Current Issues

"The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government.  But the Constitution which at any time exists, 'till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole People, is sacredly obligatory upon all."

George Washington, 1796, Farewell Address


CI-S5. "For Sake of Our Children and Grandchildren" Turn Our Country Around
CI-P7. "Defeating President Obama is Job #1" Thoughts on Race for GOP Nomination
CI-C2. "Tasked with Developing Our Own Conclusions" Natural Born Citizen Defined
CI-E9. "We Smell A Big Rat" Social Security Payroll Tax Cut
CI-E8. "Dems vs. GOP Scorecard" Budget Control Act, 2011
CI-E7. "Never Thought Our Country So Vulnerable" Obama's Economic Policies
CI-M1. "History is Calling Us Out" The Case for War
CI-S4. "Now Time to Lay the Issue Bare" Immigration & Naturalization Control
CI-E6. "Not on Our Watch!" China's Economy to Surpass that of the U.S.
CI-P6. "We Haven't Seen Anything Yet" Ensure a Fair Election Process
CI-E5. "A Boom to Payroll Tax Contributions" Eliminate the Corp (Business) Inc. Tax
CI-S3. "But Now He's Gone and Made Us Mad!" Reduced Charitable Deduction
CI-G3. "It's a Republic Stupid!" Democracy Deplored, Republicanism Exalted
CI-G2. "The Big Red One" Social Security Privatization
CI-P5. "The Corruption Cycle" Public Employee Unions
CI-S2. "To What Total Cost?" Medical Malpractice Litigation
CI-E4. "Not the Normal Budgetary Maneuver" Raiding the Medicare Trust Fund
CI-G1. "So That We Can Find Out What's In It" "Obamacare" Health Care Legislation

CI-S5. "For the Sake of Our Children and Grandchildren"
News Commentary, April 8, 2012

For sake of our children and grandchildren let us turn the direction of our Country around and revitalize America's culture from that of slothfulness and depravity to that of industry and morality.  We believe that for the first time in our Country's history that future generations may be limited in their opportunity to prosper, to achieve beyond those that came before.  Seems we hear something to this effect every four years, every presidential election year, but from historical reference we believe that this time it may well ring true.

We had a feeling of real malaise in the years leading up to the election of 1980.  The term "misery index" evolved, the combination of:

  1. Inflation reaching 13.5% (most have not realized anything above 3-4%),
  2. Unemployment Rate topping at 10.5% (last couple of years have taught everyone what that feels like), and
  3. Prime Interest Rate up to 21.5% (rates of at most 5-6% since that period, historical low 3.5% the past few years).

Add to the above economic facts that: Communism was in full expansion into Africa, Central and South America, Southeast and southern Asia, and beyond; we were living with a nuclear policy of "mutually assured destruction" toward the USSR; and that 350 American brethren from our US Embassy were being held hostage for a full year in Iran.

That may give you an idea of what "malaise" was; you would have had to live it to truly feel it.  We were lucky to have a great conservative voice that we could call upon and wise enough as an electorate to make him our choice for president.  Liberals hated him; our mainstream media called him dumb; we loved him.  Nevertheless, he turned malaise to pride, apathy to patriotism and despair to optimism within eight years.  Yes, truly incredible.  President Ronald Reagan's image will be the next upon Mount Rushmore.  We hope to be able to go see it in person and take our children and grandchildren, all our loved ones with us.

We may not be lucky enough to have that great leader to choose from this time, but we have to at least do that which we can to begin turning our Country around.  For the past three years our Federal Government has been borrowing from our children and grandchildren approximately $.40 for each $1.00 it spends.  Worst yet, President Barrack Obama's budget realistically continues $1 Trillion deficits for as far as the speculative eye can see.

For many reasons we have to turn our Country around now, the two that bothers us the most is that up to 49% of the electorate does not pay Federal Income Tax, with the vast majority of those receiving a plethora of Unearned Public Benefits and Refundable Tax Credits paid for by those remaining Income Tax Payers or through deficit spending borrowed from future generations.  The other is Election Fraud.

Four things we believe must be of priority this election year:

  1. Support the eventual GOP nominee for president,
  2. Support our own US Congressional, State, and Local conservative nominees and candidates,
  3. Support US Senate GOP candidates around the Country, and
  4. Support state initiatives to strengthen voter registration, voter identification, and other fair election enforcement laws.

In the heat of the present GOP Primary we know that #1 above may give some varying degrees of consternation.  We speak and hear from good conservatives nearly each day, and are not sure that they will all support the eventual GOP nominee even against Obama.  With respect, we just don't agree with them, we cannot agree with them.  We have or will make our choice, but regardless of the outcome will thoroughly support whomever the GOP Nominee - defeating Obama is Job #1.

We hear the main point against supporting anything except a "true" conservative, a moderate masquerading as a conservative may continue to allow the Country to drift to the left causing the Country to reject the true conservative years from now.  Fair point, and in some years perhaps may be found convincing except for two very important distinctions:

  1. Who's defining the "true" conservative?  In all three GOP front-runners we see conservative principles in what each of them campaign on now, and lapses in what all of them did years prior. 
  2. But this is not just any year, Obama is driving 1000 mph to the left now and without having to weigh the considerations of having to be elected again the destruction his policies will do to this Country with another four years are incalculable.

We can, have and will site all of the national economic, fiscal and even social statistics that illustrate the disastrous direction our Country is headed.  But now we want to write of what we see and experience each day, and because we see them we know you see them too:

  • We read the other night of new regulations being implemented by the Dept of Agriculture, among them limitations on children doing farm work, etc.  A daughter may not be able to help her neighbor on his farm this summer because of these regulations.  The number and freedom destroying regulations being implemented by every Federal agency is mind-boggling and has to be stopped and rolled back.
  • We saw a news segment the other night, perhaps some of you did also; a correspondent was interviewing people at a center where food stamps or some other type of public benefits were being applied.  We caught a sporadic portion of the segment and seen three or four people questioned.  They were all healthy looking males in their mid years.  We know that anyone can find himself or herself in need of help, including any one of us at any moment in time but it was their cavalier demeanor that was distasteful.  They all expressed similar basic attitudes: they were entitled to receive public assistance and they were going to get it.
  • We cut through the city most days driving to and from work.  Early afternoon, a time when most working people are either at work or getting ready to go to work.  Especially in the summer, starting to see more now, we see many working age people walking the streets, sitting in groups in yards or on front porches, cruising the side streets, etc.  If they are indeed not working for a living, it's natural to wonder how these adults live?  We believe the previously discussed news segment suggests the answer in most cases.
  • We know of a few young people on Social Security - Disability Insurance because they are supposedly mentally slow.  Didn't call them "challenged" because we don't know where "talented", "bright", "slow", and "challenged" begin and end.  We do know that there use to be jobs that these people could do, we use to have some of them - many days we feel that we have one now; now they're allowed Disability compensation.
  • National average price of gasoline - $3.94.  Heard some paid $5.09 in New York.

We write of these antidotal examples because sometimes we get caught up in economic indices and fiscal policy without thinking about that which we can see with our own eyes.  Our eyes show us that our Country cannot afford four more years of Obama.  We just don't know if we can win, if our Country can win, but we know we must try.

CI-P7. "Defeating President Obama is Job #1"
News Commentary, February 12, 2012

We're letting the GOP vetting process play out knowing that billion dollars of scrutiny is awaiting the eventual nominee in the general election for the Presidency of these United States of America.  Defeating President Obama is Job #1.

Wish conservatives, mostly all good people, would keep perspective - any of the GOP candidates is a thousand times better than Obama.  We can be supportive of one or more without being destructive of the others.  Even if you disagree with their policies or past transgressions, not one of them WANTS to transform America into what it has never meant to be, Obama does!

Our Country that we love with all our hearts is bleeding.  We literally fear for its' future if Obama gets another four years.  We're not sorry, when the time comes, we will vote for the one candidate that we believe can best defeat Obama.  Billion dollars of opposition spending, an accommodating mainstream media, 47% population that does not pay income tax, in large part an ignorant and apathetic populous, voter fraud and every dirty trick in the book and then some, etc. is a lot to overcome; this may be our last real shot at it.

May God bless America!

CI-C2. "Tasked with Developing Our Own Conclusions"
News Commentary, February 5, 2012, Last Revised April 26, 2012

Historians, scholars, lawyers and politicians disagree on the defining of the phrase “natural born Citizen” as it appears in Article II, Section I, Clause V of The Constitution of the United States.  Nor has the Supreme ruled on the interpretation of the phrase in relation to the qualification for President.  We therefore are tasked with developing our own conclusions based upon facts, as we know them, as to what our Founding Fathers meant as they wrote these words providing one of only two requirements for the eligibility of holding the highest office of the land.  We have concluded that significant terms of citizenry should be defined as to the following:

  • Native Born Citizen - Citizen of the Country by Birthplace (jus soli) within its dominions, born to a legal resident, where one has never been made a Citizen of another - continuity of citizenship maintained.  (Native: synonymous with geographic location.)  Includes every person born within the foreign jurisdiction of the Country where at minimum one citizen parent was acting under duty thereof - military, ambassadorship, etc. - and both parents owe or give their allegiance to same.
  • Citizens at Birth - Citizenship at birth of a Country based upon meeting statutory requirements.  Includes Native Born Citizens.  (8 USC § 1401 - Nationals and Citizens of United States at Birth.)
  • Naturalized Citizen - An alien granted citizenship of a Country based upon meeting statutory requirements.  (18 USC. § 1015 : US Code - Section 1015: Naturalization, Citizenship or Alien Registry.)
  • Natural Born Citizen - A form of Native Born Citizen, one who's Parentage (jus sanguinis) were both Citizens owing their allegiance to their Country at time of birth.  (Natural: synonymous with the ergo family lineage or bloodline of the father.)

The facts:

The British Royal family first used the term “natural” as it relates to the “laws of natural,” ergo family lineage or the bloodline of the father.  The question at the time was how to keep the Royal bloodline intact when members of the Royal family traveled abroad extensively, often giving birth to offspring while abroad, therefore bringing the issue of “native born” into question.  Dr. Larry Arnn in his book "The Founders Key" argues that: "And that term natural comes from an ancient word for 'birth.'"

