A Huge Problem Requires Bold Solutions

The Problem

The number of pages of tax rules skyrocketed from 40,500 in 1995 to 70,320 in 2009. Congress is increasingly micromanaging society with special tax incentives for education, energy, and other activities.

Federal tax paperwork consumes 7.6 billion hours of time annually, which is like having a full-time "tax army" of 3.8 million people.

There are about 500 changes to the tax code every year as Congress and the Treasury churn out a never-ending stream of laws and regulations.

The share of taxpayers requiring professional help keeps rising, with 62 percent of returns completed by professionals in 2007.

It complicates decision-making in the economy, for example by confusing family financial planning and generating uncertainty for businesses.

It encourages an invasion of privacy by the government. Each new tax incentive requires special documentation, which exposes people to scrutiny by the IRS.

It results in frequent errors by taxpayers and the IRS. Individuals and businesses can get locked into battles with the IRS for years because of uncertain tax rules.

It encourages tax evasion. High tax rates combined with complexity fosters aggressive tax dodging, which prompts Congress to pass even more complex tax regulations.

43 percent of U.S. households don't pay any income tax as a result of all the low-income benefits in the code. Those people perceive federal spending to be costless, and thus they are little interested in tax reform or budget restraint.
source

Mark Levin’s solution

Eliminate the progressive income tax - replace it with a flat income tax or a national sales tax - for its purpose is to redistribute wealth, not fund the constitutionally legitimate functions of the federal government.

All residents of the country must be required to pay the tax so they have a stake in limiting its abuse.

Eliminate the automatic witholding of taxes, for it conceals the extent to which the federal government is confiscating income from its citizens.

Eliminate the corporate income tax, for it is nothing more than double taxation on shareholders and consumers, and penalizes wealth and job creation.

Eliminate the death tax, for it denies citizens the right to confer the material value they have created during their lives to whomever they wish, including their family.

All federal income tax increases will require a supermajority vote of three-fifths of Congress.

Limit federal spending each year to less than 20 percent of the gross domestic product.

Reduce the civilian federal workforce by 20 percent or more.

pilgrim’s modifications to Mark Levin’s solution

Replace the progressive income tax with a dual rate income tax. Under the plan, the individual income tax would be turned into a two-rate tax that eliminated most deductions and credits. Individuals would be taxed at a low 15 percent rate on income up to about $100,000 (singles) and $200,000 (married) and 27 percent above those thresholds. I fear a national sales tax would become just as huge in no time as our current tax code. The opportunities for Congress to do social engineering with respect to different kinds of commodities and what tax would be applied to them is too great IMO. I also agree with Adam Smith that I do not object to wealthier individuals paying more to finance the legitimate functions of government.

In addition to the supermajority votes in Congress I would require that any tax increase bill must include a detailed explanation of how the bill is limited to dealing solely with the enumerated powers that Congress possesses.

The cynical side of me thinks that this will not happen in my lifetime. There are a lot of perks that the Washington, DC establishment are enjoying from the deals they can work out with special interests in fine tuning and writing of additional code into our US tax code. This is true for both Parties. Perhaps the Tea Party movement can provide the impetus to change the business as usual in our Nation's Capitol.

2010 US Senate Freshman Class

In 2010 there are currently 37 seats in the US Senate that are going to be filled. Eight of these seats open and the other 29 have an incumbent running for reelection. I think that the GOP has a good shot at picking up all five of those eight open seats held by the GOP and picking up two of those three seats that are held by Democratic Party. I would hope that the GOP can keep all of the seats the incumbent GOP have an incumbent running for reelection and defeat nine incumbent Democrats running for reelection. If that hope becomes reality, then there will be 51 GOP Senators, 47 Democrat Senators, and two independents who caucus with the Democrats. Ten months ago I could not have imagined this to be a possibility. A lot of good things are going to have to happen, but I really believe it can be done.

Let’s break it down seat by seat, shall we.

The three open seats that are now held by the Democrats are Delaware, Illinois, and Massachusetts. The GOP can capture the Delaware and Illinois seat, and the lady from Massachusetts can be the sole Democrat in the new freshman class.

The five open seats that are now held by the GOP are Florida, Kansas, Missouri, New Hampshire, and Ohio. The GOP can keep these seats.

The really tough part will be defeating nine incumbent Democrats. The five of these nine that I think should be the least difficult are Arkansas, Nevada, North Dakota, Colorado, and Pennsylvania. The people who live in these states are willing to vote for the GOP if the time and effort are put into GOTV.

That leaves four states that will be more difficult to win, but it is still doable. The states I have in mind are Connecticutt, New York, Washington, and Wisconsin.

If the GOP can recruit Rudy Giuliani to run against Kirsten Gillibrand we can pick up New York. Rob Simmons can defeat Chris Dodd, but I think it will be a closer election than what the polls look like now to pick up Conneticutt. I think Clint Didier who played for the Redskins can defeat Patty Murray. I think that Russ Feingold who refuses PAC money can be defeated by Terrence Wall.

This is my dream freshman class of 17 new GOP members to the US Senate and 1 new Democrat. So now I will wait for incoming attacks by mobys and trolls knowing that Neil and Moe are capable of dealing with them. I realize that some may have another individual to win in a GOP Primary than I picked, and it is not my intent to argue with you about that primary. I want and I hope you want a GOP candidate to win the General Election.

Architects of Ruin

I just finished reading Architects of Ruin by Peter Schweizer. It is an excellent investigative report about how leftists wrecked the global economy, and will do it again if no one stops them. The author is not an economist, but his writing style reminds me of Jack Anderson back at a time when there were real investigative reporters. Today there are no real investigative reporters left. They have all been replaced with stenographers who parrot the narrative that the leftists put out there.

The narrative by the leftists is that free market capitalism failed to work to keep the global economy from wrecking. Rep. Barney Frank loudly declared,

the private sector got us into this mess, and the government has to get us out of it.

