Prairie dogs and liberty

Yesterday, I attended a public meeting that illustrated much of what is wrong with the nation. First, a bit of background:

In this part of Utah, we have a rodent named the Utah Prairie Dog. This cute little critter rules Iron County. Why? Because it is currently listed under the Endangered Species Act (EAS) as threatened. This status gives it certain protections which elevate its rights above those of humans. The presence of a prairie dog or its burrow on private property substantially diminishes the value of that property because it cannot be developed, farmed or otherwise used for normal human uses without significant restrictions and expenses. This imposition by the EAS is, to me, a clear violation of the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution:

"No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Although title and tax obligations remain in private hands, the EAS essentially has taken substantial control of portions of private property all across the nation and here in southwestern Utah without due process (ie court hearings and usual eminent domain proceedings) and without compensation. But, we still pay taxes on that government-damaged property. The central government has essentially taken this property to protect (raise) prairie dogs at the expense of property owners. Property owners are not compensated, as required by the Fifth Amendment, for the loss of use and diminished value of their land.

Even though this variety of prairie dog is listed as threatened, they are ubiquitous. They are in our residential yards, alfalfa fields, a golf course, and two airports. They are even digging up our cemeteries!

Over the 40 years since the Utah Prairie Dog has been listed as threatened, the central, state, and local governments have spent millions of dollars and countless man-hours to save and count it -- even to dust it for fleas. After all that effort and expense, no meaningful change in population is evident. It should be noted that nearly every species that has existed on earth has gone extinct without the assistance of man. (That is not to justify man causing or accelerating the extinction of any species -- including the Utah Prairie Dog -- that is not inherently bad such as the smallpox virus.)

Several plans to save our prairie dog have been implemented with no effect. Creating and implemented these plans are extremely tedious and time-consuming. In order to comply with the EAS, they require truck-loads of paper, environmental studies, armies of government bureaucrats from multiple federal, state, and local agencies, and endless public meetings such as the one I attended yesterday. Among these ineffective plans is the current rangewide Utah Prairie Dog Recovery Implementation Program (UPDRIP) which was was initiated in 2009.

Yesterday's meeting was related to developing a new Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) which presumably would succeed where all other efforts have failed over the past 40 years. (This is beginning to look like an intentional eternal jobs program for bureaucrats.) The meeting was, on occasion, quite tense as citizens, property owners, and their local elected officials vented their frustrations.

Early in the meeting, I pointed out the very obvious fact that every member of the team that is writing the new plan is a government employee, that the team has absolutely no representation from the people who are affected by this varmint. The response was that these status meetings are open to the public and that when the final plans are ready, there will be public hearings. Another property owner replied that that is too late -- we need to have a hand in writing the documents now because we are affected by it and we even have solutions. This panel of bureaucrats is so open to public opinion, that every meeting has been abruptly terminated while the public was making its comments. (Isn't it convenient to have a 2-hour meeting to discuss a 40-year-old problem?)

One possible solution the bureaucrats say they are working on is to identify and develop federal land of suitable habitat where the prairie dogs can be relocated. One citizen said that if the government wants to know how to raise prairie dogs, ask any alfalfa farmer in the county -- he's raising lots of them. It is obvious that alfalfa fields make excellent prairie dog habitat. It was suggested that the HCP include establishing alfalfa farms on federal land solely for the use of the prairie dogs. The idea was immediately dismissed as if it were impossible.

As the discussions developed, it became abundantly clear that the root of the perpetual prairie dog problem is attitude. Article I, Section 9 of the US Constitution states in part that "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States...." Nevertheless, it seems that many government bureaucrats (including those in that room) view themselves as dukes and earls and that we commoners are their realm. They see themselves as experts on everything and we peasants are stupid and uneducated dolts. I should point out, however, that government "experts" in the US and other nations have:

▪ sent our best men and women to die in battle for causes deemed noble by the "experts," often with inadequate training and equipment because that's what the "experts" consider adequate;
▪ repeatedly destroyed our economy;
▪ created a national debt which is unsustainable and with no end in its exponential growth in sight;
▪ destroyed our education system;
▪ mandated what crops farmers may grow as well as how, where, and how much;
▪ forced car manufacturers to produce vehicles that don't meet our needs. (Families used to drive big station wagons. Now families must drive big gas-guzzling SUVs because the traditional station wagon was regulated out of existence.);
▪ closed thousand of acres of productive farmland to save non-viable minnows, insects, etc.;
▪ subsidized and bailed-out market failures such as electric cars, solar and wind energy, corrupt banks, and unprofitable manufacturers;
▪ banned traditional light bulbs;
▪ mandated the burning of food (corn) as automobile fuel (ethanol) even though it takes more energy to produce the fuel than it produces itself;
▪ created countless families who now have been totally dependent on government handouts for generations;
▪ forced countless fathers out of the home because his presence limits the amount of government aid the family receives;
▪ murdered millions of Jews, Armenians, Blacks, Chinese, indigenous peoples and other undesirables over the past couple of hundreds of years alone;
▪ closed thousands of miles of roads Americans once used to access "public" lands in the West (now that land apparently belongs only to the "experts");
▪ restricted or banned the keeping and bearing of the constitutionally-protected and best means of self-protection -- a firearm;
▪ closed countless factories by over-regulating industry or because it suits the will of unions; and even
▪ destroyed the flavor of french fries.

There is no question that government "experts" have had some positive impacts. But on the whole, I'd say that their negative impacts have far outweighed any good they have done.

Yesterday, the "experts" rejected every suggestion given by the citizens of our little community -- even offers of volunteer labor to help identify and establish new habitat on government-owned land and to help relocate the prairie dogs! After all, what can we commoners do? We aren't as smart as they are.

Yesterday, I pointed out that this effort to save the Utah Prairie Dog is older than many of the "experts" on the government panel. Frustrated with that simple fact, and to avoid another 40 years of ESA abuses of local property owners and taxpayers, I demanded a deadline, suggesting 5 years. I demanded the right of property owners to shoot every prairie dog that hasn't been relocated by the deadline. I believe that only a firm deadline to save the animal will institutionalize sufficient initiative in those "experts" to get the job done. Indeed, I believe a deadline is actually essential to the rescue of the species because, without a deadline, the "experts" will continue to drag the effort out for decades.

A goal is a dream with a deadline. — Napoleon Hill

But, after all that, one of the things that annoyed me the most was that they kept referring to was the oft-repeated pronouncement that everything must be in compliance with the EAS and that we commoners aren't smart enough to understand or comply with that law.

The leader of the team cut off public input just when I was about to read a pertinent phrase from Article VI of the US Constitution:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. (emphasis added)

Contrary to the apparent belief of yesterday's government team, the Endangered Species Act is not the supreme law of the land. In fact, it violates the supreme law of the land!

Every one of those bureaucrats (in fact, every federal, state, and local bureaucrat across the nation) must learn enough about the Constitution (which they swear to uphold) to recognize when the laws, regulations, and policies they implement and enforce violate the supreme law of the land. They must muster the courage and integrity to refuse to enforce laws, regulations, and policies that violate the Constitution and the rights of Americans. You see, "...all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men..." (Declaration of Independence, emphasis added). Our founders wrote a Constitution that describes a sharply limited form of government and delegated to it only sufficient power to protect our rights -- not to protect prairie dogs and snail darters.

No reasonable person wants to push the prairie dog or the snail darter out of existence for the convenience of anyone. If the government "experts," and the cost of supporting these aristocrats, would just go away, we Americans would be able to keep the resources we need to form organizations (such as the Mule Deer Foundation, Ducks Unlimited, and Wild Turkey Federation) that will actually do something productive to save threatened and endangered species.

Americans are good and generous people (at least we were before government "experts" destroyed our moral fiber). If government would get out of the way and if it were reduced to its constitutional size and power, Americans would be free to take care of themselves, their families, their neighbors, and the prairie dog. Sadly, we no longer have that liberty. Instead, our wealth has bee squandered by government "experts" to satisfy their central-planning objectives.

We are ruled by government "experts" and prairie dogs. I don't know which is worse.

A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years. — Lysander Spooner

It's time for voters study the Constitution and to elect only politicians who also study the Constitution and who will ardently comply with the Constitution and who will sunset or eliminate immediately all agencies, laws (eg ESA), regulations, policies, and judicial decisions that are not in full compliance with the US Constitution.

Yes, that little public meeting illustrated much of what is wrong with government at all levels, the least of which is complete and utter disdain for the experience, knowledge, and opinion of the voters.

Do you have enough government, yet? If not, how much is enough?

A city park for dogs?

In response to a homework assignment, a college coed at Southern Utah University, Sarah Scott, decided Cedar City needs a dog park. She found some like-minded people in town to start a movement to that end. Unlike the other 14 parks our small city has, the dog park would be a place where dogs would be free to run off-leash. With regard to pets, there would be no other difference between the dog park and most other parks in the city.

Here are some of my concerns:

1 - On their website dog park advocates cite several reasons to support their dog park. Every reason given is already satisfied with current infrastructure and by persons using good judgment with regard to the type of pet they own. Adequate opportunities to exercise dogs already exist such as sidewalks, parks, and each dog owner's own property. My wife has been quite capable of exercising our Labrador-mix from her wheelchair in our own yard and on daily walks in the neighborhood.

2 - With the exception of a few people who need a service dog, responsible dog owners do not have dogs larger than can be entertained and exercised on their own property.

3 - Dog park advocates claim that having a dog park will enable owners of bored and overweight dogs to take better care of their dogs. Such owners are inherently irresponsible. Having a dog park available is unlikely to change the owner's behavior nor benefit his neglected dog in any way.

4 - On their website, dog park advocates have identified proposed park rules. There is no indication as to who will enforce these rules or whether the rules will be added to the city ordinances to enable the city to enforce park rules. If the rules are to be made law (as would seem to be necessary, since advocates want to use city-owned property) there seems to be no plan to pay for the additional cost of city enforcement. I assume, therefore, that park advocates expect the taxpayer to pick up the tab to enforce park rules. A quote from the website "Dog Bite Law": "...failure to enforce its own rules and regulations may result in governmental liability. Dog parks frequently are governed by special rules that are either posted or part of the local municipal code. If an irresponsible dog owner has a habit of breaking those rules, and the local animal control officers do nothing despite being informed, a person who sustains personal injuries or injuries to his or her dog may prevail against the municipality."

5 - Park advocates have claimed that the dog park will be established at no cost to the taxpayer. Then, they contradict themselves by expecting city property to be used for the park site. They expect to use city RAP (Recreation, Arts, Parks) funds, and federal LWCF (Land and Water Conservation Funds) -- all derived from taxpayers. (In previous correspondnece, I have already expressed my concerns to the City Council about using federal money to fund local projects.) None of this is free money from Heaven. It is money extracted from taxpayers! On their website, advocates say, "These funds are already obtained tax funds that are collected in our already existing taxes and are used for Recreation, Arts, and Parks. It is money that will go to other areas if it is not used by us." They somehow seem to believe that taxes that were collected in the past is somehow free money.

6 – Proposed dog park rules would ban un-neutered adult male dogs and female dogs that are in heat. That would seem to discriminate against a substantial portion of the dogs in this city and their tax-paying owners. They even propose banning children under age 8 from interacting with their own dogs in the dog park. If it is so important for dogs to have their own park for exercise and socialization, how do park advocates expect fertile dogs to socialize and exercise? Surely, they don’t expect fertile dogs to exercise by playing with their owners in the back yard and by taking walks with their owners in their own neighborhoods!

7 - The proper role of government is to protect the rights of the people -- not to entertain them or even to do for them what they presumably cannot do for themselves. Most of what all levels government does could be done better and cheaper by private enterprise -- including parks and recreation. We must learn to stop expecting government to fix all our personal problems, real and imagined, to and satisfy all our desires -- including providing a place for our pets to play. We must learn to take care of ourselves and our pets at our own expense.

8 - It's bad enough that I am forced to pay city RDA (Downtown Redevelopment Agency) taxes that are used to maintain and repair property owned by private businesses simply because they are located downtown. Now, I'm expected to pay for a place for dogs to catch Frisbees and to socialize! I am one taxpayer who is tired of paying somebody else's bills through my taxes. Now, they expect me to pay for the entertainment of their pets!

9 - I'm told that his city has 14 parks and recreation properties and has spent over 22 million dollars on parks and recreation over the past 5 years. The city is spending money on parks and swimming pools as if the money is falling from the sky. The dog park advocates seem to have the same attitude.

10 - One park advocate argues that, although she has no children, she pays taxes to educate her neighbors' children. Therefore, she thinks it is appropriate to use funds extracted from taxpayers to provide a park for dogs. While the appropriateness and wisdom of a government school system is another topic upon which I could rant, the two situations are hardly similar. Having a well educated citizenry benefits society as a whole by preparing youth for the occupations and leaderships roles they will take as adults. Properly educated (as opposed to indoctrinated) youth become wise voters, elected officials and other community leaders. A dog park, on the other hand, is just a dog park -- a park that will benefit a small minority of dog owners. A dog park does nothing for the general welfare of the community as does education.

11 - The entire world is in a severe debt crisis. It will not get better until political leaders at all levels -- even Cedar City -- learn to exercise restraint and good judgment in spending. Without extreme and immediate restraint, the central government has (and will have) so encumbered the nation with so much unsustainable current and future debt that taxes must necessarily rise to the point where there will soon be nothing left for local governments to tax in order to support and maintain existing local projects such as our aquatics center, let alone a new dog park. To prepare for this, the City Council must immediately begin to exercise restraint and wisdom in its spending habits.

12 - I consistently have, and will continue to, vote against any political office holder who votes for projects or activities that are unaffordable or unnecessary. I support only candidates who show good judgment. I take time to urge everyone I know to do likewise.

We don't need to use city and taxpayer resources to satisfy a person's homework assignment. I urge the Cedar City Council to reject the movement to establish a dog park or anything like it on city-owned property using any form of public funds.

Politicians don't listen

One thing I have noticed about events such as political party conventions, the recent Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), the NRA Annual meeting, and similar gatherings of all political stripes is that celebrity speakers almost never stick around to listen to the other speakers or to the attendees. I must assume that is this is because such speakers:
1 - think they are too important to stay longer,
2 - think their time is too valuable to stay longer,
3 - think they already know more than the other speakers,
4 - think they already know more than the attendees,
5 - think attendees are mere useful idiots, and/or
6 - don't want to be confused or bothered by opinions other than their own.

This phenomenon pervades the nation's entire political system. Very few politicians want to hear the opinion of another politician or of a constituent. (They do seem to listen to lobbyists with lots of money and stock tips, however.) The only constituent input a typical politician gets is poll briefings by his staff.

Take a look at the congressional debates as broadcast on CSPAN. A substantial portion of the speeches given by congressmen on the floor of the House or of the Senate are to nearly empty rooms. Why? Because politicians have lots to say, but none want to listen. So, speeches are scheduled for the middle of the night. A congressman who wants to have his say gets out of bed at 3 AM, goes to the Capitol Building, delivers his speech to an empty room and a CSPAN camera, then goes home before the next speaker begins. His staff then edits out embarrassing content and publishes this heroic empty-room speech. There is virtually no true congressional debate or discussion on any legislation.

All politicians must take the time to listen to every speech given at political conventions, on the floor of Congress, CPAC, NRA Annual Meeting, and other similar meetings in which they participate (or should participate). Each politician must commit himself to sitting through all of every event at which he speaks. We commoners will respect them much more if they do.

All that said, I don't place all the blame on politicians. We voters must also shoulder a significant portion of the blame for all that is wrong in our nation's political system. We persistently elect men and women who don't share our values because we we don't take the time to study their values and records. (We even have a president whose past is almost completely unknown except for what he chose to put in a couple of books.) Instead, we vote based on an "R" or a "D" next to their name. We even vote based on the color of a candidate's skin! Then, we complain about the horrid government we have. (Congress now has a mere 10% approval rating.) Then, we reelect the same bums back to office -- no matter how corrupt and incompatible with our values they prove to be. Politicians know all about, and exploit, our civic laziness and illiteracy.

Most American voters seem to know what's happening on American Idol, the so-called "reality" shows, and national sports, but they can't name even one local elected official let alone how any local politician stands on local issues. Few can name more than one or two state-level politicians let alone how any state politician stands on state issues. It is rare to find a voter can correctly name more than a couple of federal politicians let alone how any they stand on national or global issues. Even fewer can correctly identify more than a couple of politicians at any level by sight or by a photograph. They do, however, have the false belief that Sarah Palin said she can see Russia from her house.

So, why should politicians listen to constituents when so many of whom clearly are fools? And, why should politicians listen to each other when so many of them are corrupt?

A sailor's life belt

Academy Award Nominee Gary Sinise makes a moving Spoken Word Performance, honoring one of our brave servicemen from WWII.

Getting around (through) the "gun-free" school zone

Federal law (18 USC 922(q)(2)(B)(ii)) bans firearms within 1,000 feet of a school. I suppose the intent of this legislation is noble -- to protect school children. However, it ignores the simple fact that those with violent criminal intent, by definition, ignore and disobey the law, no matter how noble the law may be.

This is one of our countless laws that prohibit harmless behavior simply because someone doesn't like it (malum in se -- eg, peaceful possession of a firearm). We should only have laws which prohibit and punish behavior that is inherently wrong (malum prohibitum -- eg, shooting school children).

Countless (probably millions) responsible, innocent Americans have unknowingly violated this federal law for at least three reasons:

1 - They don't know about the law or
2 - They can't see the invisible lines that define that 1,000-foot federal "gun-free" zone
3 - It is virtually impossible to navigate a typical city without encountering the 1,000-foot perimeter of a "gun-free" school zone.

Utah has a similar law.

To cure this problem in Utah, SB.249 has been introduced in the 2012 Utah Legislative session. It will eliminate criminal liability for law-abiding persons who enter a school zone with a firearm. This bill will not affect any criminal penalties for criminal behavior with a firearm. This liberty is already exercised by persons with concealed firearm permits. I know of no situation where this has been a problem. It is, therefore, evident that the possession of a firearm does not cause responsible people to go berserk in school zones.

Absent any threatening behavior, a person with a gun is no more dangerous than a person with a car.

SB.249 is a small forward step toward restoring our pre-Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. I urge the legislature and the governor to enact this bill immediately.

Related commentary:
▪ The lunacy of banning guns in schools
▪ Stop arbitrary gun bans near schools
▪ Gun-free school zones
▪ Enact HR.2613 (Citizens Protection Act of 2011) immediately!
▪ End federal gun-free zones!
▪ Yet another deadly gun-free zone
▪ Gun-free zones kill again! (1)
▪ Gun-free zones kill again! (2)
▪ Gun-free zones kill again! (3)

We want a dictator

As I watch the Republican presidential candidate debates, one thought that persistently comes to my mind is that the election process has evolved to the point where it is designed only to pick the best dictator. The same goes for the candidate selection process in the Democrat Party.

Nobody is examining candidates of either party to determine each individual's core beliefs and principles which will influence their decisions and their willingness/ability to receive counsel from wise and informed advisors. Nobody is exploring their results as a leader. Instead, the probing from debate moderators is designed to reveal whether candidates already have the desired pre-established decisions ready for immediate implementation – without seeking advice from appropriate experts or Congress.

Clearly, everyone should have some decisions already firmly established -- some lines in the sand. For example, I expect that a married president would already have firmly in his mind and heart that he would never engage in sexual activities with a subordinate. I would expect him to have the firm intent and courage to veto any legislation that is not in full compliance with the Constitution. But, that has hardly been the focus of any question posed by a debate moderator.

Instead, questions have been designed to determine how well candidates have formulated the way in which they will rule as dictator, if elected.

I would like to hear a candidate respond, if asked, "What is the capital of Trashcanistan?" that he doesn't really care what the capital of Trashcanistan is, but would seek appropriate knowledge and advice to wisely deal with Trashcanistan in a constitutional manner should the need arise.

Sadly, by today’s criteria, in the minds of news media, political party leadership, debate moderators, and the voters, such a candidate would be labeled indecisive. And, we want decisiveness at all costs -- a dictator.

What we really need are candidates for every elected office in the land who have sound character based on moral principles, who have the necessary organizational skills to assemble the best possible team of advisers, a firm resolve to follow and defend the Constitution, and who understand and live by the principles of liberty. We need leaders who know how to surround themselves with competent and moral advisers to whom they delegate and from whom they demand accountability (Obama's selection of Eric Holder as Attorney general comes to mind as an extremely poor example). We need voters who insist on, and recognize, these qualities. The current political selection process does a horrid job of finding and electing those candidates. But, it does a very fine job of electing people eager to impose their will on the rest of us -- dictators.

The Green Thing (plagiarized from Author Unknown)

The Green Thing

When the older woman was checking out at the store, the young cashier suggested that she should bring her own grocery bags because plastic bags weren't good for the environment.

The woman apologized and explained, "We didn't have this green thing back in my earlier days."

The clerk responded, "That's our problem today. Your generation did not care enough to save our environment for future generations."

She was right -- our generation didn't have the green thing in its day.

Back then, we returned milk bottles, soda bottles and beer bottles to the store. The store sent them back to the plant to be washed and sterilized and refilled, so it could use the same bottles over and over. So they really were recycled. But we didn't have the green thing back in our day.

We walked up stairs, because we didn't have an escalator in every store and office building. We walked to the grocery store and didn't climb into a 300-horsepower machine every time we had to go two blocks. But she was right. We didn't have the green thing in our day.

Back then, we washed our babies' diapers because we didn't have the throw-away kind. We dried clothes on a line, not in an energy gobbling machine burning up 220 volts -- wind and solar power really did dry our clothes back in our early days. Kids got hand-me-down clothes from their brothers or sisters, not always brand-new clothing. But that young lady is right; we didn't have the green thing back in our day.

Back then, we had one TV, or radio, in the house -- not a TV in every room. And the TV had a small screen the size of a handkerchief (remember them?), not a screen the size of the state of Montana. In the kitchen, we blended and stirred by hand because we didn't have electric machines to do everything for us. When we packaged a fragile item to send in the mail, we used wadded up old newspapers to cushion it, not Styrofoam or plastic bubble wrap. Back then, we didn't fire up an engine and burn gasoline just to cut the lawn. We used a push mower that ran on human power. We exercised by working so we didn't need to go to a health club to run on treadmills that operate on electricity. But she's right; we didn't have the green thing back then.

We drank from a fountain when we were thirsty instead of using a cup or a plastic bottle every time we had a drink of water. We refilled writing pens with ink instead of buying a new pen, and we replaced the razor blades in a razor instead of throwing away the whole razor just because the blade got dull. But we didn't have the green thing back then.

Back then, people took the streetcar or a bus and kids rode their bikes to school or walked instead of turning their moms into a 24-hour taxi service. We had one electrical outlet in a room, not an entire bank of sockets to power a dozen appliances. And we didn't need a computerized gadget to receive a signal beamed from satellites 2,000 miles out in space in order to find the nearest pizza joint.

But isn't it sad the current generation laments how wasteful we old folks were just because we didn't have the green thing back then?

Tax fairness

Obama, in his 2012 State of the Union speech, called for tax fairness. I also call for tax fairness, but my understanding of fairness is far different from his. For example, half of Americans pay no income tax. They think that’s fair. Politicians think that’s fair. I don’t.

There are some proposals to make taxation fair:
• A flat tax. Everybody pays a fixed percentage of his income above some income level to avoid overtaxing the poor.
• A “fair tax.” Everybody pays a fixed percentage of his spending – a sales tax – above some spending level to avoid overtaxing the poor.
• A Value-added Tax (VAT). A tax is imposed on every level of production of goods.
• Higher income taxes on the wealthy (based on some arbitrary income level to define the wealthy – a level which will inevitably be adjusted downward to extract ever more revenue).
• Higher capital gains taxes. (Capital gains are the increase in face value of capital – assets which produce jobs. Much of the increase in the face value of capital is nothing more than inflation. Therefore, a substantial portion of a capital gains tax is a tax on inflation – not a tax on new wealth.)
• Higher taxes on businesses. (This scheme is flawed. Businesses don’t really pay taxes. They only write the check to the IRS. Businesses always pass their costs, including taxes, on to the consumer.)
• Elimination of the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) which was initially focused on the wealthy. However, because of inflation, it now affects millions who are not wealthy. A few in Congress occasionally suggest elimination of the AMT or at least some inflation protection, but the congressional thirst for revenue always overrides the suggestion of overhaul.

Here is what I think.

Taxes must be fair – I cannot challenge that objective. What few are saying, however, is that taxes must also be visible – taxpayers and non-taxpayers alike must see and be intellectually and emotionally impacted by the total cost of government.

Most of our taxes are buried in the cost of goods and services – we have no idea what portion of the cost of that Big Mac can be attributed to multiple layers of corporate income taxes, excise taxes, import duties, payroll taxes, fees, regulatory costs, etc. It would be helpful if the wrapper on that Big Mac said something like, “This BigMac cost you $3.95 plus sales tax. $1.87 (47.3%) of your cost of this sandwich constitutes various forms of taxes paid by McDonalds and by the chain of our suppliers. Add to that your sales tax. If you don’t like paying these hidden taxes through higher costs of goods and services, contact your elected representatives.”

