Showing posts with label North Dakota. Show all posts
Showing posts with label North Dakota. Show all posts

Monday, January 6, 2014

Undermining The Constitution A HISTORY OF LAWLESS GOVERNMENT (Part 1)

Battle of the Hook, 2013
Battle of the Hook, 2013 (Photo credit: Battleofthehook)
By Thomas James Norton

THE REPRESENTATIVE, OR REPUBLICAN, FORM OF GOVERNMENT, CAREFULLY CHOSEN BY THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION IN 1787 AGAINST DEMOCRACY OR DIRECT ACTION BY THE PEOPLE, WAS FIRST UNDERMINED BY THE STATES
In 1893 South Dakota adopted from Switzerland the Initiative and the Referendum, and from then until 1918 one or both of those plans, with the Recall, were taken on by 22 of the 48 States.

Three borrowings from Switzerland against our Constitution

By the Initiative the people can draft a law and put it to a vote; if the majority favor it the legislature is bound to pass it, even though opposed to it.
By the Referendum a bill passed by the legislature is referred to popular vote, and it may be approved or prevented from taking effect.
The Recall is used to unseat a holder of office who has become unsatisfactory, or to revoke a law.
Some States adopted the three expedients, some two of them, some only one. At first the belief spread rapidly.


The first attempt to recall judicial decisions

Colorado was the only State to apply (1912) the Recall to decisions by the courts, and that was held by the Supreme Court of the State to be in conflict with the Colorado constitution.
Theodore Roosevelt, displeased by the decisions of some courts, advocated the recall of decisions of the supreme courts of States. The prestige of the former President gave much impetus to the "movement." The American Bar Association appointed a committee to go to the country in refutation of the constitutionally destructive idea. In 1912 the committee reported the recall of decisions dead. Roosevelt afterward admitted that he had made a mistake.
Kansas limited the Recall (1914) to appointive officials.
The Initiative has never been extensively used, and for a long time not much has been heard of any of the "democratic" devices.
Large populations require representation, not "democracy"
Methods deemed useful to small populations in narrow areas, as in the cantons of Switzerland and the town meetings in New England, could not be accepted as serviceable or safe for large populations and extensive countries. Indeed, that point was discussed in the Constitutional Convention, and the conclusion was reached that for the United States as they then were, and as they would expand to be, only the representative or Republican system would do.
In 1893, when South Dakota led the way, the country


had undergone one of its severest panics. There had also been successive crop failures. The advocates of popular action contended that legislatures were not faithful to the people and that therefore the people should take over. However, the remedy was in the election of better legislators, not in a fundamental change in the form of government. And it is doubtful whether the most capable and honest legislators could have stilled the complaints arising from the panic and the failures of crops.
When people seek paternalism from their government
In all such times the disposition is to look around for a scapegoat, and the people usually feel that government should do something to correct conditions and relieve distress.
This inclination of the people in financial distress to look to the governments of the States to do something about it was the forerunner, as it were, of the wide calls for "Federal aid" of many kinds which were raised in the late 1920s and the early 1930s.
In 1920 the Supreme Court upheld (253 U. S. 233) the creation by a vote of the people of North Dakota of an Industrial Commission to take over and manage utilities, industries, and other business projects, some to be established by law. It was authorized to operate the Bank of North Dakota, the Home-Builders Association, flour mills, grain elevators, a fire insurance company, and other projects. It was empowered to issue bonds, and in 1937 it had floated such paper to the amount of $24,798,000 for rural credit.

From 1934 to 1940, in a time of peace, the National Government built up a deficit of $26,500,000,000, of which $21,500,000,000, or 80 per cent, according to the Governor of Virginia, resulted from "grants in aid" to States and individuals. Subsidies from the taxpayers of the country held up the price of wheat and corn to $3 a bushel as late as 1948. And like support to stockmen put the prices of their commodities so high that beefsteaks, roasts and lamb almost entirely disappeared from the table of the American.
Dependence on government brings unfortunate conditions
And yet the stockmen were unprepared with shelter and feed to care for their herds when the heavy snows and low temperatures came in the Winter of 1948-1949. The States were without organization to help. Governors and stockmen cried to Washington to come out and save them! Long dependence of the people and the States on miscalled "Federal money" had debilitated both.
The army was sent out. It kept the roads open and it fed and saved most of the herds.
Caesar, too, helped the people, but they lost their liberty to him.
The Constitutional Convention set up a thoroughly representative form of Government in each of the three Departments -- the Legislative, the Executive, and the Judicial. The States, which wrote the Constitution by their representatives, provided in section 4 of Article IV particular protection for themselves.