According to this view, deregulation of the banking industry had encouraged the rise of “predatory lenders” who had pushed home loans on people who couldn’t afford them. Those loans were then sold to unscrupulous Wall Street financiers, who repackaged them in the form of mortgage-backed securities. The securities were sold in turn to mutual funds, pension funds, and various foreign investors. But their value was grossly overstated and ultimately rested on the faulty assumption that housing prices would keep rising indefinitely.

The author investigated and discovered some facts that are ignored by the leftists. Let’s call them inconvenient facts.

1. The banking sector is the most regulated industry in the United States

2. America has not experienced massive deregulation over the past decade. The Bush administration saw new regulations added to the Federal register at the rate of a thousand pages a year.

3. The federal government did not fail to “police” capitalism. In fact the opposite is true. The real culprit is not the market but a socialist distortion of the free market created by the government. Under pressure from liberal activists, the federal government created a series of “protected” markets that were “too big to fail.”

This didn’t happen overnight. It was a massive social engineering project, a grand generational enterprise, thirty years in the making, carried out by an ad hoc alliance of radical activists, labor unions, politicians, federal bureaucrats, and Wall Street financial titans who sought to make owning a home a civil right.

The alliance came about in overlapping stages. The first stage are the radical activists. They would have remained a fringe phenomena had it not been for strong support from liberal politicians in the second stage. The final stage occurred when liberal baby boomers had risen to the top on Wall Street. These new Wall Street bankers believed they could do good and do well by extending credit to poor folks wanting to own homes via new forms of creative finance while at the same time racking up enormous fees and bonuses.

In the introduction the author explains that the purpose of writing this book is to get conservatives to challenge the political fairy tale that the cause of the collapse was unregulated free-market capitalism. Another purpose of this book is to warn conservatives to be on guard against the leftists’ urge to meddle in the economic system, using the power of the state to distort markets in order to advance their goals.

One thing I noticed from reading this book is that a lot of these leftists came from Chicago or nearby. It makes me wonder if there is a lingering effect of Al Capone they have been infected with. I have some quotes from some of these Chicagoans. I also have photos of nine Chicagoans who have had a great impact on the social engineering so you can see what these radicals look like as well as what they speak.

The godfather and patron saint of the radical activists is Saul Alinsky. A famous story about Alinsky has him asking a group of students why they wanted to be community activists. When they offered platitudes about helping others he quickly stopped them with a raised hand.

You want to organize for power!

he screamed at them. He also grasped the value of never letting a crisis go to waste.

Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution.

I feel confident that I could persuade a millionaire on a Friday to subsidize a revolution for Saturday out of which he would make a huge profit on Sunday even though he would be executed on Monday.

A couple of Alinsky disciples are Gale Cincotta and Shel Trapp. They founded National People’s Action (NPA) and its associated National Training and Information Center (NTIC) in 1972. Gales warcry was

We want it. They’ve got it. Let’s go get it.

Jesse Jackson married his patented techniques of racial blackmail with Alinsky’s confrontational methods on Chicago’s South Side. Jesse launched Operation PUSH, and in 1971 he wrote to the UN asking for donations for his organization. UN funds were not forthcoming.

In the mid-1980s a young college graduate, Barack Obama went to the NTIC to learn the essentials of community organizing. The sessions were held on Chicago's South Side, and run by Shel Trapp. Obama would spend four years heading up the Developing Communities Project.

Obama embraced the activist agenda of shaking down banks and forged a close relationship with ACORN. One of his allies was Madeline Talbott, an organizer who was leading the ACORN campaign against Chicago banks. when he ran for the illinois State Senate in 1995, he explained that his goal was to "stand politics on its head." Talbott called him a "kindred spirit."

Hillary Rodham was an admirer and believer in Saul Alinsky. In her senior year in college she wrote a thesis which included this Alinsky quote

In order to organize, you must first polarize. People think of controversy as negative; they think consensus is better. But to organize you need a Bull Connor.

She married Bill Clinton, the 42nd US President, and they brought into the White House additional support for the radical activist.

Deval Patrick became the civil rights chief in the Clinton Justice Department. Patrick had grown up poor in Chicago and claimed to see rampant racism all around him. At his swearing in he promised no less than to "reclaim the American conscience." He mentioned banks in particular, noting that he felt "a personal commitment" to fair lending.

Patrick also had a personal commitment to his own financial well-being. While at Justice, he handled cases against Texaco, Coca-Cola, and Ameriquest on the ground that they engaged in racial discrimination. Shortly after leaving Justice, he would mysteriously be hired by all three to help them with their civil rights problems.

Rahm Emanuel served as Bill Clinton's political director, and the Clinton appointed him to the Freddie Mac board in 2000. He served for fourteen months, attended just seven board meetings, and sat on no committees. Emanuel's primary contribution was explaining to others on the board how to play the levers of power. In exchange he received more than $320,000 in compensation.

This book gives very detailed investigative information about the overlap that has been going on for a while between the radical activists, politicians, and Wall Street bankers. There are obviously several bad actors who hail from somewhere other than Chicago. I think they are all kindred spirits who hide the truth about Alinski's voice reverberating in their heads...

You want to organize for power!

Saul Alinsky

















Gale Cincotta





Shel Trapp













Jesse Jackson





Madeline Talbott





Barrack Obama













Hillary Rodham Clinton





Deval Patrick







Rahm Emanuel

Liberty and Tyranny book review

Mark Levin has written the perfect book for anyone to read and understand what Conservatism is about. He does begin by stating that there is simply no scientific or mathematical formula that defines conservatism. From there on he proceeds to write the perfect book. It is 195 pages divided into ten chapters and a must-read epilogue. I encourage everyone to either buy this book or borrow it from the library to read and enlighten yourself. I’m not going to divulge anything here that should be read directly. I just want to give some examples of quotes and responses by Mark Levin to give you a flavor of what you can expect. His response to Jack Kemp about immigration policy and his response to George Will about war policy surprised me with being so prudent and subdued. Those responses reflect his original point that there is simply no scientific or mathematical formula or template that can be drawn up that defines conservatism.

The history he provides in this book shows how we have steadily transitioned America toward statism over the last 80 years. There have only been slight interruptions to this transition with conservatives like Goldwater and Reagan. We Conservatives need to get busy.

