When students learn about the Revolutionary War, they hear a lot about "no taxation without representation," inalienable rights, and equality - as they should.  There was, however, an underlying issue at stake that explains it all and is rarely addressed.  The underlying reason the colonists rebelled was because they felt alienated from the government.  It was unaccountable to the colonists and unresponsive to their local concerns.  In short, the colonists felt they could govern themselves better than the British government in London ever could.  They believed government should be as close to the people as possible so it would be accountable to the people, as King George III across the sea in England most assuredly was not.

The founders of our country were suspicious of a strong central government, so our original founding documents, the Articles of Confederation, sought to instill as much power as possible in the states.   This was our first experiment in federalism - a system of strong local governments voluntarily held together by a unifying national government with limited power.  This balance was important - a powerful national government was deemed too distant to be properly held in check.  At best, the founders viewed a national government as a necessary evil.  At worst, it was a threat to the liberties they had fought to achieve.  State governments would necessarily be more responsive to local needs and local opinion - and thus more representative of the citizens they governed. 

There are, however, national issues that require national solutions.  Providing national security, for example, requires not only a national army, but a national authority to tax.  Likewise, the economic prosperity of our new country required a national currency and a national framework to regulate commerce and enforce contracts across state lines.  Instead of simply ignoring the Articles and expanding government by extra-legal means (sound familiar?), our founders went back to the drawing board.  The result, the US Constitution, granted additional powers to the national government, but only those deemed absolutely necessary to safeguard our republic as a whole.  To reiterate the dominance of state and local government in our Constitution, the Tenth Amendment states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."  Put more simply, this amendment means the national government has only those powers specifically listed in the Constitution.  All other powers are retained by the states and the people.

How, then, did we reach our present circumstances in which the federal government has become such a dominant force in our lives?  Congress has taken it upon itself to regulate everything from education and retirement benefits to health care.  It even dictates purely local issues such as speed limits, building codes, and the age at which people are legally allowed to drink by threatening to withhold funding from states for everything from Medicaid to highway construction.  Our federal government's powers have broadened so far beyond the scope of its legitimate, constitutionally delegated powers as to render our founding documents entirely meaningless.  How did we allow the balance of power in our country to shift so radically away from individuals, states, and local governments toward this omnipotent authority in Washington, DC?

Some would say the problems we face today are too complex and national in scope for local or state answers.  The federal government has simply risen to the challenge of the modern world and accepted additional responsibilities to provide solutions to the problems we face.  While this is undoubtedly true in some instances, this argument ignores the fact that our founders were hardly country bumpkins.  Many of the problems our country were national in scope even in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.  Our founders took that into account when they wrote the Constitution.  If we find it inadequate for the challenges of the modern world, the founders gave us an amendment process to make changes as we see fit.  Complex national problems are not an excuse for disingenuous (and intentional) misinterpretations of the document itself to justify power grabs that are clearly beyond the scope of what our founders intended. 

Others say certain issues are of vital national interest to the federal government and require national, unified solutions.  Frequent examples include poverty, civil rights, and the environment.  Implicit in this argument is a lack of trust in the ability (and the willingness) of states, local government, and most of all - people to take these on.  I also find this argument slightly condescending, not to mention undemocratic.  States and local governments usually have better insights into the solutions that would best fit their communities, and let's face it - the problems of New York City often bear little resemblance to the problems of Sioux Falls.  Even worse, one-size-fits-all solutions imposed from above often do more harm than good precisely because politicians in Washington have no real appreciation for the circumstances that exist in diverse parts of the country.  Such policies also put taxpayers in one part of the country in the unfair position of subsidizing programs exclusively meant for communities thousands of miles away.  Might those resources be put to better use solving local problems?

I get the feeling that some people simply do not trust state and local officials nearly as much as federal officials.  Somehow, they deem state and local officials as being more susceptible to corruption.  Others view them as incompetent local yokels and members of the good-ole-boys club who get off on being big fish in little ponds.  However, this overlooks the simple fact that the proximity of these politicians to their constituents make them especially responsive to local concerns - and particularly vulnerable to the wrath of voters if they prove to be inept, corrupt, or both.  Politicians in Washington, on the other hand, may was well be in England like King George III and his Parliament when it comes to accountability to the folks at home- especially with gerrymandered districts, national party organizations, and campaign finance laws designed to protect them from losing their jobs.  Can one really expect Congressmen who often remain in office for decades to be accountable to the people they represent?

