 12:11:51 AM PST by LucyT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Daffynition

Thanks for the link, however, this idea is a think tank.

Newcomen was not a think tank according to the article at the link, sounds like mostly a club for big business.

If you read these posts and that article you will find a lot more differences; they’re as different as night and day.


38 posted on 11/19/2012 12:43:13 AM PST by PieterCasparzen (We have to fix things ourselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: PieterCasparzen
This is my big beef with the way things work: the politician we elect does not come up with their own ideas, the people coming up with the ideas are not elected, and the communication between them is not disclosed to the public. As long as the policies work out well the public has not been harmed, but if the policies that become law actually harms the citizenry (like Obamacare) - the dang thing was actually the brainchild of people who were not even elected and are essentially kept secret from the public.

While I take no issue with your concept, here, an increasing number of the regulations promulgated by various agencies are actually written by unelected appointees or bureaucrats who garner influence from nameless sources while they, themselves also remain nameless. These are the shadow regulators who increasingly bury not only small business, but the larger businesses upon which small business often depends for revenue stream.

Not all small business caters to the general public, much caters to niche markets meeting the needs of larger corporations.

For instance, I am a company of one. My company hires subcontractors, often similar in size, to do work for larger companies, among which are some of the largest corporate entities on the planet. My company's fiscal health and theirs is interrelated.

Often the regulations which affect the large corporations I do work for are generated by regulatory agencies which are not directly responsible to the electorate, nor the legislature, but exist as part of the executive branch of government, be that at the State or Federal level. Sometimes, those regulations affect me and my subcontractors directly, sometimes only indirectly by affecting the companies I work for, but they all have an effect.

What defense do we as small business owners have against those (often agenda-driven) regulations and the regulators who promulgate those regulations, especially since the probability of influencing regulators (short of injunctive or legislative relief) whose motivations approach religious fervor is nearly nil?

39 posted on 11/19/2012 1:14:47 AM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: LucyT

Thanks, LucyT!


40 posted on 11/19/2012 1:28:18 AM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe
My company hires subcontractors, often similar in size, to do work for larger companies, among which are some of the largest corporate entities on the planet. My company's fiscal health and theirs is interrelated.
...
What defense do we as small business owners have against those (often agenda-driven) regulations and the regulators who promulgate those regulations, especially since the probability of influencing regulators (short of injunctive or legislative relief) whose motivations approach religious fervor is nearly nil?


Excellent question. That is precisely the influence gap this think tank is aimed at filling.

This think tank's goal is to operate at a level on par with others. And then to get additional influence, we do "general promotion" (see mission Statement). We could have a public outreach campaign to generally support subcontractors by saying "have carve outs for subcontractors". Big biz has plenty of representation to take care of themselves; we focus exclusively on small. But we can make a big point of "even if a law is intended to apply to big biz and it will cost them, make sure the law is designed as much as possible to balance things out so small vendors are not hurt". It might be possible by adding in something not pertinent to the big co. at all, but something to benefit those small vendors to the point of offsetting their loss.

See, without something like our think tank the small guy has no seat at the table. These things are all ignored by elitist organizations, since they know you're probably voting for their generic pro-big-business viewpoint anyway !
41 posted on 11/19/2012 1:47:34 AM PST by PieterCasparzen (We have to fix things ourselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

ping


42 posted on 11/19/2012 2:06:46 AM PST by PieterCasparzen (We have to fix things ourselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PieterCasparzen
It is evident in much of regulation without exemptions written in for smaller businesses, that what cannot be attributed to malice on the part of regulators displays the lack of knowledge and foresight that leads to 'unintended consequences' for small business.

Insofar as being able to inform those bodies and regulators of those consequences which might be better predicted from a different viewpoint, there is some possibility this might have a beneficial effect.

I am somewhat skeptical, considering the apparent hostility of the present political environment toward certain subgroups developing viable commercial concerns, and given the apparent tendency for the administration at present to back highly questionable ventures with substantial sums taken from the public coffers while looting through fees and taxation those who do not receive such aid, I wonder how much real effect can be obtained at present.

However, in establishing credibility, especially in regards to deleterious effects, being able to point to predictions of negative outcomes given certain policy shifts may provide the only good derived from those policies in the long haul.

Being able to say "I told you so." might be the only benefit derived in the short term, but will add credibility in the event the political winds change and policy can be reversed, removed, or altered beneficially in the future.

I'm interested, although I do not know how much good I can do.

43 posted on 11/19/2012 3:06:11 AM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: thackney

Ping, for your consideration.


44 posted on 11/19/2012 3:07:53 AM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: LucyT; onyx; bitt; AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; ColdOne; ...

Thanks LucyT.


45 posted on 11/19/2012 4:08:47 AM PST by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe
It is evident in much of regulation without exemptions written in for smaller businesses, that what cannot be attributed to malice on the part of regulators displays the lack of knowledge and foresight that leads to 'unintended consequences' for small business.

I have my doubts on these are unintended consequences.

Although small business has been the backbone of this country, the current administration is more interested in control than productive and the associated jobs.

A few large business are easier to control (and provide kickbacks) than a large multitude of small businesses.

46 posted on 11/19/2012 5:26:22 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: thackney
A few large business are easier to control (and provide kickbacks) than a large multitude of small businesses.

True enough.

Someone once said 'Never to attribute to malice that which can be attributed to stupidity or incompetence'.

With this administration, though, that old saw may not hold.

47 posted on 11/19/2012 5:54:09 AM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: PieterCasparzen

This sounds really good to me.Count me in.


48 posted on 11/19/2012 7:47:58 AM PST by rodguy911 (FreeRepublic:Land of the Free because of the Brave--Sarah Palin our secret weapon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PieterCasparzen

I have run four small buisnesses, one of which i still run, since 1970. I’m beginning to know the drill.
Plus radio,print blogopshere since 72.


49 posted on 11/19/2012 7:50:39 AM PST by rodguy911 (FreeRepublic:Land of the Free because of the Brave--Sarah Palin our secret weapon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PieterCasparzen; blam; Oldeconomybuyer; moneyrunner; All

Thanks for your thoughtful reply.

In our Society there is a disconnect between those who think and do and those who feel and do.

A well thought-out Conservative Think Tank could significantly reduce the size of that disconnect. The key is to set up the Group to succeed.

As a Scientist I have little patience with those who hold assumptions or hypotheses that they refuse to test, or worse, refuse to acknowledge that their assumptions and hypotheses have already failed many tests.

Here is a perfect example: “ - - - The only emergency thing they can do is just what Hank Paulson told GWB, give me 700 billion dollars. - - - “

The assumption is that ‘priming the pump’ will actually achieve positive, national, financial success.

The hypothesis that was built on that assumption is commonly called the Keynesian Economic Hypothesis.

That assumption was tested by President Harry Truman right after WW2 and Give ‘em Hell Harry sent Keynes packing back to England empty handed!

This topic warrants a lengthy set of Threads on FR or several White Papers from your group.

My question remains: ‘Splain in short, declarative sentences the mechanics of how such a topic would be dealt with in your Group?

1.) Reduce each of your paragraphs to one sentence.
2.) ‘Cut to the chase.’
3.) Assume that I have the attention-span of a 6 year old, (note that I did NOT say intellect of a 6 year old, although sometimes my wife brings up that topic - - - ).


50 posted on 11/19/2012 8:17:35 AM PST by Graewoulf ((Traitor John Roberts' Obama"care" violates Sherman Anti-Trust Law, AND the U.S. Constitution.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-91 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson