Along with being both timely and timeless, the critical importance of Mark Levin’s latest, Ameritopia: The Unmaking of America, rests in its unique ability to empower and inform the Conservative, or activist, political junkie, and average citizen with a genuine interest in contemporary American politics.

Timely because it cuts to the heart of the political struggle playing out in 2012, timeless in that it’s a concise yet thorough primer addressing the two core philosophies that drive all American politics, the depth of understanding of both Liberalism and Conservatism and the critical struggle between them it provides represents a wealth of information and insight to empower the Conservative and political activist of today.

From government in general, to the particulars of the American experiment embodied in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution, Levin extensively quotes unique and important thinkers, such as Plato, More, Hobbes and Marx on behalf of the utopianist view; with thinkers like Locke, Montesquieu, de Tocqueville and others representing the individualist, or Conservative view as we know it today.

Interspersed with extensive, insightful commentary by Levin himself, one comes to understand the bedrock, theory and practice of two very different political ideologies and how they apply to contemporary American politics playing out on a day-to-day basis, as well as in every election year.

Broadly at issue is, how will man structure himself, so as to function within a society. The utopianist would hold that said society must be structured from the top down, with rules, roles, regulations and laws all purportedly designed for the common good being issued from on high. The individualist, free-thinking, or conservative view would hold that, at the core of all civil society rests the individual, with his natural rights and inclinations, both good and bad, the ideal society being represented by a governmental authority that manifests the least amount of control possible, so as to empower the freedom, happiness and productivity of the individual.

By tracing the development of these two critical schools of thinking from their earliest beginnings, in theory, practice and thought, following them right up to today, one comes to understand American society as existing within a polarity between the two competing schools, with every political decision, be it a vote, or government mandate, as impacting precisely where within said polarity an American must live out his, or her life every day.

(more…)

As a child, I used to play with the neighbors across the street in one of the coolest sandboxes one could imagine. It was built into the landscape, with giant boulders lining the back and sides. Five kids could easily play in it, building sandcastles and manipulating bulldozers and dump trucks to their hearts content. Hours could go by before being called home to dinner. There was only one problem… neighborhood cats considered that magical place as their personal giant sized litter box. We were often told, sadly, that we could not play in it because of this ongoing problem.

These past few months, renting a home in a beach community has allowed my dog and I the opportunity to take a daily walk along the shore, where I hunt for shells, watch for porpoise, and occasionally exchange niceties with the fisherman who set up their poles in the sand, and with the locals who are also enjoying their surroundings. Every day, I thank my blessings that I’ve been given this chance to live in such surroundings but my happiness is often interrupted by dogs roaming the beach, unleashed, in violation of the rules which are clearly posted at each entrance. Not only do these dogs defecate on the sand but often they are not well behaved, running at leashed dogs, children, solitary walkers, and anyone within their proximity.

I do not fault the dogs. I am a dog lover and I understand that dogs are social creatures. My problem is with the owners who clearly do not consider that some dogs may respond aggressively to such provocation, children and adults may be afraid of their beloved pets, and some beachcombers may not want to worry about stepping on dog feces, let alone experience being showered by a dog shaking out its wet fur, when their intention is to savor the sand and water running between their toes. The worst offenders do not attempt to corral their dogs around other people and assume because their dogs are friendly, all is well with the world. They do not comprehend the compromise which allows both dogs and people to enjoy this pristine environment.

The Framers understood the importance of balance, which is clearly needed to allow for maximum individual rights but at the same time allows for people to live together in a community. They believed that factions or groups of people should not be able to impinge on the rights of others.

(more…)

Our nation will spend more than $40 trillion over the next ten years with at least $15 trillion in deficit spending, while Congress is arguing about how to reduce that deficit by all of 8% – really?  With this nonsense debate going on, Mr. Obama has abdicated his presidency and is now campaigning for reelection on a full-time basis.  The rest of the world, meanwhile, is simply falling apart.

The Muslim Brotherhood is coming to power in Egypt, Iran is moving deliberately toward nuclear armament and Europe is proving that socialist democracies will fall at their own hand.  In the midst of this turmoil, the media has our people focusing on why the top 1% paying 50% of all federal taxes falls short of “their fair share” and why entitlements and government needs to keep growing.  We are missing the point – eliminate the noise and the real debate is simply whether our children live free or for the benefit of the state?