Many claim that birthright citizenship, as with much United States law, has its roots in English common law:

Calvin’s Case, 77 Eng. Rep. 377 (1608), was particularly important as it established that under English common law “a person's status was vested at birth, and based upon place of birth—a person born within the king's dominion owed allegiance to the sovereign, and in turn, was entitled to the king's protection."  However, in Calvin's Case, Lord Coke cited examples in which the native-born children of parents, either invading the country or who were enemies of the country, were not natural-born subjects because the birth lacked allegiance and obedience to the sovereign.

This same principle was adopted by the newly formed United States, as stated by Supreme Court Justice Noah Haynes Swayne: "All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens.  Birth and allegiance go together.  Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country…since as before the Revolution."  United States v. Rhodes, 27 Fed. Cas. 785 (1866).

The 1758 translated book "The Law of Nations" by Emerich de Vattel on the treatise “Law of Nations” defined natural-born citizens:

“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.  As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.  The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it.  The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.  We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born.  I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

On June 18, 1787, Alexander Hamilton submitted to the Constitutional Convention a draft of a plan of government.  Article IX, section 1 of Hamilton's plan provided:

“No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.”

On July 25, 1787, John Jay wrote to George Washington, presiding officer of the Convention:

“Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.”

There is no proof that deliberations took place at the convention on the subject of the letter.  While the Committee on Detail originally proposed that the President must be merely a citizen as well as a resident for 21 years, the Committee of Eleven changed "citizen" to "natural born citizen" without explanation.  The Convention accepted the change without further debate.

Logic - fact turned to conclusion:

  • Being a colony and significantly immigrants of England our Founding Fathers were very familiar with the concept of the "laws of natural" used by the British in keeping "the Royal bloodline intact"; thus the term "natural" had specific "bloodline" meaning to them.
  • Much United States law has its roots in English common law.  Under English common law a person's status was vested at birth, based upon place and allegiance of birth - a person born within the king's dominion owing allegiance to the sovereign.  "Birth and allegiance go together."  Where birth is synonymous with "Birthplace" and allegiance refers to that of the newborn's "Parentage".
  • Vattel in "The Law of Nations" defined "natural-born citizens", as "those born in the country, of parents who are citizens"; though to our knowledge it has not been found that our Founding Fathers quoted "The Law of Nations" in defining natural born Citizen, they did make frequent reference to this book, making it plausible if not probable that Vattel's meaning of natural-born citizens was the basis for their universal and generally accepted understanding.
  • The recommendation to specify "natural born Citizen" came from John Jay one of the most respected legal scholars of the day (later to become the first Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court); he had significant and specific reason for suggesting this precise classification of Citizen.
  • Jay along with many of our nation's Founders was very sensitive to foreign influence or to "the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government"; they wanted to keep such influences out.
  • The framers of the Constitution intentionally replaced the term "Citizen" with "natural born Citizen"; they denoted a distinct difference between the two terms.
  • Our Founding Fathers did not define the term "natural born Citizen"; making it evident that the meaning itself was universally and generally accepted among their ranks.

In summary, our Founding Fathers found special meaning to the phrase natural born Citizen or they would have left the original draft unchanged.  They wanted a specific type of Citizen, a type of Citizen whose love and loyalty to Country would be heightened by geographical place of birth within and by the bloodline of their Citizen parents, isolation at birth from foreign influence.  As our nation matured they required only a natural born Citizen be eligible for the presidency of the United States.

The facts lead us to conclude that three elements of birth and citizenship continuity are required to attain and maintain the classification of Natural Born Citizen.  The venn diagram below illustrates the mutually inclusive relationship between the three elements that defines (7) Natural Born Citizen:

  • Native Born Citizen - Birthplace, birth within dominions or to parents acting in foreign duty and jurisdiction of Country;
  • Born to both citizen parents at time of birth - Parentage; and
  • Continuity of citizensip maintained unbroken from birth.

Bottom line, The United States Supreme Court must interpret our Founding Fathers meaning of "natural born Citizen" and federal law must provide that no candidate be placed on an election ballot, nor any person be elected to a national office without first proving they meet the eligibility requirements for such office.  Until then, it appears that any Native Born Citizen (consensus has been reached for the most part around this element) over the age of 35 is eligible for Presidency of the United States, after all until the Supreme Court says otherwise conclusions reached will be varied and highly influenced by political expediency.

CI-E9. "We Smell A Big Rat"
News Commentary, December 25, 2011

We find many conflicting thoughts articulated on the effect the 2% Payroll Tax cut will have on Social Security. Some voice no effect as - "the Social Security revenue shortfall is made up from general revenues", total funding of the program remains unchanged.  Another view looks at that precise long-term effect - "Social Security will become just another social welfare program”, instead of an earned benefit thus destroying the dignity of individual direct prepayment for future benefits combined with moral obligation of government to honor same.  (We prefer the term "deferred benefit", though "earned benefit" is also appropriate.)

We strongly agree with the latter viewpoint while remaining skeptical that the former, shortfall is made up from general revenues, is in actuality being accomplished.  We fear that the shortfall will actually be made up by depleting the approximate $2.6 trillion "trust fund" in the form of U.S. Securities, thus greatly accelerating the burning of this fund at a time when the Social Security balance of revenue versus expenditures would be trending negative under full Payroll Tax funding.

We may ask, if there lies no ulterior motives of President Obama and his Democrat allies in this regard why is the Payroll Tax seemingly the only tax cut they advocate to stimulate the economy?  Couple this thought with the fact that just a few months ago Obama was asking for the Payroll Tax cut to be increased to 3.1%.  We all know there is a general revenue deficit therefore the Social Security shortfall due to the Payroll Tax cut amounts to borrowed money adding to the National Debt.  In effect, this accounting gimmick amounted to an issuance of U.S. Securities in the amount of approximately $105 billion to the Social Security trust fund in 2011 and another somewhat larger amount will be required in 2012 if the 2% Payroll Tax cut is extended.  No, make no mistake about it we smell a big rat.

Over past years many of us have lived to hear the Democrats demagogue the GOP to the highest volumes of critical rhetoric whenever undertakings of making the future of Social Security more viable were even whispered.  Now, with the Democrats overtly supporting a cut to the direct Social Security funding mechanism in effect destroying the prepayment for deferred benefits core aspect of the program, GOP Leadership is absolutely void of articulate voice against the onslaught.  Instead they are self-snared in Obama framed arguments in “how to pay for the Payroll Tax cut extension” or “for how long should the Payroll Tax cuts be extended”, absolutely absurd.

We may further ask, with the 2% Payroll Tax cut consisting of 32% of the individual employee’s original 6.2% share of Social Security funding, are those supporting the cut willing to take a 32% cut in their Social Security income?  We sincerely doubt it.

The obvious GOP answer to Obama and his ilk on this issue is a resounding: “NO, we refuse to destroy the Social Security covenant as we have known it!”

God bless Representative Michele Bachmann, as she has been most steadfast in the defense of Social Security and against this ill-conceived Payroll Tax cut.

CI-E8. "Dems vs. GOP Scorecard"
News Commentary, August 2, 2011

CI-E7. "Never Thought Our Country So Vulnerable"
News Commentary, July 9, 2011

Though definitely concerned throughout the Cold War, Vietnam War era and President Jimmy Carter's years of gloom and doom, we now have never thought our Country so vulnerable.  We want to take this time to share a few things that some have learned, many have lived, and most may take as a dose of historical recollection.  Here's some perspective on the last sixty or so years:

Following WWII we experienced the Cold War years with The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics - many among us now did not truly experience these times.  The conflict began in earnest when Germany was partitioned among the USA, Great Britain, France and Russia for pacification; Berlin was similarly divided.  Russia blockaded Berlin as their territorial partition encompassed the city.  The U.S. under President Harry Truman organized a tremendous Berlin Airlift campaign to supply Western Berlin with food and necessities until the ground blockade could be broken.  Germany and Berlin were eventually split down the middle between East and West, sadly to say the Soviets built a wall through Berlin to lock people in, not to keep people out.

With domination of East Germany and other Eastern European countries and territories Russia evolved into the other world super power under the hammer and sickle of the Soviet Union.  During the late 1950's and early 60's the Soviets were even superior to the U.S. in their space program, the first to send a manned space capsule into space and first to have a manned space ship orbit the Earth.  What made this a big deal was that we were in the nuclear age, the space program meant rocket technology, and rocket technology meant capability of delivering mass nuclear destruction.  Nobody had missile "defense" capability, life was lived under the cloud of "mutually assured destruction", you shoot yours at us - we'll shoot ours back at you!

Here in the United States we had drills at school, when the alarm went off we learned to crawl under our desk.  Not really a very effective defense for vast nuclear fallout, but we had little else.  A few people built underground fallout shelters on their property.  President John F. Kennedy had the foresight to put our Country on a course to catch or exceed the Soviet Union in space technology.  He set a goal to put man on the moon by the end of the 1960's.  Tragically he did not live to see his goal realized.

Why we have such a profound respect for President Ronald Reagan is simple: he reversed the expansion of Soviet domination of the East and for all practical purposes ended the 40 plus years of Cold War in his eight years as president.  Few have achieved so much in so little time.  We had Vietnam in the 60's where we tried to turn the tide, failure their lead to increased communist aggression.  President Jimmy Carter was weak and if history has taught us anything, weakness breeds contempt both at home and abroad.  At the time Reagan was inaugurated in January, 1981, communist expansion had put them in newly controlled countries of Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia of Southeast Asia; Angola of Africa; Nicaragua of Central America close to home; and many others, with designs on more.

Additional obstacle, Carter's policies at home had allowed our Country to fall into deep economic recession.  Note these 1980 economic statistics following Carter's first and only presidential term: Unemployment Rate 7.18%, Inflation 13.58%, Prime Interest Rate 21.50%; collectively these three indices became known as the Misery Index.  Many have never had to deal with Inflation or Interest Rates anything remotely as horrid as these.  Reagan's strategy for the economy was to cut Income Tax Rates and reduce government regulation upon business in an effort to spur our national economy; in return, he had to allow social spending increases insisted upon by the Democratically controlled House of Representatives.  Republicans controlled the Senate for six of Reagan's eight years in office but he had to work with a Democratically controlled House all of his two terms.  Reagan's policies worked, Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and Gross Receipts to the Treasury grew robustly during his eight years in office, an average of 7.87% and 8.28% respectively; and of course so did spending.  Same Misery Index indices in 1988 at the end of Reagan's presidency: Unemployment Rate 5.49%, Inflation 4.08%, Prime Interest Rate 10.50%.

