Liberty, Justice and Capitalism, RIP?

This essay is adapted from The Legacy, an action oriented novel I am in the process of writing that is based on current world events


In the context of politics, differences of opinion are generally a good thing. Freedom of speech and the ability to discuss ideas and opinions among ourselves is why the Free World has led the development of modern, prosperous societies. Rational discussion and debate is necessary for decision makers to arrive at optimal solutions to the issues that challenge them. Closing our minds to alternative courses of action because of blind faith in a particular ideology, a specific cause or a charismatic leader often leads to disaster, as we have seen many times throughout history.

I am politically independent. I prefer to consider myself an American who supports leaders that actively work to maintain the founding principles that produced the greatest country in the history of the world, whether they be Republican, Democrat, Libertarian or Martian. I believe that government should exist solely to ensure justice, protect individual rights, preserve freedom, and create an environment that allows private enterprise to flourish. In other words, to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility and provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. Most of us should remember those words from the preamble to the Constitution.

Unfortunately, the United States of America is currently undergoing radical, unprecedented changes in our culture, our economic system and our philosophy of government. Democracy, freedom and capitalism in America are under attack, and the issues Americans face are a real threat to our way of life and long term survival. These issues must be discussed openly and constructively among our citizens and political leaders, because in the not too distant future we may end up with a country that is much different than the one we inherited from our forefathers. If we continue to blindly pursue our present course we are likely to evolve into a polarized, violent, economically stagnant society with limited liberties and minimal ability to defend ourselves from foreign adversaries.

Nearly all of us have been blessed to live and work in a Western society and enjoy the good fortune of individual freedom and the opportunities created by free markets. That is because the founding fathers of this great nation conceived a constitution that for over 220 years has allowed us to live free, pursue our personal interests, and participate in selecting our political leaders.

Freedom for Americans has meant the right to engage in the occupation of our choice in free and open markets, and to be compensated well enough to enjoy the lifestyle we choose. Capitalism has allowed the innovative and entrepreneurial among us to generate standards of living for all that were incomprehensible just a few generations ago.

But despite the unprecedented prosperity and freedom we have achieved in America, many people in our society don't seem to acknowledge or appreciate it. It seems that many among us believe our country is an evil and imperialistic bully, controlled by greedy businessmen intent on destroying the environment and exploiting the world's resources. Others are convinced we have become an immoral, decadent society that must be purified and taken back from the control of contemptible, Godless perverts. Somehow we evolved into an America that has become angry, hateful and intolerant of those who do not agree with us.

This polarization of society is like a deadly virus that threatens the future of our country. The individual rights challenged authoritarians on the right and the common sense challenged socialists on the left have no respect for differences of opinion, and are both completely convinced they are one hundred percent right while those who disagree are uneducated idiots or vile, conspiratorial pawns of some special interest group. Actually, both are right. The other side is the problem.

Unfortunately, even though the extreme elements are a minority within their respective political parties they are the most influential because they scream the loudest and are the most committed. And the leaders and elected representatives of each party often tend to come from their radical activist wings. Once elected, these extremists have a much bigger soapbox from which to polarize the country further, and they do. Politicians today do not use their status to reconcile Americans and promote unity, but use these differences to create even more animosity in our culture in order to solidify their power.

The continued expansion of the welfare state has resulted in open warfare between those who are beneficiaries of government entitlements and those who pay for them. The two opposing forces are nearing equilibrium, and those who pay for it all are not happy about government confiscating their hard earned dollars to redistribute to others. The rise of the victim mentality and the outrageous transfer of money to them from those who have victimized no one has resulted in escalating partisan animosity.

There is no question that the United States, through the economic growth engine of capitalism, has achieved a remarkably high standard of living. At the same time we have created a disparity of wealth and income among our citizens that needs to be addressed. In a society of abundance there is no legitimate reason for those at the bottom to be left out. If future economic growth has to be marginally sacrificed through higher taxes on the wealthy in order to provide support for the disadvantaged, disabled and dispossessed, then a society of advanced affluence can certainly afford it.

But in order to actually accomplish the objective of providing assistance to the unfortunate, the resources of our country need to be spent wisely, not thrown away to some favored interest group, politically correct crusade, or government program that never produces results. The preamble to the Constitution says the government should promote the general welfare, not supply it. The best way to do that is by supporting capitalism, open markets and equal opportunity, not redistribution of income. In order to maintain the ability to generate the resources that provide for public assistance, government should never cripple the engine of economic growth by interfering in private enterprise.

The last election in the United States resulted in monumental change to our culture and economic system. The winners campaigned on a slogan of change, as many challengers often do. Obviously they did not use the word as an empty political slogan. They produced more change in their first months in office than ever seen before in American history. But is this the kind of change Americans who voted for them expected? Enough time has now passed for those who voted for the new leaders to ask themselves if the new administration and legislature really represent their views and opinions?

For example, regarding capitalism, does anyone really believe that government can allocate investment capital more effectively and operate commercial and industrial organizations more efficiently than private enterprise? Does anyone believe the productive members of our economy will remain motivated to produce more goods and services and that government revenues will increase if taxes are raised, despite strong historical evidence to the contrary? Do some believe that American workers should be bullied into joining a corrupt, autocratic, competitiveness killing labor union, and then be required to contribute a portion of their earnings to overpay its leaders? By their actions to date, this administration and Congress does.

Is it justice for all if the government bails out the billionaires and mega-millionaires responsible for the financial meltdown from their stupid investment gambles with middle class taxpayers money while unemployment rises to double digits? Does anyone actually believe in leaving our children with the burden of insurmountable debts by creating even more social programs that never accomplish their objectives? Do some people really think multiculturalism is helping to assimilate immigrants into American society, and do they support illegals unlimited access to education and health care paid for by legal citizens? Our current leaders obviously do.

Are our liberties and individual rights being infringed upon when our government dictates that Americans should be forced to drive small death traps and be required to freeze or melt in the dark rather than develop new supplies of energy that might inconvenience some polar bear or caribou? Do we really think we must not use scientific analysis to challenge the environmentalist theocrats who are 100% certain humans are the cause of global warming and are mandating that we drastically change our lifestyles, even though a generation ago the same folks were frightening the public about global cooling? Should talk shows with political viewpoints opposing the policies of the government in power be shut down and silenced? Those are policies our current leaders support.

And perhaps most logic defying of all, do the majority of Americans really think America is an evil and imperialistic country that should apologize to the rest of the world for our behavior despite providing the economic engine generating global prosperity and twice saving the world from mass murderers and unspeakable tyranny? Do some people actually think negotiating with terrorists whose religious duty is to eliminate us from the face of the earth will make the bad men go away? Or that interrogation techniques such as waterboarding that resulted in saving American lives from planned terrorist attacks is the moral equivalent of cutting off heads and setting off car bombs that kill dozens of innocent women and children? Does anyone truly believe eliminating cutting edge defense programs is a good idea in the face of increasing global threats? How about negotiating arms control treaties with strategic opponents where we concede everything and the other side gives up nothing?

It is one thing to oppose participation in wars in Iraq or Afghanistan based on differences of opinion over the actual identity of those who attacked us, or questions about the propriety of attempting to force democracy on sovereign countries. It is another thing entirely to ignore responding to those who are responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans on our own soil, and to unilaterally disarm our military based on naive or outright false understanding of global relationships, ignorance of world history or a dangerously optimistic concept of the nature of man. That is suicidal lunacy.

These are all actions taken or policies advocated by the folks now running the American government. The actions and policies all violate the fundamental principles of liberty, individual rights, security, justice and limited government as embodied in the U.S. Constitution. Are such radical policy changes really what Americans wanted when they voted in the last election?

Traditionally, the majority of Americans have been in general agreement regarding our basic principles. I would like to think they still are. But who today represents those who believe in limited government, capitalism and free markets, individual freedom, personal responsibility, impartial justice, reward based on merit, punishment for wrongdoing, and a strong defense to protect us against foreign adversaries and terrorist organizations who want to dominate or exterminate us? The answer is no one. No such party exists any longer in America. Based on their performance while they controlled Congress, the Republicans did not stand for many of those ideals either. The principles that formed the foundation of our country are now nothing more than buzzwords used by corrupt politicians to get elected and then ignored.

The solution provided by the Constitution for Americans to remedy misrepresentation by politicians is to throw the bastards out at election time. At the presidential level, we often do. Unfortunately, it seems that every new president proclaims he was overwhelmingly elected with a mandate to immediately employ his policies. In 2008, only 62% of eligible voters in the United States voted. Our new president won 53% of the vote. That means less than one out of every three Americans who could have voted actually did vote for the new administration. Despite that fact, the new president is totally ignoring the two-thirds of Americans who don't necessarily agree with his agenda, as if they don't exist, and implementing his policies with no discussion and no compromise.

And what about Congress, where the true power lies? Do the majority of American citizens have a vote in selecting these legislators? Basically, the Senate Majority Leader, the Speaker of the House, and the Chairmen of the Congressional Committees run this country. In the senate there are sixteen standing committees, four special committees and four joint committees. Arguably, only four or five of these committees really have any significant impact on the average American. The House of Representatives has 25 committees, with only five or six of major importance.

How many of us actually voted for these dozen or so congressional leaders that rule over the two houses of Congress and control these committees? I will tell you. The last time he was up for reelection, less than 500,000 people voted for the Senate Majority Leader, and no one outside his home state of Nevada unless ACORN had something to do with it. That is less than one-half of one percent of Americans who voted nationally, and less than one-quarter of one percent of eligible voters in the United States.

205,000 people in her home state of California voted for the Speaker of the House, or 0.16% of voters and 0.10% of eligible voters. 203,000 voters in Massachussetts elected the Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, arguably the one man most responsible for the collapse of the sub-prime mortgage market and global financial crisis that erupted in 2008. Each of these folks have been in Congress more than twenty years, and they control our lives as they see fit.

In effect, about a dozen people in Congress plus the President determine the policies of our government. They are typically career politicians, and today they are all members of the same political party. Yes, the Republicans held the presidency and both houses of Congress less than five years ago, but they did not have the inclination or the audacity to completely overhaul America's cultural foundation and economic system. But when one party controls the government and is willing to ignore the constitution and the general public to radically change two hundred and thirty years of unprecedented progress and social tradition, then society and the nation's culture is fundamentally transformed. With negligible opposition, such a government can violate laws with impunity, particularly when they appoint like minded judges to the judicial system. And they can reward their supporters and disenfranchise their opponents to maintain control.

This couldn't happen in America, could it? Unfortunately, it is happening in America. The sanctity of the law of contracts is viewed by many as the foundation of the American legal system. But the new administration apparently doesn't think so. The financial system bail-outs and nationalizations as well as the General Motors and Chrysler government directed rescues involved wholesale violations of legal contracts. Bankruptcy laws and established banking system procedures are the legally prescribed methods providing for remedies of non-fulfillment of contracts, and they have worked quite well throughout our nation's history. But this government chose not to use them. Their actions indicate they do not respect the law or the rights of American citizens, principles that form the very foundation of the Constitution.

In the United States of America, the public tends to credit or blame the president for implementing government policies that affect us. But he cannot execute those policies without the permission of Congress. It is Congress that makes the laws. It is Congress that controls federal spending. It is Congress that declares war. Presidential appointees and Supreme Court Justices must be approved by the Senate. The point that we all need to understand is that how we vote for Congress is just as important as who we vote for president.

As we know, there are standard stereotypes attached to each political camp. Democrats are identified as supporting big government, redistribution of income, high taxes, maintenance of a minimal national defense, central government mandated economic policies, more public assistance for the disadvantaged, and, shall we say, 'new' moral standards. I seriously doubt if everyone who voted for the Democratic Party candidate in the last election supports every one of those positions. Does the Democratic Party really represent those who were just voting against the other guy?

Republicans supposedly support limited government, low tax rates, a strong defense, private enterprise, and traditional moral standards. But that often hasn't been the case when they were in charge. Some Republican legislators hypocritically displayed questionable personal moral standards despite proclaiming their ethical purity. And the majority of them seem to like spending the public's money and using the tax code to conduct industrial and financial engineering as much as the Democrats. I would bet money that many folks who voted for Republicans were not too impressed with their performance while in office, either.

Half a century ago the two political parties had their differences but generally seemed to be on the same page regarding the relationship between government and private enterprise. Unfortunately, society has now degenerated into separate camps where conservatives seem to think that everyone in government is a corrupt, totalitarian socialist while those in private enterprise are all honest, hard-working capitalists. Contrarily, liberals are convinced that all those involved in private enterprise are selfish, greedy crooks while everyone in government is an altruistic, compassionate angel.

I am compelled to ask why the self-assured activists on either side always believe their opponents have evil ulterior motives, as if they alone have a monopoly on compassion, righteousness and good intentions. Isn't it plausible that people on both sides have similar objectives but just disagree on the course of action to achieve them? Wouldn't the probability of mutual objectives being accomplished be higher if each side would now and then shut up and listen to the other? Demonization of political adversaries is a poor substitute for rational debate, and is a sign of supporting policies that lack real substance or viable solutions. It is past time for Americans to start acting like adults and realize the other side is not evil or ignorant, and begin to understand that legitimate differences of opinion in political discourse do exist.

But we are a long way from that understanding now? This government that is radically changing our economic structure and the lifestyle of future generations was elected because the last government did not do its job either. We now have a political system where neither party displays any sense of responsibility. They spend their time promising everything they know they have no intention of delivering and denigrating their opponents in order to accomplish their one objective of getting re-elected. We end up with career politicians who establish dynasties that preclude the election of citizen legislators as intended by our country's founders, and they ignore the real issues that confront the country. Their primary objective is to buy our votes with our own money. They proclaim their policies will greatly benefit the American people, but are sure not to apply those policies to themselves. They cannot possibly represent the American people in a responsible manner.