As an aside, here's a little experiment you can try: make a phone call to your local state legislator about a concern you have in your community.  Make a similar phone call to your representative in Washington with a question about anything - whether it be health care or potholes on the interstate.  See which one gets back to you first.  See which one sends you an insincere form letter and see which one sends you a personalized response - or better yet, a return phone call.  I have done this myself, and I think you can guess what happened.

Back on point - these arguments do little to explain how we reached this impasse beyond rationalizing what has already occurred.  After much consideration, I believe I have hit upon a primary factor that explains the trend toward centralization of power in Washington.  It is interesting to note that this trend, which has its roots in the mid-to-late nineteenth century, did not really begin to pick up steam until the twentieth century - and the stirrings of instant communication and mass media. 

At first, there were telegraph wires.  Then came radio and television.  Today, we have the internet and cable channels devoted to news twenty-four hours a day.  Anything that happens around the globe comes into our living rooms with the push of a button.  Issues and problems are covered on a national scale, and crises are sensationalized to attract viewers, advertisers, and clicks.  Is it any wonder, when so many problems are presented on a national scale, and national politics are covered like sporting events, people start to look to national politicians for national solutions?  National politicians get the face time, so it is only natural people think of them first rather than their own local representatives.  The very real problem is that government far removed is a government more likely to be corrupt, unresponsive, inefficient, and beholden to group interests rather than individual liberty.

No, I am not saying modern communication and national media are bad things best gotten rid of.  What I am saying is that people who believe solving local problems locally is the best means of protecting the liberties our country was founded upon must mount a massive program to educate other Americans on the virtues of limited government and federalism.  After all, if environmentalists can launch campaigns to encourage people to eat locally grown produce (a good thing), why can't we launch a campaign promoting local responsibility, the virtues of local communities, and the power of local governments to solve problems?  If enough people get on board (and with the tea parties and town hall protests, I think we're on our way), we can finally enact real change we can believe in.

In the privacy of my home, I have often complained about the volume of television commercials.  The following scenario plays out all too often in living rooms across America: we are watching one of our favorite shows and adjusted the volume to a comfortable level.  When the commercial break comes, suddenly the volume cranks up and blasts us out of our chairs, sending us scrambling for the remote to turn it down.  Watching television has become a ping-pong match of turning the volume down for the commercials and up again when the show I'm watching finally resumes.  The little arrows printed on the volume buttons of my remote have worn away to nothing from frequent use.  I bet yours have, too.  I have often wondered if the producers of these commercials realize the loud volume is likely to cause people to pay less attention, not more.

The eardrum shattering volume of TV commercials is one of the minor annoyances of life that most of us have gotten used to - or so I thought.  A few days ago, I read an article in the newspaper about people who take it far more seriously.  They have complained to Congress, demanding new laws and regulations that force broadcasters to turn down the volume.  The inconvenience of pickup up the remote to hit the mute button or turn down the volume is too much to bear (to say nothing of getting up from their chairs to turn it down manually), and they want the federal government to do something about  it.

As often as I have complained about this issue myself, I have never been outraged to the point of writing a letter of complaint.  If I had, I would have written to the television station or the network broadcasting the ads.  Complaining to the feds would have never entered my head.  To some people, however, no inconvenience is too light to rule out government involvement.  Pressing a button is such a heavy burden that they feel totally justified in demanding that the federal government lift it from their shoulders.

It is no wonder Obama and Congressional Democrats can convince nearly half the population that only government can fix health care, help the needy, right wrongs, and make people's lives better.  For nearly a century, politicians have been slowly centralizing power in Washington by selling Americans on the idea that life would be easier and more convenient if we allow government to assume more control over the private sector - in the name of fairness, of making things easy, and relieving the individual from the hardships of life.  "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help" used to be a phrase that inspired dread.  These days, people who are too lazy to pick up a remote have come to expect it.