Reagan's motto was "peace through strength".  Not all of the added spending was due to the Democrats; Reagan insisted upon the restoration of our military superiority.  The Soviet Union could not compete with the results of these policies, neither economically nor militarily.  We turned the tide of communist expansion in Asia, Africa, Central America and elsewhere.  The straw that broke the Soviet's back, Reagan's Strategic (Missile) Defense Initiative (SDI), at the time the bombastic liberal media sarcastically termed it "Star Wars".  The Soviets were absolutely distraught at the notion that the U.S. would have the capability to create a missile defense that they could not match; leaving them hapless as Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) became irrelevant.

"Tear Down This Wall!” the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START1), and fall of the Soviet Union are living proof of the effectiveness of Reagan's Cold War strategies.  The liberal media would like us to think all of this by luck, happenstance or as directed by his advisers; their problem - largely discovered after his years in office - hand written notes in some instances written many years prior to his presidency outlining beliefs and policies eventually employed successfully during his presidency.

The only notable down side to the Reagan policies, at the time post WWII record deficits.  Though federal receipts flourished as the national economy recovered from the Carter recession spurred by the Reagan economic policies, they could not totally keep pace with the combination of expenditures associated with the military buildup compounded by appeasement of the Democratic social agenda in Congress.  Total National Debt accumulated during the eight years of the Reagan presidency, $1.69 trillion.  However the "peace dividend" resulting from the end of the Cold War was largely realized in the 1990's where President Bill Clinton with his political strategy of "triangulation" and a Republican controlled House were able to string together spending reforms and cuts that resulted in balanced budgets and even surpluses.  The era of the "dot com" boom certainly did not hurt either.

Largely due to the consequences and choices made in the after math of the devastating terror attack of September 11, 2001 (911) upon New York City's Twin Towers, we spent our way into accelerated debt during President George W. Bush's eight years in office.  With disasters 911 and hurricane Katrina to rebuild after, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and a meltdown of financial markets brought on by the collapse of subprime loan derivatives our National Debt grew by an unprecedented $4.35 trillion during Bush's two terms.  As bad as this number is, policies set forth by President Barrack Obama have absolutely dwarfed it - $3.54 trillion ran up in debt in the combined fiscal years of 2009 and 2010 alone with the current fiscal year of 2011 on course to match or exceed each of the prior two.  The National Debt accumulated by Obama in his first three years in office will more than exceed the record debt of Bush's eight years.

A recession and federal bailouts of the banking system coming out of the Bush years for sure, but the economic policies Obama has pursued have desolated the dynamics of the business growth and expansion capability of the U.S. free-enterprise system.  Just a few of Obama's corrosive policies include:

  1. Unprecedented Keynesian style government spending aided and abetted by a Democratically controlled congress.
  2. Thousands of pages of regulatory legislation encompassed in just two acts of congress alone: Health Care and Financial Reform bills.
  3. A push for job-killing legislation such as cap and trade (carbon tax), card check (union organization); where legislation failed, a wiliness to use government regulatory agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to do the bidding.
  4. Attacks on U.S. energy production and a push for "green" alternatives leaving skyrocketing energy costs expectations to be bored by both businesses and individuals for years to come.
  5. A constant besmirching of private business and corporate executives, a complete distortion of private entities spending their own money in a way they seem fit in deference to wasteful public-sector expenditures.
  6. Record national debt threatening the long-term value of the dollar and leaving open the threat of future hyperinflation and unsustainable federal borrowing.
  7. Uncertainty of income tax rates and policies: Bush tax cuts extended temporarily, consistent administration rhetoric of making the "rich" pay "their fair share", special tax deductions and favors to political allies, a failure to recognize the handcuffing of business by having one off the highest corporate income tax rates in the world to name a few.

We could go on and on.  The net result, potential private business growth and expansion equity in the multi-trillion of dollars sitting on the sidelines, stopping or delaying any robust post recession recovery.  The metric, present growth in GDP - three years following the beginning of the recession - around 1.8% leaving "real" growth indexed for inflation in negative or near negative territory.  Not since the Great Depression years of the 1940's have we experienced such prolonged slow or nonexistent growth.

We don't see a leader like Reagan on the horizon.  With nearly 50% of the U.S. population exempted from paying Federal Income Tax and with similar numbers relying on some sort of government assistance (public benefit) or entitlement (Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment), with anemic economic growth and expansion, we're worried.  Obama's policies are universally wrong and if not reversed are bound to reduce our country to a has-been instead of Reagan's "shining city on the hill."  Candidate Obama will not be easy to defeat electorally for many reasons.  We do not know precisely what impact we can have, but we know we must do what we can, whenever we can.  Our Call to Action details those things all of us as individuals can do.

CI-M1. "History is Calling Us Out"
News Commentary, June 5, 2011

As we have death fully found through the journals of history, the enemy can be of either national or group origin.  Whichever, military response must always require:

  1. Protection of our national interests;
  2. A credible probability of success, or threat so severe it leaves our country little or no alternative;
  3. A clear exit strategy - victory defined;
  4. An acceptable cost of victory; and
  5. Tactics left to the military.

Military action should only be used when our national interests are either compromised or come under eminent danger.  Our national interests consist of the protection of our national sovereignty, territory and population; and the physical, economic or social well being of the former and those of innocent peoples or crucial allies around the globe.

The outlook for success of any military action except in the most severe of consequences should be weighed.  The probability of success must exceed the risk of failure.

Victory to what end - defeat of an army, destruction of a terrorist network, removal of a regime - victory defined.  Mission creep must be avoided; defined victory at the onset should be declared victory at the conclusion.

Victory at any cost when our lives or nation's existence literally depend on it; victory at an acceptable cost in all other engagements.  The spoils of victory must out weigh the forfeit of defeat.

With military leaders tactically in charge of our enhanced state of modernization and technology and with nation building excluded, it's hard to imagine a substantial need for occupational forces.  Superior air and naval power and an elite intelligence and special operations capability should largely negate the need for large-scale ground forces.

History is calling us out, we could very well be guilty of being slow learners, and nation building must not be part of victory defined.  It's more effective for our country to accept the ultimate course a sovereign people will almost certainly struggle to take than to attempt to self-direct a predetermined course chosen for them.  A course they did not choose is one they will not adopt in their hearts and soul.  It is inconceivable to believe that John Hancock would have so boldly risked life, loved ones, and property with the first and most pronounced signing of our Declaration of Independence had such document been prepared for us and not by us.

Gilbert Keith Chesterton, British essayist wrote: "In the end it will not matter to us whether we fought with flails or reeds.  It will matter to us greatly on what side we fought."  Let us weigh every per ponderous use of our military squarely upon these five elements, and let us follow the effectiveness of this strategy in historic journals yet to be written.  May God bless America and its armed forces.

CI-S4. "Now Time to Lay the Issue Bare"
News Commentary, May 22, 2011

To the detriment of our national interests we've wrestled politically with the issue of national border control and with those of comprehensive immigration reform for too many years.  We all know the subject is ripe with political correctness and consequences but it's now time to lay the issue bare.

We not only have an extreme respect for the historic role immigration has played in the building of our country as almost all of our ancestors were immigrants at one time or another; we also recognize the future economic and social need for sustained immigration.  We respect immigrants; we work along side of them each day.  For the most part they are good hard working people who love their families and who like the rest of us are trying their utmost to improve economic and social conditions for themselves and their families.  Our goal therefore is not to stop immigration, just the contrary; it is to curtail illegal immigration while enabling legal immigration to flourish.

Our principles for Immigration & Naturalization Control are:

  1. Our national borders must be controlled, only legal immigration can be allowed.
  2. Illegal immigration must be discouraged.
  3. Legal immigration must be encouraged to the extent sufficient to meet the needs of our country.
  4. A win-win for both the citizens of the U.S. and for the migrant must prevail.
  5. The emergency allotment of political or disaster refugees must be planned for.
  6. In-simulation into American culture must be the expectation.
  7. The Naturalization process must be fair, inclusive and proficient.
  8. Restitution must be extracted from those illegal immigrants presently in our country in return for legal status, but with stipulation.

Poet Emma Lazarus in an excerpt from her most famous work "The New Colossus", inscribed on the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty, calls for those yearning to breath free: ''Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!'' cries she with silent lips. ''Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore.  Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me; I lift my lamp beside the golden door.''

1. Our national borders must be controlled, only legal immigration can be allowed.

We believe the illegal crossing of our national borders by foreign aliens is a violation of our national sovereignty, constituting a national invasion as much as a law enforcement issue.  We believe the National and Coast Guard services should be used extensively in conjunction with border law enforcement authorities in the controlling of our national borders and in border security.  These steps should be taken to secure our national borders:

  • Focus most National and Coast Guard extended training exercises along our borders.
  • Maintain a permanent National and Coast Guard presence along our borders.
  • Utilize fencing in urban and highly populated areas.
  • Use electronic detection devices both stationary and mobile where advantageous to detect potential border violations.
  • Take advantage of military assets and technology to enhance border control enforcement.
  • Develop a tactical border security plan for each geological and demographic variant.

Helicopters, all-terrain personnel carriers, speed boats; acoustic, motion, radar, and other detection technology; unmanned drone aircraft, night vision equipment, and other military assets and technology should be utilized to enhance border control capability and effectiveness.  Variations in terrain and population present diverse challenges: river, mountainous, desert, urban, and other geological and demographic factors should be weighed in development of border security plans.

2. Illegal immigration must be discouraged.

No matter how hard we work to detect and detain illegal aliens at the borders, as long as they are allowed to come, remain, or readily return to the U.S. with reward of employment and impunity from punishment the problem will persist.  These steps should be taken to discourage violations:

  • Ensure swift and sure deportation of known illegal or dependent aliens.
  • Make a national real-time employer verification system available to employers.
  • Heap severe fines and penalties upon employers failing to verify the legality of employees or on those that knowingly hire illegal aliens.
  • Utilize the full extent of the law to fine and punish individuals or businesses that knowingly aid and abet illegal aliens.
  • Amend the U.S. Constitution (Amendment XIV) should read "All persons born 'to a U.S. citizen' or naturalized in the United States ..."

3. Legal immigration must be encouraged to the extent sufficient to meet the needs of our country.

If our country wants to remain the hope of the free world, it must maintain the number one economy.  Foreign countries such as China and India have emerging industrialized economies with vast numbers of human resources.  Among other reforms, we will need substantial numbers of human resources from our neighbors to the south to compete and continue to dominate the world's economy.  (See Current Issues, "Not on Our Watch!"; China's Economy to Surpass that of the U.S.)  A strategic plan to achieve this objective should include:

  • The use of employment needs and other relative economic indices to adjust immigration levels based upon our country's needs.
  • Targets for the granting of both temporary work visas and permanent immigration based upon agricultural, business, and professional needs.
  • The matching of immigrant education levels and technical skills with our country's employment needs.