Excerpt from FDR’s 11 January 1944 message to Congress on the State of the Union

This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.

As our nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.
Among these are:
The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education.

Mark Levin’s response...

This is tyranny’s disguise. These are not rights. They are the Statist’s false promises of utopianism, which the Statist uses to justify all trespasses on the individual’s private property. Liberty and private property go hand in hand. By dominating one the Statist dominates both, for if the individual cannot keep or dispose of the value he creates by his own intellectual and/or physical labor, he exists to serve the state. The “Second Bill of Rights” and its legal progeny require the individual to surrender control of his fate to the government.

Excerpt from Barry Goldwater's 1964 speech at the 28th Republican National Convention, accepting the nomination for president.

Those who seek to live your lives for you, to take your liberties in return for relieving you of yours, those who elevate the state and downgrade the citizen must see ultimately a world in which earthly power can be substituted for divine will, and this Nation was founded upon the rejection of that notion and upon the acceptance of God as the author of freedom.

While the Conservative, like Adam Smith, does not object to wealthier individuals paying more to finance the legitimate functions of government, the government has grown well beyond the limits placed on it by the Constitution, particularly since the New Deal. Redistributing wealth is a central objective of the progressive income tax, which Marx would endorse and Smith would reject.

Jack Kemp on immigration

We are going to make sure that America is open to legal immigration because that is the wealth and the talent and the entrepreneurial skills for the 21st Century.

Mark Levin’s response...

Of course, if legal immigration emphasized wealth, talent, and entrepreneurial skills, American society would be the better for it. Instead, it emphasizes birthright citizenship, chain migration, and encourages illegal immigration. which have led us to the current state of immigration anarchy.

An exchange between George Will and William F, Buckley in 2005 about the war in Iraq...

Will: But something odd is happening in conservatism. And we have a president and an administration that clearly is conservative, accepted as that, yet it is nation-building in the Middle East. And conservatism seems to be saying government can’t run Amtrak but it can run the Middle East...

Buckley: The ambition of conservatism...properly extends to saying where there are no human rights, it’s not a society I can truly respect. It’s impossible to draw up a template that gives us an orderly sense of “send democracy there,” but let this go for a while. One recognizes that you can’t export democracy everywhere simultaneously.

Mark Levin’s response...

Certainly America cannot export democracy everywhere simultaneously, nor should it attempt to. For one thing it is impractical. There are cultures and regimes that are not receptive to such overtures.

However, there are occasions when democracy building is prudent. The European Recovery Program, better known as the Marshall Plan of 1948, had among its purposes the promotion and preservation of democracy through the provision of billions of dollars in economic and military aid to several European nations defeated in World War II. Among other things, it would and did help repel the spread of Soviet communism through what remained of free Europe, which was clearly in America’s interest. The key is that these decisions must never be motivated by utopianism or imperialism but by actual circumstances requiring the defense of America against real threats.

If the war in Iraq is understood as an effort to defeat a hostile regime that threatened both America’s allies and interests in the region, the war and the subsequent attempt at democratic governance in that country can be justified as consistent with founding and conservative principles. The United States and its allies no longer face the prospect of a nuclear Iraq under the control of a megalomaniac.

The Statist speaks not of American sovereignty but “global citizenship.” In this way, America’s interests are subsumed and contained by the supposed interests of the whole. And the rest of the world will look approvingly upon the United States for empowering other countries to participate in decisions about America’s survival.

America’s adversaries and enemies do not consider themselves global citizens. Nor are they constrained by international sensibilities and arrangements. They all reject the Statist’s Utopia as a weakness to be exploited. They are not motivated by world opinion but by their own desires.

So different is America today from its founding principles that it is difficult to precisely describe the nature of American government. It is not strictly a constitutional republic, because the Constitution has been and continues to be easily altered by a judicial oligarchy that mostly enforces, if not expands, the Statist’s agenda. It is not strictly a representative republic, because so many edicts are produced by a maze of administrative departments that are unknown to the public and detached from its sentiment. It is not strictly a federal republic, because the states that gave the central government life now live at its behest. It is a society steadily transitioning toward statism.

Ronald Reagan on freedom

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.

US Constitution 21 enumerated powers
Article I, Section. 8.

1. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

2. To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

3. To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

4. To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

5. To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

6. To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

7. To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

8. To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

9. To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

10. To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

11. To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

12. To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

13. To provide and maintain a Navy;

14. To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

15. To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

16. To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

17. To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

18. To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Article IV, Section 3

19. New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

20. The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

Amendment XVI
(Ratified February 3, 1913.)

21. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Constitution’s proponents publicly told the American people what subjects would be within the states’ exclusive jurisdiction - and outside the federal government’s control. They did this in a variety of speeches, newspaper articles, letters, and pamphlets.
Who were these “enumerators?” Most were citizens of very high standing.
They included, among others: Alexander Hamilton, James Wilson (a convention delegate and chief proponent in Pennsylvania), Edmund Pendleton (chancellor of Virginia and chairman of his state’s ratifying convention), James Iredell (North Carolina judge, pro-Constitution floor leader at his state’s ratifying convention and later U.S. Supreme Court Justice), John Marshall (a ratifier and later U.S. Chief Justice); Maryland Congressman Alexander Contee Hanson, Nathaniel Peaslee Sargeant (a Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court), Alexander White (Virginia lawyer, ratifier, and later U.S. Senator), prominent businessman Tench Coxe, and – of course – James Madison.

Here are some of the powers they solemnly promised would be outside the federal sphere:

1. governance of religion

2. training the militia and appointing militia officers

3. control over local government

4. most crimes

5. state justice systems

6. family affairs

7. real property titles and conveyances

8. wills and inheritance

9. the promotion of useful arts in ways other than granting patents and copyrights

10. control of personal property outside of commerce

11. governance of the law of torts and contracts, except in suits between citizens of different states

12. education

13. services for the poor and unfortunate

14. licensing of taverns

15. roads other than post roads

16. ferries and bridges

17. regulation of fisheries, farms, and other business enterprises.

