GSO Patriot

Is the Tea Party Holding our Congress Hostage?

2011-09-24T23:29:00.007-04:00

Or are the newly-elected, tea party movement-backed representatives, in both the House and the Senate, a good example of a group of people who understand and exemplify the spirit of true Bi-Partisanship?

Have they made it a point to bring the negotiation process between the Left and the Right to a crawl, and in turn properly focus the discussion, if even for a short time, on true fiscally responsible approaches that their constituents have begun to demand? They did so during the Debt-Ceiling debate, they did so again in the House while debating the Continuing Resolution that is now stalled on Senator Reid’s desk in the Senate, and they will likely do so again during the upcoming debate on Obama’s Jobs Bill (sic) as well as during the negotiations of the “Deficit Reduction Super Committee”. By standing true to their convictions, they are sending a clear message to their fellow representatives that they realize the citizens of this country have awoken to the fiscally irresponsible, inefficient, corrupt, and oftentimes illegal way of doing things that seems to have become the norm in Washington, and are committed to helping them change that course. If facing re-election in 2012, it is indeed a message to heed. If you doubt that, just ask any of the incumbents who’ve been tossed out and replaced with more fiscally responsible candidates, not only during the 2010 mid-term elections, but even in special elections in traditionally “safe” Democrat districts like the ones that were formerly held by Senator Kennedy and Representative Weiner.

However, let’s keep in mind that it is also true that once they have made their initial convictions clear for all to see, they then move on and negotiate what little they can, with the realization that with the Senate and the White House controlled by Democrats, they will have to accept what little the Republicans are able to garner from the Senate by the way of compromise. That is clearly the approach of people who are willing to do things in a bi-partisan manner – state your opposing positions forcefully so people know where you each really stand, and then move to negotiate from there, thoughtfully considering each other’s viewpoints, needs and ideas in an honest effort to work toward a mutually beneficial solution. To Democrats, bi-partisanship simply consists of taking the step of providing the Republicans with the opportunity to agree to do things entirely their way. If their answer to that is no, then they claim that the Republicans are being partisan and “playing politics.” Obama himself is a classic example - He recently rolled out another half-trillion dollar tax-and-spend stimulus under the guise of a jobs plan and claimed that it was a bi-partisan plan and that there was no reason not to pass it, simply because he said so. This comes across as extremely arrogant and insults the very intelligence of those people he’s supposed to be representing and leading. How can it possibly be bi-partisan if it’s your plan with absolutely no input from the opposing side? Are you kidding me? Are you really that stupid that you don’t think that We the People don’t see through that crap?! Don’t you think we remember the last time you crammed a huge piece of legislation down our collective throats through archane parlimentary trickery before we had a chance to see what was in it?!! If that isn’t insulting, I don’t know what is!

But do not forget… As those within the movement will not forget… And despite the best efforts of big-government supporters both in the government itself and within the major media outlets, the movement continues to grow. They have, and will continue to make it a point to send the message of limited government, lower taxes and greater freedom and liberties for our citizens each and every time the opportunity is presented.

At the same time, they wait patiently for the 2012 elections, the next opportunity for We the People to send another group of constitutionally minded, fiscally conservative representatives to help them in their efforts to get our country back on track. Then it will be the incumbent Republicans who will really be in the hot-seat, for they will no longer be able to justify continuing with business as usual. With the White House and both houses of Congress under the control of the Republicans, they will no longer have the excuse of having to negotiate with the Left to make meaningful changes in how government is run in Washington. It is my prediction that those Republicans who then continue to ignore the will of We The People, and attempt to continue on in their ways of graft and corruption, will promptly be replaced the next opportunity their constituents get the chance to do so. Americans are tired of being treated like second rate citizens, subject to those in the government and are ready to stand up for the constitutional concept of a government that is subject to the people.

Speaking of the 2012 election… It’s important to note that if you’ve read or heard anything regarding the results of the Republican Presidential Debate that took place in Florida this past Thursday, you’ve likely found both sides (left and right alike) are reporting that the debate was won by former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and that the rest of the group pretty much ganged up on 2nd place finisher and current primary front-runner, Texas Governor Rick Perry. Oddly enough, based on their own on-line polls, neither Romney nor Perry were the winner, but rather it was actually Congressman Ron Paul who came out the big winner. The Fox News Poll shows Paul with 66.42% and Romney in 2nd with 10.50% while the MSNBC Poll shows Paul with 70.1% and Romney in 2nd with 9.2%.* Despite the news agencies on both the Left and Right reporting how close it was between the two big-government candidates they endorse and support, it seems pretty obvious that We The People are putting their support behind the one candidate who truly gets it – the one candidate who in 20 years of service in the US House of Representatives has never voted for legislation unless the proposed measure was expressly authorized by the Constitution. His record of strict adherence to the policies of limited constitutional government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to sound monetary policies are an exemplary example of how our representatives should approach the serious work we empower them to do and it resonates with a populace that is more than ready for just such a shift in Washington. His ability to raise campaign funds is also indicative of the support behind Paul – on 4 separate occasions he’s raised over $1 Million in a 24 hour period via internet “money bombs”, the last one conducted the weekend of August 21-22 garnering $1.8 Million alone.

But back to the tea party movement…

I think it’s also important to note that the mainstream media continues to pound the drum with the message that the ideas, viewpoints, and proposed policies of the tea party movement are “radical” and are the reason why the Republican Party has become the “Party of No”. The reality however, is that in the short 9-month history since the Republicans took control of one half of one third of the federal government, the representatives backed by the tea party movement have time and again shown a willingness to compromise and have helped numerous bills pass the House to include Budget Proposals, Energy Legislation, Jobs Bills, etc. only to have them sent to the Senate and completely stall on Senator Reid’s desk, never to even be brought up for discussion or consideration on the floor of the Senate. Even Obama’s recent Jobs Bill (sic), for which he’s been screaming “Pass This Bill” for the last 3 weeks on a multi-state Campaign trip at the expense of the American taxpayers, is stalled on Reid’s desk. When coupled with the Continuing Resolution passed Friday morning by the House which is also stalled on Senator Reid’s desk, it becomes apparently clear that it is the Democrat Party that is the “Party of No”. Saying no to greater individual freedoms and responsibility, no to economic policies that would create more jobs, no to removing over-reaching regulations that cause harm to our citizens and our businesses, no to time-proven solutions to education rather than our current failed one-size-fits-all approach, no to sensible approaches to getting the government out of our medical care and reducing costs, no, no, no! All they want to do is try more of the same things that have been proven over and over to be both extremely costly and totally ineffective. Doing the same things over and over and expecting different results is the very definition of insanity – yet they continue to do so time and time again.

Please do not misinterpret my disdain for the incumbent Democrats as automatic admiration for the Republicans in the same position (with very few exceptions). Both parties have been complicit in allowing themselves to let our country get to the point where it is today. A huge shift in how our elected representatives have interpreted the role of Government, primarily through a gross over-generalization of the General Welfare clause, has slowly taken place since our governments inception, but especially so in the last 95 – 100 years since the adoption of the Income Tax.

In the very early days of the tea party movement I warned against letting the Republicans highjack the movement and having them twist it into another Left vs. Right battlefield because it’s not – it’s a battlefield of the concepts of Big vs. Small. I’ve since come to realize that given the entrenched 2-party system that has evolved in this country, the only way for We the People to promote the message of small limited government, lower taxes, and greater freedom and liberty for our citizens is to do so through one of the two existing major parties. Since the Republican Party at least historically stood for some of the same ideals, it only makes sense that we begin to retake control of the party and its existing infrastructure in an effort to transform its message into one that We the People can support. It is my intention, as well as that of many other like-minded people, to bring the Republican Party back to focus on this simple, patriotic, constitutionally based platform.