In 1776 we rebelled against a tyrant who demanded taxation without representation. Today, nearly half the voters pay no taxes or are beneficiaries of government programs. This segment of our population now has representation without taxation, a very good deal for them indeed. Meanwhile, those who pay the freight have returned to the status of taxation without representation. That is an untenable situation.

When a very small number of politicians who wield the most power in government become entrenched in their positions for long periods of time, we no longer have a democracy. We have an oligarchy, run by a politburo. And when a president is elected who is either in complete agreement with the Congressional leaders' agenda, too weak to over-ride them or too busy promoting himself to get involved, then there is no functional system of checks and balances. The ruling politburo does anything it damn well pleases.

How did we regress to the point where our freedoms, rights and prosperity are threatened by internal forces. In my personal opinion there are two primary factors that allowed this transformation to take place. One is the dysfunctional nature of our current two party system of politics.

It is clear the United States did not transform its political and economic system overnight. It took gradually increasing intellectual arrogance and cumulative failures of competence, integrity and moral courage over time by members of both dominant political parties. The fact is that Americans in general are compassionate and willing to provide assistance to those who genuinely need it, but they are not in favor of the government spending money beyond its means. Never-the-less, over the years' government expenditures continued to grow for expanding entitlements, new social programs, new bureaucracies and the unnecessary earmarks thrown in by most congressmen to provide goodies to their benefactors.

By its very nature, politics always involves corruption. It involves money, and it involves favoritism. Powerful people always attract folks willing to provide enticement and indulgences in order to gain influence on decisions that affect their interests. Special interest lobbying firms have grown to immense proportions, and their ability to influence legislation has become enormous. The interaction between lobbyists and legislative staffs is often the determining factor in legislative decisions, irregardless of the will of the American people.

American International Group, or AIG as they have become notoriously known, General Motors, Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers and even Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had some of the largest lobbying organizations in existence. It is not surprising that these enterprises were at the heart of the economic and financial meltdown. In fact, one has to question why quasi-governmental entities such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were even engaged in spending millions of dollars to lobby Congress.

Given the money involved and the way political campaigns are conducted today, it is difficult to attract honest, qualified people to run for public office. With a vast number of interest groups to deal with and each offering campaign backing for legislative favors, a candidate who is not willing to compromise his integrity or principles has little chance of winning. Only the candidate that satisfies the most powerful and wealthy lobbyists has a chance. Unfortunately, there are many candidates who are willing to do anything to gain the power and the limelight, and they will sell their souls to the special interest groups. This results in government for the benefit of those who provide the cash. Money talks, and the average citizen is ignored.

Furthermore, incumbency strongly favors the office holder in local elections. Public office has become a full time career. The incumbent has strong advantages in name recognition and funding support from their supporting interest groups and national party organizations. They also have access to their public relations and advertising professionals, who are experienced at designing winning campaigns. Once a congressman is in office, they are tough to get rid of.

In order to make their tenure permanent, politicians have adopted the strategy of totally destroying their opponents through character assassination and bogus indictments for alleged misdeeds. They conduct politically partisan witch hunts against their opposition whenever they assume power, as if nothing the other party did in office was ever right. The timing of the allegations is often used to deflect public attention away from serious misdeeds of senior members of their own party. Politics has become personal combat, with the primary strategy of demonizing and criminalizing opponents. Politicians who contrive the most creative lies about their opponents win elections. Experience, track records and actual accomplishments have become irrelevant.

In the rare occasions politicians and top bureaucrats do lose an election or influential government office, they seldom retire or return home to resume their prior careers. They are hired by Wall Street investment houses, Ivy League academic institutions, or Washington "think tanks" for lucrative salaries to bide their time until their party returns to power and they rotate back into government. Consequently, very little new blood or new ideas ever make it to positions of influence in our nations leadership.

The Founders strived to create a government that served the people, not one that evolved into a giant black hole that sucks the life out of its citizens. Today, following years of spending money that it doesn't have and putting Americans in debt beyond our capacity to repay, America revolves around Washington, D.C. The U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis reports the average compensation for federal employees is now more than double the average in the private sector. Seven of the ten richest counties in America surround Washington, D.C. Is that indicative of a government that serves the people, or one that exploits them?

There has to be a better way to ensure that Americans elect leaders who are honest, diligent, competent, and focused on working for the people who elect them, not themselves and their lobbyist benefactors. The United States, in order to return to the country our founders envisioned and our predecessors created, must have a federal legislature and administration that represents the American people rather than the vocal lunatic fringes of our society, wealthy benefactors and politically connected special interest lobbyists. We need leadership that is socially compassionate, fiscally prudent, worldly wise and administratively competent. Our current leaders are none of those. They are not even socially compassionate as they proclaim since they have no empathy for the vast middle class that comprises the majority of Americans, fuels the American economic engine and pays the taxes that government lives on. It may be an old cliche, but money is the root of this evil. Changes need to be made in the election process and limits placed on terms in office.

The second factor leading to the polarization of American society is the bias and misinformation produced by the various providers of information to the public. It is unfortunate that people cannot believe anything they read anymore. Depending on the source, one gets a completely different understanding of issues that should be straight-forward. This includes issues such as whether a health care bill contains certain clauses or it doesn't, whether methods of interrogation produced information that saved lives or it didn't, and even whether polls indicate a majority support a particular issue or they don't. Obviously, one or both sides are playing fast and loose with the facts and the truth in order to convey the message they want. People are going to believe the side they are pre-disposed to believe. News reporting has become so slanted and biased it has become useless.

The traditional sources of communication and information - newspapers, magazines, radio and television news programs, and particularly opinion oriented books and movies - have always displayed a certain bias depending on the political leanings of the producer. Realistically, complete objectivity is probably an unattainable goal. But bias has become so prevalent in the mass media that Americans have developed adversarial positions on the issues they are unable to compromise.

Many may strongly disagree, but it is really undeniable that the so-called mainstream media is biased toward the liberal agenda. It is on public record that journalists overwhelmingly vote for Democrats, the party that markets itself as the one with human compassion even though the reality of that contention is debatable. Perhaps there is a reason journalists try to identify themselves with compassion. Those who make a career of journalism often tend to be the altruistic types who want to expose the suffering and misery of the poor and the hungry, or root out corruption wherever it may be found. They are often on the front lines of the wars and conflicts and witness first hand the brutality and senselessness. The world needs these stories to be reported.

But perhaps journalists sometimes are too close to the story, which may limit their objectivity and ability to see the big picture. Socially speaking, what if there are limits on what government can do to assist the poor or feed the hungry? What if the best course of action for the less fortunate would be to put limits or stipulations on government assistance and strongly encourage them to become more self-sufficient? What if throwing money at the social problems really only ends up making them worse? What if we embark on uncertain quests to solve problems we are certain exist but end up creating even more damaging unintended consequences?

Regarding national security, what if we never did anything to assist those persecuted and terrorized by genocidal dictators? What if we didn't build and maintain the capacity to defend ourselves against foreign adversaries? What happens if we don't pursue terrorists who are committed to killing Americans? These are questions journalists need to consider before berating those who may believe in a different approach to solving the world's problems.

But journalists refuse to believe they are biased in reporting the news. They ask the accusers to provide evidence. That is not too difficult, since the evidence hides in plain sight. It is in the adverbs, adjectives, suggestive phrases and unsubstantiated innuendoes. It is in the routinely used descriptive terms that are either praiseworthy or derogatory in order to paint the picture the journalist wants. The evidence is also in the customary 'authoritative' statements declared as truth or fact without providing any proof, or assertions that cannot be proven or disproven. If 'sources' are quoted, they are typically only from one side of the story rather than from multiple sources that may provide more fair and balanced information. Journalists may not even do this intentionally. It may be just a product of their ingrained mindset.

The controversy over National Security Agency monitoring of telephone calls and emails in order to identify terrorist cells and potential plots to attack Americans is another prime example of media bias. When this happened under the Republican administration the mainstream media and various civil rights groups went ballistic and claimed it was illegal violations of citizens rights to privacy. But when it continued under the current Democrat administration, the news organization spun it by reporting it was believed to be unintentional and that steps had been taken to correct the situation, without offering any proof that they had. One administration is automatically labeled as violators of civil rights while the other is summarily excused. Is that balanced reporting?

Many editors, publishers and producers will admit their product is opinionated. They say that is what the public wants. Maybe they are right. A reader can buy either the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal and know what kind of slant to the news he is getting. The expectation of opinions must be why so-called newsmagazines such as Time carry feature articles by unelected and uncredentialed writers that arrogantly second guess elected Republican officials by questioning or ridiculing their decisions, as if the world would be a better place if the writer was in charge. It also explains why they have the audacity to publish a cover story by a staff reporter that tells us all how a president can fix the economy, which assumes the writer is an expert on subjects that are extremely complicated and consume the full time of thousands of highly educated professionals whose viewpoints and opinions differ greatly. Most of Time's articles suggest the solution to all of America's problems would be simple if only Republicans would disappear.

Do editors and producers have the right to make their own editorial decisions when reporting a story? Certainly. Do they have the right to intentionally mislead and create false representations? Unfortunately, yes. Is that ethical and responsible journalism? Certainly not. Americans have had enough of journalists' telling them what to believe and what to think. They are tired of the arrogance, condescension and pretensions of intellectual superiority. Americans want real, honest, unbiased news so they can educate themselves and form their own opinions. They know they are not getting it from the mainstream media. That is why newspapers are shutting down across the country and broadcast media is losing its audience.

The entertainment industry is another source of propaganda indoctrinating the American public with the liberal agenda. So-called documentaries 'exposing' scheming Republicans marketed as factual contain few grains of truth. Over-promoted films depict American businessmen and intelligence operatives as evil villains. Industry ceremonies award prizes to those productions that are the most politically correct.

For example, our current president won a Grammy in 2008 for Best Spoken Word Album for a recording of his book 'The Audacity of Hope: Reclaiming the American Dream.' The year before the award was given to Jimmy Carter, the one-term Democrat president of the late 70's. The year before that the award was again given to our current president, and the year before that to Bill Clinton, the previous Democrat in the oval office. In 2004 it was given to truth-challenged, manure-flinging clown Al Franken for a completely unintelligible and fictional bashing of Republicans labeled 'A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right'. I am not making this up. Look it up yourself. Perhaps a better name for the self-righteous, self-indulgent orgy of an awards ceremony would be 'The Audacity of the Entertainment Industry'.

You often hear from the Democrats, and consequently the media, how America has alienated people in other countries around the world. Although there is certainly room to dispute that, particularly in view of the fact that immigrants keep showing up at our door, it would be a wonder if foreigners had not lost some respect for us. Foreign news organizations, particularly in the Middle East, report nothing but slanted and outright false information that paints the U.S. as a mean and evil monster. Unfortunately, our own media does the same thing. There is often little difference between the New York Times and al-Jazeera.

We now live in a world where deeds no longer speak louder than words. Deeds are ignored while words are used to deceive, mislead, misrepresent, misinform and lie. They are used this way to vilify, demonize, denigrate and defame those who do not agree with the politically correct viewpoint. The result is dangerous polarization of society.

Earlier I mentioned I am politically independent, neither a Republican nor a Democrat. One could ask if I am supposedly independent of either party, why have I spent most of this essay bashing the Democrats. Good question. The answer is because Democrats are the ones who dominate the mainstream media, therefore the ones responsible for the majority of the biased, misleading, often fabricated information that is disseminated to the public.

Democrats are the ones who initiated the strategy of legal harassment against their opponents - generating indictments of members of the opposite party's staffs for just doing their jobs, and filing numerous bogus ethics complaints against their challengers, including vice-presidential candidates, to bog them down in legal proceedings and raise unsubstantiated questions about their character.

The Democrats are the ones who cried political partisanship when Gorge W. Bush dismissed seven U.S. Attorneys, who by law serve at the pleasure of the President, while completely ignoring the fact that Bill Clinton fired all 93 U.S. Attorneys at the beginning of his first term. They are the ones that escalate non-events into major scandals and turn routine actions of government into criminal behavior. They intentionally create negative character assassinations out of nothing. No administration in history has had to withstand the degree of unsubstantiated, unwarranted and untruthful accusations of transgressions and misconduct as the last Republican one. This political character assassination is what has polarized the country.

It is the Democrats who belittle the average American citizens who gather at town hall meetings to register their concern and exercise their political voices that the Democrats do not want to hear. The Democrats declared war with no ethical limits or rules. And because they started it, they are responsible for the backlash of the out of control reactionary invective that now consumes the internet, where the public has turned its attention to get the information they can't get from the mainstream media.

The internet, with its emails, blogs, twitters and whatever other forms of communication derive from it, has the capacity to be the most instructive and enlightening source of communication ever created. Unfortunately, it has also proved to be one of the most destructive. There has been a generational change in the way people obtain information. The younger generation does not watch television news or read newspapers. They get their information from the internet, much of it from extremely one-sided blogs that are filled with fabricated, misleading and false claims. This is happening not only in the United States, but around the world. These blogs are the madrassahs' of Western Civilization, filled with hate and venom for those with opposing opinions. Reasonable and rational debate has been replaced with intolerant, unaccountable personal opinion.

The internet has arguably become the primary accelerator of polarization in America. Blogs have overtaken the traditional sources of information from newspaper reporters and editorials, television talking heads and radio talk shows. Unfortunately, they are becoming even more vitriolic and socially destabilizing. The internet gives the bitter, hate-filled, uninformed members of our society a forum, and it is easy for the like-minded to tune them in, dividing the citizens of the country further into fanatical opposing camps.