How Al Sharpton Led Me To Oppose Term Limits

This all started on Sunday morning as I switched through the TV channels I caught an exchange on This Sunday between Al Sharpton, Ron Brownstein, and George Will. Ron Brownstein said that there are many people who are attending Tea Party events and Town Hall meetings to express their anger over a government that is trying to take control of too much of their lives and spending too much. Al Sharpton said that people are right to want protection by the government. Brownstein answered that there are people who want protection from too much government. George Will agreed with Brownstein, but Al then said that debate is over since there was an election and we won. Then George Will answered that is why the founding fathers had the wisdom to make an election occur every two years.

This little exchange got me thinking about services and controls and the corresponding tax burden put upon taxpayers for it. I thought that in addition to an election occurring every two years there are also people voting with their feet. By that I mean that people are just moving out of a state that bundles numerous high-quality public benefits with high taxes and into a state that offers packages of low benefits and low taxes. They are not waiting on an election to get a government that best satisfies their set of preferences.

I came across an excellent column at the City Journal, The Big-Spending, High-Taxing, Lousy-Services Paradigm. This column compared the two most populated states in the US, California and Texas. California became the nation’s most populous state in 1962; Texas climbed into second place in 1994. They are broadly similar: populous Sunbelt states with large metropolitan areas, diverse economies, and borders with Mexico producing comparable demographic mixes. They are broadly different: California bundles numerous high-quality public benefits with high taxes and Texas offers packages of low benefits and low taxes. While Texas's share of the nation’s population has steadily increased, from 6.8 percent in 1990 to 7.9 percent in 2007, California’s has barely budged, from 12 percent to 12.1 percent.

This is growing evidence that the low-benefit, low-tax alternative succeeds not only on its own terms but also according to the criteria used by defenders of high benefits and high taxes. Whatever theoretical claims are made for imposing high taxes to provide generous government benefits, the practical reality is that these public goods are, increasingly, neither public nor good: their beneficiaries are mostly the service providers themselves, and their quality is poor. The beneficiaries are mostly the service providers themselves is what got me to thinking about the consequences of term limits.

With tax revenues scarce and voters strongly opposed to surrendering more of their income, Texas officials devote a large share of their expenditures to basic services that benefit the most people. In California, by contrast, more and more spending consists of either transfer payments to government dependents (as in welfare, health, housing, and community development programs) or generous payments to government employees and contractors (reflected in administrative costs, pensions, and general expenditures).

The resistance to making California more like Texas comes from sitting state legislators, that like California’s public sector just fine the way it is and see reform as a threat to their comfortable, lucrative arrangements. It turns out, for example, that all the pointless boards and commissions are bulletproof because they provide golden parachutes to politicians turned out of the state legislature by California’s strict term limits. Until reading this column I had not considered this consequence of having strict term limits. I do recall Art Chance saying how these folks stay on the government gravy train in this labyrinth of government bureaucracy when they do not win elections. They have extra reasons to grow the government that I had not considered.

Then I went to look at the states with strict term limits, and see how they compare to California. I discovered this excellent website state health facts dot org. For State budget shortfalls in 2009 they ranked the 50 states and Washington DC with 51 being the highest budget shortfall and 1 being the lowest.

Here are the results of some of the states that have strict term limits:

51. California
49. Florida
47. Arizona
42. Nevada
40. Ohio
38. Michigan

Here are the results of some of the states that have no strict term limits:

1. Texas
1. North Dakota
1. West Virginia
6. Alabama
6. Alaska
6. Indiana

I have never lived in any of these states with strict term limits, and if any resident disagrees with my thinking that this term limits idea is not working to get you a responsible government, then bring it. I do not think term limits will yield good government, nor do I think McCain-Feingold laws are going to yield good government. It is left up to We the People to be vigilant in electing folks of good character. We are in danger of losing more and more of our sweet liberty if we think the government should be providing more and more services to us. Those services are too expensive and are mostly beneficial to those elected instead of being beneficial to the voters.

Is such government involvement in our lives permissible under the U.S. Constitution?

Today Walter Williams writes and excellent column, American Idea. I encourage you to read the entire article. He basically describes how the major difference between Americans and the rest of the world is the healthy distrust and suspicion Americans have had for government. Unfortunately these sentiments are not shared as much by today's Americans.

This distrust is evident in the Bill of Rights, separation of powers, checks and balances, Electoral College, and constitution amendment process requirements. The creation of this nation's framework was not designed out of a desire for speed, efficiency, and good intentions impulses, but rather out of a suspicion and distrust of government.

It certainly has worked out well to grow a collection of diverse colonies into the most powerful nation on the planet. Unfortunately, the debates we have these days does not include as part of the debate the question in my title.

As we lose the healthy suspicion and distrust of government, then we move toward less liberty and greater governmental control of our lives.

Barack's America

Barack’s America is a land in which women would be forced into having abortions, conservatives would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down conservative talk-radio hosts’ doors in raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about American exceptionalism, conservative writers and artists would be censored at the whim of government, and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of conservatives citizens for whom the judiciary is often the only protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy.

The recent action of Dave Checketts to drop Rush from a group seeking to buy the St. Louis Rams angers and saddens me. I do not see this action as any violation of rights, but rather a misguided business decision. This reflects on our society and culture with respect to how ALL authentic conservatives, not just Rush are being characterized and treated.

A business decision can be sound or a failure. The coming weeks of NFL football game attendance and TV audience size will tell us if it is a sound business decision to disrespect football fans who are also conservative or not. I really don't know from a business perspective what the outcome will be.

This nation, from the beginning, has been divisive in nature. At first there was a divide between loyalists and patriots. The patriots won. After this victory the nation grew in size, strength, and wealth for about 130 years. Then some ideas from Europe began showing up in America. Teachers, artists, writers, and newspaper columnists started asserting the ideas of the nation's Founding Fathers are just old-fashioned and no longer apply in modern times. Americans have slowly accepted these assertions in a fashion that Robert Bork lays out in his book, Slouching Toward Gomorrah. In Barack's America the slouch has turned into a sprint.