As far as I’m concerned, the rest of the platform concerns issues that are of minor importance by comparison. I’m fairly center or neutral on most social issues and I feel that the majority of those types of issues are best addressed at the state and local level and aren’t really the business of the Federal Government to begin with. Once we are able to reign in our out-of-control federal government, we can begin to push these issues back down to the state level where they belong and eliminate them from muddying the issues at the federal level. I don’t know about you, but I want elected federal representatives who will take serious the business of running our country in a constitutional manner - period. I’m looking for leaders who are focused on limited government, low taxes and more freedoms and liberties for our citizens, not people who are trying to push their social agenda, be it liberal or conservative, on me.

I guess what I’m saying is that I’m looking for people who are willing to stand up for their convictions and fight for the people they were elected to represent, real leaders who are willing to “take the process hostage” now and then, if that’s what it takes to shift the focus from “how do we slow the automatic growth of government?” to “how do we stop the growth of government and immediately begin the process of reducing its size and scope?”.

*- Poll tallies as of 3:00 pm on 9/24/11

Is self-proclaimed Ohio “Tea-Party Candidate” David Lewis a plant from the Left?

2011-09-18T01:23:00.005-04:00

It’s an honest question. Is there anyone else out there that thinks there is a possibility that he’s a plant from the Left to once again try to paint the honorable patriots that make up the Tea Party movement as social right-wing nut-jobs?

I’ve been involved with the Tea Party movement since its inception and he doesn’t sound like any of the people I’ve met within the movement. The people I’ve met are a fairly good cross-section of people who’s social values span across the political spectrum, be they disenfranchised Democrats who are also tired of oppressive taxes and reckless spending, Libertarians tired of the infringement of our government on so many of our freedoms and liberties, or fiscally conservative Republicans, all are people concerned for the future of our great country and are focused on the three main principals of Lower Taxes, Limited Government and more Freedom/greater Liberties for our citizens. While many within the movement do claim to follow one religion or another, their beliefs in that regard are quite diverse and would likely surprise many from the outside who’ve fallen for the “racist, fundamental Christian wackjobs” label that the main-stream media has tried to tag us with. We aren’t about Right vs. Left – we’re about Big vs. Small – a concept that seems foreign to most people today and therefore the media is confounded because they’re not sure how to define us. Because the Tea Party is a movement and not an actual party, they can’t go to a single “leader” or “chairman” to ask where we stand on any given issue. Therefore, out of fear of the unknown, they feel they must attempt to demonize us or paint us as though we reside along the fringes of society when in reality, we’re more likely to be your neighbor, your co-worker or the person you bump into in the grocery store.

It is for that very reason that I find it almost humorous that a 26 year old man like David Lewis, with limited business experience, no legislative experience and comparatively little life experience, has declared himself the “Tea Party Candidate” that will face Speaker Boehner in the next primary election. Are we to believe that the people who make-up this movement, the very people who’ve had tremendous success in affecting numerous House and Senate races, from the election of Scott Brown in Ted Kennedy’s old seat, to the massive swing in the 2010 mid-term elections, to maintaining the majority in the WI Legislature (despite the huge amounts of Big Labor money that was funneled into the state to influence the democrats failed recall bid to gain control), on down to the latest victories in NY & NV, we are to believe these people are just going to get in line behind this guy because he says he’s “the guy”? Let’s keep in mind that the reason the vast majority of the people within the movement are fired up and involved to begin with, is to focus on the afore-mentioned three principles of Lower Taxes, Limited Government and more Freedom/greater Liberties for our citizens – not abortion related issues.

The people who make up the Tea Party movement were indeed disappointed in Speaker Boehner for his compromise with Obama and the Democrats in the Senate on the debt-ceiling debate as Mr. Lewis stated, but beyond that his rhetoric begins to ring hollow and falls flat. The people weren’t disappointed because Boehner didn’t insist on blocking abortion funding for Planned-Parenthood. They were disappointed because he didn’t stand up with conviction and fight to take serious steps to reign in run-away spending and get our government back on the track to financial solvency and furthering the freedoms and liberties of our citizens – period. That’s why we call it the Tea Party movement Mr. Lewis – It’s about an over-taxing, over-spending, over-reaching Federal Government and the people being tired of feeling as though they don’t have a voice through their elected representatives. I don’t recall reading anything in the history books about any of the Sons of Liberty who risked their very lives to dump tea into the Boston Harbor on that cold December night in 1773, doing so in protest of any abortion-related issue. Abortion funding is an issue for the Christian Coalition - not the Tea Party.

The reason the people of the Tea Party movement didn’t like it was because the deal Boehner ended up making with the Democrats had no real meaningful cuts, nor will whatever half-baked ideas the Deficit Reduction Super-Committee they’ve put in place comes up with. “Why?” may you ask? Because the committee has been charged with “Deficit Reduction” and not “Budget Cuts”. That means that rather than freezing the Federal Budget at the real dollar amount it is at right now, (effectively freezing any and all additional spending) and then making Budget Cuts from there, what they’ve agreed to is to cut the amount the Federal Budget will AUTOMATICALLY GROW over the next 10 years. The fiscally responsible people who make up the Tea Party movement aren’t looking for Politicians who will “slow” the growth of government - we are looking for real Leaders who are willing to stand up with conviction, debate the tough issues that will need to be faced and work together to develop real solutions if we are ever to get our country back to being the economic leader, the rock of stability and the shining light of freedom and liberty to the rest of the world that she once was. We should all be mad as hell (and maybe even a little disappointed in ourselves) for letting our elected officials in Washington legislate, regulate, and spend us into our current position. Simply put, doing things they way we have over the last 20 years is not sustainable, is not responsible and the people within the Tea Party have made it apparent that it will not be tolerated any longer, regardless of the initial behind your name.

David Lewis might like to fancy himself as the Tea Party candidate, but as I’ve said, the Tea Party isn’t a party at all, they have no “official nominee” nor “party delegates” with which to select one, just a groundswell of people who are tired of politics as usual in Washington and THEY will decide who they will back – Just ask Joseph Kennedy. Mr. Kennedy was “selected” by prominent Massachusetts Tea Party activists Carla Howell and Michael Cloud as “the Candidate” for the Tea Party, even though he was running on the Libertarian ticket, in the special election race for Ted Kennedy’s then-vacant Senate seat. The problem was the people who make up the movement decided for themselves that Joseph Kennedy wasn’t electable and backed Scott Brown instead. We all know what happened from there - Scott Brown won the election and the Tea Party movement had cemented the 41st crucial seat for the Republicans to prevent a filibuster-proof Senate for the democrats.

That’s why I suspect that you, Mr. Lewis, may be a plant from the Left – If you were truly one of us you’d now that YOU cannot decide to be OUR candidate - WE will decide WHO we will support – That’s the beauty of the Tea Party movement!!

Now that’s Change Every American can Believe In!!

An Open Letter to Senator Richard Burr

2010-12-15T22:12:00.003-05:00

Dear Senator Burr,

I voted for you to represent my voice, along with that of other conservatives in North Carolina, in the mid-term election held 43 short days ago. I made that decision based on your past voting record and the pieces of legislation that you've co-sponsored in the recent past to include the Balanced Budget Amendment; Honest Expenditure Limitation Program Act of 2010; and the Fiscal Discipline, Earmark Reform and Accountability Act of 2009 to name a few.

I must say that your voting in favor of the Tax Extension Package (it was not a cut) in the Senate today was a real disappointment for me and many of my friends and colleagues. The message that the majority of the voters sent in this past election was not that we simply wanted the economy to recover faster but that we also understand that the two keys to making that happen is keeping taxes low to generate revenue and cutting wasteful spending to work towards balancing the budget. To be completely honest, I found your vote in favor of this package to be both insulting and irresponsible.

First let’s talk Cost and Current Tax Rates-

The majority of the costs in this package are not even tax related. The majority of the true costs are primarily in the unfunded extension of Unemployment Benefits, the decrease in Social Security Payroll Taxes (a program that is already insolvent and certainly cannot afford to have its revenue stream reduced even further) and a number of other wasteful earmarks to special interest groups such as ethanol subsidies, solar grants, etc.

You see, I for one (but one of many), don’t buy the $700 Billion price tag the Democrats are putting on the extension of rates for the investors and job producers, or as they call them “the wealthy”. First of all, that money is not included in the current budget so it not being there next year is not a true cost (this is accounting 101). Using their reasoning, one would also need to add an additional $3.2 Trillion to the cost of the package - that being the cost of extending the current rates for everyone not included in their definition of “wealthy”.

Individuals such as yourself had the opportunity today to show those that voted for you that you could (and would) stand firm in regards to doing the right thing for us as individuals and collectively as a nation. The only way to create confidence amongst both the consumers and the job-producers in this country is to keep their taxes low and give them some permanency upon which they can base their business plans and further expansion opportunities. The better option would have been for the Republicans to show the American people that you are willing to stand by your convictions and do the right thing by proposing an up-or-down vote on permanently extending all of the current rates for everyone and if the Democrats didn’t want to bring it to the floor for a vote, then so be it. The Democrats could have then been left to stand on the floor of the House and the Senate and shove the tax increases down the American people’s throats – with unanimous Republican objection - just like they did the Health Care debacle. In January, the new Congress could have then immediately taken up legislation to make all of the current tax rates permanent retroactively and you can bet that after only a few weeks of heat from their constituents after looking at their reduced paychecks, the Democrats would have been very quick to jump on the band-wagon. They certainly wouldn’t have wanted to spend the next 2 years leading up to the next election letting the fervor over their tax increases continue to build amongst their constituencies.

In Regards to the Extension of Unemployment Benefits -

As for the unfunded extension of Unemployment Benefits – I must again be honest and state that I am against that idea on principal alone. Any program that incentivizes non-production for any extended length of time is detrimental to the human psyche as well as a bad business practice. That being said, given the tough economic climate and the high rate of unemployment, I would be willing to compromise on this one. By compromise I don’t mean give them what they want without funding it, compromise to me would mean they could have it, but they’d need to find the money from elsewhere in the budget to fund it, just as they committed to doing when they passed their Pay-Go resolution a few years ago. Again, I feel this was another missed opportunity to stand firm in regards to doing the right thing for the American people and the people of North Carolina by holding their feet to the fire and making this issue stand on its merits in an up-or down vote.

In Regards to the Reduction of the Social Security Payroll Tax –

Any American citizen who is not aware that the Social Security Program is insolvent and that the trust fund has been empty, with the exception of Congressional IOU’s, for years must be living under a rock. Every time Social Security Reform is mentioned, politicians in general tend to run in opposite directions, yet now given the opportunity to make the issue even worse by further reducing its revenue stream by $120 Billion, you somehow find bi-partisan support to make it happen. Please help me and other conservatives understand how this reasoning works.

All in all, it looks like we’ll get to keep most of our current tax rates (and rightly so) at no actual cost to the American people while the Democrats get to cut Social Security Taxes, extend unfunded Unemployment Benefits, as well as provide various other earmarks to Special Interests, all to the tune of about $150 - $160 Billion in additional deficit spending and actual cost to the American People.

This is what you call a compromise? I am quite certain that if this is any indication of your negotiating abilities, your willingness (or lack thereof) to stand firm with conviction, or the direction you will be taking over the next 6 years, I and other conservatives in North Carolina will be spending our time searching out a person who will truly represent our voice in the US Senate in 2016.

Sincerely,

Jeff Olsen
Jamestown NC.

A Cursory Examination of the Current Tax Proposal and the Surrounding Debate

2010-12-12T20:04:00.005-05:00

First and foremost, it is crucial to point out that the results of the recent mid-term elections of 2010, including the swing of most independents to a conservative bent, were due to an uprising of the people of this country who are fed up with the current tax-and-spend mind-set of our elected officials in Washington. The hard working producers of this country understand that you can’t run a household, or a successful business for that matter, without sound fiscal policy and a balanced budget. They also understand that it is ludicrous to think that you could run our country in a different fashion and they made that very clear at the polls. The American People are looking for true leaders who can balance our current budget, decrease and eliminate unnecessary and wasteful spending, and further reduce the amount of money that the Government confiscates from the working class each year.

In Regards to Extending the Current Tax Rates

Those who are in favor of extending the current tax rates for everyone are basing that position on sound economic policy that serves to both continue to fuel the economy and create jobs. While they understand that the middle class can well use the $3 Trillion that they will keep in their pockets to spend and generate economic growth during these sluggish economic times, they also understand that the small businesses that account for 50% of existing jobs and between 65% - 88% of new jobs in this country (depending on which set of government statistics you look at), can well use the $700 Billion that they will continue to have available to invest in their businesses and hire additional workers as the economy continues on its slow road to recovery. But please, do not expect this extension to create a bunch of jobs either – it isn’t a “cut” as the Democrats would have you believe, but simply an extension of the current rates. Any significant job growth would come only if rates were actually cut, thus freeing up additional capital to businesses over and above what they have available today.

Those who are in favor of extending current tax rates for single earners under $200,000 and families under $250,000, but who are for increasing tax rates on those over $250,000 are quick to point out that leaving the current rates in place for the wealthy will “cost” us $700 Billion over the next 10 years. This argument has 2 glaring deficiencies that need to be addressed very clearly.

The first is that they are calling this a “tax-cut” for the wealthy, when in fact it’s not a cut at all, but simply an extension of the current rates that have been in place for over 7 years. In order for it to “cost” us anything, one has to assume that our elected officials in Washington are already planning to spend an additional $700 Billion over the next 10 years, over and above what they are currently spending – as this revenue is not figured into the current year’s budget.
The second is that if they are so concerned about what extending the current rates for the wealthy is going to “cost” us, where is the concern over what extending the current rates for those under $250,000 is going to “cost” us? Using the same calculation method they use when vilifying the extension of current rates for the wealthy, an extension of the current rates for those under $250,000 will “cost” us $3 Trillion over the next 10 years. That is more than 4 times what they are claiming it will “cost” us to extend current rates for the investors and job creators in this country but you don’t hear any of them complaining about that do you?

In my opinion this issue should be brought to the floor as an individual bill and should face an up or down vote based on its merits alone. If the Democrats want to go on the record as voting for a tax increase on the investors and job producers I say let them.

In regards to the Estate Tax – Most people are under the impression that this tax only affects the very wealthy like Bill Gates or Warren Buffet, but the truth of the matter is that if the current rate of 0% increases to 55% for all assets over $1 Million, it could mean peril for a large number of small businesses and family farms.

The reason is that most small businesses have equipment and buildings and land -- and the estate tax is levied on all those assets. These businesses aren't just sitting on a pile of cash. It might mean that to pay the tax, they're going to have to sell those assets off. So to comply with this tax they may have to actually sell part of their business. The estate tax essentially guts the business that their family has built up over many generations.

Family farms are even more vulnerable in some respects. They too have equipment, buildings and vehicles, but most importantly - they have land and that paints a misleading picture. It looks like you're worth a lot of money on paper, but you're not rich, you don't have money in the bank, all your money is tied up in your business.

When a family member dies, the government wants estate taxes and they want that payment in cash. If you don't have the cash, you have to sell part of your business, you have to sell some of your animals, or you have to sell part of your land, none of which is a good option as we look to small businesses as the key to our economic recovery and future job creation.

Personally, I believe that the current rate of 0% should be extended permanently. This is money that was already taxed when it was earned, property that is taxed each year already, or equipment that was taxed when it was purchased. However, in the spirit of bi-partisanship and a focus on fiscal responsibility, I would reluctantly support the compromise initiative to continue the current rate of 0% on the first $5 Million and an increase of the rate to 35% for any amount over that level.

Extension of Unemployment Benefits

I’ll be honest at the outset and just say that I am against any further continuation of Unemployment Benefits on principal alone. There are too many people who get sucked into the entitlement mentality after a prolonged period on any assistance program. There are many people out there today who are physically able to work and fill existing jobs that choose not to simply because in their mind, it “doesn’t pay enough”. I’ll give you an example of what I’m talking about. My neighbor was laid off and was receiving unemployment benefits of $400 per week. After about a year and a half he got a job making $11.00 per hour. I ran into him about a week later and asked if he’d already gotten a day off. He said no, he had quit the job he just started because it was hard work and it wasn’t worth $40 per week compared to sitting home. You see, he had gotten so used to receiving the unemployment benefits that his new zero base-line had become the amount he received each week in benefits. Unemployment is designed to take the place of income that one would receive if employed, although admittedly at a reduced rate. The way I would have looked at it was that the job gave me a raise from $10 per hour (on unemployment) to $11 per hour – a 10% raise (and hardly anyone is getting a raise in the current economic environment).

With that being said, I am also not totally unsympathetic to the unemployed who are truly busting their humps trying to find a decent job in a very difficult economy. Ultimately, I would be open to passing an extension of benefits with the understanding that the money to pay for it would need to come from reduced spending elsewhere in the federal budget. The Democrats passed a Pay-Go resolution stating that any increased spending would need to be paid for before being added to the budget – now is the time to hold their feet to the fire on this issue. We simply can’t afford any more unfunded spending being added to the deficit. We spend too much money on foreign aid to countries who wish us ill will, as well and hundreds and thousands of dollars on wasteful pork-barrel projects here in our own country to not be able to find things to cut in order to pay for an extension if it truly is that important of an issue. Again, I would call for an up-and-down vote based on the merits and deficit-neutral funding.

2% Reduction of Social Security Withholding

I think there can be no question that President Obama let his desire to regain the approval of the American People get in the way of his liberal tax-and-spend policies and the ridiculousness of it is both glaring and insulting to the majority of the American People.

The first question I have to ask is “What the hell is he thinking?!” This is a program that is completely insolvent, the “trust fund” has been raided year after year and replaced with IOU’s for longer than most people can remember, once again we’re talking about increasing the retirement age due to a lack of funds for the program – and he wants to decrease the revenue stream even further?! Like I said – “What the hell is he thinking?!”

This is an insane idea from the word go and can only be explained by assuming that Obama is seeking out approval and hopes to gain it by jumping on the “tax-cut” band-wagon. The problem is that the Social Security wagon has been creaking along on warped, rusted wheels for a long time and the American people are very well aware of it and are probably asking “What the hell is he thinking?!” themselves.

The other thing they have to be asking themselves is “Is he that ignorant of the economic issues that face our country that he doesn’t even know the disastrous financial situation that the Social Security program is in?!” Or, is it that he thinks that the American People are just too ignorant to know how completely insane this idea is. Either way, this one also calls for an independent up-or-down vote based on the merits of the issue on its own.

Earmarks and Pork-Barrel Spending for Special Interests

Again, based on the message of a desire for reduced taxes and reduced spending that was sent in the 2010 mid-term elections, it is clear that the Democrats are once again ignoring the will of the People as they have already begun to tack things on to the package in the Senate in the form of earmarks for special interest groups. This ranges from ethanol subsidies for rural folks, commuter tax breaks for their cousins in the cities and suburbs and wind and solar grants for the environmentalists - all aimed at winning votes, particularly from reluctant Democrats.

Personally, I think that politicians who continue to follow this practice put their re-election bid in jeopardy.

Liberty or Safety?

2010-11-19T15:23:00.005-05:00

If the goal of terrorists is to destroy western society, as so many of the supporters of these pat downs seem to claim, then ask yourself if they have succeeded when the basis of our society rests upon our 'inalienable' rights such as those protected by the 4th amendment - "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.".

Considering the fact that the vast majority of terrorist attacks against our country / citizenry were initiated and carried out by radical Islamic extremists, I believe that the majority of people that board airplanes each day in the US do not fit the "probable cause" criteria, and therefore should not be subject to such an invasive and unconstitutional search under 4th amendment guidelines. If anyone other than a TSA agent were to take full body nude images of men, women and children, or patted them down the way the TSA does, they would be persecuted for child pornography, assault, etc.

Besides, these intrusive searches are really only a "feel good" measure designed to make the travelers "feel safe". Let's be honest, if someone wanted to perpetrate a terrorist attack all they would need to do is simply hide the C-4 plastic explosive in their anal cavity (yes, you could fit enough in there to cause an explosion large enough to bring an airliner down) or simply blow themselves up in the middle of the security checkpoint line with hundreds of people standing around. The larger risk, as recently detailed, is in the cargo / package side of the airline industry, yet they haven't taken steps to fully screen all packages that get loaded onto airliners across this country every day. I know there aren't as many people on a cargo plane, but there are hundreds, if not thousands, of people put at risk each and every day who live near airports who could be killed if one of those planes were to be blown up on final approach to whatever airport they were attempting to land at.

Safety is relative and for the most part a fallacy. What happens after someone does blow-up a plane with explosives hidden in a body cavity? Do we then subject our citizens to full strip / body cavity searches before boarding a plane? Or what happens when someone walks into a crowded mall during the holiday shopping season and blows themselves up, killing hundreds in the process? Do we then subject our citizens to full strip / body cavity searches before entering a shopping center, a bowling alley, etc? Today we're talking about airplanes, tomorrow it could be your local gym. At what point do we finally put our foot down and quit handing away our liberties in the name of false security?

Nowhere on my airline ticket, or in the verbiage I read at the time I purchase my tickets, does it say that by purchasing the ticket I have agreed to give up my constitutional right to protection from unreasonable search and seizure.

THOSE WHO WOULD SACRIFICE LIBERTY FOR SAFETY WILL HAVE NEITHER - BEN FRANKLIN

To those who suggest we simply not fly to escape these authoritarian measures, I suggest YOU not fly if you want to be "safe". Let those of us who know the truth keep our rights when we fly, and you can "safely" drive your car, take a train, or use a boat to get to your destination in days instead of hours. (keep in mind that you're over 1000 times more likely to die in an automobile accident than you are in an air travel disaster - yet no one is clamoring for the government to grope you before you get in your car... yet...)

When given the choice of flying with cattle who don't mind having their genitals prodded by the government, or flying with freedom loving individuals who would punch a terrorist in the mouth and subdue them before they can take over a plane, I know who I would rather fly, or die, with. Do you?

Here's a great piece of legislation proposed by Ron Paul from the Texas 14th: American Traveler Dignity Act

Is the Time Ripe for a Third Party?

2009-04-20T08:00:00.000-04:00

I believe that the momentum behind the recent Tax Day Tea Parties is a clear sign that an ever-growing number of people in America have finally gotten to the point where they are fed up with politics-as-usual in Washington. They do not feel as though their elected officials even hear their voice, let alone represent their views, and are looking for alternative to the options presented by the Democrat and Republican Parties.

You see, I truly believe that this movement “isn’t” about Obama or Bush, left or right, black or white – and that it “is” about ALL of our current elected representatives (Democrats and Republicans alike) in Congress. You see, through their willing accomplices in the main stream media (who’ve abandoned the importance and value of unbiased, investigative reporting) they've gotten us to take our eye off the ball - the Executive Branch does not propose, debate and pass legislation - the Legislative Branch does. Our current legislators, Republicans and Democrats alike, have ALL either forgotten, or maybe never even learned and understood, the thoughts and ideals of our Founding Fathers. The entire lot of them are all too willing to play the "give a little to get a little" game with the money of WE THE PEOPLE and aren't willing, or don't have the fortitude and integrity to stand up for the Constitutional rights of the very people who elected them.