The closest we can come to each person paying his fair share would be for each person to pay the cost of the services and benefits he personally receives from the government. For example:
• Everyone benefits from police, fire, and military protection. Divide the total cost of those services by the total population and the result is each person’s fair share.
• Those who travel on streets and highways benefit from them. Taxes on fuel are already in place to pay for those roads. Since the users of the roads are paying the road taxes, it’s fair -- so long as no portion of that revenue is used for anything else.
• Mass transit, such as trains and city busses, is in place to move people and goods where they want or need to go. Because they are not buying fuel for their own vehicles, they don’t pay the cost of building and maintaining highways. But, they should be paying the full cost of their choice of transportation. The total cost of providing mass transit must be divided among the users according to how much they use the service. To be fair, they should not expect non-mass-transit users to help pay their transportation bill through taxpayer subsidies.
• Society, individuals and families benefit from education and training. Determine the value of society’s benefit from an educated workforce and electorate. Let’s assume that the value to society in general is 50% of the total cost of education Divide that portion of total cost of education by the total population and the result is each person’s fair share. The remaining 50% of the cost of education is the fair financial obligation of the individual and the family they should not expect someone else to pay that bill for them (although charitable persons may voluntarily do so).
• Everyone benefits from having shelter and food to eat. There are many government programs that ensure even the most poverty stricken in America live better than did kings 200-300 years ago. To be fair, those who benefit from these social programs should pay the cost of the benefits they receive plus the bureaucratic overhead. It is not fair to tax their neighbors to pay for these benefits. I acknowledge that there is a small portion of those who depend on the aid of others because, due to disability or temporary conditions, need help. It is a God-given duty and blessing for individuals to help those in need and there are countless charities in place to help us do so. Government is not the answer!

Now consider the global financial crisis. Some blame it on Obama. Some blame it on Bush. But, the real cause of the crisis is fairness.

Most developed nations have put in place very expensive social programs that are supposed to eliminate or reduce poverty. Yet, the portion of people in poverty continues to be stagnant or even rise. All these social programs do is to reward dependency. The producers of the world are forced to subsidize generations of dependent societal parasites. That's not fair to the taxpayer nor to those who are dependent!

Some believe that the bankers of the world have created the financial crisis by hoarding money and controlling nations. The truth is, the dependent class, with the encouragement of the political class, has consumed the wealth of the world, replacing it with national debt, and have produced nothing in return. As Bill Whittle says, "It's all gone."

If we really made taxes fair, those who are dependent on government (and we all are, to some extent) would pay the cost of that dependency. When people discover the true cost of their dependency, they will find ways to become more independent where feasible and possible. They will learn to do for themselves, their families, and their neighbors, what they should be doing anyway.

The cost of government will plummet -- probably to about 5-10% of what it is now, leaving more money in everyone’s wallet at the end of each month. That newly liberated money will be used to improve each person’s way of life and more people will find resources to donate to charity to help those who truly are dependent on others.

I think that’s fair. Does anyone have the courage to make it fair?

Our huge public debt ultimately reflects our lack of individual restraint. But we can do better. — Lawrence W. Reed

Americans have been spoiled by a generation of extravagant federal spending made possible by an orgy of irresponsible borrowing. Now the party is over and the pain of long-lasting and unpopular austerity must come. — Zach Bogue, US Army veteran

The budget should be balanced; the treasury should be refilled; public debt should be reduced; and the arrogance of public officials should be controlled. — Cicero (106-43 BC)

Government is the only enterprise in the world which expands in size when its failures increase. — Janice Rogers Brown, Associate Justice, California Supreme Court

My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government. — Thomas Jefferson

The primary reason for government growth (and the "incumbent advantage") is that we've yet to convince people to refuse to be bribed with their own money. — Boyd K.

Everyone wants to live at the expense of the state. They forget that the state wants to live at the expense of everyone. — Frederic Bastiat

The multiplication of public offices, increase of expense beyond income, growth and entailment of a public debt, are indications soliciting the employment of the pruning knife. — Thomas Jefferson, letter to Spencer Roane, 9 Mar 1821

Any plan to reduce our deficit substantially must reflect American values of fairness and shared sacrifice. — Barrack Obama

Would you be willing to give up your favorite federal program if it meant never having to pay the income tax again? — Harry Browne

Another idea: I propose a flat tax of 500% of all income and of all assets of anyone who thinks the government needs more revenue.



Check out a more detailed version of the US Debt Clock.

Ban federal regulation of intrastate agriculture and commerce

Senate Bill 34 is a very good piece of legislation being considered in Utah this year. This bill prohibits the central government from regulating an agricultural product that remains in Utah after it is made, grown, or produced in Utah.

If is not interstate commerce, it is no business of the central government whatsoever. (According to the US Constitution, counterfeiting of currency, treason, slavery, and certain infringements on the right to vote are, and should continue to be, the only federal crimes -- not counting the countless violations of the Constitution committed by the central government).

I urge everyone in Utah to study and aggressively support SB.34 and all other legislation that pushes the central government back to its limits defined by the US Constitution. All other States should follow our lead.

Don't raise the debt ceiling! Cut spending!

Obama reportedly is about to ask for yet another increase to the debt ceiling in a "matter of days."

Didn't we just do that a few short weeks ago?

Solve a debt problem with more debt? Yeah, that oughta work!

The national debt is now as big as the entire US economy! And nobody in Washington seems to care! Few voters seem to even know about the problem. Of those voters who do, most don't seem to care so long as they get their government cheese.

Washington clearly is out of control.

The lack of restraint is so severe that I am convinced that a "Balanced Budget Amendment" will not help. Congress, the Whitehouse, and the federal courts will ignore the amendment just like they ignore everything else in the Constitution unless it's convenient.

An 18-percent-of-GDP limit, as proposed in at least one Balanced Budget proposal is essentially a guarantee to spend 18% -- regardless of whether that level of spending is legal or justified! This is not a limited-government policy! I don't want it etched in Constitutional stone that the Federal State will be 18% of the national economy!

Dr. Walter Williams calls the proposed balance budget amendment a "cop out". I agree. It does not require Congress to eliminate unconstitutional, unnecessary, or unwise programs. It only caps that spending at an arbitrary level. That spending will continue to fund activities that are not the constitutional purview of the central government (education, health care, social services, intrastate commerce, running car companies, gun control, war on drugs, energy, funding state and local projects, etc.).