Rush's brother David wrote an excellent column today, This isn't about Rush, that I encourage everyone to read. The only part I disagreed with David is when he writes that a smidgen of our outrage should be for those lukewarm conservatives who contribute to the destruction of race relations and advancement of liberal causes by pandering to false characterizations of authentic conservatives. My disagreement is that I think the outrage should be more than just a smidgen.

Rush is not afraid to stand up to the people Ken Hutcherson calls poverty pimps who are nothing but slave sliders and pushers to get their way. To be afraid and pander would be a racist condescension that is just not Rush. I especially liked this comment by Hutch on Rush's Thursday radio program:

How in the world can the NFL -- and I'm going to tell you something else, brother, straight from me, who played football. Those African-American brothers who talk about they wouldn't play? That is the biggest lie on this side of the universe. Not only would their wives get on them and make 'em go -- and their girlfriends, and their moms; they would beat 'em all the way to the 50 yard line and tell them, "You better get out there and get that game check." And why don't they talk to the hundreds of African-American players that would be excited about you owning a team?

It's just sad that there are not people like Hutch running the NFL in Barack's America.

Some Unsolicited Advice for Lindsey Graham et al

I am thinking that some of you folks or your staff in the US House and US Senate read conservative blogs. I know. I know. You have not asked me for any advice, but that brings me to my first bit of advice.

Nancy, Harry, and Barry are not asking you for any advice. Why do you couch your speeches as though you have some good advice for them? They didn't ask for it and don't want it. Instead, you ought to just spell out what you would do yourself as what is the best action on behalf of the people. You have been making these suggestions that Nancy, Harry, and Barry need to go slower and try a more modest change in the status quo. If that is your position, and not just what you are advising for Nancy, Harry, and Barry to do, then thanks for informing me so I can work at opposing you.

The second bit of advice I have for you is do a better job of refuting the suggestion that the GOP is just a Party of No that supports doing nothing to alter the status quo. This is difficult to refute in a thirty second sound bite, but it is necessary to refute it by explaining rules to people.

The first rule that needs to be explained is that all spending bills must originate in the US House. The US House has a Rules Committee that decides which bills may be introduced on the House Floor. This Rules Committee has not allowed any GOP bills on health insurance reform to be introduced on the House Floor. There are House GOP Reps who have bills to do something instead of nothing, but they are not permitted to introduce them. Now since the US Senate can't originate a spending bill, Harry is going to pick out of all of the US Senate health insurance reform work that he likes and drop it into an existing bill passed by the US House and awaiting US Senate action. This will be the vote to watch for in the US Senate.

The final bit of advice is just try and keep your personal opinions about conservative celebrities on radio, TV, and internet to yourself. Lindsey, I don't care if you agree with Glenn Beck or not. You need to to focus your attention on who you agree or disagree with who are also serving in the US Senate or in the US House. Those are people with the power to cast votes that can have serious consequences. The attacks on conservative celebrities who do not hold office is misguided and disturbs me. Of course someone like Rush can rally conservative solidarity, but this should be appreciated instead of complained about by GOP members of the US Senate and US House.

Some may ask why don't you give some advice to some former members like Bill Frist? It is not worth the effort for me. Folks like Bill Frist do not have the vote casting power any more. The battle I choose to engage is with the folks who currently possess the vote casting power.

I don't expect any of you folks to heed my advice that you did not ask me for. I do expect that voters in the upcoming election are more engaged in looking at what you are doing and how you present yourself than they have been in a long time.

A Loyalist Or A Patriot

This Hoosier has packed up after 57 years of living at the crossroads of America. Thirty-six of those fifty-seven years involved working in the belly of the beast as a state government employee. Now this transplanted Texan residing in the Permian Basin region can get back to writing about this sweet land of liberty that he has always been proud of.

So while my writing was put on hold, my brain continued to collect my thoughts about what is going on. I discarded the meme that America is divided in the same way as it was in 1860. This is not a north vs south regional conflict. This is not quite a conflict between sympathizers to the national government vs sympathizers to state governments because there is some degree of dissatisfaction with all levels of government. What we have now most closely resembles the American Revolution era.

During the American Revolution in the colonies of New England, as well as in the southern plantation colonies and mid-Atlantic colonies, you were either a loyalist or you were a patriot. If you were a loyalist then you were a loyal subject to his majesty King George III. Knowing that his majesty commanded a force to protect you as long as you obeyed him was all the comfort you needed. You were willing to serve and obey the king, and feel protected and cared for in return from him.

If you were a patriot, the life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that God had endowed you with were cherished more than anything any ruler on earth could offer. You would rather die than live under any tyranny that oppressed your God-given rights.

Fast-forward 233 years to the present day, and many of the same issues exist. They are packaged and presented differently, but it is basically the same content. Whether it is a king or a political party elected into office, the desire to hold on to and grab as much power as they can over each individual is the plan. Each individual has to choose between liberty and their divine rights by God, or being provided for by the state. This choice goes a lot deeper than political party affiliation. One can find politicians in both parties who love to hold on to and grab more power by promising goodies provided for you by the state. However, I do think the Republican Party represents the best opportunity for people who cherish their liberty and divine rights by God to take over the control and the leadership positions.

I have chosen to be a patriot instead of a loyalist, and I have also discovered in Texas I am not alone. There is so much less regulation by state and local government in Texas. I'm used to living under laws and regulations written to restrict and limit the distribution of utilities, cable TV, insurance, and beer. For example, here in Texas I had a choice between around one hundred different electric utility providers. I love it!

People I have met so far have been very helpful with tips about where to buy, and what to watch out for. I think this word of mouth process in the market place is a much better deal than the government getting its nose into my personal business. The only personal negative I have heard anyone say about President Obama is that they are annoyed by seeing his face every night on their TV set.

The motto down here is "Don't mess with Texas." This motto is a way of saying "We love now and always this sweet land of liberty, so please do not meddle into our lives." As a tranplanted Texan I sincerely and whole-heartedly endorse this motto.