Let’s forget all the facts and figures about our growing debt and the increasing involvement of government in our lives and focus on the fundamental definition of liberty: liberty is the freedom from arbitrary control; it is freedom to exercise the unalienable rights endowed upon us by our Creator; it is freedom from oppressive power exerted by government; and it is freedom from all forms of tyranny.  While people demand that their neighbors who may be better off economically should be ordered – by law – to share their success with them, what they are really promoting is the ascendancy of the state over the people.  What they are missing is that they are demanding the suppression of liberty for their neighbors, themselves and their own children.

The systematic destruction of our economic strength through increased regulation, increased taxation on the job creators, a 50% increase in the national debt in just the last three years and an equal increase in the dependency on foreign governments to fund our debt has turned our nation upside down.  We have gone from the world’s last hope to a sideshow and find our great country powerless to help prevent ally nations from economic decline and powerless to stop the rise of tyrannical regimes.

(more…)

Looking at the Atlantic Ocean off the Virginia Beach coast, I occasionally see US Navy ships on the horizon, F-18 Hornets flying in formation, the Coast Guard helicopter overhead, and porpoise darting in and out of the waves; it’s just a part of the scenery. Having lived in Glenview, Illinois, in the years prior to the naval base closing, and outside Annapolis, Maryland, for a year, I’m very used to seeing our men and women in uniform and experiencing a military presence where I reside. What changes for me is a deeper appreciation for the job our military performs and for the freedom we cannot take for granted.

Most of the time I can go about my life following a routine that includes working on the Constitutional Literacy curriculum for our BasicsProject.org website, writing articles about the relevance of our Fundamental Law, taking my daily constitutional along the beach, and performing the chores that demand my attention, but never far from these distractions is the daily reminder that there are men and women who have dedicated themselves to our security; who have placed their lives in harm’s way to protect this absolutely ordinary life I am privileged to lead.

Perhaps the best way to really understand this reality is to contrast it with another. Around the world there are people who live in countries where citizens have never experienced the freedoms that our government was instituted to protect, who will never have the opportunities afforded to Americans to innovate, lead, and maintain the lifestyle to which we are accustomed. It is almost obscene to think that in some countries, children are subject to diseases long eradicated in our own country, hungry because there is never enough food to satisfy their appetites, and whose safety is at risk because fighting factions are unconcerned about the accidental loss of life during skirmishes and all out war between groups vying for power.

Every four years we experience an election in this country in which power of office is transferred peacefully from one person to another. How many Americans have endured a coup, war between an enemy power and our troops on native soil, or lived with the uncertainty which can stem from a majority faction taking power and changing the laws under which we operate. This is because our written Constitution was designed to preserve our rights while providing the stability to grow stronger and wealthier as a nation.
(more…)

The folks from the Koch Institute put together a great video a couple of months ago looking at why some nations are rich and others are poor.

That video looked at the relationship between economic freedom and various indices that measure quality of life. Not surprisingly, free markets and small government lead to better results.

Now they have a new video that looks at recent developments in the United States. Unfortunately, you will learn that the U.S. is slipping in the wrong direction.

The entire video is superb, but there are two things that merit special praise, one because of intellectual honesty and the other because of intellectual effectiveness.

1. The refreshingly honest aspect of the video is its non-partisan tone. It explains, in a neutral fashion, that Bush undermined prosperity by making government bigger and that Obama is undermining prosperity by increasing the burden of government.

2. The most important and effective argument in the video, at least from my perspective, is that it shows clearly that a larger government necessarily comes at the expense of the productive sector of the economy. Pay extra-close attention around the 2:00 mark.

It’s also worth pointing out that there are several policies that impact on economic performance. The Koch Institute video focuses primarily on the key issues of fiscal policy and regulation, but trade, monetary policy, property rights, and rule of law are examples of other policies that also are very important.

(more…)

My brand is Safer Streets 2012 because of one essence: safer streets as we all want them are an indicator of a healthier self-rule.

You will not get to safer streets nor a self-rule without smaller government first, and that will not come as long as there is gun control. Everything else, every delay, every complication, is lip service, designed to waylay our time, energy and spirit away from anything productive, giving us the feeling that we are directing things, but actually wasting our time.

We’ve made some friends and allies in Congress and we have unseated some foes of liberty, but some of us still have the impression that we’re not getting the cooperation we need. Somewhere in there, the new freshmen believe, there is such a thing as sensible gun regulation.