Despite the widespread hate-mongering, it is still possible the eventual impact of the internet will prove to be positive. It allows information about important issues to be disseminated more widely among the public, often informing people who would otherwise not take the time to learn anything about the issues. It can serve to offset the money and influence of the powerful special interest groups as the public becomes more aware of public policies and their effect. Over time the misinformation and lies generated by both opposing sides can become exposed and diminished, hopefully leading to better understanding and rational compromise. But we are a long way from that now.

At the present time, dysfunctional government, divisive journalism and internet driven sectarianism is driving a wedge between various segments of American society. The country is no longer a vibrant, ambitious, progressive, ethnic assimilating frontier society of enterprising entrepreneurs and aggressive builders of a better life. Large segments of the population believe they are entitled to all the good life has to offer for little or no effort on their part. They believe that when things go wrong it is the government's job to bail them out. This attitude is causing the United States to devolve into a moribund, selfish, entitlement expecting welfare state. The heavy hand of government and acrimonious discord between people of differing opinions is destroying the country.

I admit I have painted a very dark picture of America's future. We have suffered hard times and political acrimony in the past, and have always recovered and moved forward with renewed societal and economic progress. But the United States faces challenges today that did not exist in the past, challenges that will require changes in our political structure for us to maintain our standard of living and national security. Mountains of debt, growing threats from weapons of mass destruction, and a society that has evolved into one where more people are dependent on the government for their means of support than pay taxes to provide it has dug Americans a deep hole that will be difficult to escape.

What can be done to reverse this destructive polarization of American society. What can we do to restore our country to a true democracy and our traditional culture of personal responsibility, self-reliance, national unity, tolerance, and compromise for the greater good? Obviously a good start would be to elect more responsible political leaders, who would understand their job is to serve the people and try to unite us rather than divide and conquer. But how is that going to happen when our political leaders are primarily engaged in expanding and securing their power and influence rather than performing their public duties? Who is going to challenge the institutions that run the country to do the right thing when they are all involved in feathering their nest?

Who is going to force journalists to report real, unbiased news rather than slanted, partisan essays designed to influence public opinion? And who could possibly convince the rabid bloggers to tone it down before they cause a civil war? Practically speaking, since free speech is a basic fundamental right of our constitutional republic there is not much we can do about published and broadcast bias and incendiary opinions. Hopefully, Americans will come to realize these sources report inaccurate, provocative, malicious information that misrepresent reality.

Unfortunately, America is unlikely to reverse its downward spiral until it recognizes its underlying cause. We cannot, and should not, restrict the right to free speech. But we can improve our political system. Politics is the art of a politician having the ability to make people believe he will make their lives better than his opponent will. And the best politicians are adept at convincing the people someone else will pay for making their lives better. Unfortunately, the better liar usually wins.

It can be argued that American society's polarization began with the government gradually granting political empowerment to those receiving entitlements. Charity to the poor and support of the underprivileged is a necessary and required duty in civilized society. But when income is distributed by government in order to generate votes for incumbents rather than to provide for the sustenance of those who need it, then that society becomes corrupt and illegitimate. Eventually government officials entrench themselves in office by buying votes with taxpayer dollars. That is where we are today. Consequently, the only viable course to the restoration of true democracy, genuine liberty and equal justice in the United States of America is to completely reform the American electoral system.

Many will consider this blasphemous, but there are legitimate questions about the relevancy of the U.S. Constitution to a nation that has evolved over more than 200 years. The founders could not possibly have anticipated everything that has transpired in the development of our country. We have grown to a population of over 300 million people compared to a population of three million in 1787 when the Constitution was ratified. And the nature of our government has changed dramatically since then. It is now an enormous administrative bureaucracy with two dominant political parties. Today, large corporations, wealthy individuals and special interest groups finance candidates and lobby elected officials, thereby buying the influence to shape public policies.

Furthermore, technology has produced communications systems that disseminate information instantaneously, and the sources of information and opinion have become practically infinite. Transportation has been revolutionized as people can now travel halfway around the world in less than a day. Health care has improved exponentially and people are living longer. And weapons of mass destruction can destroy a nation and kill millions in less than a second. We live in a different world from that of 230 years ago.

Unfortunately, our system of choosing our leaders has not progressed to accommodate a changing society. The result is we now have a government that is no longer functional. In fact, it can be argued that our government is now regressing to the type of autocratic oligarchy or monarchy that our founders rebelled against.

Our system of electing government officials needs to be updated. We must take money and tenure out of government and put knowledge, integrity and competence in. In order to accomplish that, I have seven recommendations regarding reform of the electoral process. The first six are reforms that definitely must be considered. The seventh would be a significant change that could at least begin discussions to create a more sustainable national environment that rewards hard work and productivity.

One - The most obvious and important reform is the implementation of term limits. Everyone knows the majority of the American public is in favor of term limits. The current system of unlimited terms for both the Senate and the House allows congressmen and women to spend their entire time in office campaigning for the next election rather than doing the jobs they were elected to do. They generally do not read the legislation they vote on and depend on their huge staffs and lobbyists to determine which way to vote to further their best interests, not their constituents.

In recent years over 90% of incumbents in the House of Representatives are re-elected to their seats. In many cases, the incumbents run unchallenged. In others, the challenger cannot raise anywhere near the amount of campaign funds as the current seat holder since special interests prefer to keep the devil they know in office. Qualified, capable and honest candidates know they do not stand a chance, so they don't run. That leaves voters with no choices that will dutifully represent their interests.

Unfortunately, setting term limits on members of Congress requires an amendment to the Constitution. Initiative and referendum are not available to American citizens at the national level. And of course politicians will never vote themselves out of office by approving term limits. But there are a couple of ways Americans can flex their Constitutional muscles and set the process in motion.

Perhaps the easiest approach, particularly in today's world of the internet, would be a grass roots initiative to start a petition among the voting public demanding that each candidate for the Senate or the House supply a signed pledge to introduce, sponsor or support legislation to enact a term limit amendment to the Constitution, and promise to work aggressively to ensure enactment. If a majority of constituents sign the petition, the candidate can not fail to understand the will of the people. If the candidate signs the pledge, is elected and fails to perform, he knows his political career is over after just one term.

The other approach would be based on the Constitution itself. Article V provides for the right of the legislatures of two-thirds of the states to call a convention for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution. Amendments produced at the convention would become law if ratified by three-quarters of the states. This course of action can be implemented through the process of initiative and referendum in each state, which is based on a direct vote of the registered voters of each state. This would probably be a more difficult and complicated route to term limits since congressional incumbents, experienced political attack dogs and their friends in the media would certainly muster all their ammunition to propagandize and fight the amendment to the death. But if enough Americans become thoroughly disgusted with the way Congress conducts itself, as mounting evidence seems to suggest, it could possibly work since it actually bypasses the inert and irresponsible members of the congressional club.

I would propose that each elected official of our government, including the president, by limited to one term in the office he was elected to serve. Six years for the president, eight years in the Senate and four years in the House of Representatives would give each elected official enough time to influence legislation and provide the proper representation for his constituents rather than wasting their time and money by constantly campaigning for re-election. In fact, I can't see how it would hurt to limit Supreme Court Justices to twenty year terms. They are not infallible, either.

Two - Amend the Constitution to establish certain requirements to be eligible to vote in national elections. Democracy works only when the people voting for their representatives in government possess a basic education, an understanding of our system of government and the ramifications of the important issues those elected officials will be debating. Perhaps folks who have no idea who or what they are voting for other than what a favorite television talking head tells them should not be voting. People who do not take the time to educate themselves on the issues and each candidate's position are doing the country a great disservice if they step into the voting booth. Voters should focus on the substance of a candidate's knowledge, competence, experience and platform, not personal popularity or skill in reading from a teleprompter.

Consequently, basic voting requirements should be implemented to improve the quality of the electoral process. One, a diploma from an accredited American high school or the equivalent would not be too much to ask in order to be eligible to vote. Two, requiring a voter to be a U.S. citizen for a minimum of five years and to maintain residence during that time would assure that only those who have a genuine and vested interest in the policies of our national government are allowed to influence it. And three, how anyone could oppose a national photo ID voter card is beyond my comprehension, unless they are a member of ACORN.

Three - Campaign finance reform is a must if Americans are to have free and fair elections. Disclosure of contributions is not enough. The underlying principle of democracy is that no one should be able to buy an election. Buying an election is what happens when special interest groups are allowed to spend unlimited amounts to promote their narrow, selfish interests at the expense of the general public. Money should not be the determining factor in public policy. Past efforts to address this problem, usually designed to accommodate some concept of free speech, have not worked.

Campaign financing is not an issue of free speech. It is bribery, plain and simple. Those who argue that it is an issue of free speech imply that some people's speech is more important and free than others, because they have more money. In the public arena there is no reason legislators should be allowed to accept gifts, free entertainment, rides on corporate aircraft, money in campaign funding or any other potentially compromising situation from those who benefit from a legislators position. In order for congressmen to do their job effectively, they should get information regarding every issue from as many sources as possible, and definitely from each opposing side.

Campaigns should be funded with public funds, with the government setting aside a limited amount to be equally distributed to the candidates running for office. Obviously, more money would be allocated to the presidential candidates and the Senate races than the House campaigns. Public financing with equal amounts provided to each candidate for a particular office will level the playing field and allow them to get their message across, if they have one.

Four - The state primary system in America is an absurd travesty. Usually only a small percentage of eligible voters participate, typically the most extreme and radical from each party. That means the nut cases are determining who the party's standard bearers will be. At the national level, due to the large influence of super delegates, the Democratic Party's nominating convention defies the concept of democracy. One in five delegates is a super delegate, who are in fact the liberal party leaders, current office holders and others who can vote for the candidate they please regardless of state primary and caucus results. In other words, one candidate may win a substantial majority of state delegates, but lose the nomination if the party leaders so choose. Where is democracy in that?

Instead of being ultra-expensive, over-indulged, gluttonous, drunken orgies that cater to incumbents and national leaders, the party conventions should be low key affairs focusing on the job at hand - combining the outcomes of the individual states results to select a presidential candidate, and formulating the platform on which the candidate will agree to govern. Concentrating on policy rather than pomp and propaganda would be extremely beneficial to the election process.

Five - A key issue in generating a more representative republic responsible to the people is to move beyond the dominance of two political parties. Voters need to have multiple choices to choose from, not just between bad and worse. It is interesting to note that the United States and Spain are the only two countries in the developed world that do not have more than two parties comprise more than five percent of their senior legislature. This is true regardless of whether the countries are a federal republic, constitutional democracy or parliamentary monarchy. In fact, the majority of developed countries have four or more parties that have meaningful representation in government. The same is true in most of the developing countries of the world that have democratically elected governments.

Reform providing equal funding and more emphasis on policy would open up the American electoral process to more candidates, giving voters a better opportunity to identify candidates that represent their views. The more viewpoints participating in political debates would create more responsive and effective government. No one party could dominate the debate and railroad their agenda into law. Rational discussion and compromise would result in coalitions between parties forming on each individual issue to produce legislation more in the interests of the general public.

Six - Another obvious change in the election process that can be covered in one short paragraph without much debate is the issue of gerrymandering. The concept is ridiculous, and serves no purpose other than to create safe seats for particular parties. Gerrymandering should be eliminated, and representation should be re-instituted on the basis of recognizable districts, cities or counties.

Seven - Perhaps we should even consider something sure to be more controversial, such as a proposal to amend the Constitution to ensure that those who depend on government for their livelihood do not determine public policy. A Constitutional Convention could be convened to consider the concept of alternative rules for electing representatives in the House and Senate. For the House of Representatives, the rules would not change. The popular vote in each district where each eligible voter gets one vote would continue to apply.

As regards the Senate, votes would be based on the amount of taxes paid. In effect, those Americans who contribute to the functioning of our government would have a greater voice in choosing senators. If a citizen doesn't pay taxes, then he or she does not have a vote for their senator. Votes would accrue to individual voters based on one vote for each $10,000 paid in federal taxes, starting with one vote for taxes paid up to $10,000, two votes for taxes paid up to $20,000, and a maximum of three votes for taxes paid up to $30,000. If a taxpayer paid $250,000 in taxes they would still only receive three votes. This method of bicameral voting rules would allow those Americans who are productive and contribute to a more prosperous society to have a strong say in the legislation that affects their ability to continue to generate rising living standards.

The political reforms discussed above could go a long way towards returning America to its traditional values and restore the magnificent vision of our founders. At the very least they present issues for discussion that could most likely be improved upon. But there is one other issue that remains troubling and needs to be investigated by folks with more knowledge of the subject than I.

It is truly frightening that a large segment of the population seems to be in favor of an all-powerful central government. The fact is that socialism is making a strong push in America. Recognizing that polls can be and are manipulated, it is interesting to note that a Rasmussen poll released last April reported that only 53% of Americans believe capitalism is superior to socialism. 20% favored socialism while 27% had no clue. Of those under 30, a staggering 33% said they preferred socialism according to the poll. Does this represent an indictment of the American educational system as the teachers unions dumb down and propagandize the politically correct agenda in the public schools and the ubiquitous socialist college professors brain-wash the malleable in university lecture halls?

We need to know if it is possible that as a country we have been asleep at the switch while left leaning socialists permeate the elementary and secondary education system and design curriculums intent on teaching their version of American history, social and industrial development, and current events. We need to know if our children are learning the facts about how the United States of America became the leader of the free world or if they are just being taught the politically correct rendition of environmentalism, gender and racial inequality, and evils of capitalism. It is no secret that 60's and 70's radicals such as our current president's buddy William Ayres have curriculum determining positions at such organizations as The American Educational Research Association. How much influence do people such as Ayres have on setting curriculums?