Nation and States given representative government by Constitution
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican [not democratic] form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion."
They obliged the power over all, which they had set up for the common strength, to protect each in its Republican form, and to defend each physically.
Commenting on that provision for a representative form of government, Madison said in No. 43 of The Federalist:
"The only restriction imposed on them is that they shall not exchange Republican for anti-Republican [democratic] constitutions."
The choice by the Convention of the Republican or representative form over the popular or democratic government followed full and able discussions. In explaining what had been considered in this relation, Madison, the note taker of daily doings in the Convention, said in No. 10 ofThe Federalist, after pointing out the evils which factions had always done in democracies:
"The inference to which we are brought is that the causes of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its effects."

Why Convention rejected democracy or popular control

The turbulence and contention which had given short lives and violent deaths to democracies would be controlled by representative government:
"A Republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking."
By "the delegation of the government to a small number of citizens elected by the rest," Madison said, the public views are refined and enlarged "by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations."
Accordingly:
"Under such a regulation it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose."
The spread of a governmental evil

The Initiative, the Referendum, and the Recall led to other departures from the representative form of government. Officeholders or aspirants who hoped to advantage themselves brought out the direct primary. That primary suggested later the "Presidential preference" primary to seekers of the highest office, who believed that they could "swing" the crowd when the party might not be for them. In many instances the promoters of the "democratic" primary, which had been hailed as the voice of the people, failed of their expectations through them.
As the decayed apple in the barrel damages all the others, so the badness in principle of the Initiative, the Referendum, and the Recall spread after bringing the direct primary and the Presidential primary. In 1912 some members of the United States Senate, doubtless feeling


that they would be more sure of holding their seats if they could appeal to the people from the hustings than if their return were to remain with critical legislatures, proposed an amendment to the Constitution, first suggested in 1869, for the direct election of senators by the people of the States instead of by the legislatures. It was ratified and became effective as the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913.
The great purpose in the Congress frustrated
Thus the two Houses of Congress became alike, whereas the Constitutional Convention designed a House of People and a House of States. The House elected by the States to represent them in the Congress of their Union was destroyed. Two Houses now represent the people and none stands for the States. Does that help to explain why the States have been passing out as the controlling forces in their Union? The extent of their diminution will be fully shown later in this book.
The proponents of the Amendment supported their advocacy by saying that money had been improperly used in some legislatures by backers of candidates for the House of States. But, as we have said with respect to the Initiative, the proper remedy for the people was in electing better legislators, not in unsettling the foundations of the Republic. Besides, candidates for the Senate, in the primary to get the nomination and then in the election contest against the nominee of the other party to get the office, have spent more money than was ever reported as used in a legislature.

A very capable and upright senator from California declined to seek a second term because the expense of the primary which nominated him and of the election campaign which put him in the Senate had been so great that he said the security of his family had been endangered. He was fairly well-to-do, but this "democracy" which had been introduced in the name of "reform" he could not carry.

Some capable men excluded from Senate
Had the Seventeenth Amendment not been put in the Constitution, the legislature of California might have kept him in the service of the State by reelecting him many terms. Thus, Senator Hoar of Massachusetts, an illustrious statesman without means, who did not want to go to the Senate, was chosen by his legislature during his absence from the country and kept there to the end of his life.
Senator Morrill of Vermont and others of those times gave all or most of their working years to their country in the House of States. They did not need to "campaign." That was fortunate, because they had no money.
A poor man who seeks a seat in the Senate now must have "backers," and he may therefore cease to be the owner of himself.
The cure which was sought in haste and some anger through the Initiative and the popular election of senators might have been reached by choosing better legislators. But when the American, after long indifference, arouses himself he is prone "to do the right thing the wrong way."
Lack of learning in Constitution dangerous
It is hard to believe that an educator provided the "slogan" for those two decades: "The cure for the evils of democracy is more democracy." We have it.