4. A win-win for both the citizens of the U.S. and for the migrant must prevail.

We should no longer treat aliens the same as citizens.  Our country should benefit from the immigrant contribution, the immigrant from living and working in our country.  Whenever an alien fails to benefit our country, or fails to benefit from living within our country, the alien should be returned, or return on his or her own initiative to their country of origin or citizenship.  Canceling of visas and deportation must be exercised for aliens who:

  • Are no longer needed due to changing U.S. economic or business needs.
  • Require public benefits assistance.
  • Are not fulfilling their financial needs or social obligations.
  • Commit felonies or repeated misdemeanors.
  • Are found to be in the country illegally.

5. The emergency allotment of political or disaster refugees must be planned for.

We are a caring and sympathetic people who will always do what we can to help those being persecuted within their own country, or those who suffer physically or are deprived economically as a result of natural or other disasters.  A political or disaster refugee plan must include a:

  • Predetermined defining of refugee status.
  • Methodology for the elicitation of citizen sponsors who have the means and desire to take personal responsibility for the initial housing and otherwise caring for of refugees or refugee families.
  • Development of a Refugee Sponsorship Plan that will allow for the transition assistance necessary to in-simulate the refugee or refugee family into the long-term fabric of our country's economic and social environment.  Plan to include the participation of local social service personnel in the monitoring process.
  • Means of transportation of the refugee or refugee family with their belongings to an agreed upon time and place where the sponsor can assume responsibility for refugee maintenance.
  • Routine followup meetings with sponsor and refugee with local social services to review the Refugee Sponsorship Plan's implementation progress.

6. In-simulation into American culture must be the expectation.

American novelist and civil rights activist James Baldwin wrote: "The making of an American begins at the point where he himself rejects all other ties, any other history, and himself adopts the vesture of his adopted land."

There should be no government regulation or requirement that a language other than English be taught or utilized.  Laws or regulations established through religion or culture should not be enforced; only those established by the U.S. Constitution or other official government entity should be actionable.  As generations of immigrants learn and use the language of our country, we believe they will inculcate.  We see it everyday in the places in which we work and the communities in which we live.

7. The Naturalization process must be fair, inclusive, timely, and otherwise proficient.

Our naturalization process is broken.  The progression from application for a visa through becoming an U.S. citizen should be streamlined.  Regardless of ethnicity, national origin, or gender all legal aliens should be equally eligible for naturalization, without quota or other limitations, upon meeting these criteria where the alien and family members:

  • Have been legally in our country for a minimum three-year continuous term.
  • Have not received any form of public benefits for a minimum three-year continuous term.
  • Can sufficiently read and write the English language.
  • Have independent, verifiable means for lasting individual or family support above the poverty level.
  • Are current with their financial responsibilities.
  • Have no known disease, injury or handicap that is likely to require public benefit support in the outgoing years.
  • Have paid into Social Security and Medicare prior to the age of 55 years.
  • Are not under investigation, indictment or charge of civil or criminal complaint.
  • Wish to become U.S. citizens.

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Benefits (SNAP); Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program Benefits (LIHEAP); Housing Assistance for Low Income Households Benefits; Phone Service Benefit; National School (Free or Reduced) Lunch Program Benefits; Medicine & Health Care (Medicaid, other) Benefits; Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Benefits (TANF); Supplemental Security Income Benefits (SSI); Other Unearned Public Benefits must not be received for a continuous three year term to qualify an alien for naturalization.  Receipt of Social Security Disability Insurance (DI) also disqualifies an alien for this period of time.

Social Security (OASI) and Medicare are earned benefit programs, earned through a working lifetime of employee contributions made and matched by one's employer; only those aliens who have paid into these programs prior to the age of 55 years should be considered for naturalization as to allow those older would unnecessarily encumber these programs.

Let's stop dragging our feet, when immigrants meet these above criteria, let it be done.

8. Restitution must be extracted from those illegal immigrants presently in our country in return for legal status, but with stipulation.

Stipulation that our national borders are controlled and that only legal immigration is being allowed must be made requiring a two-thirds vote in both houses of congress prior to this provision being put into effect.  Upon passing of this stipulating legislation, this path should be followed:

  • Illegal aliens must come forward on their own initiative and report to immigration authorities.
  • A fine of $1000 dollar per adult family member must be paid.
  • The alien and his family must be found:
    • To have independent financial standing above the poverty level.
    • Not to be receiving public benefits.
    • Not to have committed felonies or repeated misdemeanors.
  • Upon meeting above obligations and requirements the alien should be granted legal immigration status.
  • The three-year probationary period for meeting the eligibility criteria for naturalization would begin at the point of gaining legal status.

We plan on combusting the U.S. economy into a raging fire of economic growth and expansion.  We need hard working immigrants of all origins and abilities to achieve this end.  We are not concerned with absorbing those already here - we already have!  Our concern is that those who remain here do so to the benefit of our nation.  In return, we also hope that they are rewarded from the horn of plenty that only a free-market economy can provide and a republican form of government can ensure.

CI-E6. "Not on Our Watch!"
News Commentary, April 30, 2011

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) is predicting that China's economic output will surpass that of the United States by 2016, not so fast.  Sure China has enumerable human resources and received a major boost with the infusion of Hong Kong and their free-market economic system into mainstream China.  But we are the United States of America, a land rich with:

  • values left to us by our Founding Fathers promoting individual initiative and personal responsibility,
  • a form of government recognizing the dignity of human and economic freedom,
  • vast natural and human resources,
  • technological skills and a culture of innovation, and
  • neighboring countries having vast natural resources to the north and willing human resources to the south.

Not on our watch!  Why do we feel like a herd of ostriches with their heads stuck in the ground when we say this - its a bold statement that in all honesty can only be backed up with the breaking of policies and trends that have expanded our public-sector and that have put our private-sector, free-enterprise economy to self inflicted disadvantage.  Why do we say it - we love our country, and as a nation proud in history, we believe within all our combined hearts that its a prediction that need not become reality.

We look at both those things that individuals can do - Call to Action; and those governmental policies and practices that need be redressed - Reform Agenda.  We believe each item listed therein are important and need addressed but we here separate the vital few from the nontrivial many:

We won't go into detail on these action and reform items here as they are all detailed in their respective sections of this website.  The wisdom of President Ronald Reagan comes to mind: "If not us, then who?  If not now, when?."  How about us and nowWe believe if we do these things:

  • businesses will stay, return, and rush to the U.S.,
  • personal wealth and standards of living will thrive, and
  • governmental security and fiscal viability will stabilize.

From all of this and more, our U.S. economy will again soar without rival above all others, our national pride will ignite and burn bright from within; and the United States of American will not see its economy surpassed by that of China or any other.  President Abraham Lincoln compassionately wanted to emancipate the American slaves, having done this, we desperately want to free the American economy; in his words: "We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth."

CI-E5. "A Boom to Payroll Tax Contributions"
News Commentary, March 14, 2011, Revised April 8, 2011

Our Country has one of the highest Corporate Income Tax rates in the industrialized world.  In our view, a perfect example of the proverbial "shooting yourself in the foot."  For the past thirty or so years the Corporate Income Tax has accounted for approximately 10-12% of total federal income tax revenues.  We have "Eliminate Corporate (Business) Income & Capital Gains Taxes" as a Reform Agenda item.

We would not want to eliminate the Corporate Income Tax while leaving small business owners paying income tax on business profits at their individual tax rate.  Therefore, we eliminate income tax on all business profit "retained" for business use, increasing the availability of funds necessary for innovation and expansion.  Corporate shareholders would pay income tax on distributed dividends, small business owners would pay income tax on business profits diverted for personal use; both at the Individual Income Tax rate.

Liberals always speak in terms of a static zero-sum gain economy, to them elimination of the Corporate Income Tax would translate to a 10-12% cut in income tax revenues.  We believe in a dynamic (Merriam- Webster, dynamic: an underlying cause of change or growth) economy.  Since income taxes are the last item to come off the "bottom line", all savings in same would be added to business net profit.  In dynamic terms we look at what would happen with business monetary funds not confiscated by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).  A multitude of possibilities, we have come up with what be believe would be the most logical and common, the vital few:

  1. Award employees with either bonuses or pay increases,
  2. Invest in innovation or business expansion,
  3. Pay down business debt,
  4. Distribute dividends to stockholders or divert small business profits for personal use, or
  5. Reduce the selling price of products produced and services rendered.

In a dynamic economy, the choices that businesses would make with added profits would impact both present and future tax revenues.  Elimination of the business income and Capital Gains Tax is a trade-off of present business tax revenue with present and future revenue received through taxes applied to the individual.

The present Corporate Income Tax rate is 35%, small businesses pay at an top marginal Individual Income Tax rate also of 35%.  If employees are awarded bonuses with the added business profits, the employees would pay present income tax at a rate commensurate with their individual gross adjusted income.  Employee pay increases resulting in a raise of employee base salaries would result in additional future tax revenue through the Individual Income Tax; where raises in wages are commonly given as a percentage of base increase, a compounding effect would further enhance these revenues in the years to come.

An investment in innovation would increase a business's competitive position, increasing future profits.  Eventually, a significant portion of this increased business profit would inherently end up in the hands of employees, shareholders or business owners.  Business expansion would almost certainly result in the hiring of additional employees.  Whenever employees or owners are rewarded with increased salaries or allocations, or employees are hired, the inevitable impact would lead to enlarged tax revenues through the Individual Income Tax.

A business could chose to pay off debt.  The reduction of debt would in itself lead to increased future profits through the reduction of interest expenditures.  Again, sometime, somehow much of this increase in profit would end up in the hands of employees or owners thus increasing tax revenues collected from the individual.

Dividends are presently taxed at either the Individual Income Tax rate or at the Capital Gains Tax rate dependent upon the length of time the stock has been held.  We would make a change here, to treat corporate dividends the same as business profits diverted for personal use by owners, both will be taxed at the Individual Income Tax rate.  Increased dividends paid by corporations to their shareholders or profits diverted for the small business owner's personal use would again result in added tax revenue through the Individual Income Tax.