Our children need to learn about the United States that we know, the one that began with the powerful ideals and bold courage of the American Revolution; that created a society based on the principles of democracy, liberty and justice; that struggled to grow with the pioneer spirit of opportunity and hard work; that suffered great sacrifice to prove that all men were created equal; that came to the aid of freedom loving countries threatened by murderous dictators; and that achieved levels of technological, economic and social progress never before imagined, bringing the rest of the developed countries of the world with it and providing a model for the developing world to follow. But evidently they are not.

Is it possible that socialism is growing in acceptance in America because our schools are emphasizing liberal philosophy? The vast majority of Americans do not identify with either the extreme left or right, but are radical liberals in charge of our educational system? Of course our schools should teach our children about Martin Luther King and his non-violent campaign to overcome racism and inequality. He was a great man and a major positive influence on American culture. But kids also need to learn more than they do about the ideals, courage and sacrifice of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, too. It would also be good if the schools would provide a dose of a Thomas Sowell for each reference to a Jesse Jackson.


The constitution begins with 'We the People', not we the liberal, we the conservative, we the privileged, we the wealthy, we the college professors, we the news media, we the lawyers, or we the Hollywood celebrities. Elected officials are supposed to represent the people, not those who stuff their pockets full of money with bribes for special favors.

It is not supposed to be about left versus right, or liberal versus conservative. It is about right and wrong. It is not about socialism versus capitalism. It is about what works and what doesn't. It isn't even about democracy versus oligarchy versus dictatorship. It is about government being for the people or against the people. It is about freedom and individual rights versus arbitrary laws and state control. And it is about progress and preservation versus stagnation and decline.

The founding fathers, and historically most Americans, fiercely believe in liberty, justice, security and capitalism. Government requiring us to live our lives as it demands and taxing us to implement unworkable programs and policies that we don't want is not liberty. Bailing out those who are responsible for financial and economic collapse at the expense of those who suffered the consequences is not justice. Unilateral disarmament while our adversaries grow stronger is not security. Government take-over of commerce and industry is not capitalism. America is headed in the wrong direction.

It is time for us to realize America is not a greedy, evil, imperialistic predator as some of our politicians try to tell us. The United States has been the guiding light and incarnation of freedom, justice and democracy for over two hundred years. We have lived our ideals and served as the beacon of hope for all those that reject the bonds of tyranny and aspire to claim their individual rights and pursue their potential destinies. We have produced standards of living beyond our ancestors' imagination and shared it with the rest of the world. We have come to the aid of fellow democracies threatened by brutal tyrants and suffered great sacrifice to help them preserve their freedom. We have accomplished this by relying on the collective wisdom of our people and the power of private enterprise rather than unproductive bureaucrats and a government controlled economy.

We don't need and cannot afford change that destroys our fundamental principles. We must reverse our slide down the slippery slope toward the virtual imprisonment of socialism and return to the selfless values and strength of character that created the great nation we became, and can remain. We are at the crossroads. Let us not pursue the wrong course.

Blame It On Racism

Americans are constantly being told by leading Democrats and liberal commentators that we are all racists if we raise objections to Barack Obama's political initiatives. Why is it so difficult for liberals to understand it is the President's socialist policies that many of us vigorously oppose, not the color of his skin? Thomas Sowell, Star Parker and Walter Williams happen to be some of the more articulate and effective critics of the President, but it is problematic painting them as racists since they too are people of color. Many of us white folks agree with them rather than the President, and I believe any of those three would be much better leaders of our country than anyone I have seen associated with the Democratic Party. I think that should make it quite clear that racism has nothing to do with it.

The history of America is a narrative of the struggle of the disenfranchised to overcome prejudice and societal obstacles to claim the rights of liberty, justice and equal opportunity promised by the founding fathers. Although those principles were meant to be universal, it took some time and effort for them to be realized by those who were persecuted, exploited or enslaved for reason of ethnicity, religion or social class. The disenfranchised included, to varying degrees, not only African Americans but also Irish, Italian, Eastern European and Latin American immigrants. It also included white Americans who were born and raised on the wrong side of the socio-economic boundary line.

Over time, with the glaring and shameful exception of the genocidal treatment of Native Americans, the maltreatment and grievances of the victimized have been addressed and rectified to a considerable degree. No society can ever be perfectly utopian. There will always be pockets of prejudice that can never be eliminated. That is true in all societies. Similarly, there will always be those who proclaim that racism and prejudice are still prevalent in society, and they will continue to do so long after strong evidence to the contrary is overwhelmingly established.

Whether the perpetually aggrieved claimants of societal subjugation ever admit it or not, the United States of America has basically achieved as ethnically accommodating culture as can humanly be expected. America has black and Latin American corporate CEO's, members of Congress, Supreme Court Justices and even an African American president. Minorities teach white children in our public schools, administer the laws in our courts, eat and drink in the same restaurants and bars, and become bands of brothers and sisters in our nation's military. We are all even beginning to sit in the same church pews.

Where segregation continues to exist it is often due to an ethnic groups comfort of associating with their own. Of course an unfortunately large part of it is due to economic circumstances and the financial inability to escape poverty stricken neighborhoods. That is a problem that needs to continually be addressed, but through the job creating stimulation of capitalism and economic progress rather than government programs that perpetuate the status quo and slam the door on self-improvement.

It is not racism that causes Americans to disagree and oppose the policies of ideologically zealous politicians. What causes the conflicts are the legitimate differences of opinion that naturally arise over how to best achieve the common objectives of improving the living standards and providing security for all Americans going forward. Regarding those objectives, we should all be on the same page. Neither side has all the answers. The first thing we need to remember before embarking in uncertain new directions is that so far our form of government and economic system has worked pretty damn well.

The United States of America has proven itself to be an exceptional country. We have been the powerful engine that has produced global economic growth and prosperity, stimulated technological and medical discoveries and innovations that have improved everyones lives, provided global security for the free world whenever threatened by ruthless enemies, and created the educational institutions that have shared our knowledge with the world. We are exceptional because the tradition of liberty and private enterprise has allowed us to nurture exceptional people and encouraged them to reach for the stars.

Somehow we now have a government that does not agree with the last paragraph. They think there is something very wrong with us that needs to be changed. Admittedly, there is always room for improvement, but all in all I believe most of us still love our country and continue to believe in our established traditions. The last thing we need is change that rejects our fundamental principles, destroys the progress we have made and turns our culture upside down.

Obama The Great

Yesterday we experienced more vintage Obama rhetoric while he announced the proposed financial system overhaul. "Millions of Americans who have worked hard and behaved responsibly have seen their life dreams eroded by the irresponsibility of others and by the failure of their government to provide adequate oversight. Our entire economy has been undermined by that failure." Truer words have never been spoken. But his policy has been to bail out the irresponsible while ignoring the damage done to the responsible.

Has Tim Geithner, President of the monetary policy implementing and Wall Street bailout managing New York Federal Reserve Bank at the time the major commercial banks were conducting their irresponsible activities, suffered any consequences from his participation in the debacle? No, he was rewarded by being appointed US Treasury Secretary by Obama even though he was discovered to have cheated on his taxes.

Did Alan Greenspan and then Ben Bernanke, Chairmen of the Federal Reserve while the economic system was becoming overleveraged due to the Fed's accomodative monetary policy, suffer any consequences from their central position in the financial catastrophe? No. Alan Greenspan managed to get out before the crap hit the fan and Ben Bernanke is still the Fed Chairman.

Have Barney Frank or Christopher Dodd, perhaps two of the most blameworthy protagonists responsible for creating the housing bubble by being the Congressional mouthpieces and cheerleaders for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, ever suffer any consequences for their actions? No, they remain in their jobs as chairmen of the House Financial Services Committee and Senate Banking Committee, respectively, and spend their time blaming everyone but themselves for the disaster.

Have top bureaucrats at the federal regulatory agencies that were asleep at the switch in providing oversight for the financial industry suffered any consequences of their negligence? Not that I know of.

How about the top executives at the major banks, insurance companies and Wall Street investment firms who were the major players in the fiasco? Less than a handful at the very top lost their jobs, but received exceedingly generous severance packages. Others may see their compensation packages temporarily curtailed, but they will still have jobs making much more money than those they fleeced.

The mega-rich hedge fund and pension fund managers who played the game of investing in the worthless crap have also not exactly had to sell their multi-million dollar apartments in New York and London, mansions in Greenwich, homes on the French Riviera, yachts or corporate jets. Many took some hits, but they should have been wiped out. Most will soon be back taking advantage of the gullible victims again.

All of this is what is so infuriating about Barack Obama. He is skilled at saying the right thing, but does the opposite. You have to watch what he does, not listen to what he says.

Will the new rules announced yesterday about overhauling the financial system make any difference? The Wall Street Journal said it best. "The main idea behind the Obama Administration's new financial revamp is essentially this: With more power and a modest reshuffling of the bureaucratic furniture, the same regulators who missed the last credit mania will somehow prevent the next one."

Most of the "historic" proposals were things the government was already supposed to be doing. The plan is really nothing more than public relations damage control by changing a few names and reassigning responsibility. Dealing with the financial collapse should not be that difficult or complicated. It is not hard to recognize the one common thread running through the whole meltdown - debt. Debt should be less easily obtained, and the consequences for default should be more severe - for both the borrower and the lender. Let the bankruptcy laws work, and stop meddling. But the government won't. And over time, the financial vultures will again capitalize on the incestuous relationships with regulators or catch them asleep at the post and figure out new ways to devour the public.

The Death Of Liberty

Historians of the future will point to the year 2008 as the year America's world leadership began to fade away. It is the year the country's traditions of freedom and economic prosperity generated from private enterprise, individual rights, equal opportunity and impartial justice started to erode. It would take a number of years for the evidence of decline to become obvious to all, but eventually even the diehard believers of utopian promises could not deny that their personal liberties and standard of living were being confiscated by the newly empowered oligarchs whose promises they believed.

The spark of the flame in 2008 was the "historic" election of the Democratic Party and its most ideologically socialist radicals to total control of the government. It certainly was historic, but not in the way most of the believers imagined. As soon as these autocrats took over in January, 2009, they began to take control of the economy, starting with the financial and automotive industries and eventually moving on to health care and energy. American citizens began to lose their free choice in the lifestyles they wished to pursue and the goods and services they wished to purchase. Government began to direct nearly every aspect of citizens lives, mandated through both edict and oppressive tax rules.

The American economy in 2008 was in recession. That made it easy for the radical left-wing politicians to take advantage of voters apprehension and make promises that could not possibly be kept, because promises of economic recovery and a return to stability were what the voters wanted to hear. Most did not seem to know or care that recessions have always been a normal consequence of economic development and occur from time to time on a regular cyclical basis, each time recovering without any drastic government measures and moving on to even greater heights of prosperity.

In a society of free choice and an economic system of dynamic change and progress, some companies and industries always go out of business if their products become obsolete or they cannot remain competitive with their rivals. Bankruptcy laws have been on the books for generations to deal with either corporate restructurings or dissolutions. Government intervention in the process cannot work, because all a rescue or subsidized support of a moribund, unproductive organization does is attempt to sustain the unsustainable and defeat the progress engendered by the process of creative destruction.

But this time, once elected, the extremists in charge began to dismantle, ignore and overturn the fundamental principle's underlying the traditional capitalist economic system. They took over major companies, fired their executives, decided what products they could and could not produce and sell, and firmly entrenched themselves in every aspect of private businesses. They directed the policies of the Federal Reserve System, the supposedly quasi-independent central bank of the United States, and forced them to undertake unprecedented money creating policies that were hyper-inflationary. They increased federal spending to such outrageous levels that all Americans for generations to come would be required to live a much more modest lifestyle than their predecessors in order to service the massive resulting debt. And the retirement and health benefits that were promised to them were simply not affordable.

American citizens themselves were responsible for all this. With the assistance of the major media organizations, the public believed the snake oil promises fed them by a rhetorically skilled, relatively unknown politician with a minimal but definitely socialist track record, and no experience managing anything but political campaigns. They believed the outrageous accusations and character assassination tactics of congressional democrats against their opponents, even though it was readily apparent the congressional democrats themselves were the primary contributors to the economic implosion due to their support and promotion of imprudent real estate lending policies. The campaign of deceit worked, the radical socialists gained total control of government and immediately began implementing their overhaul of the American economic and social systems.

There is little question that the United States, through the economic growth engine of capitalism, had achieved a remarkably high standard of living as a country but at the same time suffered a disparity of wealth and income among its citizens that needed to be addressed. In a society of abundance there was no legitimate reason for those at the bottom to be left out. If future economic growth had to be marginally sacrificed through higher taxes on the wealthy in order to provide support for the disadvantaged, underprivileged and disabled, then a society of advanced affluence could certainly afford it.

But in order to actually provide assistance to the unfortunate, the money needed to be spent wisely, not thrown away to some favored interest group, politically correct crusade, or government programs that didn't produce results. And it should never have been used to interfere in private enterprise. Unfortunately, the newly empowered oligarchs were more interested in consolidating their power than helping the people. They autocratically seized the power to abrogate contracts, set financial industry lending policies, reward their benefactors at the expense of the public, and unilaterally determine such formerly free choice basics as how much money people could make, what car they could drive, what energy sources they could use, and on and on.