There isn’t. Gun laws are incompatible with liberty. All gun laws.

In Part I, I said that in time of violence, when the target of crime is armed, there is more law present, more public policy present, and more public interest served than by all 20,000 gun laws in force. With a majority of states affirming second amendment latitude, it is clear what their public consensus is. The major cities are out of step.

In Part I, I said that we are the Sovereign, and that our 2012 candidates must acknowledge this on the stump. They should be asked outright and they must affirm this by the repeal of all gun laws, please.

The repeal of all gun laws will unveil one powerful societal dynamic, and that is the personal independence of the individual. When crime is fought best at the scene of the crime and not exclusively after the fact, say, for instance, detection, interdiction, apprehension and the administration of justice, it is because independence has been brought to bear on the problem when it can do the most good. Our greater independence from our own public servants is critical to everything from personal safety to prosperity. Our independence from our servants is critical to self-rule and safer streets.

(more…)

“Each time in history that a society has tried to materialize a utopic vision of a perfect world, it has produced the most brutal and criminal regimes.” – Mario Vargas Llosa

Nobel Laureate and Atlas Templeton Leadership Fellow, Mario Vargas Llosa, was once a typical left-wing artist.  But after witnessing first-hand the evil regimes created by government socialism, he is now one of the world’s most important free market advocates.

Watch the short video here:

(more…)

“War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling that thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he will fight, nothing that is more important than his own personal safety is a more miserable creature and has no chance of ever being free unless by the efforts of greater men then himself. “

-John Stuart Mill

I read this quote in the past couple days and it struck me square in the face. The ideology of modern western thought was forged on the American continent from the effort and struggle to survive that imbued us with a fierce sense of independent thought and rugged individualism culminating with the DECLARATION of INDEPENDENCE and the birth of a nation. This is what the Declaration of Independence was talking about in the first paragraphs. All people are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights”. It is so obvious the writers of this document had deep values precious to them and worth capturing on paper.

At this point in history, monarchies monopolized governments in countries around the world. And our colonies were ruled by leadership more than 3,000 miles away …. But everyone has their limit, right?

The early Americans had been taxed and humiliated by unjust laws and ignorant leadership. Colonial Americans knew what was being done to them was wrong and they felt ANYTHING was better than what was happening to them. So, they chose to stand for a simple notion: Man is in control of his own destiny.

(more…)

Glenn Reynolds in today’s Washington Examiner:

While Independence Day is about independence from Great Britain, today it’s also associated with more general notions of freedom — individual independence, not just political independence.

Unfortunately, America’s political class doesn’t want you independent. It wants you as dependent as possible. As the Rainmakers sang back in the 1980s, “They’ll turn us all into beggars ’cause they’re easier to please.”

So what can you do? Everybody focuses on the 2012 elections, and those are important. But why wait? Here are three things you can do now.

(more…)

On June 24, 2011, thousands gathered outside New York City’s Stonewall Inn, anxiously awaiting the New York State Senate’s vote on legalizing gay marriage.

When news came that the bill had passed on a narrow 33-29 vote, the crowd erupted with joy.

Stonewall is widely considered the birthplace of the modern gay rights movement. Forty-two years ago this weekend, a brutal raid by the New York’s Police Department set off a spontaneous and prolonged rebellion that lead to the establishment of annual “Gay Pride” weekends around the world, and the slow and steady march toward equal protection under the law.

As the New York Times reported (and Nick Gillespie noted on Hit & Run), the bill’s approval ultimately swung on Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s appeal to several libertarian-leaning investors.

“Gay marriage is really just a fight about whether the government should be allowed to regulate personal liberty,” noted New York Magazine’s Chadwick Matlin. “On that, libertarians side with liberals.”

(more…)

Like a wily serpent lurking in the dark corners of unsuspecting places waiting to strike, so is the personality of the collectivist mind that is rotting America both socially and economically. Those of a conservative or libertarian mind are aware and on guard for the frontal attack of this beast when it tries to strike using direct government schemes and programs. And we are aware of how the entitlement programs and welfare state are a direct assault on the American philosophy of individual liberty and free market capitalism. But what if this snake is attacking us from dark corners that go unnoticed?