Those of us who believe, as our founders did, that government is at best a necessary evil - that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely - have an uphill battle ahead of us.  In an environment where ordinary citizens think it's up to government to fix whatever is wrong with their lives, principles of personal responsibility can be a tough sell.  It is up to us to educate people and explain how individual liberty and freedom from the intrusiveness of government can make their lives better.  It is up to us to explain why we believe in federalism and limited government power - not because we are stingy and uncaring, but because we have faith in people. It is up to us to explain what most people already know deep down in their hearts: human potential is limitless so long as it is freed from the shackles of government. 

An individual can do far more to improve his or her own life than any politician or government bureaucrat ever could.  It is up to us to explain why the deal on offer from politicians and bureaucrats - the surrender of freedom to Washington in exchange for easy answers, promises, and handouts - is a bad one that ultimately makes everyone in America worse off. 

This is not an easy task, and we will not be successful if we fall prey to the temptation of engaging in partisan rhetoric and personal attacks.  In the same way people turn down the volume on those loud, obnoxious commercials, they will tune us out if they perceive us as engaging in the same old partisan political attacks and personal smears.  Instead, we must proclaim our principles and those of our founding fathers by explaining how following those principles will empower ordinary citizens, expand economic opportunity, and free millions from the bonds of poverty and dependency.  We must do all we can to be a positive force for change - because that is what will attract people to our message.  People want their lives to be better.  It's not about Republicans and Democrats.  It's about America as a whole - and that's all of us.

With surging opposition to Obama and the Saul Alinski wing of the Democrat Party in Congress, many people in the libertarian and conservative movements talk of abandoning the two party system and voting third party in upcoming elections.  Disgust with the big-spending ways of the Obamanation couples with disdain for the spending spree of Republicans under George W. Bush to give new life to age-old (and false) assertions that "there isn't a dime's worth of difference between Democrats and Republicans." 

Actually, given the fact that Obama has quadrupled Bush's deficits, there is a lot more than a dime's worth of difference between Democrats and Republicans, but a large portion of the electorate nevertheless feels estranged from both parties and longs for a true alternative to restore constitutional government to our republic.

I have no advice for Democrats seeking to take back a party long ago hijacked by socialists and radicals on the left, but for you conservatives and libertarians out there, I offer a warning: abandoning the Republican party will result in disastrous electoral defeats and decades in the political wilderness.  There is no surer way to guarantee that the socialist (and some would say fascist) drift of our government gets set in concrete than for large numbers of conservatives and libertarians to vote third party in upcoming elections, splitting the vote, and giving pluralities to Obama and Democrat candidates for Congress in future elections - even in districts that have historically voted Republican.

Some would point out that the current administration and Congress is hastening the day of America's economic reckoning - that policies now being put into place will inevitably lead to a financial collapse.  When this happens (the argument goes), America's sole alternative will be to reevaluate the role of government in people's lives and drastically cut both spending and taxes to put our economy on sounder footing.  Hence, we should welcome Obama administration policies.  I have a couple of problems with this argument: one, do we really want millions of Americans to suffer through such a calamity just to prove a point?  While I agree with the underlying analysis of the economy, the federal budget, and the repercussions for the future, such an argument smacks of schadenfreude - and we should strive to prevent it from happening.

The second problem I have with this argument is that there are no guarantees politicians won't use this collapse as an excuse to double down on government's role in the private sector.  Scapegoats will be found, class envy will be used to stir up anger amongst the ill-informed, and the big-government demagogues will once again offer to ride to the rescue so they can solve problems they themselves created in the first place.  It's not out of the realm of possibility.  As a prominent member of the Obama administration recently said, "never let a good crisis go to waste."

"But...we can't trust the Republicans," some of my conservative friends might say.  "We gave them control of the White House and BOTH branches of Congress, and nothing changed.  In fact, they made things worse."  I understand the anger behind those statements.  I share it.  However - the best solution isn't to abandon the Republican party and cede elections to liberal Democrats.  The best solution is to take a page from Reagan's book when he wrenched control of the GOP away from the Rockefeller Republicans in the late 70s.  If anything, he faced a tougher struggle than we face today.  If moderates and neo-conservatives ruled the GOP of the Bush years, similar ideologies had governed the GOP for decades before the ascent of Ronald Reagan.  But he beat them back by standing on principle - a decision that inspired millions of so-called "Reagan Democrats" to abandon their party and give him two electoral landslides. 