Sad history shows that politicians have little regard for the Constitution. There must be immediate and extremely unpleasant consequences for any congressman or president who ignores any limits imposed by a balanced budget amendment or anything else in the Constitution. We already have legislation that requires a balanced budget. A balanced budget law enacted by Congress and signed into law by President Jimmy Carter in 1977 requires that "Beginning with fiscal year 1981, the total budget outlays of the Federal Government shall not exceed its receipts." How's that working out? Without teeth, the law is worthless.

Because of its out-of-control spending, the United States of America is long overdue a USSR-style collapse. Nevertheless, power-hungry politicians are either in pathological denial, desire the collapse, or simply don't care.

The vast majority of federal spending is unconstitutional and immoral! The primary cause of this crisis is the complete and utter disregard of the US Constitution, particularly the 9th and 10th Amendments. I also say the bulk of federal spending is immoral because it necessitates and justifies theft of property (earnings of taxpayers) for redistribution to persons (including and especially federal bureaucrats) who have not earned, and do not deserve, that stolen wealth. It is also immoral because recipients of that stolen loot are deprived of incentive and necessity to achieve and only grow bitter because they don't get enough stolen wealth.

The central government only cost 2-3% of GDP up until about 100 years ago except for periods of war. (For example, in 1910, GDP was $33,400 million and total federal spending was $839.9 million or 2.5% of GDP!) Yet, it provided all the services the people needed and asked for! Why, then, must government hog 20% of GDP to provide services that are best handled by a free market and by the people themselves -- if they are needed at all?

Obama said, "We don't need a constitutional amendment to do our jobs. The Constitution already tells us to do our jobs and to make sure the government is living within its means and making responsible choices....We don't need more studies. We don't need a balanced budget amendment. We simply need to make these tough choices." While he was actually asking for more debt to fund unconstitutional spending, those words are exactly correct. Obama clearly did not really mean that the nation's leadership should follow the Constitution as written and intended. What he meant was that Congress do his will and follow the Constitution as he wants it to be twisted.

The solution is simple:

1 - Baseline budgeting must be abolished.

2 - The entire central government must immediately be audited to identify and permanently eliminate all agencies, programs, laws, rules, regulations, policies, judicial rulings, executive orders, etc. which violate the original intent of the Constitution.

3 - All politicians who propose, or vote for, anything which violates the original intent of the Constitution must promptly and permanently be removed from office and forfeit any and all retirement compensation or benefits.

4 - All judges who make ruling that are inconsistent with the original intent of the Constitution must promptly and permanently be removed from the bench and forfeit any and all retirement compensation or benefits.

5 - All further attempts to increase the debt limit must be soundly rejected.



Check out a more detailed version of the US Debt Clock.

Congress and the President assault liberty again

Congress passed, and the President signed, legislation that expands the powers of the so-called Patriot Act to authorize the indefinite detention -- without trial -- of Americans on American soil.



I am ashamed to say that my own senior senator (Republican Orin Hatch) voted for this monstrosity as did my Representative (Democrat Jim Matheson).

This is what Americans get when people vote for candidates based on party label and race (you know who you are). In fact, Democrat politicians have such a low confidence in Democrat voter judgment and intelligence that they demand that ballots include party labels so that Democrat voters can vote correctly.

We desperately need smarter voters -- voters who understand that government exists to secure our rights -- not to cradle us.

Is the Constitution in crisis?

The Constitution has been in crisis for well over 100 years -- under every President, Congress and Supreme Court. A few politicians and judges have had a hand in slowing the nullification of the Constitution; but nobody can stop it except informed and wise voters.

The founders wrote a Constitution that gives us an opportunity and the means for rebellion and change in government every two years. We call that opportunity an election. Every two years we can throw out the entire House of Representatives! But, we don't -- even though we all despise the work they're doing (or not doing). Every four years, we have the opportunity to change the President and his entire administration thereby profoundly changing the way bureaucrats treat our rights. But, we often don't -- even though we all despise the work they all are doing (or not doing). Every two to four years, each State has the opportunity to vote out a senator. In six years, we can purge the entire Senate! But, we don't -- even though we all despise the work they're doing (or not doing).

Our founders gave us the tools needed for a peaceful and orderly overthrow of a tyrannical government. Yet, the uninformed partners with the selfish among us to persistently elect and reelect the wrong people!

I shudder when I watch Jay Leno's "Jay-Walking" excursions wherein he explores how utterly ignorant many Americans are.

Congress has the lowest approval rating of any entity imaginable. Yet, we persistently reelect over 90% of the most corrupt, anti-Constitution, anti-liberty, big-government incumbents we all disapprove of! Many people call for term limits in an effort to get the government back under control. But, as another writer said, this is a cop-out. The fact that some politicians remain in office too long is no reason to also boot out the statesmen our nation needs. We voters have a profound moral obligation to elect and reelect only the best to public office. We are failing in that role.

Homosexual marriage, money, and morality

Williams Institute is a LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Trasngender) organization established to advance sexual orientation and gender identity law and public policy through rigorous, independent research and scholarship. It disseminates its stands to judges, legislators, policymakers, media and the public. Because it is an activist organization, it was never intend to be unbiased in its "research." As a national think tank at UCLA Law, the Williams Institute is largely funded by taxpayers.

It recently claimed that wedding arrangements and tourism by same-sex couples and their wedding guests added between $12 and $13 million to the Iowa economy over two years in 2009 and 2010. The study, released Wednesday, also reported that the increased spending on weddings likely added between $850,000 and $930,000 in tax revenue in that State during that two-year period. There reportedly were at least 2,099 same-sex weddings in the year following the decision to legalize marriage equality in April 2009. Of these couples, over half came from other states to wed in Iowa. The study estimates that out-of-state couples account for about $2.2 million of the spending.

The Institute's story did not disclose the methodology behind finding the numbers the reported.

Now, a little history:

Marriage is a formal relationship established by God -- not government. Religions and cultures of all kinds around the world have consistently established marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. In some cases, that religious bond has included multiple spouses of the opposite sex.

Relatively recently, the government got involved with marriage. This involvement has its roots in racism. Laws were passed requiring couples to obtain a marriage license prior to the marriage. The intent of these laws was to restrict intermarriage among races -- particularly Blacks with Whites. Marriage laws also establish age and other restrictions. By those racist laws government interjected itself into private family affairs to the point where it now tells parents how it can raise children and can confiscate children with no legal basis other than a rumor or lie.

Since it grabbed control of marriage away from churches and families, broken families have become the norm (beginning with California's introduction of no-fault divorce which makes it impossible for the spouse who wants to stay married to have a voice in whether the marriage is dissolved).