It's time that we educate ourselves and those around us of the important fact that our country's Founding Fathers recognized the very tendency of government to grow and become tyrannical, and therefore outlined a system in the US Constitution that is as fair to all people as possible, expressly limits the powers of the federal government, and puts the majority of the power in the hands of the individual States and the People.

We also need to identify and support like-minded individuals who are willing to stand up for our Constitutional Rights against oppressive taxation and run for elected office. We need true Patriots who understand the concept of real fiscal responsibility and are committed to a long-term plan to return OUR Federal Government to operating only within those powers, and funding only those expenditures, so enumerated within the US Constitution, leaving all else to the States and the People as outlined in the 10th Amendment.

Based on their performance over the last 95 years - since the 16th Amendment allowing for an Income Tax was ratified in 1913 - and especially since the beginnings of FDR's "New Deal" (and what a deal it has turned out to be...) were introduced in 1933, I would argue that Republicans and Democrats alike are both guilty of committing the most unconscionable and unconstitutional confiscation and redistribution of the wealth of the hard working, law-abiding citizens of this country(and I'm not just talking about the wealthy - take a look at your own pay check, however much it might be, and see just how much they're literally stealing from you every time you get paid).

Maybe the time has come to look for a new alternative - a party that is committed to a simple platform based on the values and ideals of the great men who gave of their time, their knowledge, and their reasoned judgment to lay down the very foundation of this great country of ours - the US Constitution. Men who not only understood the concepts of hard work, personal responsibility and rugged individualism, but who also served their country in it’s fight for freedom, often times giving their very lives in support of that vision. Now they were Patriots!!

If that's the vision you're looking for, you may want to check out the Constitution Party. I know that many feel that a vote for a third party candidate is a waste of a vote, but consider these facts:

- The Constitution Party is the third largest political party in terms of voter registration.

- One quarter of all voters nation-wide are registered as independent or as members of a ‘third party’.

-Over the last 10 years this has been the largest growing segment of voter registrations.

- Some states’ third party or independent registrations approach 1/3 of all registered voters.

- Independent voters are playing a bigger role in national and local politics as disappointment with both the Republican and Democratic parties increases.

- A recent Fox News poll (www.foxnews.com) showed 67% of Americans said they'd consider voting for an independent candidate. An earlier Rasmussen survey showed 58% said it would be good for the United States to have a "truly competitive" third party. Voters are now weighing their options, especially on the issue of immigration. According to Rasmussen, 35% of conservatives said they'd pick a third party candidate over a Republican.

The Constitution Party - a real alternative to the Tax & Spend offerings of the Democrat and Republican Parties.

Taxes - How did we get to where we are today?!

2009-04-20T01:16:00.005-04:00

Since its frugal beginnings, the U.S. Federal Government has come to subsidize everything from Belgian endive research to maple syrup production to the advertising of commercial brand names in Europe and Japan. In a moment of high drama before the Supreme Court, during oral arguments in the mid 1990’s involving the application of the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution, a bewildered Justice Antonin Scalia pressed the then Solicitor General to name a single activity or program that our modern-day Congress might undertake that would fall outside the bounds of the Constitution. The stunned Clinton appointee could not think of one.

During the debate in Congress over the controversial 1994 Crime Bill, not a single Republican or Democrat challenged the $10 billion in social spending on grounds that it was meant to pay for programs that were not the proper responsibility of the federal government. No one asked, for example, where is the authority under the Constitution for Congress to spend money on midnight basketball, modern dance classes, self-esteem training, and the construction of swimming pools? Certainly, there was plenty of concern about "wasteful spending," but none about "unconstitutional spending".

Most federal spending today falls in this latter category because it lies outside Congress’s spending powers under the Constitution and it represents a radical departure from the past. For the first one hundred years of our nation’s history, proponents of limited government in Congress and the White House routinely argued—with great success—a philosophical and legal case against the creation and expansion of federal social welfare programs.

A RULEBOOK FOR GOVERNMENT

The U.S. Constitution is fundamentally a rulebook for government. Its guiding principle is the idea that the state is a source of corruptive power and ultimate tyranny. Washington’s responsibilities were confined to a few enumerated powers, involving mainly national security and public safety. In the realm of domestic affairs, the Founders sought to guarantee that federal interference in the daily lives of citizens would be strictly limited. They also wanted to make sure that the minimal government role in the domestic economy would be financed and delivered at the state and local levels.

The enumerated powers of the federal government to spend money are defined in the Constitution under Article I, Section 8. These powers include the right to "establish Post Offices and post roads; raise and support Armies; provide and maintain a Navy; declare War..." and to conduct a few other activities related mostly to national defense. No matter how long one searches, it is impossible to fine in the Constitution any language that authorizes at least 90 percent of the civilian programs that Congress crams into the federal budget today.

The federal government has no authority to pay money to farmers, run the health care industry, impose wage and price controls, give welfare to the poor and unemployed, provide job training, subsidize electricity and telephone service, lend money to businesses and foreign governments, or build parking garages, tennis courts, and swimming pools. The Founders did not create a Department of Commerce, a Department of Education, or a Department of Housing and Urban Development. This was no oversight: They did not believe that government was authorized to establish such agencies.

Recognizing the propensity of governments to expand, and, as Thomas Jefferson put it, for "liberty to yield," the Founders added the Bill of Rights to the Constitution as an extra layer of protection. The government was never supposed to grow so large that it could trample on the liberties of American citizens. The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution states clears and unambiguously, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." In other words, if the Constitution doesn’t specifically permit the federal government to do something, then it doesn’t have the right to do it.

The original budget of the U.S. government abided by this rule. The very first appropriations bill passed by Congress consisted of one hundred and eleven words—not pages, mind you, words. The main expenditures were for the military, including $137,000 for "defraying the expenses" of the Department of War, $190,000 for retiring the debt from the Revolutionary War, and $95,000 for "paying the pensions to invalids." As for domestic activities, $216,000 was appropriated. This is roughly what federal agencies spend in 10 seconds today.

As constitutional scholar Roger Pilon has documented, even expenditures for the most charitable of purposes were routinely spurned as illegitimate. In 1794, James Madison wrote disapprovingly of a $15,000 appropriation for French refugees: "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on the article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." This view that Congress should follow the original intent of the Constitution was restated even more forcefully on the floor of the House of Representatives two years later by William Giles of Virginia. Giles condemned a relief measure for fire victims and insisted that is was not the purpose nor the right of Congress to "attend to what generosity and humanity require, but to what the Constitution and their duty require."

In 1827, the famous Davy Crockett was elected to the House of Representatives. During his first term of office, a $10,000 relief bill for the widow of a naval officer was proposed. Colonel Crockett rose in stern opposition and gave the following eloquent and successful rebuttal: “We must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not attempt to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right as individuals to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money.“

In a famous incident in 1854, President Franklin Pierce courageously vetoed an extremely popular bill intended to help the mentally ill, saying: "I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity." To approve such spending, he argued, "would be contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of the States if founded." Grover Cleveland, the king of the veto, rejected hundreds of congressional spending bills during his two terms as president in the late 1800s, because, as he often wrote: "I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution."

Were Jefferson, Madison, Crockett, Pierce, and Cleveland merely hardhearted and uncaring penny pinchers, as their critics have often charged? Were they unsympathetic toward fire victims, the mentally ill, widows, or impoverished refugees? Of course not. They were honor bound to uphold the Constitution. They perceived—we now know correctly—that once the government genie was out of the bottle, it would be impossible to get it back in.