Secure the Blessings of Liberty

This first aired on TV in 1976, and I love it. It helped, by using a music jingle, for people to know what is written in the Preamble of the United States Constitution. My favorite couplet was

Secure the blessings of liberty To ourselves and our posterity

Those 7 year olds listening to this jingle in 1976 are 40 year olds today, and I think many of them are the ones who are attending Town Hall meetings and Tea Parties. They are not political party activists, and are more concerned as individuals about who of their elected officials are working to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.


People want the liberty to be free to work and produce and be rewarded. People want the liberty to worship in a manner of their own choosing. People do not want authorities to intrude into their lives. But since about 1978 the federal authorities have intruded into work and production in the energy field.


Federal authorities have blocked the development of new sources of petroleum.
Federal authorities have blocked drilling in ANWR.
Federal authorities have blocked drilling off the coast of Florida.
Federal authorities have blocked drilling off of the east coast.
Federal authorities have blocked drilling off of the west coast.
Federal authorities have blocked drilling off the Alaskan coast.
Federal authorities have blocked building oil refineries.
Federal authorities have blocked clean nuclear energy production.
Federal authorities have blocked clean coal production.


We are told that we need to sacrifice our liberty for the good and survival of the planet. This is what they are telling us, while at the same time, they are approving of the development of nuclear energy programs in the UAE. They are also lending money to a Brazilian oil company to drill for oil off the Atlantic Coast. I am happy for Brazil being able to get money to drill for oil in the Atlantic. I do not want them stopped, but I am not happy that We The People of the United States are blocked from energy production. Who is securing the blessings of liberty for us and our posterity? When people go to vote in the US this question needs to be on their mind. They really need to trust that the person they are voting for has the correct answer to this question.

Once Was Blind But Now Can See

All honor to Jefferson--to the man who, in the concrete pressure of a struggle for national independence by a single people, had the coolness, forecast, and capacity to introduce into a merely revolutionary document, an abstract truth, applicable to all men and all times, and so to embalm it there, that today, and in all coming days, it shall be a rebuke and a stumbling block to the very harbingers of reappearing tyranny and oppression.

Abraham. Lincoln 1859

All that we ask or desire is permission to interpret the Constitution according to the Darwinian principle. Some citizens of this country have never got beyond the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration of Independence did not mention the questions of our day.

Woodrow Wilson 1912

If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions.

Calvin Coolidge 1926

America, this is our moment. This is our time, our time to turn the page on the policies of the past, our time to bring new energy and new ideas to the challenges we face, our time to offer a new direction for this country that we love. This was the moment, this was the time when we came together to remake this great nation...

Barack Obama 2008

We don’t need to remake America, or discover new and untested principles. The change we need is not to turn the page on the policies of the past, but a great renewal of these permanent truths about man, politics, and liberty—the foundational principles and constitutional wisdom that are the true roots of our country’s greatness.

pilgrim 2009

I whole-heartily agree with Abraham Lincoln’s assertion that the words written by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of independence are a rebuke and a stumbling block to the very harbingers of reappearing tyranny and oppression...ie today's Democratic Party leadership. I do not desire to have only one political party in America, and I do think some of the rank and file still hold in their heart the beliefs of Andrew Jackson.

Today’s Democratic Party leadership repudiate the Founders’ principles, holding that there are no self-evident truths—in the Declaration of Independence or elsewhere—only change in the constant search for progress without final goals. There are no permanent rights with which man is endowed, but endlessly evolving rights that develop and grow based on new demands (and polling data). Our fidelity must be to a “living” Constitution that adapts to fit the demands of the times. The way forward is to control social conditions and engineer a better society, redistributing wealth through a distant and patronizing welfare state that regulates more and more of the American economy, politics and society.

The scales are gradually coming off the eyes of the seasoned citizens who have previously given their votes to Democratic Party candidates. Now, more than ever, is the time to relearn the meaning and contemporary significance of the Declaration of Independence and recognize that modern liberalism has explicitly rejected the truths it proclaims. This recognition has surfaced especially now because these older folks have read HR 3200.

The Capitalists Who Are Eager For You To Obey

Yes, you can buy these at a place called The OBEY Store. Tireless, obedient laborers for the collective, free to propagate their propaganda and make a buck or two on it, too! Is America a great country, or what?
H/T Anchoress

Let Freedom Ring!

It is really coming down to the wire whether or not the House is going to pass a health care bill before the August recess. The Republicans are not plentiful enough to be an issue for Speaker Pelosi to even take into consideration. They only need 218 votes in the House to pass a bill, and there are 257 member in the Democratic Party House caucus. The only problem Speaker Pelosi has is if 40 Ds will vote with the 178 Rs. If that happens then she loses.

I actually agree, surprisingly enough, with those who assert that there has been a lot of time spent debating on this issue. There have been debates on this issue since the time of FDR and HST to the present. The framing of the narrative of what are the choices and what are the opposing views should be more clearly spelled out. This fight is essentially coming down to the question of whether or not our elected members of Congress are going to Let Freedom Ring.

This issue of health care legislation comes down to answering the question of containing the costs of providing health care. Obama and his minions would have you believe that the only way to contain the costs is to have a strong central government plan to put the maximum set of detailed and specific restrictions and mandates on the medical services that USA residents may receive. This plan will include punitive measures toward any physician or hospital that attempts to profit by attending to people outside of the rules and mandates that they impose. This path eventually leads to services that are scarce, and by law are illegal to buy outside of their rules at any price. This is a plan that takes freedom away from each individual US resident.

Now the supporters of Obama argue that under the status quo people are losing freedom to be provided health care from the rules in place by health insurance companies and hospitals and physicians affiliated with them. The flaw in this argument is that while it can be expensive and difficult today for some people to receive health care it is not illegal.

There is another way to have health care legislation that answers the question of containing the costs of providing health care and let freedom ring. There are four essential freedoms that US residents and health care providers need.

1. The freedom to try
2. The freedom to buy
3. The freedom to sell
4. The freedom to fail

The way to do this is to allow a competitive free market of medical service providers the freedom to create their own products for providing medical services that are not restricted by a particular State's set of coverage mandates. Instead there should general guidelines that are the same in every State. Then the residents in every State can have the freedom to choose the product that is the most worthwhile for their family's needs. This way the large company has got to compete with the small company on the merits of the product they sell instead of eliminating the smaller competitor with unfair regulatory laws. The profit motive in this system makes it worthwhile for each company to strive to provide a service people find worthwhile to purchase. This path eventually leads to services that are cheaper and in abundance.