Then, along come activists for the homosexual agenda. Although homosexuals have always had the full right to marry a person of the opposite sex, they demanded a new right -- the right to marry a person of the same sex. Most States have laws against such relationships. In fact, some State constitutions clearly establish that marriage is only between a man and a woman. Many States refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in States with same-sex marriage.

Currently, a few States allow same-sex marriages: Massachusetts (thank you very much Mitt Romney), Connecticut, Iowa, New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont. Washington, DC also recognizes same-sex marriage. Generally, a majority of the People rejected the idea of same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage in each of those three States came about only by judicial ruling -- against the will of the People.

How's that for democracy?

After the judicial rulings in the above-listed States, only the legislatures of Connecticut and Massachusetts changed their laws to comply with the rulings imposed by a handful of lawyers in black dresses. The remaining jurisdictions (Iowa, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, and the District of Washington) have same-sex marriage imposed by judicial ruling.

Now, Williams Institute claims Iowa benefits financially from same-sex marriages performed in that State, but which likely are not valid in the State in which the couples live. These marriages are also not valid for federal purposes.

A question I have on all this is: What value or price do judges in Iowa place on democracy? Apparently, democracy in Iowa is worth something less than $6.5 million per year.

The root of all this is morality and truth. There are two types of truth: absolute truth and relative truth.

Absolute truth comes from natural law and from God. When God (or nature) reveals a truth, it does not vary. That truth applies equally to all of creation.

Relative truth is whatever a person says it is. What is true for one person may not be true for another.

Because of the influence of the aggressive activism of a tiny minority of mankind, God's absolute truth of marriage as between opposite sexes has morphed into a relative truth of marriage is whatever anyone wants for whatever reason or for no reason whatsoever.

I say that those who are sexually attracted to persons of the same-sex deserve all the respect due to any other son or daughter of God. However I reject their behavior when it violates God's counsel and commandments -- just as I reject heterosexual behavior which violates God's teachings. Both have need of repentance.

Activists in and out of government are imposing this corruption of absolute truth upon society with the force of law. Government is forcing those who believe homosexual behavior is immoral to accept that immoral behavior as if it were moral and wholesome. And, government is giving that behavior its stamp of approval at taxpayer expense. Government has no right or authority to redefine morality.

As mentioned above, marriage has been a family and/or religious rite for most of human history. Only relatively recently has one needed government permission to marry. It has done so for two primary reasons: social engineering (something politicians and bureaucrats love to do, but do horribly) and revenue.

I believe that marriage is one of many issues where government does not belong. Where government intrudes, it invariably makes things worse. Politicians and bureaucrats do a horrid job of defining morality.

Government must get out of the marriage business and restore it to families and religion where it historically worked just fine. As far as the government should be concerned, a marriage should be viewed as nothing more than a legally-binding private contract made between consenting adults -- not to regulate who people can marry. The only role government should have is to provide a mechanism whereby the marriage contract can be enforced and to protect the rights of the persons involved (ie property rights or to restrict marriage of children).

As long as government interjects itself into defining marriage, I defend the right of individuals and organizations such as churches (eg California's Prop 8) to voice their opinions on that definition. Ultimately, politicians and judges need to learn to respect the voice of the voters.

So, what's next for government-sanctioned marriage? How far will government go to redefine morality? Legalized polygyny? Legalized polyandry? Legalized marriage between children and adults? Legalized marriage between siblings? Legalized marriage between parents and their children? Legalized marriage between humans and animals? Legalized marriage between humans and trees or other inanimate objects? Preposterous, you say?

Just you wait and see. The horse is out of the barn. Without a moral and spiritual revival, it is too late to close the barn door on government-controlled marriage.

We need smarter and wiser voters.

Congress must approve bureaucratic regulations!

Federal regulation cost American businesses a shocking $1.75 trillion in 2008, more than individual and corporate income tax burdens combined. Those costs of doing business are passed on to consumers in higher prices for goods and services.

Clearly, something horribly amiss in the regulatory process.

On Wednesday, the House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on HR.10 / S.299, the REINS Act (Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act), which puts the brakes on costly federal regulation by directly holding our elected officials responsible for their actions.

The Constitution entrusts our elected representatives in Congress with legislative power, not unelected, unaccountable federal bureaucrats!

The REINS Act helps to correct this problem. Whenever an agency seeks to finalize a new "major" regulation (one with an economic impact of $100 million or more) Congress must first vote to approve it, and the President must sign it before it can take effect. While I believe all regulations must be specifically approved by elected representatives, HR.10 / S.299 is an important small step in the right direction.

Unfortunately, the REINS Act won’t be a silver bullet to stop every costly regulation, but it will ensure that when a major new regulation takes effect every citizen will know exactly who voted for it and will be able to hold them accountable.

If I were able to amend this legislation, lower the threshold from $100 million to $1 million. I would also include a requirement that all existing regulations with the same $100 million economic impact also go through the same congressional and executive scrutiny if not abolished within 180 days of enactment of HR.10 / S.299.

Congress must rein in excessive federal regulation beginning with the REINS Act. HR.10 / S.299 must become law immediately.

Caitlin Halligan may be unfit to be a judge

Caitlin Joan Halligan has been nominated by President Barack Obama to fill a federal judicial vacancy on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit - the second highest court in the US. This makes this nomination especially sensitive.

All reports that I’ve seen indicate that Halligan possesses all the skills and knowledge to qualify her as a judge. However professional competence is only part of a judge’s job. Fidelity to the judicial oath of office -- defense of the Constitution -- is a key to determining whether a candidate is fit to be a judge.

Regarding previous presidential nominees, I have pointed out that it is essential that all federal nominees be examined closely to determine their loyalty to the US Constitution. This is especially true for the Supreme Court and for the DC Circuit. A judgeship on the DC Circuit is often a stepping-stone for appointment to the US Supreme Court.

It is extremely unfortunate that, since the virtual political assassination of Judge Robert Bork in 1987, presidents have typically avoided nominating judicial candidates who have written or ruled on controversial issues or high-profile cases. In other words, nominees have not been tested. Halligan is one of those unknowns.

In my research, I found one issue that concerns me: While solicitor general for the state of New York, Halligan initiated a lawsuit to hold gun manufacturers liable for crimes committed using illegally obtained guns. Halligan's scheme to annihilate the firearms industry with senseless lawsuits clearly shows she is willing to put her liberal ideology above the law and justice. But most importantly, she put her liberal ideology above the Constitution.