With little to no opposition, a cabal of the president and a few of the most powerful congressional leaders gained control of American industry and decided how taxpayer dollars could be confiscated and redistributed. Instead of free markets, private enterprise and equal opportunity, America gradually deteriorated to a system that depended on favoritism, central government allocation of resources, and, inevitably, even more graft and corruption. Instead of the market determining who won and who lost, the president, legislators and bureaucrats in Washington did.

American business under government run industrial policy degenerated into bribe paying supplicants vying to be rewarded with contracts to supply public goods and services as determined by the overlords in the political bureaucracy. As socialism gained its stranglehold, industrial production and productivity experienced a downward tailspin that ended in complete government control of society and the economy. The predictable result was that the folks on the bottom of the economic ladder did not advance, those in the middle and most of those on the top gradually fell to the bottom, and all that was left at the pinnacle were the well-connected, priviliged elite who dictated how American citizens were to live their lives. In the end, the pyramid of living standards collapsed on its sides into a narrow middle finger pointed directly at the American public.

The Biggest LBO Of All Time

Barack Obama likes to say words should mean something. He is absolutely right. Words should mean what the generally accepted dictionaries say they mean. Personally I have never cared much for the labels conservative or liberal as applied to the two contending political philosophies that have dominated American politics for nearly a century and a half. That is because the working definitions of each don't really address competing points of view.

There is usually more than one definition of most words. Webster's College Dictionary did not have a good definition of Conservatism, so I referenced the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary for a better one. Their definition of Conservatism that seemed most appropriate to me is "a political party based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change, specifically, such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investment, a strong national defense, and individual responsibility."

Liberalism, according to Webster's College Dictionary, is "a political and social philosophy advocating individual freedom, representational forms of government, progress and reform, and protection of civil liberties." Except for the lunatic fringes, most folks in America would not see any major contradictions in either definition, and would advocate both of those philosophies. Maybe its just me, but I don't see where conservativism and liberalism are mutually exclusive. It seems one can be both liberal and conservative if they believe in the idea's contained in the respective definitions. To me, Liberalism means a nation based on democracy and freedom. Conservatism means we want to keep it that way.

When it comes to definitions of economic systems, however, there are distinct and profound differences. Webster's College Dictionary defines Capitalism as "an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations." Socialism is "a theory or system of social organization in which the means of production and distribution of goods are owned and controlled collectively or by the government." Those are certainly distinct and opposing economic philosophies. Communism takes it a step further, defined as "a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party."

It has long been assumed we are all capitalists in America, except again for that lunatic fringe. Maybe it would be a good time to sit down and consider what is going on in America today. What we may be witnessing is the biggest leveraged buy-out of all time as the government is clearly taking over our economy, and perhaps the end of capitalism as we have known it.

Private equity firms maintain that their business structure is a more efficient way of financing and managing large enterprises than public companies whose shares trade on a stock market and are owned by public individuals and institutions. In the private equity structure, all decisions can be made by a select few who answer to no one. They have relative freedom from regulation, and do not have to open themselves to outside monitoring by shareholders or financial journalists. They accomplish their buy-outs by using massive amounts of borrowed money, and the leverage allows them to become fabulously wealthy.

Basically, the growth of private equity is the economic equivalent of a political retreat from democracy to a small but powerful aristocracy. Instead of ownership by many and responsibility of management to generate results for the wide spectrum of stakeholders, it becomes ownership and unaccountable decision making for the benefit of the few. In the private equity world, companies (and the economy) are at the mercy of the top executives, just like the politburo in a communist country.

The Democratic Party and its wealthy supporters understand this. And no, Barack Obama was not the candidate, and now president, from Main Street as the Democrats like to propagandize. Nor was he the stealth candidate from Manchuria as some Republicans like to believe. He was not even the candidate from MLK Boulevard or Wall Street. He was the candidate from the billionaries of Greenwich and East Hampton, and the media moguls of Bel Air. And he was the candidate of the career bureaucrats revolving between government posts and Ivy League faculties or policy institutes as well as special interest group lobbyists residing in the wealthy counties surrounding Washington, D.C. After all, who is getting bailed out from their billion dollar mistakes, who is taking over the top jobs in government, and who is first in line to grab all the goodies the Obama regime is handing out.

The folks at the top of the financial and government food chain are working hard, and succeeding, in doing a gradual leveraged buy-out of the American economy. Starting with the largest financial organizations and automobile makers they will soon move on to the health care and energy industries. This stealth LBO effectively takes the economy private, producing a giant enterprise totally controlled by a self-appointed, unaccountable aristocracy - and the irony is they are doing it not with their own money but with taxpayer's money.

I don't know what the proper political label is for those now in charge of the U.S. government. They definitely do not fit the definition of conservatives, and given their disdain for the people who elected them I do not think they qualify as liberals, either. What they do seem to be working toward is a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party. And that folks, is the definition of communism.

Civilization Lost

There were several articles in today's Wall Street Journal (April 14, 2008) that makes one wonder about the state of our society. One was about elderly folks on fixed incomes throughout the country who are losing their homes through foreclosure because slick talking mortgage brokers persuaded them to unnecessarily refinance mortgages, obtain reverse mortgages or take out home equity loans. Many of these people had lived for decades in their homes and had built up substantial equity or had completely paid them off. A lot of them were victims of fraud as the unscrupulous brokers filed false loan applications and did not advise the homeowner of the high fees, adjustable rates and other explosive terms involved in the refinancings. Since the borrowers incomes are so low, usually just monthly payments from social security, they do not qualify for government sponsored mortgage relief programs.

On the flip side, we read that Goldman Sachs, a company that received bail-out funds (and generated a sizable first quarter profit), is issuing $5 billion of new shares so they can pay the government back. While it is admirable they want to pay back the money they apparently didn't need, the reason for doing so is to release their executives from the compensation restraints imposed by the government on financial organizations receiving bail-out funds. This will allow them to quickly increase their pay from the paltry minimum of $1 million that nearly a thousand of them received last year to their more traditional multi-million dollar levels.

There is something very wrong with a country that uses taxpayer money to bail out millionaire bankers and financial advisors while letting low and middle class folks lose their modest homes to foreclosure, particularly when the foreclosures are the result of financial fraud.

Another article discussed how pilots at American Airlines are demanding that their average salaries and benefits be increased by 50% from the current $225,000 per year to $337,500 per year. Granted that airline pilots have some of the most awesome responsibilities of any occupation (certainly significantly more than Goldman Sachs investment bankers), but is this a good time to be demanding big increases given today's economic environment? And for any occupation, when is enough enough?

Perhaps it is time for Americans to pause and reflect on what our country's culture and principles have evolved into. We are no longer a society that believes in fairness, integrity, compassion and justice. Americans are now all about unrestrained greed, self-centered narcissism and gluttonous hedonism. We demand it all and we demand it now, and the hell with everyone else. And when the bubbles burst it seems to me that our government could have displayed a little more compassion and support for the victims of the financial frauds and Wall Street excesses by helping those lower and middle class folks who did nothing wrong instead of bailing out and sustaining the lifestyles of the rich and famous.

The Blame Game

It seems that in order to succeed in politics one has to become a master of the blame game. Politicians have a great talent for causing chaos and disaster, then blaming their political opponents for the damage. Barney Frank, the gender challenged Representative from Massachussetts who is chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, recently said he thinks the people who are responsible for the financial market and economic collapse should be tried as criminals. That is a good idea. Barney Frank and many of his Democratic Party masters of disaster cohorts would be at the top of the list.

Certainly there is plenty of blame to go around. That includes the folks at Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Countrywide, AIG, Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch and other debt crazed financial institutions that created the gratuitous, pointless, toxic investment vehicles that fueled the catastrophic financial pandemic, and then traded among themselves for artificial profits. It includes the intellectually arrogant and common sense challenged quantitative geniuses from elite Ivy League academic institutions who found their way to Wall Street hedge funds and other money management organizations and had the audacity to think they could create complex strategies to control the ever growing risk of massively leveraged financial instruments that served no purpose other than to enrich themselves. And don't forget the patrician, useless, rubber stamping Boards of Directors at financial institutions whose members get paid large sums of money to attend their all expense paid quarterly circle jerks to party and ignore their duties of representing shareholders interests and providing management oversight.

But the whole disaster would never have gotten this out of control without the aid, support and encouragement of our honorable public servants in Congress and those throughout the federal bureaucracies charged with oversight, regulation and control of the financial system. Certainly George Bush bears responsibility in that it happened on his watch. He is responsible in the sense that the Republican Congress in the first six years of his presidency spent money like drunken sailors, or in other words, just like Democrats always have - and George let them do it. He is responsible in that he trusted the competence and abilities of his economic advisers as all presidents do - and that was a mistake. And he is responsible because he expected the financial system regulators at the SEC and FDIC to do their jobs - but they didn't.

Consequently, economic activity around the world has come to an abrupt halt. Global stock markets plunged more than 50% in less than a year and a half. The meltdown of over-leveraged financial institutions started in the good old USA, but the damage has spread like an out of control forest fire. Naturally, Barney Frank and his esteemed Democratic colleagues in Congress are doing their utmost best to convince the public that it is all George Bush's fault.

It has become standard operating procedure for politicians to claim false credit for actions that have a positive outcome, if there ever are any, and deny any responsibility what-so-ever for anything that turns out bad. But in this case they go too far. Barney and his buddies were at the epicenter of forcing lenders to make sub-prime loans to borrowers who had very little prospect of ever paying the money back. Now they want to revise the facts and put George W. Bush in the public's crosshairs rather than take any responsibility for their destructive legislative activities.

But it wasn't George Bush who produced or signed the Community Re-investment Act of 1977 that ordered lenders to ease their lending requirements to make high risk loans to borrowers who normally would not qualify. That was the Democratic Party dominated Congress and President Jimmy Carter. And it wasn't George Bush who relaxed the rules even further in 1995 that led to the creative no-down payment, low initial adjustable rate, balloon, interest only, no income no asset mortgages and liar loans that were at the heart of the meltdown. That would be Bill Clinton.

It wasn't George Bush who was responsible for the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, which repealed part of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 and allowed commercial banks, investment banks, brokerage firms, insurance companies and investment advisory firms to combine and create financial institutions that were judged to be "too big to fail." That was Senator Phil Gramm, Representative Jim Leach and Representative Thomas Bliley, all three Republicans, and President Bill Clinton who signed it.

It wasn't George Bush who responded to legislative actions calling for regulatory reforms (Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Act of 2005) introduced by Republican members of Congress to recognize and address the high risk nature of the portfolios of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by denying these quasi-government institutions were in any kind of trouble right up to the day of implosion, and joining their Democratic colleagues in killing the bill. No, that was Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd, now the Democratic Chairmen of the financial industry oversight committees of the House and Senate, respectively, and each recipients of substantial campaign contributions from the two federal quasi-agencies.

It wasn't George Bush who kept interest rates too low too long and encouraged the credit markets to expand exponentially, creating the superfluous speculative credit based derivative securities that generated home price inflation and caused leverage throughout the financial system to rise to levels that guaranteed disaster at the first sight of economic slowdown. That would be Alan Greenspan, who served over 18 years as Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, and his successor Ben Bernanke. The Federal Reserve is the central bank of the United States and is subject to oversight by and reports to Congress.

Of course the Democrats are also blaming George Bush for the continuing collapse of the stock market and deteriorating economic conditions that have accompanied the first months of the Obama regime. What they don't want Americans to know is that at first the prospect and then the reality of a government totally under the control of Democrats caused a moderate recession and a serious but containable bear market to turn into an unprecedented disintegration of asset values.

Through September of 2008 the Dow Jones Industrial Average was down 25% from its peak in October, 2007, a typical cyclical drop in a bear market. In late September it became apparent Barack Obama was going to be the next president, and Democrats would be in total control of Congress. From that time on the market plunged another 40%, with the bulk of that drop coming after Obama made it known his redistribution and anti-capitalist policies would be even worse than imagined. But of course the Democrats and their die-hard supporters still want to blame all of this on George Bush.

But it isn't George Bush who keeps throwing even more bail-out money at failing financial institutions and constantly changing the rules so no potential investors can make prudent decisions. That would be the financial stewards appointed by Barack Obama, who in many cases are the friends, former colleagues and lobbying targets of those being bailed out.

It isn't George Bush who announced more government intervention in the financial markets by giving more powers to the Treasury, Fed and FDIC to unilaterally use taxpayer dollars to provide bail-out funding to businesses that should be allowed to reorganize or go out of business under the Chapter 11 and Chapter 7 bankruptcy laws that have been in place for decades, which would let capitalism function as intended without politics, government and taxpayer money being involved. That would be Tim Geithner with the approval of Barack Obama.

It isn't George Bush who plans massive new spending for partisan Democratic Party favorite programs that will drive federal spending to over 28% of GDP (up from the traditional level of around 20%) and quadruple the budget deficit this year, with no end to the rapid expansion in sight. That is Barack Obama.

It wasn't George Bush who directed the Fed to print money by having them buy billions of dollars of Treasury bills, thereby providing the fuel for inflation, killing the dollar and causing major foreign holders of U.S. government debt to question the need for an alternative reserve currency. That was Barack Obama.

It wasn't George Bush who made approval of the ironically "newspeak' named Employee Free Choice Act his top priority, thus denying workers the right to secret ballots in labor union organizing campaigns. This payoff to the Democratic Party's most corrupt supporters is a huge job killer because it restrains companies from hiring new workers, leads to higher costs for maintaining existing ones, produces increased operating inefficiencies and results in a lack of competitiveness for U. S. companies in world markets, encouraging many companies to move manufacturing plants overseas. No, that would be Barack Obama.