Though we end Capital Gains Tax paid by businesses, they remain for individuals.  The Capital Gains Tax rate is presently 15% for all but the lowest two individual tax brackets.  Capital Gains Taxes would be paid by the individual on the sale of corporate stock or small business assets held for a minimum of one year.  The small business owner would only pay Capital Gains Taxes on gains diverted for personal use.

There are estimates that 20-22% of the average price of every product sold and service rendered is due to "embedded" income and payroll taxes paid by the composite of individuals and businesses involved in the production of products or in the provision of services.  Key word "average", some products would incur less cost savings, others more; though definite savings in cost of supplies and equipment, services in general would experience less savings than manufactured products.  Bottom line, through the inherent forces of competition within the free-market, the average selling price of products sold and services rendered would mostly certainly work downward.

We do not eliminate all income taxes, they remain for individual owners and shareholders benefiting from business profits and for matching payroll taxes.  The 20-22% is not our estimate of average cost savings under the plan detailed herein.  However, business Income Tax Liability and compliance costs would be saved and prices reduced accordingly.  The net effect would lead to increased consumer purchasing power, a raise in standards of living, the dampening of price inflation, and a multitude of other positive economic factors.

What is commonsense to us, would be dismissed by the liberal zero-sum gain mindset.  We believe that businesses and the economy react dynamically:

Expanded Business Investment & Economic Growth = Greater Profits & Higher Wages = Increased Tax Revenues

The elimination of the business income tax would create incentive for businesses to remain, return or move to, and expand in the United States.  We believe in a dynamic economy the present and future increases in tax revenues received through the taxation of individuals would more than make up for losses in revenue through business taxation.

What more, our economy reacts largely upon speculation of future prosperity or the lack thereof.  We advocate phasing out the Corporate (Business) Income Tax at a rate of 5% a year, with the first reduction implemented one calendar year from the time legislation is passed; with the Corporate (Business) Capital Gains Tax would begin to reduce in 5% increments at the time the Corporate Income Tax rate reduces to a rate below 15%.  The tax rate paid on retained small business profits would phase down at the same 5% increments.  The economy would begin to respond immediately once business leaders and investors became convinced that these tax cuts would materialize with certainty.  Individual tax revenues overall under this plan would in all likelihood make up for the loss due to the business tax reductions before they even occur.  A respondent economy would also have a positive impact upon state, county and municipal income and sales tax revenues; not to mention a multiplicity of other economic factors.

There's another huge problem with business income taxes that this agenda item would remedy.  Many "business decisions" are made based on the effect of the business income tax upon profit.  Tax accountants are kept busy looking for ways to minimize business income tax liability to maximize business profits.  We don't have a ethical problem with this, but we know that business decisions need be based upon what's best for operational productivity and overall competitiveness; by taking away the business tax, we take away the conundrum between maximizing profits today and competitiveness long term.

We're not done.  There's another interrelated factor that a zero-sum gainer would never contemplate.  The elimination of the business tax would create a boom to payroll tax contributions to support Social Security and Medicare.  Businesses do not pay payroll taxes based upon their profits, they match payroll taxes paid by their employees.  An increase in total employee wages either through higher salaries or greater numbers of employees would not only increase payroll taxes paid by individuals, but would also increase the matching funds paid by businesses.

We have "Privatize Entitlement Programs" as a Reform Agenda item.  What a great time to create a boom to payroll tax revenue just when such a boom could be used help transition Social Security and Medicare to individual accounts.  Ultimately, we want to "Replace the Income Tax with a Consumption Tax", another Reform Agenda item.  Until that time comes we will continue to pursue reforms to present income tax requirements.

CI-P6. "We Haven't Seen Anything Yet"
News Commentary, February 27, 2011

We came out of the 2010 elections just a few months ago, but it's now time to begin looking forward to the next election to ensure that we have a fair election process in place.  Looking at recent presidential election history conservatives have good reason for concern, we:

  • Heard reports of partisan voter registration drives by the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) and affiliates, proved notorious for street money paid for the sole purpose of registering as many potential Democratic voters as possible.  If the obvious targeting of just potential Democratic voters is not unethical enough for an organization that receives federal funds, then registrations for the dead, imprisoned felons, imaginary, etc. surely are.
  • Observed repeated accounts of polls in heavy Democratically registered precincts held open late on election nights, allowing for extended voter turnout efforts in just those demographic areas most favorable to the election of Democrats.
  • Witnessed the "hanging chad" debacle in Florida following the 2000 presidential election.
  • Suspect biased attempts by the main stream media to influence voter turnout in two of the last three presidential elections.
    • Calling Florida for Vice President Al Gore while then Governor George W. Bush lead in counted votes one hour before the western polls closed in 2000.  (Western panhandle is strong Republican territory, in the Central Time zone.)
    • Released bogus exit poll results in several eastern states, early election day afternoon, indicating that Senator John Kerry was making a surprisingly strong showing in 2004.
  • Seen felony charges filed against the sons of two prominent Milwaukee Democratic Leaders for the criminal damage to property, for the slashing of tires on 20 vehicles rented for transporting Republican voters to the polls in 2004.
  • Viewed video of members of the New Black Panthers armed with batons standing outside voting locations in 2008.
  • Read reports of twenty-five or so heavily Democratic preferenced precincts in Minnesota alone that tallied more votes cast than voters registered in 2008.

All of this compared to the upcoming 2012 presidential election, if it's anticipated to be close, we haven't seen anything yet.  The liberal surrogates of the Democrat Party are not going to take the 2010 watershed elections in stride and reconsider their political views of country and world.  Let us state our thoughts very distinctly, we believe liberals hold an utilitarian view of ethics; that the ends of an action justify the means taken to reach those ends.  Many of the means that liberals will stoop to in the 2012 election process to get President Barrack Obama and others elected will in our estimation range from dirty and unethical to dishonest and illegal.  Republicans and conservatives had better be ready, and to be ready they had better start now.

We have a difficult time discerning the tactics of the Republican National Committee (RNC), we do not detect the type of coherent strategy needed to prepare for the onslaught the liberals will bring to the 2012 elections.  Beyond using their Chairman, other officers, and members to be spokesmen for party values and platform issues, we believe the RNC and their state and local proxies should preserve their limited resources to primarily concentrate on three missions:

  • Finding good conservative candidates to compete in the Republican primaries or nomination process, providing for a fair competition, and determining their final nominees for each elective office.
  • Running a highly coordinated nationwide get out the vote campaign that synchronizes the energy of their vast membership and volunteers at the national, state and local levels.  Every state and county in the nation should have a central RNC headquarters to lead this effort.
  • Ensuring a fair election process beginning with voter registration in every county, and ending with the final vote counted and results reported in every voter precinct in the nation.

The financing of individual campaigns can best be accomplished by the candidates themselves.  Issues can most effectively be advocated by third party coalitions.  The RNC can play a vital role by reserving their resources and focusing their energy on operations that aid Republican candidates in whole.  Get out the vote campaigns and ensuring a fair election process are vital ingredients to election victories, and can best be implemented through a central and permanent rather than a fragmented and temporary source.

Elements necessary to ensure a fair election process:

  1. Each candidate for elective office shall bare the burden of proof of eligibility as required by constitution or statute prior to being placed on any election ballot.  Any "write-in" person winning the majority of ballots cast shall bare this same burden prior to being certified the election winner.
  2. Present voter registration roles shall be verified as to voter eligibility.  Voter Name and Address shall match current status and address shall be in precinct registered.  Registrants shall meet voter age eligibility and U.S. citizenship requirements.
  3. New or updated voter registrations shall be made in person accompanied with signed picture identification and proof of age and citizenship.  The registration shall include Name, Address; statement of Age, Citizenship and other Eligibility; and Signature of registrant.  The signature on the presented signed picture identification shall be matched against the registrant's signature.  Registrants shall be verified as to age eligibility and U.S. citizenship requirements.
  4. A process shall be in place that ensures that registrants for 2 & 3 above shall not be a convicted felon or meet any other restriction that would disqualify them from voting.  Registrations that cannot be verified or are found to be ineligible shall be removed from the registration role.  Any registrant removed from the role shall be notified in writing of the reason for such removal.
  5. Each precinct shall have a representative chosen by the Democratic Party and one by the Republican Party, and a third chosen by an election authority to represent independents or other.  This three person Precinct Panel shall be allowed to assign other representatives in their stead and shall have the responsibility and authority to ensure the viability of the election relating to the casting and counting of ballots.
  6. Absentee ballots shall be sent to registrants by request or statute, and to be considered valid shall be received back to the precinct prior to the date and time that final polls close.  Absentee ballots shall include Name, Address and Signature of voter.  Returned ballots shall be supplemented with a photocopy of voter's signed picture identification.
  7. Voter registration roles complete with Name, Address and scanned Signature of eligible voters shall be available at the election precinct site prior to any votes being cast.
  8. The Precinct Panel shall verify all ballot collectors; rather container, punch card machine, electronic or other as to "empty" or "zeroed" prior to any votes cast.  Any and all access to such collectors shall be monitored during the voting cycle.  Protections shall be in place that ensures that there is no access to such collectors except under the supervision of the Precinct Panel until all votes are cast, counted and results accepted.
  9. Voter shall present signed picture identification prior to casting their vote.  Identification including Name and Address shall be matched against voter registration role, and the role signed by the voter indicating that his vote is being cast at that date and place.  The signatures on the presented signed picture identification and scanned on role shall be matched against one another and against the voters signature on the role.
  10. Any question as to the eligibility of a voter, determined by any member of the Precinct Panel, shall result in the casting of a provisional paper ballot by the voter.  A provisional ballot should take the form of an absentee ballot but shall be identified accordingly.  Provisional ballots shall be supplemented with a photocopy of voter's signed picture identification.
  11. The Precinct Panel shall monitor the counting of conventional ballots or the downloading of vote totals for the purpose of determining voting tallies.
  12. The Precinct Panel shall monitor the counting of absentee and provisional ballots:
    • Pending statute requirements, the counting of absentee or provisional ballots shall be discontinued whenever the number of such outstanding ballots is not sufficient in number to affect the outcome of any pending election.
    • Absentee ballets may be counted at any time during the voting cycle.
    • Provisional ballets shall be counted after the polls have closed ending the voting cycle.
    • Any member of the Precinct Panel can challenge an absentee or provisional ballot.  Challenged ballots shall be held until the end of the counting process.
    • Challenged ballots shall be taken in front of a local judge, determined prior to the commencement of the voting cycle, by the Precinct Panel.  The judge shall make the final ruling as to the validity of any and all such ballots.
  13. No voting tallies, be them preliminary or final, shall be divulged at the precinct level except as in #14 below.
  14. The Precinct Panel shall submit election results to the appropriate election authority.  The results shall include the number of votes received by each candidate on the ballot, the number of write-in votes cast per elective office, and the number of absentee and provisional ballots (if any) not counted.
  15. The election authority shall question any and all election result inconsistencies, and shall send same back to the Precinct Panel for clarification or correction and resubmission.
  16. Once all precincts have submitted their results, and all results have been accepted, the election authority shall compile, tabulate and certify each elective office winner.
  17. The knowingly giving or manifestation, or the willful intent to ignore same, of false information or documentation during the registration, voting, counting or certification processes shall be met with prosecution to the full extent of the law.