With a few notable exceptions during the nineteenth century, Congress, the president, and the courts remained faithful to the letter and spirit of the Constitution with regard to government spending. As economic historian Robert Higgs noted in Crisis and Leviathan, until the twentieth century, "government did little of much consequence or expense" other than running the military. The total expenditures for the federal budget confirm this assessment. Even as late as 1925, the federal government was still spending just 4 percent of national output. Compare that to 2001 (the most recent year with accurate data available) when the cost of the federal budget was over 18 percent of national output as reported by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, almost five times the amount as a direct percentage!

ABANDONING CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS

Several major turning points in American history mark the reversal of this ethic. The first was the passage in 1913 of the Sixteenth Amendment, which permitted a federal income tax. This was the first major tax that was not levied on a proportional or uniform basis. Hence, it allowed Congress a political free ride: It could provide government benefits to many by imposing a disproportionately heavy tax burden on the wealthy. Prior to enactment of the income tax, Congress’s power to spend was held in check by its limited power to tax. Most federal revenues came from tariffs and land sales. Neither source yielded huge sums. The income tax, however, soon became a cash cow for a Congress needing only the feeblest of excuses to spend money.

The second major event that weakened constitutional protections against big government was the ascendancy of Franklin Roosevelt and his New Deal agenda to the White House during the Great Depression. One after another, constitutional safeguards against excessive government were ignored or misinterpreted. Most notable and tragic was the perversion of the "general welfare" clause. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution says: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excise to pay the debts, provide for the common defense, and promote the general welfare of the United States." Since the 1930s, the courts have interpreted this phrase to mean that Congress may spend money for any purpose, whether there is an enumerated power of government or not, as long as legislators deem it to be in the general welfare of certain identifiable groups of citizens like minorities, the needy, or the disabled. This carte blanche is exactly the opposite of what the Founders intended. The general welfare clause was supposed to limit government’s taxing and spending powers to purposes that are in the national interest.

Jefferson had every reason to be concerned that the general welfare clause might be perverted. To clarify its meaning, he wrote in 1798: "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare but only those specifically enumerated." In fact, when some early lawmakers suggested that the general welfare clause gave Congress a generalized spending authority, they were always forcefully rebuked. In 1828, for example, South Carolina Senator William Drayton reminded his peers, "If Congress can determine what constitutes the general welfare and can appropriate money for its advancement, where is the limitation to carrying into execution whatever can be effected by money?"

Exactly.

Nonetheless, by the late nineteenth century, Congress had adopted the occasional practice of enacting spending bills for public charity in the name of "promoting the general welfare." These laws often made a mockery of this clause. In 1884, Senator John Morgan of Alabama stormed to the Senate floor to describe the impact of a relief bill approved by Congress to provide $400,000 of funds for victims of a flood on the Tombigbee River. Morgan lamented: “The overflow had passed away before the bill passed Congress, and new crops were already growing upon the land. The funds were distributed in the next October and November elections upon the highest points of the sand mountains throughout a large region where the people wanted what was called ‘overflow bacon.’ I cannot get the picture out of my mind. There was the General Welfare of the people invoked and with success, to justify this political fraud; the money was voted and the bacon was bought, and the politicians went around with their greasy hands distributing it to men who cast greasy ballots. And in that way the General Welfare was promoted!”

But the real avalanche of such special interest spending did not start until some fifty years later in the midst of the Depression. In their urgency to spend public relief funds to combat hard times, politicians showed their contempt for constitutional restraints designed to prevent raids on the public purse. "I have no patience whatever with any individual who tries to hide behind the Constitution, when it comes to providing foodstuffs for our citizens," argued New York Representative Hamilton Fish in support of a 1931 hunger relief bill. James O’Conner, a congressman from Louisiana, opined, "I am going to give the Constitution the flexibility ... as will enable me to vote for any measure I deem of value to the flesh and blood of my day."

Pork-barrel spending began in earnest. In the same year, for instance, Congress introduced an act to provide flood relief to farmers in six affected states. By the time the bill made its way through Congress, farmers in fifteen states became its beneficiaries. One Oklahoma congressman succinctly summarized the new beggar-thy-neighbor spending ethic that had overtaken Capitol Hill: "I do not believe in this pie business, but if we are making a great big pie here... then I want to cut it into enough pieces so that Oklahoma will have its piece."

In 1932, Charles Warren, a former assistant attorney general, wrote a popular book titled Congress as Santa Claus. "If a law to donate aid to any farmer or cattleman who has had poor crops or lost his cattle comes within the meaning of the phrase ‘to provide for the General Welfare of the United States,’" he argued, "why should not similar gifts be made to grocers, shopkeepers, miners, and other businessmen who have made losses through financial depression, or to wage earners out of employment? Why is not their prosperity equally within the purview of the General Welfare?"

Of course, we now know Congress’s answer: All of these things are in the "general welfare." This is why we now have unemployment compensation, the Small Business Administration, the Department of Commerce, food stamps, and so on. Of course, all this special interest spending could have been—no, should have been—summarily struck down as unconstitutional. However, the courts have served as a willing co-conspirator in congressional spending schemes.

In a landmark 1936 decision, the Supreme Court inflicted a mortal blow to the Constitution by ruling that the Agricultural Adjustment Act was constitutional. The Court interpretation of the spending authority of Congress was frightful and fateful. Its ruling read: "The power of Congress to authorize appropriations of public money for public purposes is not limited by the grants of legislative power found in the Constitution." What? How can it be that very limits put in place can be interpreted to ot be limits, especially when the 10th Amendment states “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

James M. Beck, a great American legal scholar and former solicitor general, likened this astounding assault on the Constitution to the Titanic tragic collision with the iceberg. "After the collision," wrote Beck, "which was hardly felt by the steamer at the time, the great liner seemed to be intact and unhurt, and continued to move. But a death wound had been inflicted under the surface of the water, which poured into the hold of the steamer so swiftly that in a few hours the great ship was sunk."

The New Deal Court essentially told Congress: It doesn’t matter what the Constitution says or what limits on government it establishes, you are empowered to spend money on whatever you please. And so Congress does, even though its profligacy has placed the nation in great economic peril.

Other than the Great Depression, by far the most important events that have fostered the growth of government in this century have been the two world wars. Periods of national crisis tend to be times in which normal constitutional restraints are suspended and the nation willingly bands together under government for a national purpose of fighting a common enemy. Yet the recurring lesson of history is that once government has seized new powers, it seldom gives them back after the crisis ends. Surely enough, this phenomenon is one of Parkinson’s famous laws of the public sector: “Taxes (and spending) become heavier in times of war and should diminish, by rights, when the war is over. This is not, however, what happens. Taxes never regain their pre-war level. That is because the level of expenditure rises to meet the wartime level of taxation”.

In the five years prior to World War I, total federal outlays averaged 2 percent of GDP. In the five years after the war, they averaged 5 percent of GDP. In the years prior to that war the top income tax rate was 7 percent. During the war the tax rate shot up to 70 percent, which was reduced afterward, but only to 24 percent or more than three times higher than it had originally been.

Government regulations of the private economy also proliferate during times of war and often remain in force afterward. Robert Higgs notes that during World War I, the federal government nationalized the railroads and the telephone lines, requisitioned all ships over 2,500 tons, and regulated food and commodity prices. The Lever Act of 1917 gave the government the power to regulate the price and production of food, fuels, beverages and distilled spirits. It is entirely plausible that, without the war, America would never have suffered through the failed experiment of Prohibition.