I believe the same thing can happen today.  The opportunity is ripe.  There are Democrats throughout the country who disagree with their party's leftward lunge.  They only need someone to offer them something besides accommodation and compromise with the forces who have corrupted their party.  Just as Reagan lifted us from the stagflation and misery index of the 70s, a new leader who stands on the principles of our founding fathers and a commitment to shrink the size of government can save us from a future of debt-induced slavery and economic ruin. 

How can this happen?  The Tea Party movement is a good start.  The grass roots have to drag the Republican Party (even if it's kicking and screaming) toward conservatism and libertarian principles.  I know this can happen because it's already happening.  Obama's spending and socialist agenda have awakened a sleeping giant - and politicians who won't ride the wave of a huge popular uprising will be swept away.  New candidates are emerging who understand the sentiments and the principles behind the protests and the activism.  They deserve our support. 

It is easier to change a political party that already exists than it is to create a new one.  We can change the GOP and use it launch our dreams RIGHT NOW.  We only have to seize it.  Building a third party, on the other hand, is a fool's errand that will take years to realize and doom entire generations to declining standards of living and insurmountable debt.  Worse yet, the light of freedom will be extinguished by the soft tyranny of a nanny state with a controlling interest in the minutiae of everyday life, dictating everything from the medical care we receive, the cars we should drive, and the amount we are allowed to earn. No one deserves that - not even the people who put the current administration into office.

Continuing my series, here are a few additional steps that can be taken to restore our Constitution and ensure that government works for the people - short of radical overhauls and amendments.

8. Bust the Unions for Federal Workers
Actually, let's bust the unions for all government employees, whether they work for the feds, states, or municipalities.  I know it's ironic to post this on Labor Day, but unionized government workers is the essence of corruption.  Why?  Because unions representing government workers siphon money from the taxpayer in the form of dues from their members.  These dues are then used to fund political campaigns for candidates who then have an interest in making government grow and creating more bureaucracy to fund more union dues, and thus more contributions to...you guessed it, politicians.  Meanwhile, the taxpayer gets the shaft through footing the bill for additional government spending, increased regulations and red tape, less freedom, and higher taxes to fund war chests for politicians and union bosses, who make government more expensive.  Union dues for government workers amounts to a hidden tax on American citizens to maintain the status quo and entrench political interests that have little - if anything - to do with the welfare of the nation.  It has to stop.

9. Defund Political Activist Groups
Every year, the federal government spends hundreds of millions funding groups like Acorn and their ilk who mask partisan political agendas under the guise of "community outreach" and "charity."  Even worse, these groups engage in voter registration fraud, intimidation tactics, and lawsuits against private enterprise that cost the private sector investment capital and jobs.  From Acorn to the radical environmentalist lobby, the government should not be in the business of funding partisan political activity.  Period.

10. End Gerrymandered Voting Districts
Congressional voting districts should guarantee equal representation for all citizens in Congress, nothing more.  Currently, our gerrymandered voting districts are specifically designed to guarantee job security for incumbents and tilt the playing field in each district toward one political party at the expense of the other.  It's no wonder so many Americans feel alienated from their government - district maps are drawn in such a way as to isolate members of Congress from any accountability toward the people they supposedly represent.  Congressional voting districts should be drawn without regard to race, income levels, or any other demographic criteria.  Equal representation is supposed to favor the voters, not the politicians. 

Just a quick break in my series about restoring the Constitution to address something that keeps cropping up in the media - and even on Facebook pages and Tweets across the nation.  With increasing frequency, the left accuses anyone who opposes Obama's socialist agenda of being racist.  According to them, everyone from the tea party protesters to the senior citizens who attend town halls to voice opposition to Obamacare are motivated by one thing: they are secret racists who hate Obama and the far left agenda because of one thing: the President is a black man.

REALLY?  Obama's approval ratings are at 43% and falling more every day.  At this point, he has lost self-described independents, and even voters under 30 who put him over the top in the 2008 election.  Anyone making the argument that all of these people are suddenly racist has the intellectual depth of a plastic kiddie pool from Wal-Mart.  Such people are absolutely and totally intellectually bankrupt and incapable of making a coherent or logical argument in support of Obama's policies or his job performance so far. 