Let’s take two big issues, health care and long term financial security or retirement funding. These are two of the biggest issues we face as people, because they are critical and significant areas of life that concern everyone. For a long time we’ve had social security, Medicare and Medicaid crammed down our throats and washed down by some liberal progressive dogma, and are now told that two of the biggest concerns we face in our lives are no longer a concern because big brother has our back. Well the bill is coming due on this scheme, and it’s coming due on state and local government pension promises. It came due in the private sector with companies like GM, which was being crushed under an unsustainable health care and union pension system until we bailed them out. And it’s going to come due at your company soon, at least as it relates to your healthcare, because prices cannot continue to exponentially go up and companies be expected to pay.

The issue lost in the rhetoric of the traditional left/right argument is not about circumstances and poor people, but rather one of philosophy. Collective systems operate on a kind of “parent-child” philosophy. Citizens are told they are children who cannot take full responsibility for themselves and instead are taught to rely on their parents. Bureaucratic systems take care of them, decide the right choices for them, and always tell them that the system has their best interests at heart. The parent tells the child that they can’t be trusted. That the enemy out there will not protect their future but destroy their future. To the collective the enemy is the individual. And the individual is you! What has happened to the responsibility and empowerment of “doing it yourself”? We are not children and the parental control system is not taking care of us!

(more…)

Recently, I got into a big fight with my cube-mate.  After attacking him for his listening to Bill Maher during the workday, he shot back and mocked my Glenn Beck listening.  As if there was some moral equivalence between the two.

“But Beck’s predictions have been right throughout the last two years.  Why would you not at least give him a listen?” I questioned.  My Georgetown-educated cube-mate shot back: “Because most of the people that listen to Glenn Beck are uneducated mid-westerners.”  Infuriated, I protested “Do you have any idea how arrogant and elitist you sound right now?”  Leave aside the irony that I was attacking his condescension while as a colleague of ours pointed out, showing beneath my loafers were our company holiday gift socks dotted with various currencies.

As my cube-mate went on to say, though he conceded that government should not be all-encompassing, “I want smart people to make decisions for people.”  In other words, us silly hicks are incapable of governing ourselves.  This is the fatal conceit of which F.A. Hayek wrote that reflects the attitude of the intellectual class today.  Why is it fatal?

First, the “highly educated intellectual” today routinely receives a subpar education.  Believe me, I went through it at Columbia, one of the few remaining schools with any semblance of a valuable curriculum.  A real education is about teaching the pupil to think critically.  Routinely, education today is more about spending time in science classes listening to professors talk about the merits of joining the Peace Corps (yes, this happened to me), iconoclastic gender, race and political studies courses and cultural Marxist programming of the heirs apparent of the political, economic and cultural hierarchy of the country.

Of those who graduate from these institutions and matriculate to the political realm, the progressive ethic pervades.  And what is this ethic?  The elite must decide for the sheep.

(more…)

From The Law, by Frederic Bastiat:

Actually, what is the political struggle that we witness? It is the instinctive struggle of all people toward liberty. And what is this liberty, whose very name makes the heart beat faster and shakes the world? Is it not the union of all liberties — liberty of conscience, of education, of association, of the press, of travel, of labor, of trade? In short, is not liberty the freedom of every person to make full use of his faculties, so long as he does not harm other persons while doing so? Is not liberty the destruction of all despotism — including, of course, legal despotism? Finally, is not liberty the restricting of the law only to its rational sphere of organizing the right of the individual to lawful self- defense; of punishing injustice?

It must be admitted that the tendency of the human race toward liberty is largely thwarted, especially in France. This is greatly due to a fatal desire — learned from the teachings of antiquity — that our writers on public affairs have in common: They desire to set themselves above mankind in order to arrange, organize, and regulate it according to their fancy.

Philanthropic Tyranny

While society is struggling toward liberty, these famous men who put themselves at its head are filled with the spirit of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. They think only of subjecting mankind to the philanthropic tyranny of their own social inventions. Like Rousseau, they desire to force mankind docilely to bear this yoke of the public welfare that they have dreamed up in their own imaginations.

This was especially true in 1789. No sooner was the old regime destroyed than society was subjected to still other artificial arrangements, always starting from the same point: the omnipotence of the law.

Listen to the ideas of a few of the writers and politicians during that period:

SAINT-JUST: “The legislator commands the future. It is for him to will the good of mankind. It is for him to make men what he wills them to be.”