World War II was also the genesis of many modern-day government intrusions which were and still are of dubious constitutionality. These include wage and price controls, conscription (which lasted until the 1970s), rent control in large cities, and, worst of all, federal income tax withholding. In the post-World War II era, Congress has often relied on a war theme to extend its authority into domestic life. Lyndon Johnson launched the modern welfare state in the 1960s when he declared a "war on poverty." In the early 1970s, Richard Nixon imposed across-the-board wage and price controls the ultimate in government command and control as a means of winning the "inflation war." In the late 1970s, Jimmy Carter sought to enact a national energy policy with gas rationing and other draconian measures by pleading that the oil crisis had become the "moral equivalent of war." In the 1980’s, Ronald Reagan funneled untold spending into the “war on drugs”, replicating the failed policies of the prohibition on alcohol instituted and then repealed during the 1920’s. In the 1990’s, Bill Clinton further expanded on that concept and more money was apportioned to the “war on crime”. In the 2000’s, George Bush committed untold billions to the “war on terror” through the funding of an unconstitutional intrusion on the sovereignty of a foreign nation, yet failed to secure our own borders in the defense of our country against foreign terrorists and illegal aliens.

While government has been the principal beneficiary of national emergency, the principal casualty has been liberty. As Madison warned, "Crisis is the rallying cry of the tyrant." This should give us pause as our current president, Barack Obama, and Congress now set out to solve the economic crisis, the health care crisis and the education crisis. To Congress, a crisis is an excuse to expand its domain. As Americans, we can no longer afford to allow our Federal Government’s continued unconstitutional attempts to “even the score” and “spread the wealth around”. These efforts will only result in the further de-motivation of those on the receiving end of the numerous entitlement programs, and unfairly saddles the hard working, law-abiding citizens of this great country with the need to be our brother’s keeper.

In the words of Abraham Lincoln: "You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. You cannot build character and courage by taking away people's initiative and independence. You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves."

Remember the old adage - Give a man a fish and he eats for a day - teach a man to fish and he eats for the rest of his life.

TURNING BACK THE CLOCK

Shortly before his death, Benjamin Franklin was asked how well the Constitution would survive the test of time. He responded optimistically that "everything appears to promise it will last." Then he added his famous warning, "But in this world nothing is certain but death and taxes." Ironically, the mortal wounds of the Constitution have been inflicted by precisely those who insist that they want to make it "a living document." Yet to argue that we return to the spirit and the true meaning of this living document is to invite scorn, malice, or outright disbelief from modern-day intellectuals.

Those few brave souls (mainly outside the Beltway) who urge that government should be guided by the original intent of the Constitution are always accused of trying to "turn back the clock." But turning back the clock in order to right a grievous wrong is precisely what we ought to do. There is nothing reactionary or backward-looking about dedicating ourselves to the ideas and principles that guided our Founders and formed the bedrock of our free society.

By all means, let’s turn back the clock. Who knows? In the process we might even encourage a few Jeffersons and Madisons to run for Congress.

Little Upsets Me More

2009-04-19T11:59:00.000-04:00

Little upsets me more than the tendency people have to paint others who don't agree with them with a broad stoke, and in turn lump people together under general, meaningless terms such as "Left-wing", "Right-wing", "Socialist", "Marxist", etc. This is extremely short-sighted as it does not facilitate an honest and open debate of ideas or issues and quite often reverts to simple name calling.

One of the most obvious examples of this is the recent coverage, or lack thereof, by the main-stream media in regards to the Tea Party Protests that were held all across this great country of ours on April 15th, as well as their inaccurate overall assessment of the Tea Party movement in general as an "anit-Obama" movement on the part of "right-wing extremists". Let me just say that in order to truly understand the basis upon which the movement is founded, one must have a memory that is not only longer than the last 3 months since our current President took office, but it must be longer than the previous 8 years of our most recent President as well. The issue of excessive taxation is over 75 years in the making and is not really even one relating to the Office of the President or even of the Executive Branch itself, but rather it is an issue of our out-of-touch Senators and Representatives in Congress, since it is the Legislative Branch that has the ability to lay and collect taxes as outlined in the US Constitution.

Our current tax code is so convoluted that average citizens, even those working for the IRS, have trouble deciphering it. This leads to a situation where those who can afford to, such as the wealthier among us, hire someone to find the loopholes within the tax code, and thus reduce their obligation to pay their fair share of taxes. Let's also set something straight when it comes to the issue of "their fair share". Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution not only grants Congress the power to "lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Impost and Excises..." but also directs that "all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States". In other words, our current system, where your tax rate (the percentage of your income that's required to be paid in taxes) increases as your income increases, is entirely unconstitutional. Simple math dictates that a "fair share" is directly proportional - so if the uniform tax rate is 10% someone who earns $50,000 per year would be liable to pay $5,000 in taxes while someone earning $500,000 per year would be liable to pay $50,000. That is, by definition, the truest interpretation of one's "fair share". A flat tax such as this would close the many loopholes in the current tax code and would ensure that we actually collect the full amount of taxes that are due.

The tax code needs to be simplified to remove the ability of our government to drive behaviors through targeted taxes and eliminate the class warfare that has become so prevalent these days. Immigrants come to this country in droves, often times illegally (but that is a topic for another day...) in order to have the opportunity to make the most of themselves, through hard work and perseverance, and to live the American Dream. To punish people for their determination and their resulting success flies in the face of the very principles upon which this great country was founded. After all, it is the people who work hard, and as a result have managed to get ahead, that start and grow the small businesses in this country that generate "real" jobs for the rest of us. Oddly enough, I've never heard of anyone getting a job from a lazy poor person.

My intention was to keep this short and sweet, but I fear I may have failed in that regard. As a veteran, I am very passionate about our country and the ideals upon which it was founded. But keep in mind, I don't speak for everyone within the Tea Party movement, only for myself. And no, contrary to what the main stream media would have you believe, I'm not rich, I don't own my own business and believe it or not, I don't feel any worse off as a result. Also, as it regards political affiliation, I am a registered member of the Constitution Party, for what it's worth.

I love to engage in political discourse and it is imperative that we as citizens try to understand where our fellow citizens are coming from - we don't need to agree necessarily, only to understand and appreciate each others' viewpoints. That is one of the things that makes this country so great - the freedom to engage each other in the arena of ideas, without fear of retribution.

Why a Tea Party?

2009-04-17T03:27:00.000-04:00

Well, the historical reference should be an indication of our intent, but let me start with a little background.

It was in the spirit of rugged individualism that the right to “...the pursuit of happiness”, and not "happiness" itself, was such an important part of our Declaration of Independence. How we’ve degraded our thinking to the point where people feel the need to “spread the wealth around” through oppressive taxation and the redistribution of the wealth of our hard working citizens through various government programs, rather than earning one’s own keep, is beyond me. Thomas Jefferson likely articulated this concept best when he said “Never trouble another for what you can do for yourself” because when one depends on another's labors to support their existence, their existence will always be limited to what others are willing to give, rather than having the full potential of what they might be capable of achieving on their own.

The reason that I participated in the Tax Day Tea Party here in Greensboro was not simply to oppose the current administration’s spending proposals (although a tripling of federal government spending from one year to the next should be enough to make every citizen stand up in protest), but to oppose all of the unconstitutional spending that has grown out of control over the past 76 years since FDR proposed the first initiatives of the New Deal in 1933. There is more than plenty of blame to go around, for both democrats and republicans alike. I have no desire, as the liberals claim, to go back to the spending policies of the Bush administration, because, for the most part, those policies were wasteful and largely unconstitutional as well. My true desire is to see us, as a country, work our way back to the fundamentals of the Constitution, by passing a Balanced Budget Amendment, initiating across the board spending cuts to all federal benevolence programs and instituting a Line-Item Veto to eliminate pork-barrel spending and return our society to a point where spending is done and controlled at the state and local levels where proper oversight can truly be achieved, as outlined in the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution.

The U.S. Constitution is fundamentally a rulebook for government. Its guiding principle is the understanding that "the government" was a necessary evil and is a source of corruptive power and ultimate tyranny. The Federal Government’s responsibilities were confined to a few enumerated powers, involving mainly national security and public safety. In the realm of domestic affairs, the Founders sought to guarantee that federal interference in the daily lives of citizens would be strictly limited. They also wanted to make sure that the minimal government role in the domestic economy would be financed and delivered at the state and local levels.