There's been a lot of talk over the past several voting cycles mostly from Democrats concerning voter disenfranchisement.  It's their way of trying to minimize objective scrutiny of the voter registration process and of voter eligibility in general where a lack of such can lead to votes cast by ineligible voters.  It seems, they never wish to talk about the nullification of one proper vote for each wrongful vote cast.  We do.

In statistical methodology there are two types of errors that can be made in data collection or analysis; a Type I (alpha) error rejects that which is true, a Type II (beta) error accepts that which is false.  Equating this terminology to voting, an alpha error is to disallow a vote that is made, or would have been made, by an eligible voter; and a beta error is to accept a vote by an ineligible voter.  The point being, some speak of their concern for taking actions preventing the former with the mantra "all votes must count" while seemingly ignoring its' effects on the latter - voter nullification.  Each type of error must be honestly guarded against with equal voracity.  We believe implementation of the fair election process elements above will begin to get us there.

CI-S3. "But Now He's Gone and Made Us Mad!"
News Commentary, February 20, 2011

As conservatives, President Barrack Obama has done little since taking office in January, 2009, to please us.  This was not unexpected, he is liberal in his fiscal, political and social views and the policies in which he has embarked are true to his philosophy.  So be it, as they say "elections have consequences."  We shall carry on.

Embolden with a Democratically controlled Congress he began with Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) bailouts of Fannie and Freddie, major Banks and Investment Companies, American International Group (AIG), General Motors (GM), and others.  The GM bailout came with an unprecedented Executive Branch intrusion into established bankruptcy procedures where shared sacrifice was turned upside down, those that should have come first came last, and vice versa.

Ignoring any real attempts at bipartisanship he continued with a bloated omnibus spending appropriation and an ill fated $787 billion "stimulus" plan both of early 2009.  About the only thing the stimulus plan stimulated was the growth in public-sector jobs at all levels of government, jobs that cannot be sustained long-term by their on-going annual budgets without deficit spending.

Not to be deterred in his quest for a larger and more intrusive federal imprint on the lives of all of us, he persisted with 2600 pages of "Health Care" legislation that grows government regulation and bureaucracy into a field that desperately needs lower costs that only free-market competition can truly provide; a steady dose of free enterprise is needed, just the opposite prescribed.  He topped all of this off with a regulatory and bureaucratic nightmare, a 2300 page Financial Reform bill.

All the time, through these and other programs, he has done everything he could to funnel federal dollars to mostly Democratically controlled state and local governments to bailout their budget shortfalls, while the federal budget deficits ;have been reaching unprecedented and unsustainable red figures.  A little akin to Nero fiddling while Rome burnt, you think?  We don't even want to get into the complicity of the Federal Reserve in all of this.  (Not at this time anyway.)

Lastly, only after the watershed 2010 elections where the Democrats "took a shellacking" at the hands of the tea party enthused Republicans did he produce a bipartisan piece of legislation that we believe is worth at least partial merit, the compromised extension of the Bush era tax cuts.  Bush era tax cuts good though permanence is needed; accompanied Obama era stimulus credits and deductions bad.  The accumulation of all of this new spending and the resultant growth of government - red ink in the form of trillion dollar federal deficits as far as the objective eye can see.

But now he's gone and made us mad!  His fiscal 2012 budget proposal includes a reduction in the federal income tax deduction for charitable donations.  Charitable deductions under Obama's budget would be capped at a 28% rate.  (The 28% income bracket limit is at $231,000 for a married couple filing jointly.  Our dismay is not personal, it's philosophical.)   Right now, with the Bush tax cuts extended, the top marginal federal income tax rate is 35%.  Let's compare the approximated effects of this change using simple scenarios with a married couple filing jointly with an annual gross income of $500,000:

As we can see comparing scenario II and III, Obama's proposal increases the income tax liability while decreasing the net discretionary income of the taxpayer.  The charity receives its $50,000, federal tax receipts increase, and the taxpayer takes a hit.  Now if we compare II and V we find that for the taxpayer to maintain approximately the same discretionary income after taxes, the charity would have to take a ($50,000- $46,000 / $50,000) 8.0% hit in donations, and federal tax receipts reaps the benefit.  Net result, an obvious disincentive to the taxpayer making over $231,000 to donate to charity.  Government is placed in a win-win situation.

"... But tho' every Animal that hath Life is liable to Death, ... that we may have a greater Opportunity of exercising towards each other that Virtue, which most of all recommends us to the Deity, I mean CHARITY."

Benjamin Franklin, 1751, Editorial

Government is going to take the added revenue and do more "good work" with it than private charities.  Only the staunches liberal believes this.  We can't decide what to call this sort of action by the leader of the free world.  Adjectives such as wrong, malicious, vile, evil and more have all come to mind.  Wrong seams a little mild and evil too strong, perhaps somewhere between malicious and vile.  Each can decide for themselves; we wonder what Franklin would have termed it?  Yes we know that individuals do not give willingly in a charitable way due to the income tax deduction, they do so out of their own pocket mainly through their own good grace.  But we find this to be of little consonance, as it would have some impact where it should have none as it should never have been proposed.

We know there are those that have a vested interest in every spending cut or tax increase proposal, and that they stand ready to argue against and criticize each.  Of course we stand firm against almost all tax increases as we believe that spending is the problem not revenues; and that even if revenue was the problem that higher tax rates tend to slow economic growth resulting in less tax revenue in the long term.  But this is different, the only vested interest in this criticism is one of compassion for those less fortunate.  Franklin saids it about as good as it can be said.

We have a Reform Agenda item very germane to our subject: "Introduce Charity Savings Accounts".  They will replace the charitable deduction, work much like Health Savings Accounts (HSA's), and be unlimited.

CI-G3. "It's a Republic Stupid!"
News Commentary, February 06, 2011

We hear it over and over from the news media, from liberals, from Democrats, and even from Republicans; we also hear it from all stripes of politicians, from legislators, and much to often from presidents.  To our continued dismay and out right disgust we hear it from self proclaimed conservatives as well.  We certainly have heard it hundreds of times in the news and political coverage of the unrest in Egypt alone.  Out of liberalism, of ignorance, and we believe out of pure laziness much of the time, we hear it from pundits and others that should know better.  We hear "democracy" exalted, with little or no true reason.  We once observed a sign at a tea party, it echoed our disdain of the cries for democracy, speaking of the government left to us by our Founding Fathers it read: "It's a Republic Stupid!"

Virtue lies within a Republic established in law to protect the rights of The People, especially those of the minority which by pure nature are those most vulnerable.  A true democracy would trample on the rights and hopes of the very people that it purports to serve; those of the minority without law would forever be at the mercy of the majority.  Conservative icon William F. Buckley, Jr. said it well: "We are so concerned to flatter the majority that we lose sight of how very often it is necessary, in order to preserve freedom for the minority, let alone for the individual, to face that majority down." 

From Merriam-Webster:

  • aristocracy: government by the best individuals or by a small privileged class
  • democracy: government by the people; esp. rule of the majority
  • despotism: a system of government in which the ruler has unlimited power
  • monarchy: a government having a hereditary chief of state with life tenure and powers ranging from nominal to absolute
  • oligarchy: a government in which a small group exercises control; esp. for corrupt and selfish purposes
  • plutocracy: government by the wealthy
  • polity: a politically organized unit
  • republic: a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law
  • timocracy: government in which love of honor is the ruling principle
  • tyranny: oppressive power; esp. oppressive power exerted by government

We must never underestimate the extent of historical knowledge held and experiences lived by our Founding Fathers.  Primary schooling emphasizing reading, writing and arithmetic, and secondary study of history and science for sure.  Beyond the contemplation of history and the contemporary experience with governance in their own time, the one other meditation that most reasonably readied them for the ardent task of forming our government was that of philosophy.  The history of the loosely allied Greek States and the Roman Empire led by Caesar and the Senate; a lifetime of living under the British Monarchy and Parliament, immersed in both the homologous and independent interests of the American Colonies; and through rumination evoked by Plato, Aristotle, Locke and other innumerous philosophers; all most certainly shaped the thinking of our Founding Fathers making them uniquely capable of establishing a form of government to the full extent the world had never known.

"It has been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government.  Experience has proved that no position is more false than this.  The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government.  Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity."

Alexander Hamilton, 1788, Speech urging ratification of the Constitution in New York

Plato, a Greek philosopher born 428 B.C. believed the state is "man writ large" and will therefore reflect the kind of people a community has become.  He believed that five logical forms of government exist: aristocracy, timocracy, plutocracy, democracy, and despotism.  A transition from aristocracy to despotism occurs as a step-by-step decline in the quality of the state corresponding to a gradual deterioration of the moral character of the rulers and the citizens.

Plato's ideal state was aristocracy, in which the rational element embodied in the philosopher-king was supreme and where people's reason controlled their appetites.  (Merriam-Webster, appetite: an inherent craving.)  In a plutocracy where power resides in the hands of people whose main concern is wealth, the rich rise in social esteem and breaking the unity of the state into two contending classes, the rich and the poor.  Democracy is a further degeneration, for its principles of equality and freedom reflect the degenerate human characters whose whole range of appetites are all pursued with equal fervor.  The passion for money and pleasures leads the masses to plunder the rich; as the rich resist the masses seek out a strong person who will be their champion.  But this person demands and acquires absolute power and makes slaves out of the people, and only later do the people realize to what depths of subjugation they have fallen.  The natural end of democracy is despotism.

Aristotle, a Greek philosopher born 384 B.C., believed a community could organize itself into at least three different kinds of government, the basic divergence among them primarily the number of rulers each has.  A government can have as its rulers one, a few, or many.  Each of these forms, however, can have a true or perverted form.  When a government is functioning "true", it governs for the common good of all the people; when "perverted", its rulers govern for their own private gain or self interests.