ROBESPIERRE: “The function of government is to direct the physical and moral powers of the nation toward the end for which the commonwealth has come into being.”

BILLAUD-VARENNES: “A people who are to be returned to liberty must be formed anew. A strong force and vigorous action are necessary to destroy old prejudices, to change old customs, to correct depraved affections, to restrict superfluous wants, and to destroy ingrained vices…. Citizens, the inexible austerity of Lycurgus created the firm foundation of the Spartan republic. The weak and trusting character of Solon plunged Athens into slavery. This parallel embraces the whole science of government.”

LE PELLETIER: “Considering the extent of human degradation, I am convinced that it is necessary to effect a total regeneration and, if I may so express myself, of creating a new people.”

The Socialists Want Dictatorship

Again, it is claimed that persons are nothing but raw material. It is not for them to will their own improvement; they are incapable of it. According to Saint- Just, only the legislator is capable of doing this. Persons are merely to be what the legislator wills them to be. According to Robespierre, who copies Rousseau literally, the legislator begins by decreeing the end for which the commonwealth has come into being. Once this is determined, the government has only to direct the physical and moral forces of the nation toward that end. Meanwhile, the inhabitants of the nation are to remain completely passive. And according to the teachings of Billaud- Varennes, the people should have no prejudices, no affections, and no desires except those authorized by the legislator. He even goes so far as to say that the inflexible austerity of one man is the foundation of a republic.

In cases where the alleged evil is so great that ordinary governmental procedures cannot cure it, Mably recommends a dictatorship to promote virtue: “Resort,” he says, “to an extraordinary tribunal with considerable powers for a short time. The imagination of the citizens needs to be struck a hard blow.” This doctrine has not been forgotten. Listen to Robespierre:

“The principle of the republican government is virtue, and the means required to establish virtue is terror. In our country we desire to substitute morality for selfishness, honesty for honor, principles for customs, duties for manners, the empire of reason for the tyranny of fashion, contempt of vice for contempt of poverty, pride for insolence, greatness of soul for vanity, love of glory for love of money, good people for good companions, merit for intrigue, genius for wit, truth for glitter, the charm of happiness for the boredom of pleasure, the greatness of man for the littleness of the great, a generous, strong, happy people for a good-natured, frivolous, degraded people; in short, we desire to substitute all the virtues and miracles of a republic for all the vices and absurdities of a monarchy.”

Dictatorial Arrogance

At what a tremendous height above the rest of mankind does Robespierre here place himself! And note the arrogance with which he speaks. He is not content to pray for a great reawakening of the human spirit. Nor does he expect such a result from a well-ordered government. No, he himself will remake mankind, and by means of terror.

This mass of rotten and contradictory statements is extracted from a discourse by Robespierre in which he aims to explain the principles of morality which ought to guide a revolutionary government. Note that Robespierre’s request for dictatorship is not made merely for the purpose of repelling a foreign invasion or putting down the opposing groups. Rather he wants a dictatorship in order that he may use terror to force upon the country his own principles of morality. He says that this act is only to be a temporary measure preceding a new constitution. But in reality, he desires nothing short of using terror to extinguish from France selfishness, honor, customs, manners, fashion, vanity, love of money, good companionship, intrigue, wit, sensuousness, and poverty. Not until he, Robespierre, shall have accomplished these miracles, as he so rightly calls them, will he permit the law to reign again

We are hearing a great deal about a budding “Democracy movement” spreading throughout the Middle East. Many are calling it an “Arab Spring.” The belief is that after centuries of totalitarian oppression, the Arab street is suddenly pining for more freedom; rebelling against the elitist ruling class of kings, emirs, despots and tyrants. This is most likely true for a great number of those filling the streets of Egypt, Syria, Tunisia, Bahrain and myriad other Middle Eastern, predominantly Muslim nations. But there is a less than honorable component amongst the rebellion that simply waits for the “right” to a democratic vote. Contrary to how the idea of a move to Democracy presents, in the volatile Middle East there are elements in play that could make it a move in the wrong direction.

Each and every day we hear the misnomer that the United States of America is a Democracy. We hear it from the average man on the street, the mainstream media and even from those we have elected to office. But the fact of the matter is this: we are not a Democracy. We are a Constitutional Republic. A thorough and convincing exhibit of the facts surrounding this reality is presented in Notes on Democracy: And the Republic for Which It Stands. The fact that this issue is even in need of address is a scathing commentary on the constitutional illiteracy of the American electorate and serves as a sobering reminder that, often times, what sounds good – what “feels good” – isn’t always as it presents.