In No. 62 of The Federalist the faith in the House of States was expressed (italics inserted):
"It is recommended by the double advantage of favoring a select appointment, and of giving to the State government such an agency in the formation of the Federal Government as must secure the authority of the former, and may form a convenient link between the two systems."
Thus the States would be in Congress as well as the People.
Evil results from decline of Senate
None of the transgressions of constitutional boundaries of recent years could probably have been accomplished had the House of States not been broken down.
It is a fact to be noted that the Sixteenth Amendment, under which Congress has, without specific authority, been gathering the "graduated" income tax of Communism, became effective in February, 1913, and the Seventeenth Amendment, emasculating the House of States, became a part of the Constitution in May of that year. That imports very serious dissatisfaction of a people, unschooled in the principles of their Government, with the system designed by the Constitutional Convention, which contained, Bryce pointed out, "fifty-five men who belong to the history of the world," and many others "less known in Europe who must be mentioned with respect."
Warning of Washington against constitutional innovations
In his Farewell Address caution was given by Washington to resist "the spirit of innovation" upon the principles of the Constitution, "however specious the pretexts."

General and thorough education in constitutional philosophy is essential to our safety.
A final word from The Federalist:
"The necessity of a Senate is not less indicated by the propensity of all single and numerous assemblies to yield to the impulse of sudden and violent passions, and to be seduced by factious leaders into intemperate and pernicious resolutions. Examples on this subject might be cited without number; and from proceedings within the United States, as well as from the history of other nations."
The States in their House would be a check on sudden and ill-considered action by the House of the People.
In the day of the House of States the senators accepted seriously and discharged courageously the responsibility cast upon them by the Constitution in confirming or disapproving the appointments of the President. A confirmation then did not follow as a matter of course. InAutobiography of Seventy Years it is related by Senator Hoar that he went into the Supreme Court to hear Senator Daniel Webster make an argument in a case. Webster began by referring "very impressively" to the changes which had taken place in the Tribunal since he first appeared as counsel before it:
"Not one of the judges who were here then remains. It has been my duty to pass upon the question of the confirmation of every member of the Bench; and I may say that I treated your honors with entire impartiality, for I voted against every one of you."
The alterations in the American system of representative or Republican government here reviewed were as unnecessary as they were ineffectual for the purposes intended.

"Democracy" not suitable to representative system
A review of over half a century of tinkerings with constitutional representative government makes plain that "democracy" is unsuited to the United States.
The cases to be reviewed in the chapters following will serve to clarify the meaning in practice of the representative principle running everywhere through the Constitution. They will help also to an understanding of the structurally important — superior and sustaining — place of the States in the constitutional edifice.

Then it will be clear why, as President Cleveland said, "departure from the lines there laid down is failure."

Part One.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Saturday, November 23, 2013

Inside Look at Sustainable Farming in America

Joel Salatin gives a tour of Polyface Farm. He...
Joel Salatin gives a tour of Polyface Farm. Here he stands inside electric netting surrounding a flock of laying hens and their portable coop, dubbed an Eggmobile. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
If you put good old-fashioned organically-raised, pasture-fed and finished meat in a nutrition analyzer, you’d find it’s one of the most nutritious foods you can eat.
However, many are still in the dark about the vast differences betweenConcentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) and organically-raised, grass-fed meats, in terms of nutrient content and contamination with veterinary drugs, antibiotics, genetically modified organisms, and disease-causing pathogens.
Differences in the animals’ diets and living conditions create vastly different end products. For example, most CAFO cows are fed grains (oftentimes genetically engineered grains, which make matters even worse), when their natural diet consists of plain grass.
If you’re under the age of 40 or so, and have never spent time on a real farm, chances are you have a rather dim concept of just how different today’s food production is from traditional, time-tested farming practices.
These differences have monumental ramifications for our environment, for the health and wellbeing of the animals being raised, and for your own health.
There are basically two very different models of food production today. The first, and most prevalent, is the large-scale agricultural model that takes a very mechanistic view toward life, whereas the other - the local, sustainable farm model - has a biological and holistic view.