According to Aristotle, the true forms of government are monarchy (one), aristocracy (few), and polity (many); the respective perverted forms tyranny, oligarchy and democracy.  His preference was aristocracy, even though ideally an individual of exceptional quality would be superb, such persons do not always exist.  In an aristocracy, there is rule by a group of people whose excellence, achievement, and ownership of property makes them best suited for command.  Democracy, as Aristotle knew it, rises out of the assumption that "because men are equally free, they claim to be absolutely equal." The universal cause of revolution is "the desire of equality, when men think they are equal to others who have more than themselves." The use of "equal" by Aristotle goes beyond our notion of equal human rights, it inferences a demand for equal outcomes; where equality in one aspect deserves equality in all aspects such as property, wealth, capability and status.

John Locke, an British philosopher born 1632, put great emphasis on the inalienable character of human rights, and this led him to argue that political society must rest upon the people's approval, for "men being ... by nature all free, equal and independent, no one can be put out of this estate and subjected to the political power of another without his consent."  Since "no rational creature can be supposed to change his condition with an intention to be worse," laws must be framed and enforced so as to confirm those rights that people have by nature.

Locke emphasized the importance of the division of powers chiefly to ensure that those who execute or administer the laws do not also make them, for "they may exempt themselves from obedience to the laws they make, and suit the law, both in its making and execution, to their own private advantage."  The executive is therefore "under the law."  Even the legislature is not absolute, "there remains still in the people a supreme power to remove or alter the legislative when they find the legislative act contrary to the trust reposed to them."

Without ever reading our Founding Father's own views on democracy, it would be completely logical to infer through our own knowledge of the history of world civilization and of the beliefs of those in which they so highly esteemed; that they, our Founding Fathers, would never have deemed the government they risked and gave their lives for a democracy.  After all, what did they establish?  After a short experiment with a "federation of states", they produced the Constitution of the United States; creating three equal branches of government and a Bill of Rights to preserve the rights of The People, and of the States; complete with an amendment process to right that which is wrong and to change that which becomes incorrect.  They begot a Republic.

The Legislative, elected by majority vote?  Partially, the number of Representatives determined by State population elected by popular ("the People") vote, with two Senators from each State "chosen by the legislature thereof".  (Amendment XVII, 1913, directed selection of the Senate from each State to be "elected by the people thereof".  Our Reform Agenda includes "Repeal Amendment XVII".)  Legislation that must pass both houses of congress before it can be forwarded to the Executive Branch for consideration.

The Executive, elected by majority vote?  No, elected by Electoral College where State influence is weighted by population but moderated by equality of State sovereignty and the popular vote is surrogated to State interest.  Each State receives a number of electoral votes "equal to the whole numbers of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled" appointed "in a manner as the Legislature thereof may direct".  (All States presently use the popular vote to select their Electors with minor variations but our Founding Fathers did not direct the method.  The States still retain the right to choose them as they deem appropriate.)  The President with approval authority over congressional legislation, with veto power requiring a two-thirds vote in both congressional houses to override, or by signing the legislation into law.

The Judicial, justice in the hands of the majority?  Never, all past, present and future laws and regulations under the scrutiny of federal courts.  The Constitution of the United States the supreme law of the land with state and local government held subservient to their constitutions or charters.  The People protected from unlimited government and the minority forever protected from a potentially oppressive majority.  Supreme Court Justices with lifelong tenures to insulate them from the whims of the times and of the majority.

"No good government but what is republican ... the very definition of a republic is 'an empire of laws, and not of men.'"

John Adams, 1776, "Thoughts on Government"

Hardly a democracy, the majority held in check and the minority "with certain inalienable Rights" protected with layers of safeguards.  Neal Bortz, a conservative talk radio host with libertarian leanings, subscribes to a telling definition of democracy the rudiment of which originated with Benjamin Franklin: "two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner", rule of the majority.  With all this we know liberals favor democracy in their dream world void of reality, that can account for its use by most of the news media and a good portion of politicians; but we also hear it from conservatives, oh how many times did we hear President George W. Bush utter it.  Is it of ignorance, of laziness, is that the best explanation, easier to go along with the common vernacular in deference to making the effort to inform and educate the "common" populace in the virtues of republicanism?  If true, the logical inference is that the "elite" does not believe the masses attain the sophistication or intelligence to comprehend such diverse concepts.  Either way how sad the leaders we do have.  We don't know the answer, perhaps "why" is not of importance, but the quest for proper use of the terminology and for extending the wisdom of our Founding Fathers forward to the masses is; the future wellbeing of our way of government and thus our Country depends on it.

In conclusion, a quote attributed to James Madison sums up our view of majority rule: "There is no maxim, in my opinion, which is more liable to be misapplied, and which, therefore, more needs elucidation, than the current, that the interest of the majority is the political standard of right and wrong."

P.S.  Democracy did not work out for the sheep.

CI-G2. "The Big Red One"
News Commentary, January 30, 2011

Social Security, an individual retirement plan initiated by our national government in the New Deal era of the mid 1930's, complete with a savings trust fund committed to provide for future benefits.  Family-based security benefits added in the late 1930's: spousal and minor child dependent, and survivor benefits.  Adult Disability and Cost of Living Adjustments (COLA's) introduced in the 1950's.  Social Security Insurance (SSI) and automated COLA's formalized in the 1970's.  While all of these and more benefits were being heaped onto the system, the trust fund was raided by our federal government and spent as discretionary income, leaving IOU's and a pay as we go system in its' stead.

Contributions into the Social Security system to date have exceeded paid out benefits creating IOU's from the Federal Treasury to the tune of approximately 2.6 trillion dollars.  Officially the funds were borrowed, but we believe "raided" is a more fitting description as they were used to purchase low yielding Treasury Bonds instead of investment in much higher yielding mutual funds.  With no trust fund, the system is reduced to what is not much more than a dying ponzi scheme that has maximized its' base; with for the first time in its' existence the cost of benefits teetering on exceeding payroll receipts into the system, and with future unfunded mandates in the billions turning to the multi trillions of dollars.  The big red one.

Over the program history legislators have wrung their hands in attempts to make the Social Security system "forever" solvent.  Raising the individual and employer payroll deduction rates, the annual limit on payroll deductions, the age at which individuals can retire at full benefits, and more have all been enacted.  One common thread, "raising".  The collective system has failed, it's long past time to pull the string on the way of government.

We can fix it, our Reform Agenda will "Privatize Social Security".  Here's our major plan elements:

  • Present Social Security recipients shall not be effected, their benefits under the present system shall continue as promised.
  • Social Security retirement benefits for those individuals fifty-five years of age and older at this privatized plan's enactment shall not be effected, future benefits shall be provided as promised under the present system.
  • Present Social Security retirement ages shall be unchanged.
  • Combined benefits for all present and future participates shall not be less than those allowed under the present Social Security system.
  • For the present and near future both the Social Security individual payroll deduction and employer match shall continue at the 6.2% rate.

Here's the major changes as we transition from government to private administration:

  • Individuals fifty-four years of age and younger shall have a 2.0% share of their 6.2% individual Social Security payroll deduction invested in a fund dedicated to their individual and family security.  This fund shall be termed an Individual Security Fund (ISF).  Contributions to an ISF shall be tax deferred.  ISF's shall not be drawn upon or used for any other purpose except for those detailed herein.
  • ISF's shall be invested in mutual funds, choice of funds from an approved menu shall be chosen by the individual as desired or selected by default.  The menu shall take into account the individual age so as to safeguard their investment for retirement; the risk assessment of the mutual funds investment shall be commensurate to the number of years approaching and during retirement.
  • Spousal and child dependent survivor benefits shall consist of a monthly annuity from the participant's ISF prorated for the number of years until the youngest dependent child reaches the age of 24 years.*  (This age will allow for the opportunity of four years of dependent college or extended education should such be sought.)  The monthly annuity benefit shall be weighted to reflect the number of dependent children in the beginning of the survivor program throughout its existence until the youngest is emancipated.  The ISF shall be depleted to provide maximum benefit during the time of most crucial need, those dependent years extending through the age of 23 years.
  • Full disability benefits shall consist of a monthly annuity from the participant's ISF prorated for the number of years until the recipient reaches the age of 100 years.*  This annuity shall be reduced by the degree of partial disability for the years prior to the age of retirement.  Disability eligibility guidelines shall be strengthened and revised to ensure that true disability thresholds are met and that benefits reflect an accurate degree of disablement.  (Strengthened eligibility guidelines will reflect the fact that there are too many able bodied beneficiaries receiving SSI benefits.)
  • Present individual Social Security retirement benefits shall be reduced by 3.3% for each year of age under the age of fifty-five years at the date of this plan's enactment.  To compensate for this reduction, a monthly annuity from their ISF shall be received during retirement.*  The length of the annuity proration shall cover the individual to the age of 100 year.
    • Like Social Security benefits, the monthly annuity from the ISF shall be of a greater amount with retirement at a higher age.  (The difference between age 62 and age 67 would increase the ISF by 5 years worth of contribution and investment, and would as well reduce the length of annuity proration from 38 (100-62) to 33 (100-67) years.)
    • Individuals presently under the age of twenty-five may receive no Social Security benefits at retirement, they shall receive Individual Security through their ISF built up through a working lifetime of investment.*
  • A death benefit to surviving beneficiaries shall be awarded equivalent to a twelve months worth of ISF annuities prorated to a number of years that shall have taken the participate to the age of 100 years, a one year lump sum.*
  • Remaining funds in an ISF following allocation of spousal and child dependent survivor, disability, retirement and death benefits shall be awarded to the surviving beneficiaries of the participate, to be transferred into their respective ISF's.
  • At the point in time when Social Security payouts decline under this privatized plan and receipts into the system begin to once again exceed expenditures, both the individual payroll deduction share into ISF's shall be increased and the employer match decreased in 0.4% increments.  (Ultimately, the majority of the 6.2% individual payroll deduction will be invested in ISF's and the employer match greatly reduced.)
  • Nothing in this plan shall effect present private voluntary individual retirement plans such as employer funded employee pensions, tax deferred and other legislative retirement plans (401K's, etc.), and Individual Retirement Accounts (IRA's).
  • * Individuals presently receiving these benefits, or participates fifty-five years of age or older at this privatized plan's enactment shall not be effected, their benefits shall continue as promised under the present Social Security system.  ISF annuity allocations shall be supplemented if need be; spousal and child dependent survivor, disability, retirement and death benefits shall not be less than those under the present Social Security system.