The enumerated powers of the federal government to spend money are defined in the Constitution under Article I, Section 8. These powers include the right to "establish Post Offices and post roads; raise and support Armies; provide and maintain a Navy; declare War..." and to conduct a few other activities related mostly to national defense. The term “provide for the Common Defense and the General Welfare of the United States” meant just that – things that were good for “all” citizens such as a military to defend our country, a post office to provide a common and accessible means of communication, etc. It does not state “to provide for the individual welfare of the people”. No matter how long one searches, it is impossible to find in the Constitution any language that authorizes at least 90 percent of the civilian programs that Congress crams into the federal budget today. What if every adult in the United States decided it was the government’s role to “promote the individual welfare of the people” and quit their job tomorrow? Where then would the revenue come from in order for the federal government to provide for everyone’s individual needs?

As outlined in the Constitution, the federal government has no authority to pay money to farmers, run the health care industry, impose wage and price controls, give welfare to the poor and unemployed, provide job training, subsidize electricity and telephone service, lend money to businesses and foreign governments, or build parking garages, tennis courts, and swimming pools. The Founders did not create a Department of Commerce, a Department of Education, or a Department of Housing and Urban Development. This was no oversight: They did not believe that government was authorized to establish such agencies.

Recognizing the propensity of governments to expand, and, as Thomas Jefferson put it, for "liberty to yield," the Founders added the Bill of Rights to the Constitution as an extra layer of protection. The government was never supposed to grow so large that it could trample on the liberties of American citizens. The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution states clears and unambiguously, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." In other words, if the Constitution doesn’t specifically permit the federal government to do something, then it doesn’t have the right to do it and it certainly doesn’t have the right to confiscate our hard earned money in order to do it!

As constitutional scholar Roger Pilon has documented, even expenditures for the most charitable of purposes were routinely spurned as illegitimate. In 1794, James Madison, commonly referred to as both the Father of the Constitution and the Father of the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution), wrote disapprovingly of a $15,000 appropriation for French refugees: "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on the article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." This view that Congress should follow the original intent of the Constitution was restated even more forcefully on the floor of the House of Representatives two years later by William Giles of Virginia. Giles condemned a relief measure for fire victims and insisted that is was not the purpose, nor the right of Congress to "attend to what generosity and humanity require, but to what the Constitution and their duty require."

In 1827, the famous Davy Crockett was elected to the House of Representatives. During his first term of office, a $10,000 relief bill for the widow of a naval officer was proposed. Colonel Crockett rose in stern opposition and gave the following eloquent and successful rebuttal: “We must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not attempt to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right as individuals to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money”.

In a famous incident in 1854, President Franklin Pierce courageously vetoed an extremely popular bill intended to help the mentally ill, saying: "I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity." To approve such spending, he argued, "would be contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of the States is founded." Grover Cleveland, the king of the veto, rejected hundreds of congressional spending bills during his two terms as president in the late 1800s, because, as he often wrote: "I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution."

Were Madison, Giles, Crockett, Pierce, and Cleveland merely hardhearted and uncaring penny pinchers, as their critics have often charged? Were they unsympathetic toward fire victims, the mentally ill, widows, or impoverished refugees? Of course not. They were honor bound to uphold the Constitution. They perceived—we now know correctly—that once the government genie was out of the bottle, it would be impossible to get it back in.

With a few notable exceptions during the nineteenth century, Congress, the president, and the courts remained faithful to the letter and spirit of the Constitution with regard to government spending. As economic historian Robert Higgs noted in Crisis and Leviathan, until the twentieth century, "government did little of much consequence or expense" other than running the military. The total expenditures for the federal budget confirm this assessment. Even as late as 1925, the federal government was still spending just 4 percent of national output. Compare that to 2001 when the cost of the federal budget was over 18 percent of national output as reported by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, almost five times the amount as a direct percentage!

Please don’t misunderstand my strict interpretation of the Constitution as an attitude of indifference to those who are truly needy. I simply agree with the Founding Fathers and think that acts of benevolence should come through private giving and charitable organizations and not forced from the taxpayers at large. I should be free to give to whomever or whatever cause I choose. By doing things in that manner, people are held accountable to their neighbors who are supporting them or helping provide for their needs, and those who are providing the support are in the best position to motivate that person back to self-sufficiency simply due to the closeness of the relationship. When assistance is provided in this way, one is less likely to continue the assistance if the person being provided for is not doing their part and doing everything they can to work themselves back to self-sufficiency. With our current system however, the only oversight comes in the form of a case-worker from a federal or state agency that they meet with once a month at best, providing little to no real interaction and having no true understanding of the circumstances, and providing minimal motivation on the part of the person receiving the assistance to change the situation. In this manner we are forced to support the lazy as well as those who are truly in need.

The true basis of the Tea Party movement isn’t about political party affiliation, democrat or republican, but rather the concepts of individual responsibility, fiscal responsibility on the part of our federal government and affirmation of the Tenth Amendment. People understand basic economics – within their own household budgets they understand that you can’t spend more than you make – and that you don’t get out of debt by spending more money that you don’t have to begin with. The groundswell is huge. It is estimated that over 300,000 people attended more than 770 anti-tax tea party demonstrations across the country on April 15^th alone, many that were held during lunch-time, thus preventing many more who would have liked to attend from doing so. And the movement will only continue to grow as more and more people continue to get fed up with having their hard earned money go to bailout unsound financial institutions, inefficient corporations with out-dated business models and the ever growing pork-barrel spending that’s pushed through congress and forced down their throats year after year with no end in sight.

The great part is that our elected officials in congress see this movement and recognize it for what it truly is, and quite frankly, it scares the hell out of them. The proof is when our current Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, discounts the reality of this grass-roots movement and plays it off as “astro-turf”, funded by the wealthy as an attempt to lower their taxes and return to the policies of the previous administration. The first initial reaction any person has to what they perceive as an imminent threat, is to deny its very existence or to play it off as something other than what it really is. Even President Obama claimed on April 15^th that he wasn’t aware of these “so-called Tea Parties” that were being planned. Are we expected to believe that the man holding one of the most powerful political offices in the world, with the intelligence capabilities of the CIA literally at his finger-tips, was not aware that nationwide protests against skyrocketing federal spending were being planned, especially when it was being reported and promoted on the internet for the last few weeks? Or are we to assume that this information was intentionally withheld from the President and that he is simply so far out of touch with the constituency that he hadn’t even heard of it? Either scenario makes him look like a fool. How is it that on one hand the Speaker of the House says this was all well planned and orchestrated by the GOP, yet on the other hand the President wasn’t aware of the movement’s existence, up to and including the very date the protests were held?

I believe this movement will do more to engage the largest cross section of American citizens than any other single event in recent history, to include the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. It is the responsibility of each of us to educate our friends, neighbors and co-workers as to the real spirit behind this movement and make sure the republicans do not attempt to high-jack this movement and claim it as their own - as a desire of the populace to move away from the left and towards the right - because it's not. This isn’t about left or right, it’s about uncontrolled, unconstitutional spending on wasteful programs and unnecessary pork projects at the expense of the responsible citizens who have worked hard to become self-sufficient and in some cases even affluent, and when it comes to wasteful spending, republicans are just as guilty as democrats are.

You owe it to yourself, your children and your grandchildren to take the time to educate yourself on the issues and the surrounding facts, take time to read the writings of the great men who wrote our Constitution, such as The Federalist Papers, and truly understand their thought-process as they wrote it, as well as their feelings toward the tyrannical government and unjust taxation they had just thrown off and were looking to prevent from replicating itself in the future. We must educate ourselves and each other, and we must take the time to get involved and participate in the discourse.

As Thomas Jefferson said – “We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate”.