There also needs to be some clarity in the debates in describing how health care services are delivered, and what is the purpose of health insurance. Health insurance does not, and was never intended to insure you will have wellness and good health. The major function of a health insurance plan is to help you to pay the medical expenses in the event of a catastrophic and expensive medical procedure. In this respect it is the same as car insurance. One major difference, however, is that you can purchase any car insurance plan no matter where you live.

For there to be any important health insurance legislation passed and signed into law our elected officials are going to need the courage to rebuke and ignore influential and powerful special interest groups who have skin in the game. These special interest groups include trial lawyers, unions, political parties, large health insurance companies, and large pharmaceutical industries. I am for health care reform legislation as long as it is designed with one major requirement - Let Freedom Ring!

How It Was Created - What It Has Become

It was the original intent of the Founding Fathers to carefully limit the areas of responsibility of the federal government. James Madison pointed out that the Constitution was structured so that the powers delegated to the federal government are few. He also pointed out the number of individuals employed will need to be smaller than the number under the State.

Six Areas of Constitutional Responsibility for POTUS
1. Chief of state over the Nation.
2. Commander in chief over the military.
3. The chief executive officer of the whole executive branch of the federal government.
4. The chief diplomat in handling foreign relations.
5. The chief architect for needed legislation.
6. The conscience of the Nation in granting pardons or reprieves when justice requires.

Nineteen Extra-Constitutional Areas of Discretionary Responsibility for POTUS
1. The responsibility of maintaining full employment for the Nation.
2. The task of ensuring a high level of agricultural prosperity.
3. The task of developing a national housing program.
4. The task of supervising the exclusive distribution of atomic energy resources.
5. Underwriting mega-bucks in private loans and private insurance programs.
6. Providing federal relief for the victims of natural disasters.
7. Administrating a national welfare program.
8. Administrating a national Medicare and Medicaid program.
9. Administrating a national social security program.
10. Allocating mega-bucks for education.
11. Settling major union labor - management disputes.
12. Administrating a network of health agencies.
13. Administrating the EPA.
14. Administrating nearly 40% of the nation's land area and resources.
15. Administrating control over the discovery and development of energy resources.
16. Regulating of all major United States industries.
17. Supervising all radio and TV broadcasting required to issuing a license.
18. Administrating the FDA.
19. Initiating various federal programs on a regional basis to replace many powers and activities originally reserved sovereign to the States.


Four Major Drawbacks of the aforementioned Central Planning
1. It is unbelievably expensive.
2. By its very nature and intended design the federal government is sluggish and inefficient. The Founding Fathers engineered a system of checks and balances to impede changes because they feared a future efficient tyranny.
3. It places mega-bucks at the disposal of the executive branch which can be and have been used to intimidate both the members of Congress and the Governors of the States.
4. It is virtually impossible for one human being to effectively administer everything assigned to the POTUS.

The constitutional provision that created the basis for the President's cabinet

The President may require the opinion, in writing, of the principle officers who superintend the various bureaus and agencies, or other services of the executive department. Such officers shall be required to report to the President any pertinent information he may desire concerning those duties and responsibilities assigned to any office.

In 1789 the cabinet posts created
1. Department of State
2. Department of Treasury
3. Department of War
4. Office of Attorney General

The current fifteen cabinet posts and when they got created
1. The Department of State
2. Department of Treasury
3. Department of Defense *In 1947 the Congress formed the National Military Establishment (NME) headed by the Secretary of Defense. The NME combined the Department of War with the Department of Navy (created under J. Adams in 1798) and the Department of Air Force (created under Truman in 1947). In 1949 the NME was renamed the Department of Defense.
4. Department of Justice *In 1870 under Grant the post-Civil War increase in the amount of litigation involving the United States necessitated the very expensive retention of a large number of private attorneys to handle the workload. A concerned Congress passed the Act to Establish the Department of Justice, setting it up as "an executive department of the government of the United States" with the Attorney General as its head.
5. Department of Interior *In 1849 under Taylor Congress created Interior and charged it with duties ranging from issuing patents to running Washington's jail. In 2003 the department even owned Nevada's Mustang Ranch brothel, prompting Interior Secretary Gale Norton to observe:

It gives the phrase "Madame Secretary" a whole new meaning.

6 Department of Agriculture *After lobbying from the U.S. Agricultural Society (1852), Congress established the Department of Agriculture in 1862 (raised to cabinet level in 1889) under B. Harrison.
7. Department of Commerce *This cabinet level department was first created as the Department of Commerce and Labor under T. Roosevelt in 1903. It split up in 1913 under Wilson as the Department of Commerce.
8. Department of Labor *In 1913 under Wilson the Department of Labor was split away to be a new cabinet level post.
9. Department of Health and Human Services *In 1953 Congress created the Department of Health, Education, and welfare under IKE. In 1979 under Carter Congress split away education and HEW was renamed Department of Health and Human Services.
10. Department of Housing and Urban Development *In 1965, under LBJ, Congress created this agency.
11. Department of Transportation *In 1967, under LBJ, Congress created the Department of Transportation.
12. Department of Energy *In 1977, under Carter, Congress created the Department of Energy.
13. Department of Education *In 1979, under Carter, Congress created the Department of Education.
14. Department of Veteran Affairs *In 1988, under Reagan, Congress made the Department of Veteran Affairs a cabinet level post.
15. Department of Homeland Security *In 2002, under George W. Bush, Congress created the Department of Homeland Security in the aftermath of the sneak attack by terrorists on September 11, 2001.

The Founding Fathers designed the office of President to give the President all the power and independence needed to carry out the six specific functions they assigned, but they required the President to operate within a carefully circumscribed sphere of limited authority. It is not true that they wanted a weak executive branch. They did want a strong executive, but with a limited sphere to work in.