It doesn't take a racist to oppose a multi-trillion dollar health care plan when Obama has already increased the federal debt more than all previous Presidents combined.  It doesn't take a racist to oppose $800 billion stimulus packages that don't work or government takeovers of everything from the financial sector to the car industry.  It doesn't take a racist to oppose a cap and trade bill that drive millions of jobs overseas, hamstrings the ability of American business to compete internationally, gives billions in lucrative contracts to Obama campaign contributors such as General Electric, while doing nothing to decrease global CO2 emissions.  It doesn't take a racist to oppose fascist-style enemies lists or attempts to shut down opposing viewpoints on the radio.  And it doesn't take a racist to question the motives behind a Presidential address to school children when the course materials originally included class projects for children to think of four ways they can "help the President." 

Excuse me, but I don't want my daughter thinking about ways she can help Obama turn the United States into a cross between the Weimar Republic and Hugo Chavez's Venezuela.

If Obama doesn't change course soon, it will be cold comfort in 2010 and 2012 for his supporters to claim election results are the result of racism in the electorate.  Maybe seeing racism behind every tree is easier than admitting Obama was elected because he masqueraded as a moderate who would put an end to partisan-politics as usual.  Maybe that's easier than admitting that Obama is losing support because he governs as a radical left-wing extremist in a country that remains center-right.  For the far left, anything is better than facing reality - so get used to temper tantrums, name-calling, and crying from die-hard Obama supporters all over the country.  If anyone has told them these kinds of tactics only serve to drive more voters away, they aren't listening.

Meanwhile, I'm really encouraged by the resurgence of libertarians and conservatives all over the country.  Maybe it took an Obama to get us all motivated.  That portends great things for the future.  We just have to get through another three and half years of the worst President in history this side of Jimmy Carter.

My last blog entry covered suggestions to reign in federal taxes and spending.  This one goes after the politicians themselves, removing power from elected officials, political parties, special interests, and all organizations that stand in the way of Congress and the President working for the people instead of themselves.

3.  Term limits
This one has been a rallying cry of reformers for years.  Unfortunately, it can't be done legislatively, so it will take a constitutional amendment.  The President is already limited to two terms.  I see no reason why representatives and senators in Congress should be exempt.  The founders never intended elected officials to hold office like popes and emperors until they die or voluntarily retired.  Ted Kennedy held his Senate seat for 47 years.  That is far too long.  I suggest that what's good for the President is good for Congress.  Two terms and they're out.

4. Campaign Finance Reform
No, not the pseudo-reform of McCain/Feingold, which was really all about setting the power of elected officials in concrete and making it more difficult for challengers to successfully oust them from office.  I'm talking about requiring all campaign contributions to derive from individuals, not organizations.  No more PACs, 527s, or donations from organizations like the NEA, NRA, Planned Parenthood, trial lawyers, AFL-CIO, SIEU, or any other special interest group with an axe to grind.  In addition, all campaign contributions must be made from individuals within the district or state the office seeker is running from.  No more campaigns like that of Chris Dodd, who relies on out-of-state donations because he  can't successfully raise enough money to mount a campaign from within his own state.

5. Political Parties
Speaking of campaign finance reform, let's hit the political parties, too.  George Washington warned us about factions.  Unfortunately, we didn't follow his advice.  Politicians often vote against the best interests of their own constituents due to petty partisanship and pressure from party leaders, who threaten to withhold campaign money for crucial votes.  Congress has turned into a political game of oneupsmanship, finger-pointing, and rank hypocrisy where the good of the country gets lost in the shuffle.  I submit that we should forbid political parties from raising money, distributing funds to candidates, or purchasing political advertisements of any sort.  If candidates wish to affiliate themselves with a political party, that's fine - but they shouldn't get campaign money for doing so.  Political parties should be a loose affiliation of people with similar philosophies - not an industry unto themselves.

6. Repeal the 17th Amendment
This is the amendment that made senators elected officials.  The Senate was originally intended to counter-balance the House and provide a forum for states to have direct representation in Congress.  Today, the Senate is just one more forum for political hacks and opportunists who seek to accumulate power and influence at everyone else's expense.  Change it back to the founders' original intent, and make senators appointed by the governors and/or state legislatures they represent.