    Allotting 2.0% of the present individual payroll deduction to the ISF will constitute a reduction to present Social Security system receipts and to its' balance of payments at a time when the system can least afford it, already reaching equilibrium in cash outlays versus receipts.  For 2011, Congress has already taken this same 2.0% out of Social Security system receipts and is passing it on to the individual in the form of a tax cut for the expressed purpose of stimulating the national economy.  The above plan would result in taking a near term hit for at least ten and up to twenty years in the Social Security system balance of payments in return for dodging future unfunded mandates of multi trillion of dollars inherent in the present system.  The IOU's from our National Treasury will be called in one way or the other.

    The 2.0% individual contributions into ISF's will be in themselves stimulative, in the form of investment into private capital.  An acceptable, though not advocated, alternative to the above plan would be to increase the total individual payroll deduction 2.0%, from 6.2% to 8.2%, as to keep the Social Security system receipts at the current 6.2% (ignoring the 2011 cut) level.  Should this alternative plan be adopted, at the point in time when Social Security payouts decline under this privatized plan and receipts into the system begin to once again exceed expenditures, the total individual payroll deduction shall decrease in 0.4% increments.  (The individual payroll deduction will initially decrease from 8.2% to 7.8%.)  This shall proceed until the individual payroll deduction again becomes in equilibrium with the employer match at 6.2%.  At which time when Social Security payouts continue to decline under this privatized plan and receipts into the system begin to once again exceed expenditures, both the individual payroll deduction share into ISF's shall be increased and the employer match decreased in 0.4% increments.

    CI-P5. "The Corruption Cycle"
    News Commentary, January 23, 2011

    We advocate "Abolish Public Employee Unions" in our Reform Agenda.  Webster defines corruption in part as "impairment of integrity, virtue, or moral principle : depravity".  The People's money is paying Public employees, the union is receiving dues from the Public employee's salary.  The union purposely propagates itself through this cycle, we believe this process in whole effect meets Webster's definition.  We term this whole process "The Corruption Cycle." 

    Beyond this cycle which has seemingly become more pronounced year after year, an employee that is in effect working for The People, and is paid by The People, needs a union to do what?  Negotiate against The People?  Government is and should always be a non-profit, serve The People endeavor.  The People have no reason to deprive the Public employee of fair treatment, working conditions, compensation, etc.

    Another Reform Agenda item is "Commensurate Public & Private Employee Compensation".  Private employee compensation is ultimately decided on the battlefield of competition.  Public employee compensation should become commensurate to Private compensation in terms of equal work, equal pay.  For example, a Public educator may perform many tasks equal to that of one in Private education.  Beyond direct comparisons a methodology exits for performing work studies to evaluate job equivalency.  Work tasks are rated for such factors as Education, Training, Experience, Physical Effort, Responsibility, Safety Risks, etc. to determine the extent to which these factors are necessary to perform required job functions.  Using these studies it would be relatively easy to justly compare Public to Private work for the purpose of determining equal work, equal compensation.

    In short, what is the legitimate need of a Public employee union?  To ensure fair treatment or work environment?  Hardly, The People have no reason to deprive Public employees of such.  To ensure fair compensation?  That should be set on the battlefield of competition, commensurate with that of Private employees.

    CI-S2. "To What Total Cost?"
    News Commentary, January 23, 2011

    We always hear of two major costs attributed to the threat, rather the eventuality, of malpractice litigation paid for by doctors, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, and the remainder of the medical field; and passed on to patients, medical insurance companies, and state and federal medical assistance programs such as Medicare and Medicaid.  About ten cents of every dollar paid for health care arguably goes to the malpractice insurance doctors must have to protect themselves in case patients sue them.  Insurance premiums for some doctors in high-cost states can reach $200,000 per year.  Malpractice litigation could cost $30 billion a year and has grown at more than 10% annually since 1975.  To avoid being sued, doctors also use excessive tests and other procedures to avoid lawsuits; "defensive medicine" could account for 26% of the total cost of medical practices billed to patients and their insurance surrogates.  Even as high as these combined costs are to medical care, we believe they could still represent less than half the story.  Medical malpractice litigation, to what total cost?

    Besides the tangible costs of Malpractice Insurance and of those associated with the practicing of defensive medicine, these significant intangible costs most certainly prevail:

    1. There are the intangible costs of litigation to the doctor and other medical care providers.  Hundreds of personnel hours are spent preparing for and attending court hearings and trials; a toll is paid by all those involved in litigation for the hundreds of hours of excruciating mental stress the process portends.
    2. There are the loss of competition costs in high risk medical fields.  Doctors, other medical care providers, and businesses get and stay out of certain areas of medicine such as anesthesiology, obstetrics and neurosurgery, and the pharmaceutical industry where the cost of malpractice insurance and the risk of malpractice litigation is the highest.
    3. Lastly and perhaps mostly there are the loss of competition costs to the medical care field in the providing of increasingly routine tests and procedures.  Many of these tests and procedures could easily be performed on the clinic level instead of at the higher cost hospital or critical care facility if not for the high cost and risk of malpractice litigation; again saving billions of dollars to patients, medical insurance companies, and state and federal medical assistance programs such as Medicare and Medicaid.

    Medical malpractice litigation, to what total cost?  Too much.  We want the truly injured to receive just redress, but not those who file frivolous lawsuits to the expense of everyone in the health care field and to the cost of everyone receiving medical care.  We address this in our Reform Agenda, "Balance Tort Remedy".

    CI-E4. "Not the Normal Budgetary Maneuver"
    News Commentary, November 04, 2010

    We knew it was included in the Health Care Reform legislation of 2010, "Obamacare", and now must come to the realization that the confiscation of 500 billion dollars from Medicare to help finance costs incurred in this legislation was not the normal budgetary maneuver.  Two federal entitlements exist in our individual payroll tax structure: Social Security Tax and Medicare Tax.  The common term "entitlement" is actually a deferred benefit program, targeted benefit paid for in advance.

    Budgetary decisions must always be made when determining the balance between general revenues and expenditures.  This is not the case here, the 500 billion dollars is the People's money to specifically compensate for individual medical costs incurred in future retirement years, to use it for any other reason is akin to thievery.  Squandering the Social Security trust fund was not enough for liberal politicians, they feel free to use what should be our Medicare trust for whatever purpose as well.

    CI-G1. "So That We Can Find Out What's In It"
    News Commentary, October 15, 2010, Revised April 17, 2011

    Seldom has one's prophetic words so readily rung true as those of that intellectual leader, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, when in support of Health Care Reform legislation 2010, "Obamacare", she uttered to the effect that "we need to pass this legislation so that we can find out what's in it".  Since then we have found some of what's in it, among 2600 pages of newly created federal bureaucracy in the form of added regulations, mandates and other requirements the legislation includes:

    • A Constitutionally challenged personal mandate under financial penalty for the purchase of health care insurance.
    • An employer mandate under financial penalty to provide health care insurance to their employees.
    • Minimum federal requirements for all health care insurance coverage.
    • Financial penalties for employers that offer too good, "Cadillac", of a health care insurance coverage plan for their employees.
    • Elimination of annual and lifetime health care insurance coverage caps.
    • A mandate that all health care insurance family plans include child coverage through age 26.
    • Elimination of health care insurance preexisting conditions exclusions.
    • Provisions to improve the portability of health care insurance coverage.
    • An increased portion of the cost of Medicaid pushed to the state level.
    • The hiring of some 15,000 IRS agents to police the added federal regulations and mandates.
    • The confiscation of 500 billion dollars from the Medicare trust to help finance costs incurred with this legislation.
    • What's worse, their will be thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of pages of regulations written to clarify and implement the provisions of this legislation!

    The profound truth of Pelosi's words continue to ring true as we find that the legislation also includes:

    • A requirement that businesses file Miscellaneous Income 1099 forms for all purchases for more that $600.
    • The hiring of additional IRS agents to enforce the 1099 requirement and shuffle the paperwork.
    • Increased tax liability to the employee of the employer paid portion of their health care insurance, this cost will be reflected in the employee's W2 as taxable income.
    • Provisions that allow the granting of waivers to large businesses that offer "mini med", "catastrophic" or other health care insurance plans that fail to meet legislative requirements.
    • Elimination of the use of Health Savings Accounts, HSA's, for the purchase of over the counter nonprescription drugs and medical care products.
    • Inclusion of a "Reinsurance Program for Retirees" provision setting aside $10 Billion to reimburse retirees older than 55 and not yet eligible for Medicare for 80% of the costs of their medical care.  This infusion of taxpayer's money supplements overextended pension plans.  Beneficiaries almost totally (if not totally) include public and private-sector union retirees.

    Along with finding out what's in it with more to come, we are also finding out the effects this legislation is having upon individual finances, business decision making and finances, state budgets and our national economy:

    • Businesses are reluctant to expand their workforce due to the uncertain financial cost impact of health care insurance, penalties, and other regulation under this legislation; reducing job hires, helping to keep the national unemployment rate high, and slowing economic recovery.
    • Health care insurance premiums are rising due to the mandated requirements under this legislation; increasing the cost to both individuals and businesses.
    • Businesses are choosing to drop employee health care insurance coverage rather than accept premium increases induced by this legislation; leaving employees and family members without health care insurance coverage.
    • Health care insurance companies are dropping plan coverages rather that to accept certain legislative mandates; reducing the number of insured children and others.
    • The legislation did nothing to bend the actual health care cost curve downward, while bending the health care insurance cost upward; another blow to individuals and businesses and to economic recovery.
    • State budgets cannot afford the increase in Medicaid costs; along with slow economic growth causing shortfalls in state budgets.
    • The constitutionality of the personal insurance mandate, increased Medicaid costs pushed to the State, and other requirements are being challenged in federal courts; casting a cloud over the viability of the whole legislation as minus the personal insurance mandate the preexisting conditions exclusion becomes untenable as individuals will wait until they're ill before purchasing health care insurance.

    "The internal effects of a mutable policy are ... calamitous.  It poisons the blessings of liberty itself.  It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man who knows what the law is today can guess what it will be tomorrow."

    James Madison, 1787, Federalist No. 62

    We don't know if Pelosi has read much of our Founding Fathers.  It would appear that she either missed, or dismissed, "Federalist 62" in any case.

    "Justice is the end of government.  It is the end of civil society.  If ever has been, and ever will be pursued, until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit"

    James Madison, 1787, Federalist No. 51

    Will You Answer the Call?

    Call to Action Page