The fact that the executive branch has now acquired gigantic dimensions of discretionary power is a matter of the most profound importance to this and all future generations of Americans.

Fortunately, something is built into the Constitution so that any unauthorized usurpation of authority can be dismantled by peaceful means. We the People have the RIGHT to vote into power those who recognize the problem, and are willing to do something about it. History may very well record one day that taking those corrective measures was one of the most important challenges that We the People met.

ObamaCare has chosen the Soup Nazi Approach

It is getting down to crunch time for President Obama to get a bill through the Congress that drastically changes how residents in the USA will get medical services. They have tried in vain to convince everyone that they only need some more money from the super rich, and they can create a new system with an outcome of affordable medical services for everyone. The number do not add up. With just additional money from ultra rich there is still not enough money to pay for their plan. This leaves them with figuring out a way to contain the costs of medical services.


This problem they have is like a fork in the road. The one path they do not want to go down to contain costs is the capitalist model created by Adam Smith. The way of this path is to allow a competitive free market of medical service providers the freedom to create their own products for providing medical services that are not restricted by a particular State's set of coverage mandates. Instead there should general guidelines that are the same in every State. Then the residents in every State can have the freedom to choose the product that is the most worthwhile for their family's needs. This way the large company has got to compete with the small company on the merits of the product they sell instead of eliminating the smaller competitor with unfair regulatory laws. The profit motive in this system makes it worthwhile for each company to strive to provide a service people find worthwhile to purchase. This path eventually leads to services that are cheaper and in abundance.


The other path they want to go down to contain costs is the economic model created by Karl Marx. The way of this path is to have a strong central government plan to put the maximum set of detailed and specific restrictions and mandates on the medical services that USA residents may receive. This plan will include punitive measures toward any physician or hospital that attempts to profit by attending to people outside of the rules and mandates that they impose. This path eventually leads to services that are scarce, and by law are illegal to buy outside of their rules at any price.


Barack Obama in his own words...

And we have urged Congress to include a proposal for a standing commission of doctors and medical experts to oversee cost-saving measures.

pilgrim's translation...

NO SOUP FOR YOU!!!

A Nation Founded On Prosperity Economics

Chapter 8 of W. Cleon Skousen's book is titled Prosperity Economics. I have read thirteen chapters out of thirty-one, but I feel compelled to write this diary before I finally finish the book.

The Founding Fathers made this country a land of fantastic economic opportunity because they wrote a Constitution with the free market principles set forth in the book Adam Smith wrote in 1776, The Wealth of Nations. There are four fundamental economic freedoms which the constitutional structure of this Nation provide to perpetuate an economic system that works efficiently.

1. The freedom to try.
2. The freedom to buy.
3. The freedom to sell.
4. The freedom to fail.

There are four situations where governmental intervention is legitimate.

1. To prevent criminal invasion of the market.
2. To prevent invasion of the market with deceptive trickery.
3. To prevent destruction of free trade of the market.
4. To prevent exploitation of the vices to the detriment of the community.

The fourth situation should be local instead of Federal government intervention.

The profit system is the key to success under the free market system because profits make it worthwhile for somebody to do things or make things better and cheaper.

While the Founding Father’s’ greatest fear was big government, they did not extend that fear to the private sector free market. They believed Adam Smith’s realization that true wealth is not an accumulation of silver and gold but the development of farms, factories, homes, clothes, cheap fuel, good streets, good schools, hospitals, efficient transportation, and universal access to various types of communications. How we get these things is develop a free market system that makes everything abundant and cheap. Market competition is the most frugal and economical way to provide a product or a service. In the field of economics, they were striving for bigness. If it takes bigness to make a product abundant and cheap, so be it.

The fear of bigness did not clearly emerge in the US until after the Civil War. By the end of the nineteenth century the formula for economic opportunity from the Founding Fathers was beginning to give Americans the highest standard of living in the world. With less than 6 percent of the earth’s population, they were producing more than half of just about everything. So how did this happen that this formula would be abandoned, according to W. Cleon Skouser?

The beginning of the twentieth century saw many prominient and influential leaders losing confidence in the system. These included wealthy industrialists, heads of multinational banking institutions, leaders in the academic world, and some of the innovative minds in the media. The same feverish restlessness was taking hold in similar circles in Europe.

It was true, as it is with all systems, that the free-market economy was in need of some adjustments and fine-tuning, but these leaders were getting ready to throw the entire system over-board. The problems of the day included a number of large-scale strikes, the rise of powerful trusts, the mysterious recurrence of boom and bust cycles, and the rise of a new Populist movement in which certain agriculture and labor groups were demanding that the government get involved in the redistribution of the wealth.

If I had to sum up how did this happen in just one word, that word would be ENVY.

The author concluded this chapter with this conclusion...and please bear in mind that he wrote this book in 1985:

The western world was astonished when the Red Chinese leaders suddenly abolished their bare-subsistence communes and invited the peasants to “get rich’ as private property farmers. Of course the Chinese communists did not dare call their new policy “free-enterprise capitalism.” They called it “enriched Marxism.”

But regardless of the name, if people are allowed economic freedom it will tend to gradually open up the channels for political freedom in the years to come. This is why the the message of freedom - both economic and political - should become America’s greatest export.

I heartily agree with this author in the context of President Ronald Reagan’s America.
I heartily reject President Obama's statement in his inaugural address:

Starting today we must begin the work of remaking America

I reject the plans and intent that Tim Geithner gave to Charlie Rose about regulation and legislation.

ROSE: Whatever you can do in terms of regulation and legislation will take place during the next three years?

GEITHNER: Yes, within that period of time. Within that period of time. But, again, these things are about preventing the next boom.

I especially reject Robert Reich's prediction that this economy can never recover because we must have a new economy.

My prediction,then? Not a V, not a U. But an X. The X marks a brand new track -- a new economy. What will it look like? Nobody knows. All we know is the current economy can't "recover" because it can't go back to where it was before the crash. So instead of asking when the recovery will start, we should be asking when and how the new economy will begin.

Instead of remaking America I want America restored to the Prosperity Economics upon which it is founded.