The distinction – between the benefits of a Democracy and a Constitutional Republic – is incredibly important, and while some describe our nation as a Democracy in an error of ignorance, others – some with schemes of political opportunism – do so with a nefarious purpose and bad intentions.

James Madison, recognized as the Father of the US Constitution, said this about factions and Democracy in Federalist No. 10:

“Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people…From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.”

Why is this important in the context of what is happening in the Middle East at this very moment?

(more…)

To listen to the debates on the deficit and the debt, one would think that wealth emanates from the government. Underlying every argument is the notion that government cuts imply pain and pose a drastic threat to our economy.

But government spending itself is pain because all money spent by the government represents the confiscation of today’s wealth or future wealth, via direct taxation, currency devaluation or debt ad infinitum. By taking current wealth out of private hands, it is allocated not according to a market economy driven by the people but by a political economy in which “investment” yields returns solely for the politicians in the form of votes and favored classes in the form of monetary or regulatory handouts; by devaluation, savers are wiped out and borrowers and spenders are rewarded, a sure-fire way to bankrupt a people, given that economies grow through savings and investment, not consumption; by piling on the debt, the government pushes up interest rates for all of us, leading investment to flow out of the US and crushing corporations and individuals alike.

All government today rests upon a premise that people should be lucky that they get to keep a percentage of the fruits of their labor, with government rightfully conferring benefits on the interests that support it. Which is why it was never intended for government to be in the business of conferring benefits in the first place – and I mean benefits to anyone, be it labor unions, corporations or particular classes of people.

The burden should have always been on the politician to prove to his elector why ANY dollar taken from the individual should be redistributed to someone else. For government’s clearly defined bounds were created to ensure that the usurpation of wealth from private citizens would be minimal, and occur only when it supported a service that all people benefitted equally from, such as our national defense.

(more…)

Fascinating profile of Charles and David Koch in The Weekly Standard:

A few years ago Richard Fink told Charles and David [Koch] to prepare for the worst. The brothers were raising their political profile, Fink said, and that would come at a cost. There would be a lot of name-calling. Their opponents would impugn their beliefs, characters, and business. Charles understood what Fink was talking about. “I believed that when we were considered effective we would be attacked,” he said. Before Obama’s election, those who were aware of the Kochs’ political activities tended to assume they were tilting at Austrian windmills. The Kochs had an exotic philosophy, but few took them very seriously.

Not anymore. During the fight over health care and cap and trade in 2009 and 2010, liberals went looking for baddies against whom to mobilize public opinion. The Kochs’ wealth and political involvement made them an obvious choice. Reflecting on the ferocity of the onslaught that ensued, Charles told me, “I didn’t anticipate the hatred, the advocacy of violence.” He must not have been paying attention.

(more…)

Wake up America.  We are heading head long into a brick wall and we are ignoring it.  While our elected officials debate spending cuts in the range of $50 billion to $100 billion, our nation is facing trillion dollar deficits for years to come.  The new ten year forecast by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), scrubbed by The Heritage Foundation of unrealistic assumptions the CBO is required to use, predicts an additional $13.6 trillion will be added to the national debt over the next ten years.  Simply put, by 2021 our debt will climb to $27.9 trillion and will require nearly half of all federal income tax revenues just to pay the interest.

The major reason for this crisis is clear, but there is little courage in Washington, D.C. to address it.  Here it is.  Medicare expenditures have grown 81% since 2000 and Medicaid expenditures have grown 87% since 2000.  It gets worse.  Today there are 39 million Americans over the age of 65, but that number has been growing at the average rate of 10,000 per day since January 1^st of this year and will continue to grow at this rate for the next ten years.  Why?  Baby Boomers born between 1946 and 1955, approximately 36 million, will turn 65 over that period of time and become eligible for Medicare.  With life expectancy at 78 for men and 80 for women, we can safely assume that there will be almost twice as many Americans over the age of 65 by 2021.

Persistent slow growth in the economy due the drag of massive federal debt combined with heavily restrictive regulations on business will continue to suppress job growth and force more citizens on Medicaid.  By 2021 the other half of all federal income tax revenue will be required to pay for Medicare and Medicaid.  Even if we assume that Social Security will pay for itself, which will require substantial tax and benefit reform, where will we find the money to fund all other government expenses – including defense and other entitlement programs such as food stamps?  There is not enough rich, middle-class, corporate or any other income that can be taxed more in order to solve this problem.