American Meat

The featured documentary, American Meat,1 is “a pro-farmer look at chicken, hog and cattle production in America.” The film features full-time organic farmers Joel Salatin, owner of Polyface farms in Virginia; Chuck Wirtz, a life-long hog farmer; and Dr. Fred Kirschenmann, who manages a family farm in North Dakota.
Beginning with a history of our current industrial system, the feedlots and confinement operations are unveiled, not through hidden cameras, but through the eyes of the farmers who live and work there.
From there, the story shifts to Polyface Farms, where the Salatin family has developed an alternative agricultural model based on rotational grazing and local distribution.  Nationwide, a local-food movement of farmers, chefs, and everyday people has taken root.” ~ American Meat2
As a physician, it's obvious to me - and I'm sure most of you viewing this - that the food you eat plays a major role in your health. Sadly, as a society, we've strayed so far from our dietary roots and become so disconnected from our food sources that our health is now in serious jeopardy.
About 90 percent of the money Americans spend on food is spent on processed foods,3 and the health of the average American is a testament to the abject failure of such foods to support good health. It's a proven fact that factory farmed and processed foods are far more likely to cause illness than unadulterated, organically-grown foods.
Fortunately, more and more people are now beginning to recognize this, and are making efforts to get back to real food - the kind of food grown by the dedicated farmers featured in this film.

The Invention of CAFOs

Chickens, like most animals and humans, depend on sunlight to produce vitamin D, and as such spend a great deal of time outdoors pecking around for bugs, which is their natural diet.
Alas, once farmers realized they could simply add vitamin D and other vitamins and medications to chicken feed, they also realized they no longer had to let the chickens outdoors. And with that the CAFO chicken farm was born...
Chicken CAFO’s took root in the 1950’s, followed by cattle and hog CAFO’s in the 1970’s and ‘80’s respectively. Today, CAFO’s dominate all livestock and poultry production in the US, and gone are hundreds of thousands of small farms that simply could no longer compete in this new market setup.
The intensive animal farming methods of today were developed to increase food production while pushing down prices. And while successful in that respect, it has given rise to a number of significant problems that probably were not considered at the outset, when increasing capacity to feed the sprawling suburbs were foremost on everyone’s mind.
For example, about 95 percent of the eggs produced in the US now come from gigantic egg factories housing millions of hens under one roof. You can only imagine how difficult – if not impossible – it is to keep millions of birds in one location and still produce a product that's safe to eat.

CAFO’s Promote Food-Borne and Antibacterial-Resistant Disease

Chickens raised in these unsanitary conditions are far more likely to be contaminated with pathogens, and to lay contaminated eggs. In one British study, 23 percent of farms with caged hens tested positive for Salmonella compared to just over 4 percent in organic flocks, and 6.5 percent in free-range flocks.
The problem of contamination is not limited to the eggs these chickens produce, but also to the meat. To combat the potent threat of disease caused by crowded conditions, unnatural diets and inability to roam free, cage-raised chickens have to be given routine doses of antibiotics and other drugs, all of which have serious health implications, including the spread of antibiotic-resistant pathogens in humans.
It has even been suggested that a growing number of antibiotic-resistant cases of urinary tract infections in women are linked to the overuse of antibiotics in chickens, and their resultant drug-resistant bacteria strains transferring to humans.4
The lesson here is, the closer you can get to the "backyard barnyard," the better. You'll want to get your chickens and eggs from smaller community farms with free-ranging hens, organically fed and locally marketed. This is the way poultry was done for centuries... before it was corrupted by politics, corporate greed and the blaring ignorance of the food industry.
Fortunately, finding high-quality pastured chickens and organic eggs is relatively easy, as virtually every rural area has small farmers with chickens. If you live in an urban area, visiting the local health food stores and farmers' markets are typically the quickest route to finding high-quality local egg sources.

Why I Only Recommend Eating Organic Grass-Fed Beef

When it comes to red meat, pasture-fed and finished beef is vastly superior to grain-fed beef, and in my view it’s the only beef worth eating. Keep in mind that it’s far more important to choose “grass-fed” than “organic,” as most grass-fed beef are also organic anyway. Not only is grass-fed beef raised in a more sustainable way for the environment, and a more humane way for the animal, but it’s the superior choice for your health.
That said, be aware that there is a load of deception when it comes to grass-fed beef, so be sure to ask your seller if it is grass finished as that is the key to make sure the animals are not fed grains.  Ideally the pasture should be raised on a cocktail cover crop and provide high quality pasture for the cattle.
The natural diet for ruminant animals, such as cattle, is grass. When left to feed on grass-only diets, levels of conjugated linoleic acid, or CLA are three to five times more than those fed grain-based diets. And that's just for starters. A joint effort between the USDA and Clemson University researchers in 2009 determined a total of 10 key areas where grass-fed beef is better than grain-fed for human health.5 In a side-by-side comparison, they determined that grass-fed beef was:
Lower in total fatHigher in total omega-3s
Higher in beta-caroteneA healthier ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 fatty acids (1.65 vs 4.84)
Higher in vitamin E (alpha-tocopherol)Higher in CLA (cis-9 trans-11), a potential cancer fighter
Higher in the B-vitamins thiamin and riboflavinHigher in vaccenic acid (which can be transformed into CLA)
Higher in the minerals calcium, magnesium, and potassiumLower in the saturated fats linked with heart disease