7. Eliminate Lifetime Appointments for Judges
Yes, we can impeach federal judges for misconduct, but what if they habitually make unconstitutional decisions, legislate from the bench, and seek to impose partisan political philosophies on the country as a whole?  A ten year term would provide a good way to toss out the bad apples and provide an incentive for judges to perform their duties with respect (not contempt) for the Constitution and the judiciary's limited role in government.

Once again, I'm out of time.
My next entry will contain even more suggestions to decentralize power in Washington and return our system of government to true federalism as the founders intended.

Larry Sabato, a professor at the University of Virginia, recently published a book called A More Perfect Constitution containing 23 proposed revisions to the US Constitution.  Unfortunately, some of his proposals (such as giving big states additional seats in the Senate) would have the effect of expanding government power by watering down the checks and balances the founders placed in the system.  Other proposals, such as tinkering with the Electoral College, address perceived problems that were intentionally built into the framework of government to prevent the tyranny direct democracy permits through majority rule.

I do not believe we need a wholesale restructuring of the Constitution.  Indeed, many of the problems we face today - the expansion of government and the disintegration of federalism and individual liberty - can be laid at the door of legislators and courts who intentionally misinterpret our founding documents in the name of a "living, breathing Constitution" that adapts to changing circumstances.  It is akin to playing poker with an ever-changing rulebook that always favors the house.

Unlike economics, our freedom and liberty is a zero sum game.  When government power increases, personal liberty decreases.  One side of the equation takes from the other, always.  The centralization of power in Washington grows through wealth confiscation and regulation of the private sector.  When government expands, it does so by eroding our personal freedom.  To that extent, Americans today are less free than at any time in history since the original thirteen colonies were ruled by King George III of England.  In fact, because of the domination of corporate and special interests in the White House and Congress, Americans are probably less free than the colonists who took up arms against their oppressors.

In this spirit, I am offering my own proposals to return American to the people, where all political power should reside.  This is not a radical reorganization of the Constitution, although some of these proposals will require amendments - mainly to overturn faulty federal court rulings that helped get us into this mess - and to prevent politicians from gradually centralizing power in Washington all over again.  If it seems to anyone reading these proposals that I am systematically stripping power from the federal government, congratulations!  That is exactly what I want to do.

1.  Repeal the 16th Amendment.
The 16h Amendment reads: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
The power to tax is the power to control.  When the federal government can withhold income, it takes unto itself the power to control how much we earn and reduces us to living on whatever Congress allows us to have.  The founders never intended for Americans to live at the pleasure of government officials.  We earn the money, and government has no right to take it from us as a condition for earning a living.  Instead, the federal government should rely on tariffs, duties, and consumption taxes to fund constitutionally enumerated powers (and constitutionally enumerated powers only) so Americans have maximum economic freedom and personal property rights - and control over how much they pay in taxes by making informed decisions on how they spend the money they earn.

2. New amendment - all money spent by Congress must be specifically tied to an enumerated power in Article I, Section 8.
OK, I'll admit it: I stole this one from Ron Paul.  Article I, Section 8 (link HERE) lists all powers vested in Congress.  A quick perusal of the text will reveal it contains no provisions for such items as welfare programs, Social Security, or environmental regulations.  These programs were created through intentionally disingenuous interpretations of the Interstate Commerce and General Welfare clauses, which would be further defined in this new amendment to line up with the original (and common sense) interpretations intended by the founders.  This would finally give the 10th Amendment teeth and guarantee that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

That's all I have time for today.  Future entries will list even more (and believe me, I have barely gotten started).

How can anyone read the Wall Street Journal article I posted on Facebook yesterday without feeling an overwhelming sensation of outrage?   It was bad enough when President Obama lied to us about the likely federal deficit over the next ten years so he could cram through massive new government spending, but who knew the (much higher) estimates from the Congressional Budget Office was based on fantasies a five year-old could see through?  Anyone who expects the current Congress to hold federal spending increases to the inflation rate is probably the kind of person who expects a rich, unknown relative might leave them a multi-million dollar inheritance at any moment.  Either that, or such a person is a purposefully disingenuous flim-flam artist who places more importance on spending taxpayer dollars than behaving responsibly with the public trust. 