No judge must allow ideology influence his/her judgment. Instead, every judge must use the Constitution to guide his/her decisions. Not flawed judicial precedents. Not foreign law. Not ideology. Not politics. Halligan must be examined to determine whether she is capable of putting her personal and political ideals aside -- and clearly willing to do so without hesitation. The court is no place for political agendas. Politics must be confined to the legislative branch and the administration.

The authors of the US Constitution wisely provided for Senate confirmation of all presidential nominees. The purpose of this process is to protect the US Constitution and the liberties it guarantees from an activist and power-hungry administration and from activist judges. Therefore, Senators must make all decisions regarding presidential appointees based not only on the nominee's professional qualifications but more importantly on his/her respect for the Constitution.

On taking office, every Senator takes the following oath:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

Senators do not take an oath to any political ideology, political party, party leader, king, or president. They take an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." In recent decades -- and especially during the current administration -- the Senate has done a horrible job in protecting the US Constitution because Senators make their decisions based on political ideology -- not the nominee's qualification and his/her potential effect on liberty.

Clearly, the Senate must expedite confirmation of presidential nominees who have a solid record of applying the original intent of the Constitution and halt consideration of all nominees from any administration who do not respect the rule of law or who are hostile to any individual liberty guaranteed by the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Compromise is giving in to the enemies of liberty. There must be no compromise!

Like all other federal nominations, I urge the Senate to reject the nomination of Caitlin Joan Halligan as US District Judge if there is any indication whatsoever that she will not be 100% true to the original intent of the US Constitution. If she cannot give a satisfactory explanation for her assault on gun manufacturers and how that could have affected affected my Second Amendment rights, I will consider a vote for her to be a vote against my gun rights.

Land of the freebies, home of the enslaved

"Everyone wants to live at the expense of the state. They forget that the state wants to live at the expense of everyone." — Frederic Bastiat

"Would you be willing to give up your favorite federal program if it meant never having to pay the income tax again?" — Harry Browne

We need smarter voters.

Compare national spending and debt with your own

Remember the outcry stemming from S&P's down grade of the US credit worthiness? Well, let's have a closer look (Note: These figures are several days old. The Numbers are worse today.):

Current status:

• US Tax revenue: $2,170,000,000,000
• Federal budget: $3,820,000,000,000
• New debt: $1,650,000,000,000
• National debt: $14,271,000,000,000
• Recent budget cut: $38,500,000,000

Now drop 8 zeros and pretend it's your household budget:

• Annual family income: $21,700
• Money the family spent: $38,200
• New debt on the credit card: $16,500
• Current outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710
• Total budget cuts: $385

When it is broken down like this, it makes it easier to see how much trouble we are in!

Our huge public debt ultimately reflects our lack of individual restraint. But we can do better. — Lawrence W. Reed

Government is the only enterprise in the world which expands in size when its failures increase. — Janice Rogers Brown, Associate Justice, California Supreme Court

My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government. — Thomas Jefferson

The multiplication of public offices, increase of expense beyond income, growth and entailment of a public debt, are indications soliciting the employment of the pruning knife. — Thomas Jefferson, letter to Spencer Roane, 9 Mar 1821

Americans have been spoiled by a generation of extravagant federal spending made possible by an orgy of irresponsible borrowing. Now the party is over and the pain of long-lasting and unpopular austerity must come. — Zach Bogue, US Army veteran

Everyone wants to live at the expense of the state. They forget that the state wants to live at the expense of everyone. — Frederic Bastiat

The budget should be balanced; the treasury should be refilled; public debt should be reduced; and the arrogance of public officials should be controlled. — Cicero (106-43 BC)

People look at me and say, "What are you talking about, Joe? You're telling me we've got to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt?" The answer is, "Yes, I'm telling ya." - Joe Biden, US Vice President and economic idiot (No wonder we're in such trouble!)

It's the Democrats whose position is that the only problem in Washington, D.C., is the peasants aren't sending enough cash in for the king to spend. — Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform

We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with. - Dr. Ron Paul, Congressman

Would you be willing to give up your favorite federal program if it meant never having to pay the income tax again? — Harry Browne

We need smarter voters.



Check out a more detailed version of the US Debt Clock.

Glenn Beck interview with Michelle Bachmann

The wealth gap

I'm puzzled by all this talk about the wealth gap.

On one end of the spectrum, we have creative people who produce new products and services that people are willing to pay for, people who are willing to invest their own time and money to get those products and services into the market, people who invest in themselves by getting a good education, and leaders who can put all that together to create wealth.

On the other end of the spectrum, we have people whose knowledge, skill, and motivation are saturated by the act of opening a can of beer or filling out an application for public assistance.

Is there a gap? Yup. A big one. But the gap isn't simply wealth.

Most of us are somewhere between. We who are in between don't have what it takes (sometimes it includes luck) to be in the upper crust, but we're far too motivated to be on the bottom. We get along fine, so long as the government stays out of our lives and doesn't foul up the economy.

For some bizarre reason, there are those (represented by the likes of "Occupy Wall Street" selfish, childish protesters) who feel that this spectrum of wealth is unfair, that wealth must be taken by force from those who have earned it and "redistributed" to those with no motivation or talent.

I have earned my place in the economy. I have two college degrees. I have considerable technical training in my field of employment. I have a good job. But, I have not done what it takes (including being lucky) to rise to the top as did Bill Gates or Warren Buffet. Financially, I've had some tough times, but with the support and sacrifices of my wife, I got through them. In the end, I have what I've earned and I'm satisfied with that.

As a follower of Jesus, I give at as much time and money to charity that I feel I should and can -- far more than the national average -- and even more than typical liberals and Democrats. I am deeply annoyed by those who give less than I do, yet demand that the government force me to give more -- especially to support those who are societal parasites -- not truly needy.

So, somebody, please tell me why is the so-called wealth gap unfair?

What is unfair is that the current tax code is designed more to manipulate the behavior of Americans than to raise money to run the government.

What is really unfair is the claim that the wealthy are not paying their fair share in taxes when half of American households pay no income taxes at all! These people have no skin in the game when it comes to taxation. They have everything to gain in voting for more taxes on the other half to pay for their own government handouts.

More than a wealth gap, what we have is a morality and character gap. Half of this nation has no morals or sound character. Fix that, and the wealth gap will shrink significantly.

First families and Secret Service secrets

I've heard many stories over the years from coworkers who flew Air Force One, coming into regular contact with the first families. Wild Bill for America confirms how the presidents and their wives treated the military and law enforcement.