Avoid Consuming too Much Meat

While I’m a strong advocate of regularly consuming animal protein for its nutritional benefits, it is my observation that most people eat too much animal protein overall.  It would be very unusual for most people reading this to need more than four to six ounces of beef or chicken a day. That is not very much.  Additionally, if a personal or spiritual belief limit or prevent you from eating meat, fish, eggs, or dairy, these food items can easily be substituted. However you’ll still want to limit your protein to about one-half gram per pound of lean body mass unless you are doing strength training or are pregnant, in which case you would benefit from about 25 percent more protein per day.

Yes, You CAN Grow and Raise Your Own Food

Real Meat reveals many of the simple and age-tested techniques used to raise chickens, pigs and other livestock at Polyface Farm, run by Joel Salatin. I’ve previously toured Salatin’s farm and interviewed him about his methods as well. Salatin is a sustainable farming pioneer who has also devised a number of creative processes that allow small farmers to grow food in a more efficient manner.  One of Salatin’s inventions is the “Egg Mobile,” which allows the farmer to easily move chickens from one paddock to another. By dividing the land into sections (paddocks), and rotating cattle and chickens through the paddocks in turn, you can take full advantage of their symbiotic relationships.
Every couple of days, cows are moved into a new paddock where there’s fresh grass. The cows eat the grass and deposit manure, which attracts insects and worms. When the cows are moved into the next paddock, the chickens are wheeled into the first, where there’s now plenty of natural food for the chickens to eat. This system can work quite well for many small farmers. You don’t have to become a full-fledged farmer to raise your own food, however.
Growing sprouts is probably the easiest, least time-consuming and most inexpensive way to get started growing your own nutritious food. Unlike a conventional vegetable garden, you’ll have food ready for harvest in about one week, and sprouts are among the most nutrient-dense foods out there. Depending on the sprout, the nutrient content can increase as much as 30 times the original value within just a few days of sprouting!
When it comes to animals, chickens are well-suited for a wide variety of locales, and raising chickens for fresh eggs can be another great way to “get your feet wet,” provided you have the right setting, and a little more time. Depending on the breed of the chicken, and the amount of daylight it receives, a chicken will typically lay one egg every 36 hours or so. (They will typically stop laying eggs over the winter, unless artificial day light is provided.)  If you are interested in the possibility of raising a few chickens yourself, a good place to begin is by asking yourself the following questions. You can also visit Joel's Polyface Farm Web site for more details on raising chickens.
  1. Can I dedicate some time each day? You can expect to devote about 10 minutes a day, an hour per month, and a few hours twice a year to the care and maintenance of your brood.
  2. Do I have enough space? They will need a minimum of 10 square feet per bird to roam, preferably more. The more foraging they can do, the healthier and happier they'll be and the better their eggs will be.
  3. What are the chicken regulations in my town? You will want to research this before jumping in because some places have zoning restrictions and even noise regulations (which especially applies if you have a rooster).
  4. Are my neighbors on board with the idea? It's a good idea to see if they have any concerns early on. When they learn they might be the recipients of occasional farm-fresh eggs, they might be more agreeable.
  5. Can I afford a flock? There are plenty of benefits to growing your own eggs, but saving money isn't one of them. There are significant upfront costs to getting a coop set up, plus ongoing expenses for supplies.