The only answer is Medicare and Medicaid reform.

(more…)

Henry David Thoreau in his essay Civil Disobedience wrote, “That Government is best which governs least.” Those particular words, written in 1849, summarize the simple truth that the power of the individual and self-reliance in our free society are what has driven the development of American Exceptionalism.  Unfortunately in the 162 years since, our great nation has fallen prey to the dependency of entitlement programs administered by a suddenly powerful central government.  The cost of all this government in our lives, programs that now approximately 50% of our population has become dependent on, has reached unsustainable levels and our liberty is in peril.

The major entitlements of Social Security and Medicare, which all workers pay for through payroll taxes, are only part of the problem.  The future liabilities of these programs can be managed by restructuring the timing of benefits and the manner in which collected taxes are invested.  Future installments in this series will offer some thinking on these matters.  The other part of the problem is the combination of additional entitlement programs and the cost of the large federal bureaucracies to administer these other programs.

In 2011, we will pay out $385 billion in food stamps, $365 billion for the federal portion of Medicaid (with an almost equal amount due from the states), $200 billion in unemployment benefits and over $100 billion in aid to education.  The total cost of these payments will exceed $1 trillion, but the cost of administering these programs will add approximately $300 billion in expenditures to the federal budget.  The Department of Agriculture, the Department of Labor, the Department of Education, the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Housing and Urban Development are largely in place to administer the distribution of government aid.  Excluding defense, these departments and their associated costs represent half of our entire non-military federal government.

Without questioning the necessity of the programs, it is reasonable to question why we need all the extra government to administer them.  One solution is to consider localization of the management of these entitlements by transferring that authority to the states.  Private sector experience has proven that more local operations and management results in lower costs and greater efficiency. Decisions made closer to the source of the need are made faster and by fewer employees. Recognizing that there will be a cost to localized administration, the net impact of eliminating these cabinet level departments and their hundreds of thousands of personal and the associated supportive infrastructure will be a significant reduction in overall costs.

(more…)

Since June 21, 1788 when New Hampshire became the required ninth state to ratify the US Constitution, the seventeen enumerated powers specifically granted to the federal government in the Constitution have slowly expanded to allow central government involvement in virtually all aspects of life in America.  Thomas Jefferson, were he among us today, would call for a second insurance of the Declaration of Independence.  The expansion of those powers resulted from broad interpretation of the Constitution’s commerce clause and general welfare clause for the stated purpose of promoting societal good.  Jefferson warned us about this in his writings with, “Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.”

This gradual erosion of our liberty has only surfaced because of the unsustainable financial support necessary to fund an ever increasing role of government in our lives.  Newly elected Republicans in the 112^th Congress recognized that the financial structure of our nation is at the brink of collapsing under the weight of government that has grown too large for its citizens to support.  They are pressing for deep cuts in spending, but are getting pushed back from President Obama and Democrats whose ideology is rooted in central authority control.  Even if successful, the $100 billion in cuts for the remainder of the 2011 budget, called for by the Republicans, will do little when staring at a projected deficit for 2011 of $1.5 trillion.  This deficit will push our national debt to a level that will threaten our ability to fund our military.  It can spark an inflationary cycle that will spike the cost of food, energy and other commodities resulting in hardships for all citizens and for businesses, which would fail creating higher unemployment.

The Treasury Department is forecasting that our national debt will reach $19.6 trillion by 2015.  If our Gross Domestic Product (GDP) grows at a respectable annual rate of 3.5% over that same period, it will reach $17.7 trillion by 2015, trailing the debt by almost $2 trillion.  Mr. Obama’s recent proposal to cut $1.1 trillion in deficit spending over the next ten years, while the debt is forecast to increase by more than $5 trillion in only five years, is laughable at best and a cruel diversion to mask the truth at worst.  Can you imagine running your family household by planning to spend more than you anticipate your income to grow for ten years?  You would be bankrupt and that is exactly where our nation is heading.

The clash between our federalist style of government (where the states and the people have the power) and an all powerful central government will drive the debate in the 2012 Presidential Election.  However, we need to deal with the financial crisis now.

(more…)