It isn't George Bush who plans to raise capital gains taxes on the people who have the money to invest in American industry, taking away incentives to invest and thereby denying productive businesses the capital they need to get the country moving again to restore and maintain our prosperity. That, again, is Barack Obama.

It wasn't George Bush who said he was going to veto every earmark and then ignore a record number of new ones in the first spending bill sent him by Congress. That was Barack Obama.

It isn't George Bush who publicly proclaims the intent to redistribute income by raising taxes on the productive members of our society to give to the unproductive, signalling a move away from the historically successful economic principles of capitalism, private enterprise and free markets to the failed underachieving philosophy of state controlled socialism. Sorry, it is Barack Obama.

It wasn't George Bush who signalled our vulnerable allies in Eastern Europe we are untrustworthy partners in global security pacts by declaring our intention to renege on missile defense systems designed to provide security to these fledgling democracies, allowing the reemerging predator of Russia to reassert its influence and potential domination. That was Barack Obama.

It wasn't George Bush who threatens the security of the more restrained states of the Middle East by proposing to re-engage diplomacy with Iran, providing that feared country and its psychotic ayatollah's the opportunity to gain more power and influence at the expense of the friendlier Sunni dominated moderates.

It isn't George Bush who has signalled an intent to abrogate trade agreements and introduce new restraints against trading partners, raising the spectre of reciprocal actions and protectionist policies that could lead to a devastating contraction in world trade. Again, that is Barack Obama.

No wonder the financial markets and ordinary Americans are scared shitless. This new government is rejecting and completely dismantling an economic and social system that has been successful for over 230 years. The folks now in charge can blame anyone they want for America's current predicament. But they need to look in the mirror to see the real perps.


By the way, does it ever occur to anyone what type of people president's have to deal with when they are trying to get government bureaucracies to function. Generally, conservatives and moderates don't work for government. They believe in free markets and are engaged in productive private enterprise. It is typically the folks who believe government is the answer rather than the problem who comprise the bureaucracy. They are the beneficiaries of government spending, not the providers of the funding. They are political activists rather than producers of goods and services. They are obstacles to the progress that free and open markets generate. It is difficult for capitalism to function effectively when the infrastructure of government is populated by socialists.

Why Not Try Something Productive?

Forty years ago Americans walked on the moon. The world watched in awe. It was a technological triumph beyond comprehension. Everyone on the planet, even our acknowledged adversaries in the Soviet Union and China, set aside their differences and on that day, for a brief moment, global harmony was realized. We were all citizens of the world basking in man's achievements, all members of the same human race. American technology and science had proved that anything was possible.

An extraordinary by-product of the space program was the creation of a multitude of new technologies instrumental in the development of nearly every major product used today. Many of the innovations in data processing, communications, medical instruments, power generation and other life improving advances had their genesis in man's endeavors to explore space. Products generated from American initiative and ingenuity were distributed throughout the world, leading to unprecedented gains in global living standards that benefitted all mankind.


But today it seems that nothing is possible. Despite the technological progress of the last four decades, the common accord that was briefly enjoyed by the people of the world as the space program reached its zenith quickly dissipated as earthly realities and base human instincts reclaimed their natural order. Human beings returned to the petty jealousies, irrational hatred's and inhuman atrocities against others that have long been commonplace. Powerful Western countries that advocate human rights as well as global organizations chartered to bring peace and stability to area's of conflict idly stand by while people continue to withdraw into the cultural, religious and tribal shells that are tearing the world apart.


Within many nations, changing demographics and widening political differences among diverse ethnic groups and ideological opponents is creating intolerance, lack of respect for others and dangerous polarization of civilized societies. These divisions are now being compounded by the inevitable implosion of global financial markets and associated collapse in economic activity caused by out of control accumulation of massive debt leverage and imprudent speculation. Naturally this is leading to rising business failures, increased unemployment, exploding government budget deficits, and dangerously threatening the system of international commerce and global capital flows.


The world is in a self-reinforcing downward spiral that will lead to disastrous consequences unless rational action taken by responsible government's soon prevail. Unfortunately, most of the policy actions taken to date by major governments have been the wrong ones, particularly in the United States. Boosting unemployment spending and providing for the basic needs of those displaced by business failures and lay-offs is certainly required. But massive spending programs to fund bail-outs, nationalization of industries and relief to folks who made bad decisions is doomed to failure. Trying to solve a problem created by too much debt with enormous amounts of more debt will not work.


Perhaps a bold challenge to all industrial countries of the world to initiate a quest for new scientific and technological achievements would wake up the entrepreneurial and creative hormones, halt the economic stupor and stimulate a vigorous expansion of discovery and invention. Every major power on earth has an educated, rational nucleus of citizens that could be instrumental in joining together in a global mission that could again challenge all of the globe's people to work together to make the world a better place.

In this time of global economic adversity, instead of throwing massive amounts of money down the drain to support imprudent investors, indebted consumers and insolvent financial institutions at the expense of responsible and prudent citizens, government leaders could challenge the industrial world to launch a cooperative new venture to explore the unknown, renew our efforts to conquer the solar system, and in the process generate meaningful new jobs throughout the world, create new technologies that advance global standards of living, and maybe generate international support, teamwork and progress through common interests. Maybe it is possible a joint effort of the scientific communities of each country that has the ability to contribute to renew the exploration of space could work such a miracle.

Yes, It Can Happen Here

In any society, no matter how advanced, complacency and ignorance can both be fatal to survival. Some Americans seem to believe our country is too strong and powerful to ever be vanquished and subjugated by foreign aggressors. Others believe that committed adversaries intent on destroying our way of life either do not exist or can be appeased through dialogue and negotiation. These folks see no need to spend our resources on developing and maintaining a strong defense capability.

Perhaps they are not aware of human history, and the part luck played in several turning points of military conflict. In June of 1942, if American scout planes had not spotted the Japanese carriers at the Battle of Midway before their scout planes found ours, we would all be speaking Japanese today. If Adolf Hitler had focused on defeating Great Britain rather than launching an attack on the Soviet Union in 1941, creating a disastrous two front war, perhaps we would all now be speaking German.

Throughout history the centers of power and influence have always been changing. Today the predominance of the United States is arguably on the wane as China, India and Russia are rapidly developing into formidable competitors, both militarily and economically. Combine that with the fact Europe spends very little on defense, is becoming muslimized and cannot defend itself. Their only option if threatened is to capitulate to external or internal threats unless the United States comes to their rescue as in the past.

The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the rise of militant Islam has created a much more dangerous world than we have encountered before, whether the threat be state sponsored or contained in difficult to identify and locate terrorist organizations. The United States today clearly confronts risks to our security that our growing more perilous by the day, and complacency and denial of these threats will only ensure that we do not survive the inevitable conflict. We cannot afford to leave our future to the fortunes of chance. We must continue to face reality, and be prepared. We can only hope the pacifists in Washington wake up to the ways of the real world before it is too late.

Reward The Irresponsible, Punish The Prudent

The primary problem of American government as it functions (or disfunctions) today is that politicians routinely facilitate and encourage the unprincipled and the irresponsible while punishing the honest and the prudent. Unfortunately, one thing that never receives any consideration during deliberations in Congress is whether new legislation will be fair and equitable to the public in general rather than serving to benefit specific interest groups. The primary focus is typically to reward particular lobbies and constituents rather than address real problems faced by the citizenry.

Providing incentives and subsidies that affect the few is certainly not fair to everyone, particularly when that action encourages or rewards irresponsible behavior to the detriment of the far greater number of people who act responsibly. Both the enormous government bail-out of the financial system and the massive stimulus program are examples of government actions that are not fair and equitable to the majority of Americans.

The economic problems we face today are the result of an outrageously excessive amount of debt created with the active support of our monetary authorities and the explicit encouragement of elected representatives in Congress. The use of borrowed money that was easily obtainable with favorable payment terms caused the price of assets throughout the economy to rise to unsustainable levels, particularly real estate.

Despite the plunge in prices of homes and other assets, prices still remain too high. Prices must fall to levels that clear the market and naturally balance supply and demand before sustainable economic progress can resume. Providing tax incentives and other targeted stimulus with taxpayer dollars to rescue reckless financial institutions and consumers will result in the maintenance of prices at current inflated levels, causing any bounce from this spending to be short-lived, thereby wasting the massive amounts of money spent on these programs.

Most importantly, the bail-out and stimulus plans do not pass the test of fairness and equity for the majority of citizens. For example, the intent of the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) to rescue the mortgage market is to limit losses on loans made by financial institutions and reduce the prospect of foreclosure for those who paid too much for property by supporting prices above the current real market. This does nothing but reward those who irresponsibly played this game, often because they greedily assumed they were guaranteed to make a profit, while punishing the far greater number of Americans who prudently refrained from these irrational transactions. The response by Congress to the damage caused by it's own mindless policies does nothing but keep prices too high for those who desire to buy a home at a rational price, ensuring that the crisis will be prolonged much longer than necessary and that all the taxpayer dollars carelessly tossed to financial institutions will be gone forever.

Beltway Bandits

by Slugzilla


They promise prosperity, they promise great wealth.
They promise security, they promise good health.
They promise us everything money can buy,
But they never come through, it's always a lie.

They claim they are saints, their opponents are liars.
But they're nothing more than thieves for hire.
Power and wealth are their reason for being.
Bribes and corruption are what they believe in.

Avarice and duplicity rule the day.
America is in a state of decay.
Greed is a virtue, Honesty's a sin.
The old values are gone, decadence is in.

They live like kings, and we pay the receipt.
Their lives are nothing but constant deceit.
Pretending to have our interests at heart.
Acting like they care is the easiest part.

The political lizard's, it's plain to see,
Take care of themselves, not you and me.
Pork barrel politics is the name of the game.
It's out of control, there is no shame.

They lie to the public about the course they'll chart.
They say they'll unite us, but they tear us apart.
There is too much hatred, too much hostility.
Too much anger, threatening our liberty.

Throughout all our history men have given their lives,
To keep us all safe, to make sure we thrive.
Our founding fathers took many great risks,
For liberty and justice, not a government like this.

They raise our taxes til' the money's all gone,
Then find someone else to blame it all on.
Their legacy's a bill our children must pay.
May justice be served come judgment day.


It's all bullshit, nothing but lies.
We're beginning to see, we're opening our eyes.
Communities go under, factories die.
Jobs disappear, debts multiply.
Families suffer, and people cry.
But the Bandits in Congress are living high.

Paying The Piper - A Financial Recovery Plan

A lot of people did financially stupid things over the last several years by buying homes they could not afford and investing in securities they did not understand. The "I want it all and I want it now" mania of the consuming public clearly overcame prudence and good judgment. In the financial services industry greed, arrogance and deceit triumphed over ethics, responsibility and common sense. And in Washington, D.C., our elected representatives and government bureaucrats not only encouraged the unhealthy orgy of debt accumulation, but mandated it. Now the whole world is paying the price.

It is somewhat understandable that consumers would spend beyond their means when evidence of unlimited prosperity was all around and real estate brokers and financial snake-oil salesmen were providing the means to do it. It seemed as if every American had found the end of the rainbow and discovered the proverbial pot of gold. When the drug store is giving away free candy, it is hard for those who dream of the good life to say no thanks. Consequently, homebuyers at the lower end of the income and educational scale who bought homes for their families to live in with non-standard adjustable rate, balloon payment or interest only mortgages should be cut some slack. The terms of their mortgage loans should be modified to allow them to maintain their homes and eventually fulfill their obligations. But those who definitely should have known better must be held accountable and suffer the consequences.

In a capitalistic society of private property, contracts and explicit laws covering commercial and financial transactions, people and businesses need to be held accountable for their actions in order for the system to function properly. Otherwise, economic activity will stagnate as transactions involving credit, the lifeblood of the American economy, would vanish since no one would trust the counterparties to fulfill their obligations. And that is exactly what is happening today. The credit bomb has exploded, and too many borrowers are insolvent and unable to pay their debts. The American economic system built on trust has been severely damaged.

Efforts are now underway from the same folks who brought this situation upon us to fix the system by bailing out those they consider "too big to fail." The "too big to fail" classification could be defined as those who contributed the most money to the "honorable" elected representatives entrusted with making these decisions. In an amazing display of disregard for what caused the crisis in the first place, they propose to fix the problem of too much debt by pouring more gasoline on the fire. They plan to confiscate more money from taxpayers (driving them deeper into debt to pay for basic necessities) and borrow more money from foreigners to give to the same brilliant captains of Wall Street and corrupt agencies in Washington that created the meltdown in the first place. Only college professors, investment bankers and congressmen could possibly believe the solution to a problem of too much debt is to create more debt.

Perhaps a good question to ask is "Who is really being bailed out?" Is it the average guy on Main Street who goes to work each day, diligently does his job, pays his taxes, provides for his family and doesn't risk their future by speculating in high risk, overleveraged, derivative financial gimmicks that no one really understands? No. He is the guy that gets to pay for the bailout.

Truth is, the folks being bailed out are the mega-rich hedge funds, private equity groups, institutional fund managers, investment bankers and brokers who gained immense wealth by fueling the debt orgy. Now these people, with their mansions in the Hamptons, elegant apartments in New York City and London, luxurious retreats in Aspen and on the French Riviera, 200 foot yachts, memberships in exclusive country clubs, box seats at the professional sports arena's, and magnificent $50 million private jets to whisk them away to enjoy all these immorally gained privileges, want the government to bail them out of their stupid investment mistakes. They proclaim the implosion of debt could not have been foreseen and was not their fault. WRONG!!! Everyone with any common sense and prudence saw it coming.