To make matters worse, the CBO estimates also factor in other unpleasant expectations, such as massive tax increases that will stifle economic growth, send jobs overseas, and make it more difficult for taxpayers to provide for themselves and their families.  The interest alone is staggering.  Throw in entitlement spending on Social Security and Medicare, and there is hardly any tax revenue available for anything else.  We have debt and red ink as far as the eye can see.

Every American should be outraged.  Not only is this debt massive beyond comprehension, here is what every dollar of debt represents:

• it is a dollar that will NOT be used to make the economy grow
• it is a dollar that will NOT be invested by individuals, small businesses, or private sector corporations
• it is a dollar will NOT be used to create jobs
• it is a dollar that will NOT be used to feed or clothe anyone
• it is a dollar that will NOT be available to the people who earned it (ie, you, your children, and your grandchildren)
• it is a dollar that future generations will be obligated to pay in taxes

Instead of being born into a land of endless opportunity , future generations will be born into a land of servitude and slavery.  They will shoulder a massive burden to pay for our excesses.  They are saddled with debt from the moment they are born by politicians who cynically buy your votes by spending money on government programs and entitlements of questionable constitutionality - just so they can empower themselves at the expense of our country's future.  They are saddled with debt by selfish voters who want the government to make life easy - to remove as many of life's responsibilities and struggles as possible.  They are saddled with debt by people who care only about themselves - people who want to feel good about being generous toward the less fortunate with other people's money.

There are always partisans who will defend the indefensible - but I don't care about who runs up the debt.  It is inexcusable no matter which party is in charge.  The only difference now is the degree to which Obama and his band of economic idiots have upped the ante, piling up debt at a faster rate than ALL previous Presidents combined.

Tax revenue is not the problem.  Tax revenues soared after the tax cuts enacted by Presidents Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush.  Tax cuts lead to an increase in activity in the private sector, economic growth, and more earnings the federal government can tax.  It works every time.  Spending is the problem.  The growth of government is the problem.  The establishment of an Entitlement State is the problem.  The disintegration of federalism is the problem.  Any politician who refuses to own up to these FACTS should be ridden out of office on a rail.

As bad as things are, they will get a lot worse in the future.  Today's massive trillion dollar budgets guarantee it.  Our children will not enjoy the prosperity we have today or anything like it.  Eventually, the credit card reaches its limit.  Our kids will pay for the "change we can believe in" with the loss of their financial security.  Maybe we should leave them some of that Hope Obama was always carrying on about.  I have a feeling it will be in short supply

I have always been a big Billy Joel fan.  The other day, I heard "Angry Young Man" on the radio:

There's a place in the world for the angry young man
With his working class ties and his radical plans
He refuses to bend, he refuses to crawl,
He's always at home with his back to the wall.
He's proud of his scars and the battles he's lost,
And he struggles and bleeds as he hangs on the cross-
And he likes to be known as the angry young man.

At 40, I'm a little too old to be considered young, but I'm far from being the angry old man at the end of the song.  Even so, the lyrics made me think about how I feel increasingly alienated from Washington and both major political parties.  Under Bush, Republicans spent like drunken sailors.  As bad as that was, it was still light years better than Obama and the Democrats, who seem intent on destroying even the smallest possibility that our children might enjoy a higher standard of living than their parents did by remaking America into a third world banana republic run by corporations, union thugs, and big government bureaucrats.

Liberals (or "progressives" as they like to be called) portray themselves as populists, defenders of civil liberties, and spokespeople for the common man.  In truth, they are anything but.  They advocate an ever-growing federal government with centralized control over everything.  The current health care debate is a good case in point.  If the real goal were to insure the uninsured, the government could simply purchase health insurance policies for the uninsured for a fraction of the cost.  If the goal were to lower health care costs, they could do so dramatically with tort reform and lifting restrictions on consumers shopping for insurance across state lines - without spending a dime of taxpayer money.  Instead, Obama and Congressional Democrats propose a multi-trillion dollar bill involving increased regulations on health care providers, a public plan that will drive private insurance out of business, and a massive bureaucracy to control everything from how much doctors are paid to the medical care individuals are entitled to receive. 