Support Sustainable Agriculture by Buying “Real” Food

If you want to optimize your health, you simply must return to the basics of healthy food choices. And, as Joel Salatin says in the film, you CAN farm! It’s all a matter of scale. As just mentioned, you can start really small by growing some sprouts to eat with your daily meal. This can progress to a larger organic garden; using pots and planters if you live in an apartment, or by dedicating a part of your back yard to a vegetable garden. If you have the time and space, you could move up to chickens.
Besides growing and raising your own, buying your food from responsible, high-quality, sustainable sources is your best bet, and I strongly encourage you to support the small family farms in your area. This includes not only visiting the farm directly, if you have one nearby, but also taking part in farmer's markets and community-supported agriculture programs. Not only is the food so much tastier and healthier when you get it from sustainable, non-CAFO sources, but there is something about shopping for fresh foods in an open-air, social environment that just feels right. If you want to experience some of these benefits first-hand, here are some great resources to obtain wholesome food that supports not only you but also the environment:
  1. Alternative Farming Systems Information Center, Community Supported Agriculture (CSA)
  2. Farmers' Markets -- A national listing of farmers' markets.
  3. Local Harvest -- This Web site will help you find farmers' markets, family farms, and other sources of sustainably grown food in your area where you can buy produce, grass-fed meats, and many other goodies.
  4. Eat Well Guide: Wholesome Food from Healthy Animals -- The Eat Well Guide is a free online directory of sustainably raised meat, poultry, dairy, and eggs from farms, stores, restaurants, inns, and hotels, and online outlets in the United States and Canada.
  5. Community Involved in Sustaining Agriculture (CISA) -- CISA is dedicated to sustaining agriculture and promoting the products of small farms.
  6. FoodRoutes -- The FoodRoutes “Find Good Food” map can help you connect with local farmers to find the freshest, tastiest food possible. On their interactive map, you can find a listing for local farmers, CSAs, and markets near you.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Tuesday, October 1, 2013

Forbes.com Names Virginia America’s “Best State for Business”

English: The state seal of Virginia. Српски / ...
English: The state seal of Virginia. Српски / Srpski: Застава америчке савезне државе Вирџиније. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
~ Commonwealth Ranked 2nd in 2010, 2011, 2012 ~
Virginia Only State to Rank in Top Five in Four of Study’s Six Categories
Forbes.com: “The U.S. economy continues to sputter along with an outlook that is cloudy….. But pockets of the U.S. are primed for growth thanks to pro-business regulatory environments, educated workforces and reasonable business costs. Leading the way is Virginia….”


RICHMOND – Governor Bob McDonnell today announced that Forbes.com has named Virginia America’s “Best State for Business.” The Commonwealth reclaims the title after being awarded the No. 2 ranking from 2010-2012.  Virginia finished in the top five in four of the study’s six categories, the only state with such a strong across-the-board showing.

            Speaking about today’s announcement, Governor McDonnell said, “Virginia is the best state in America for business. Our desirable business climate continues to be recognized by prestigious, independent third parties like Forbes.com, and we are thrilled to regain the No. 1 spot as “Best State for Business.” This award is a great testament to the Commonwealth’s transportation infrastructure, education system, skilled workforce, regulatory environment and excellent quality of life, all of which lead to strong economic growth.  Since taking office we have worked across party lines to bring people together to put in place policies that spur private-sector job creation. We have invested wisely in the core functions of government most essential to Virginia’s future, from our world class colleges and universities to our K-12 system; from our economic development programs to our transportation infrastructure. Today, unemployment is down and more Virginians are working. This announcement is a further demonstration that Virginia is leading the nation forward in this economic recovery. We are demonstrating how we can work together in government to provide the infrastructure and resources the private-sector needs to grow and create the great paying jobs Virginians deserve.”

North Dakota was ranked second by Forbes.com, followed by Utah, North Carolina, and Colorado. Nebraska, Texas, Minnesota, Washington and Georgia rounded out the top 10 list.

The Forbes.com ranking considers states’ business costs (cost of labor, energy, and taxes), labor supply (educational attainment, net migration, and projected population growth), regulatory environment (regulatory and tort environment, incentives, and bond ratings), economic climate (job, income, and gross state product growth, as well as unemployment and corporate headquarter relocations), growth prospects (projected job, income, and gross state product growth, as well as announced business openings and closings), and quality of life (index of schools, health, crime, cost of living, and poverty rates).

            Virginia placed first in regulatory environment; second in labor supply; fourth in quality of life; fifth in economic climate; 17th in growth prospects; and 22nd in business costs.

According to Forbes.com, “A diverse economy, strong workforce and pro-business regulatory climate propels the Old Dominion state to the No. 1 ranking. Virginia ranks first among the states in the regulatory category because of its business-friendly government policies and strong incentive offerings. The tort system is one of the best in the country for businesses, according to the Mercatus Center’s Freedom in the 50 States.”

The full rankings can be found HERE.
Enhanced by Zemanta