Everyone who ever learned anything about investing and corporate finance should know that the capital structure of a business is normally comprised of both equity and debt, and each type of capital has different risks and rewards. The holders of corporate debt have a higher claim to the company's assets than do the shareholders. If a company finds itself in a position where it has more debt than assets, the company is insolvent, or bankrupt. The value of the company to shareholders at that point is zero. The more debt a company piles on its balance sheet, the greater the risk of the equity becoming worthless if the company cannot earn a return on assets greater than the cost of its liabilities. This is not rocket science. Anyone who bought shares in a company with lots of debt on its balance sheet should have known they were investing with a greater risk of losing their money, and they don't deserve to be bailed out.

The same goes for commercial banks and government agencies that lend money to people or businesses they know can't pay it back, and for investors who buy securities backed by a package of mortgages they should know will go bust if housing prices stop going up. And it goes for insurance companies (read AIG) that insure buyers of the mortgage backed securities against the default of those securities. Investors that take high risks must suffer the consequences, or there will never be any incentive to stop taking risks that can lead to catastrophic meltdowns.

Furthermore, the current course of action pursued by government authorities to fight the economic meltdown makes absolutely no sense. What good does it do to inject more government money into financial institutions and auto companies, or lowering interest rates to zero? The problem is that consumers are over-extended with too much debt now. They don't want to borrow more. That is why they are not buying anything on credit.

Instead of giving $700 billion to banks, $100 billion to AIG and who knows how much to car makers, which solves nothing and just postpones the inevitable, how about putting the money in the pockets of consumers, preferably through permanent tax cuts. $1 trillion divided by 300 million people is $3,333 for every man, woman and child in America - $13,333 for a family of four. If that money was in the hands of consumers perhaps they would spend it, and get the economy moving again. Giving money to the perpetrators of the crime instead of the folks who can productively use it is utterly absurd.

So what is a fair and equitable solution to the financial crisis America now finds itself in? My plan is as follows -

1. Immediately eliminate the Troubled Asset Relief Plan (TARP), and prohibit any more expenditures to financial institutions or the automobile industry. The only rational solution for these beneficiaries of government (i.e., taxpayer) handouts is Chapter 11 bankruptcy, which allows them to restructure and stay in business if they are viable going concerns.

2. For homeowners, those who bought homes priced under $300,000 should have their mortgage restructured to reflect current, conventional mortgage rates with the principal amount reset to the current market value of the home. Any loss in the restructuring is assumed by the initial lender. If the lender is out of business, the loss is covered by the Financial Disaster Trust Fund discussed below. Owners of homes costing more than $300,000 and anyone who bought them as investment property are SOL, and not eligible for any relief.

3. For lenders, they absorb the losses on the restructurings described in #2 above, and 100% of the loss on defaults on loans still on their books on homes priced over $300,000. If the lender is insolvent as a result of these losses, they enter Chapter 11 bankruptcy and re-organize if viable. As a result of declaring bankruptcy, top management of the lender (everyone making over $250,000 per year) is terminated and not allowed back into the mortgage business for 3 years. Lower level workers compensation is reduced by 20% until the company returns to solvency.

4. All other financial obligations and assets (including but not limited to CDO's, CLO's, CMO's, ETN's, SIV's, credit default swaps, auction rate securities, covered bonds, junk bonds and complex synthetic investment vehicles comprised of leveraged derivatives) are not eligible for relief and left to work themselves out in the marketplace. That is what capitalism and free markets are all about.

5. All financial institutions and over-leveraged corporations that become insolvent as a result of the financial crisis are not eligible for government relief and suffer the consequences of their operating decisions. They declare whichever form of bankruptcy fits their condition, their shares of stock become worthless and bondholders receive the residual payout from the marketable assets. If a more favorable re-organization can be worked out to keep the company going while restructuring the balance sheet, so much the better.

6. Replace all federal regulatory agency executives and bureaucrats who were responsible for monitoring activity in the financial markets and enforcing compliance with applicable laws. This would include the Federal Reserve and SEC, and also quasi-governmental entities such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Place a maximum annual compensation of $250,000 for these public servants, and ensure that no employee of any regulatory agency maintains a social, financial, or other relationship with regulated parties.

7. Create a Financial Disaster Trust Fund to provide funding for the losses incurred in restructurings pursuant to #2 above. The fund would also be used to augment unemployment payments to all Americans who lost their jobs in the last year, with payments extended for a period of a maximum of five years. It is to be funded by a retroactive tax on all individuals working in the financial services industry as mortgage lenders, residential real estate brokers, investment bankers who packaged mortgages, securities salesmen who sold them, investors who bought them, and executives of the firms that employed them who reported gross income (no credits, deductions or other loopholes that allow them to report low taxable income) over $500,000 in any year between 2001 and 2007, and any government employee and registered government lobbyist with gross income over $250,000 during that same period. The tax would be 80% of the gross income over the designated limit in each and every year it applies. These are generally the folks who caused the problem, and they should be required to pay for the solution. If any funds remain in the Financial Disaster Trust Fund after five years, it is kept by the government and used to reduce the national debt.

8. Make permanent tax cuts across the board now to put more money in the hands of consumers to stimulate spending, and by all means eliminate the expiration of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts scheduled to occur on January 1, 2011. Offset any increase in the budget deficit with cutbacks in the bloated federal bureaucracy. In three to five years (2012 - 2014), assuming sustainable economic growth has resumed, implement a transition from the current income based tax structure to a consumption based tax system containing no tax preferences of any kind. The consumption based tax is the most fair and equitable to all taxpayers and serves to encourage savings and investment.

These are the basics of the plan. Under no circumstances should those who profited from the mega-leveraging of the financial system be bailed out. The only people the plan doesn't provide fair and equitable treatment for are the sensible and prudent Americans who have been caught up in the collapse, suffering significant losses of jobs and financial resources due to the greed of Wall Street and corruption of Washington, D.C.

Preventing A Collapse?

Every day it is something new in the government bailout sweepstakes. Yesterday our fearless leaders stopped bouncing off the walls long enough to announce a new plan to provide Treasury backing for securities that will allow banks to grant new mortgages at rates as low as 4.5% in order to revive the housing market. Refinancings will not qualify.

This is egregiously unfair to strapped homeowners who are struggling to do the right thing and pay their debt obligations, often while raising young children, putting food on the table and clothes on their backs, and trying to find enough money to pay for the other essentials of everyday life such as utility bills, gas for the family car and education expenses. In order to provide these basic necessities, many of these people diligently go to work every day to often low paying jobs they are in danger of losing because some overpaid morons in Washington D.C. and corporate executive offices piled too much additional debt on top of an already over-leveraged economy.

Changing the rules any time by creating government directed subsidies, preferences or other bailouts is always unfair to many more people than the new rules are designed to benefit, and inherently inappropriate. Changing the rules on a daily basis just creates even more confusion and gross inequities, and is no way to manage any organization - let alone a national government. In this particular case, if the government does decide it is necessary to take action and interfere in the mortgage markets by creating below market rates of 4.5%, it makes no sense and is clearly unfair to the vast majority of homeowners unless the rate is also allowed to apply for refinancings, accompanied by the waiving of all fees or charges involved in doing so. Only then would there be a degree of equal opportunity and fairness for those who are complying with their contractual and moral duty to pay off their obligations.

Of course, those who have already paid off their mortgage and those who rent or lease receive no benefit from this government generosity at taxpayers expense, and are therefore dumped on by their elected representatives. Besides, where does it say that everybody has to own a home? There is nothing wrong with renting.

Daily announcements of changes in plans to fix the financial markets and stimulate the economy are doing more damage to those two related problems than any other response possibly could. Supposedly this government intervention is intended to prevent the financial system and American economy from collapse. Perhaps if the lords of the gilded halls of Congress and massive edifices of federal bureaucracy inside the DC Beltway would pull their heads out of their asses they might notice that the markets and the economy have already collapsed. Thanks to their panic driven anti-capitalistic maneuvers and rapidly changing quick fixes, they have screwed up the situation and made it much worse than it ever needed to be. Staying the hell out of the way and letting the markets sort it out, as government is supposed to do in a free market economy, would have been and still would be a much better course of action.

Blame It On George - And The Evils Of Capitalism

Apparently the American public has been convinced by the fork-tongued leading lizards of the New American Socialists (a.k.a. the former Democratic Party) and their propagandists in the press that capitalism in general and George Bush in particular are totally responsible for the financial meltdown that has brought our country to its knees in the fall of 2008. I beg to differ, at the risk of confusing the American public with the facts.

Capitalism had very little to do with the current financial crisis, and its not really hard to identify what did -

1. Growing government interference in America's economy and financial markets. Beginning with the Community Re-investment Act (CRA) of 1977, Congress required lenders to loosen credit standards in order to encourage home ownership. In 1995 the rules were relaxed further, with the quasi-government agencies Fannie Mae (Federal National Mortgage Association) and Freddie Mac (Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation) becoming the repository of the loans the original lenders knew could not be paid back. As a result of the incestuous and sordid relationship between these agencies and their assumed overseers in Congress, specifically Barney Frank (Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee) and Chris Dodd (Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee), both Democrats who received substantial campaign contributions from the two agencies (along with Barack Obama and Rahm Emanuel), Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac grew to dominate the mortgage industry with massive amounts of unpayable sub-prime home loans on their books.

Four Republicans (Charles Hagel, John McCain, Elizabeth Dole and John Sununu) sponsored the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Act of 2005 to address the potential financial disaster that was building at Fannie and Fred, but the Democrats killed the bill. Meanwhile, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd were denying that any problems existed at these agencies right up until their portfolios imploded. Yet George Bush and the Republicans are held responsible by the Democrats and the media.

2. Irresponsible monetary policy by the Federal Reserve. Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan and his successor, Ben Bernanke, kept interest rates too low too long, encouraging and facilitating the massive expansion of credit throughout the economy. The Federal Reserve is the central bank of the United States, and is an independent agency whose decisions are not mandated or ratified by the president or anyone else in the executive branch. The chairman is appointed by the President, subject to confirmation by the senate. The Federal Reserve is subject to oversight and reports to Congress, not the President. Yet George Bush and the Republicans are held responsible by the Democrats and the media.

3. Creative financial instruments that had nothing to do with the functioning of industry and commerce. Wall Street created complex, esoteric, incomprehensible investment vehicles traded among themselves and sold to institutional investors that did not represent the ownership of corporations and private businesses, and therefore were not representative of the true definition of capitalism. Credit Default Swaps, Exchange Traded Notes, Toggle Bonds, hundreds of specially designed securities based on derivatives of other securities, all leveraged up with debt to multiply the returns on invested capital - none of these were necessary for the functioning of a capitalist economy. But you can't legislate against greed. Yet George Bush and the Republicans are held responsible by the Democrats and the media.

And last but not least, capitalism has nothing to do with bailing out businesses and investors who make unwise, high risk mistakes. In fact, capitalism can only work efficiently if those who do make bad investments suffer the consequences. There is no bailing out in capitalism.

Capitalism has everything to do with private enterprise, where individuals rather than the government own the means of production and distribution. This ownership is evidenced by shares of stock in public companies and proprietary or partnership interest in private ones. It is not evidenced by purchasing contrived securities that represent nothing tangible.

Yet today the government is bailing out those wealthy financiers and traders on Wall Street who created the useless financial snake oil. Meanwhile, the Main Street investors in real assets that generate economic growth through the production of goods and services are obliged to pay for it. That is not capitalism. And it is not all George Bush's fault.

Uniting Americans?

Since the election of Barack Obama as the next President of the United States, there have been a number of columns and editorials from liberal journalists (sorry, that's redundant) about how the new administration and the leadership of congress will now be able to bring the country together and unite us all in a common purpose after the demonic, polarizing years of the Bush presidency. I guess that is possible if we all drink the socialist, pacifist Kool-Aid and have our brains turn to mush.

It is always quite clear these socialists mean we can all sing kumbaya together if we neanderthals who do not agree with them "see the light" and accept their superior understanding of how the world works and what is good for us. Perhaps that means we who have been around a few years and built the country into the greatest economic powerhouse in history and the savior of western civilization against evil, brutal tyrants should no longer be involved in running the country. Obviously the coalition of black and brown minorities and those under the age of 30, or those who put Barack Obama in the oval office, can do a better job of it than us conservative and libertarian old fogeys.

But the reality is that Barack Obama did have the most liberal voting record in Congress, at least when he took the time to do the job he was elected to do. I find it incredulous that those journalists say he will lead from the center and be a unifying figure. Of course, since their idea of the center is the nose bleed seats in the upper deck on the third base side of the left field foul line, I suppose I can sort of understand the thought process. And perhaps, since Obama is basically a blank slate with no track record of making major decisions effecting anyone but himself, no one really knows what to expect. Maybe we should give him the benefit of the doubt until we actually see what direction his actions take us.

Unfortunately, for those who seek to unify us and entertain fantasy's of Barack being the man to do it, they might want to consider the role of the congressional leadership. Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and the other riders of the apocalypse have their priorities too, and they aren't about to let an inexperienced rookie lead them by the nose, even if he is a former colleague from their own party. These creatures, who have achieved impressive new standards in taking their traditional tradecraft of creating massive problems for the country, blaming them on their opponents and then claiming credit for attempting to deal with those problems, and who have reneged on every promise they made to voters to take over congress in 2006, will not be easy to deal with.

To mention just a few of their priorities, Henry Waxman from California favors steep energy taxes on oil and gas producers to be used to combat global warming. What a great idea! Limiting the supply and causing price increases on the sources of energy that Americans really need and wasting taxpayer dollars on a politically correct agenda that is not universally accepted as anything more than a natural development that has happened before and reverses over time, and could possibly pour billions of dollars down a black hole of alternative sources that may not become commercially viable. By the way, has Mr. Waxman ever heard of nuclear power?

Charles Rangel of New York wants to bring back the draft. What a great idea! If Barack wants to invade China, Russia, India or Western Europe, Charlie will find him the troops.

Barney Frank from Massachussetts, the poster child for the previously mentioned masters of causing problems then pretending to solve them (in the case of the current credit crisis), wants to slash defense spending by 25%. What a great idea! In a world with easier access to weapons of mass destruction and fanatical people who have sworn to eliminate us from the face of the earth, maybe we should just stick our heads in the sand with our butts high in the air and hope the bad men will go away.

John Conyers of Michigan has called for reparations for slavery. What a great idea! In a country where nearly 620,000 citizens died in a war to end slavery, where no one has legally owned a slave in 150 years, and where a man of African descent was just elected president, what a great way to compensate those who suffered under slavery (wait a minute, they are all long gone) and create harmony among the races. By the way, do you know anyone who has ever owned a slave and needs to be punished?

The perpetually p.o.'d Mr. Conyers also is a sympathizer with our culturally and intellectually superior European "friends" (tell me again, how many times have we bailed their asses out from annihilation or total domination from tyrranical dictators) who want to indict the Bush Administration and officials for war crimes (for trying to save them again, this time from diehard terrorists who want to convert them to Islam or, if they don't submit, kill them). Another great idea by our man from Detroit (talk of war zones)! Particularly in a country where a good many people still support the War on Terror, mainly because we enjoy living and not having to bow five times a day toward Mecca. I can't think of a better way to start another civil war among Americans than to indict a president for doing the job he was elected to do. However, maybe then Mr. Conyers could create someone to make reparations to.

It should be an interesting four years. The lunatics are now in total charge of the asylum. I guess Americans could only stand so much prosperity and freedom. We grew a little too comfortable with the success of capitalism and free markets, unprecedented individual rights, and a strong military to ensure we maintained them. Somebody managed to convince a lot of people that those things were not worth keeping, maybe because somebody somewhere was not fully participating in the good life our way of life has created. Somewhere along the way we forgot that the good things in life were supposed to be earned, and cannot just be given away to everybody. As the old saying goes, sooner or later no good deeds go unpunished. So now we are moving in a different direction. I don't think the members of the "I want it all and I want it now" generation are going to be very happy with what they have done.

The New Reality

In retrospect, I suppose one could say it is unfortunate Americans did not elect either Al Gore in 2000 or John Kerry in 2004. If we had, the voting public would perhaps be blaming them for any inevitable economic difficulties we may have, even though the news media and congressional Democrats would certainly be doing their best to blame it on Republicans. And even more important, this 2008 election outcome and its potentially fatal blow to the future of our country probably would not have happened.

But it did. We can now try to prepare ourselves for -

1. Redistribution of income from the economic growth generators to the unmotivated beneficiaries of government handouts. By the way, I am one who firmly believes there are way too many enormously overpaid people, primarily in financial services, the legal profession, and CEO's throughout commerce and industry. They make much more money than they are worth, and they should pay significantly higher taxes if their Boards of Directors cannot reign in the outrageous compensation packages. In fact, many hedge fund and private equity managers belong in jail, and all the money they made looting companies over the last decade should be impounded and used to pay for the damage they have done to companies and employees.

But it doesn't make sense to burn down the whole orchard to eliminate some of the bad apples. In far greater numbers are those entrepeneurs and small private business owners who create successful businesses and create the majority of jobs in our economy, and most are worth every penny of the earnings they take home. There is no logical reason to punish them with higher taxes.

2. Higher government spending for existing entitlement programs, new social initiatives and politically correct special interest agenda's, accompanied by astronomical federal budget deficits. The rapid expansion of borrowing by the federal government will lead to higher interest rates for everyone who buys a home, purchases a car or has a business that needs working capital.

3. Higher corporate taxes, which will ultimately be paid for by consumers as businesses raise prices, and result in productive companies moving their operations to foreign countries that allow them to be more competitive.

4. Higher capital gains taxes, reducing the incentives necessary for capital investment that are critical for economic recovery and sustainable growth.

5. Nationalization, or federal government take-over, of the financial and health care industries, as well as possibly the auto and energy industries. This repudiation of capitalism and turn towards government directed and managed industrial policy will ensure the misallocation of capital resources, destroy productivity, suppress workers wages and restrain economic progress and growth for many years to come.

Regarding energy, at a minimum we can expect continued bizarre policies of limited oil and gas production and restraints on nuclear power generation, including probable "windfall profits" taxes. These actions will result in scarcity of energy resources, higher energy prices and continued reliance on foreign sources.

6. Economic isolationism and protectionism. From abrogating existing trade agreements to creating new barriers to free trade, these actions always result in sharp contractions of international commerce due to retaliatory measures from trading partners. This not only leads to higher prices for goods and services, but is well known as one of the primary reasons for the depth and prolongation of the Great Depression of the 1930's.

7. The return of productivity destroying thuggish labor unions to power, and the end of right to work laws.

8. Packing the federal judiciary with liberal judges who use the courts to make law according to their personal viewpoints rather than decide cases by interpreting existing law as it was intended.

9. Irresponsible campaign finance and voter registration laws that ensure elections can be bought by whichever special interest groups contribute the most money, and that fraudulent votes (non-existent or ineligible voters) will continue to be counted.

10. Legislation to limit free speech with the preposterously named "Fairness Doctrine", the sole purpose of which is to prevent opposing opinions from being heard.

11. A reduction in defense spending, which puts our country more at risk in an increasingly dangerous world of belligerent adversaries armed with weapons of mass destruction.

12. Surrender of our national interests to world organizations, such as the United Nations, controlled by bureaucrats, left wing politicians and third world tyrants who protest and oppose everything the United States of America stands for while expecting us to pay for their ability to do so.

Every one of these policies and actions are detrimental to the prosperity and ultimate survival of any nation. And I haven't even mentioned the issues of immigration, education and what can be done to address the out of control entitlements of social security and medicare. Rest assured that these issues will each be handled in the wrong manner by our ultra-leftist new government.

The United States is now clearly on the path to becoming a socialist country, pure and simple. The old Democratic Party does not exist anymore. It has been hi-jacked by the far left elitists who are arrogant enough to believe Americans should live our lives as they see fit. Our new leaders might as well go ahead and change their name to the Communist Party of America. Karl Marx was right. Our democracy did sow the seeds of its own destruction.

But we are not without hope. The majority of Americans are still centrist in nature. The left-wing propaganda machine has been extremely successful in brain-washing the American public into thinking the country was going down the drain and evil Republicans were responsible, even though until recently the economy was growing at above average rates, unemployment was low, nearly anyone could buy any consumer product they wanted, and our country had been kept safe from terrorist attack ever since 9/11/2001. The propagandists proved the word is mightier than the sword, because words can misinform, mislead, deceive and establish false information as fact.

There is no doubt that Americans will discover over the next few years that the socialists have deceived them. Their policies are doomed to failure, and we must make sure we maintain our resolve in protecting the basic freedoms Americans have always enjoyed. We cannot let these socialists hi-jack our country and lead us down the path of declining personal freedom and eroding standards of living. As long as we continue to fight for our constitutional rights that are becoming more and more precarious, conservatives, independents and the more moderate liberals will be able to offer better solutions for renewed prosperity, social justice and individual rights - and we will take our country back from those who rely on lies and false promises to win elections.

America's Only Hope

With this presidential election next tuesday, America will pass the point of no return - or tipping point. Given Barack Obama's tax plan and the near certainty it will be supported by his cheerleaders in congress, more people will be the beneficiaries of government spending than there will be paying taxes to fund it. The only way that can work to maintain a viable economy is if the providers of support have incentives to continue to do so. Under this plan, they won't.

Consequently, the American economy is in for a prolonged period of stagnation and decline. There is no way out of the situation given the current system of taxation and the implementation of a philosophy of redistribution of income. Those who will get a free ride will not vote to re-impose taxes on themselves. And the Democrats who created the situation are unlikely to re-impose the taxes since it would cost them votes. This is not rocket science or advanced graduate economics. It is common sense.

The only non-violent solution to escape from a future of economic regression is to trash and eliminate the income tax. The only method of taxation going forward that is fair and equitable and that will allow for the regeneration of sustainable economic growth is the consumption tax. Whether it is a sales tax or a value-added tax, it would give the innovators and industrious the incentives of profiting from their efforts as they would be allowed to keep what they earned rather than having a significant portion of their earnings confiscated by the government.

A return to prosperity would also require that congress restrain its spending habits, an event that has to occur at some point as tax revenues under the current system dwindle and the cost of borrowing becomes prohibitive. Of course, the only way to keep government spending under control on a sustainable basis is to deny incumbents the ability to buy votes by imposing term limits on every elected official. That is a subject for another day.

We Can Only "Hope" To Survive Obama's "Change"

Next week Americans will make the biggest mistake in the relatively brief history of the United States.

When Americans go to the polls to vote for our next president, they basically have two choices. They have the opportunity to vote for an experienced man of demonstrated character and integrity who has spent his whole life in courageous and honorable duty to his country. This man's service in defense of his country went beyond the capacity of human limits, as everyone should by now know. And his career in public service has focused on the fight against corruption in government and efforts to restrain the out of control growth of government spending, both of which are the primary domestic enemies of the American citizens the federal government is supposed to represent. It appears this man has no chance of winning the election.

The other choice is a man with great rhetorical skills but little to no record of accomplishing anything of substance. He has an opaque personal background, is the product of the most corrupt political machine in America (Chicago), associates with known subversive domestic terrorists (William Ayers), and whose personal mentors over the years have been radical agitators who promote hatred of American ideals, culture and principles (Jeremiah Wright). Whenever he has won public office he has spent very little time doing the job he was elected to do but spent considerable amounts of time campaigning for his next higher political office. Unfortunately, this time there is no higher office, and he may actually spend some time doing what he says he is going to do. And that will be disastrous.

His stated goals are to expand government programs across the board, programs that are already on a path of self-destruction that will make the mortgage meltdown, caused by the government passing legislation requiring lenders to loan money to people they knew could not pay it back, look like a pimple on an elephant's butt. He has promised labor unions he will enact the Orwellian named "Employee Free Choice Act", which denies workers the right to secret ballots in voting for union representation, ensuring workplace intimidation and punishment for workers who favor the right to work laws. We are again seeing leaders of the Democratic Party promoting the anything but fair "Fairness Doctrine", designed to stifle dissenting opinion and deny free speech. And this candidate's tax plan is nothing more than pure, socialist income redistribution through the raising of tax rates on the higher income earners while promising those on the lower end of the income scale increased credits, deductions and exemptions to not only reduce their taxes to zero, but give them money confiscated from those who do pay taxes.

These spending and tax plans will have two consequences. One, they will kill the engine of economic progress in America by increasing the inefficient government directed allocation of capital resources to politically favored social programs and politically correct agenda's, and reduce productivity generating incentives, innovation and entrepreneurship as the government mandates a retreat from the proven prosperity producing power of capitalism, free markets and global trade. Two, they will ensure that Democrats remain in control of government until the American economy has totally collapsed with no prospect of recovery, or some outside force imposes its will. Why is that? Because this tax plan buys the votes of more than half the voting public.

In 2006, according to the US Census, 220 million Americans were eligible to vote. 89 million of those people, or 40.5%, paid no income tax. Under the Obama plan, 18 million more folks, or 8.2%, will not pay any taxes (in fact, many of these 107 million people will receive money from the government). 2.7 million people, or 1.2%, are employed by the federal government. Add that up and you have 49.9% of the voting public either paying no taxes or being dependent on the federal government. Another 24 million people, or 10.9%, will pay less than $1,000 and less than 5% of their income in taxes. Combined, that means 60.8% of eligible voters pay next to nothing to fund the profligacy of the US government, and really don't care how congress spends it other than to hope they send more freebies their way. Why should they vote for Republicans when the Democrats are giving them a free lunch - or more accurately, a free big screen tv, new car, rent money or extra cash for whiskey, cigarettes and drugs.

As any sane human being should be able to figure out, that can't last. Sooner, rather than later, the productive will tire of seeing the fruits of their efforts confiscated from them to be given to the non-productive. Before long, the whole country becomes non-productive and the game is over. It is interesting that some of Barack Obama's most passionate supporters are the 20 to 30 year olds who are the ones that are going to be most royally screwed under his new direction. Income redistribution might sound good to them now, but in 20 to 30 years there will be no income to redistribute. The government programs for social security, health care and other social entitlements that sound so great will not be there when it is time for the younger generation to use them, even though they will be the ones paying for the older generations to deplete.

Over the last century, capitalism and free markets produced the most rapid advance in standards of living the world has ever seen. Obama's "change" will put global economic progress in reverse, at least here in the United States. Perhaps his supporters have not noticed what the world's stock markets are telling them. Global stock markets peaked one year ago before beginning a normal consolidation following the five year bull market run that began in late 2002. At the end of August this year the US market was 17% below the October 2007 high, well within the bounds of a traditional cyclical contraction. But when it started to become clear that Barack Obama was going to be our next president, the stock market plunged 35% in less than two months. Nationalization of the financial industry, a fatal first step down the wrong road, was certainly the initial catalyst. But the realization that a new president and a like-minded congress would thrust the American economy recklessly towards socialism and income redistribution has arguably caused this financial disaster to be worse than it needed to be.

Obama's campaign slogans have been "change we can believe in" and "hope". The global stock markets are telling us that western civilization may not survive his type of "change." And the only "hope" we have is that he doesn't do what he says he will do.