The real goal isn't to provide health insurance to those who need it.  It isn't even to reduce cost.  The real goal is centralizing power in Washington through the elimination and/or control of private sector alternatives.  The same could be said for a myriad of Big Government programs, including (but not limited to) Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Cap and Trade, corporate bailouts, and the government takeover of GM.

Isn't it ironic that the modern liberal movement grew out of the Woodstock "power to the people" generation of the 60s?  Then, it was all about fighting "The Man."  Today, it is all about giving power and control to The Man in order to artificially create uniformity of economic circumstance, outcome, and opportunity in the name of "fairness."  It is about eliminating economic choice, forcing compliance with Washington rules, confiscating wealth, and distributing political favors. 

Believe me, it is no coincidence that all the fascist movements of the twentieth century had socialism and "progressivism" at their core.  From Nazi Germany to Mussolini's Italy, and even Stalinist Russia - the common thread was the enforcement of socialist progressive rule through an unprecedented control over people's lives.  Those who resisted were imprisoned or killed.  Centralized power is dictatorial by its very nature.  It requires control and suppression - and freedom is the price it exacts on the people it rules.

I am not saying America is in danger of becoming a fascist state anytime soon.  Modern American progressives are not imprisoning or killing anyone.  They are content with smearing people's reputations, demonizing their opponents, and sending goon squads from Acorn and the labor unions to bully and intimidate those who oppose their policies and dare to say so out loud.  The American people are perfectly capable of throwing the current crop of corrupt power mongers out of office, and I am certain they will take advantage of their first opportunity in 2010.

These days, the true rebels who promote power to the people are libertarians and conservatives who want to reign in government power and return America to its constitutional roots.  Those of us who understand that the Grand Experiment of the founding fathers was individual liberty and restrictions on government as a necessary evil are the true revolutionaries and defenders of the common man.  We understand that government does not provide prosperity - it acts as an impediment and a stumbling block to people achieving their dreams for themselves and their families.  It is a profound insult to watch liberals and progressives on the left (whether they be Democrat or Republican) masquerade as populists.  They are only interested in power, control, and entitlement - and they aren't even farsighted enough to realize that the power they so eagerly accumulate and centralize can be put to use by their opponents when the tides of political fortune change. 

Which brings me back to "Angry Young Man" by Billy Joel.  You are damned right I'm angry - and maybe I'm pointlessly flailing away on a cross by dwelling on all of this.  Then again, I think of America's founding fathers and the hardships they endured to fight for what they believed in - to make a better world for their children.  For many years, generations of Americans justified that faith by making the US the preeminent force on Earth for individual rights and human dignity.  Of late, politicians from Woodrow Wilson to Barack Obama have talked us into ceding freedom to the federal government for security and comfort.- forgetting Benjamin Franklin's admonition that those who sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither.  If I have to rail against the entire country and shake my fists at the heavens, so be it.  This country, its people, and the vision of our founders are things worth fighting for.  If that makes me an Angry Young Man (or even worse, a crank), then so be it. 

In coming updates, I will have specific suggestions on what we need to do to take our country back from those who would gather power unto themselves.  Some of these suggestions have been made by others - many are wholly my own.  Right now, it may seem unlikely that these things will be enacted.  In fact, many of them never will be.  But a dialogue has to start somewhere - and what seems impossible today is often reality tomorrow - so you never know.

The US tax code is a train wreck.  It clocks in at over 60,000 pages, and Americans spend more than $200 billion every year simply to comply with its complex mazework of stipulations and requirements.  Entire industries of accountants, lawyers, and software programmers exist simply to help individuals and corporations pay their "fair share" to Uncle Sam on April 15, a date I'm sure aspirin manufacturers anticipate with joy.

It wasn't always like this.  The first peacetime income tax levied by Congress after the Civil War featured a flat 4% rate.  Since the ratification of the 16th Amendment, the income tax has become ever more complex, riddled with six tax brackets each higher than the last.  The progressive nature of these rates impedes economic growth by taking capital from businesses and corporations that could be used to expand and create jobs, but are instead siphoned off to feed Washington's ever-increasing appetite for other people's money.  America's corporate tax rate is among the highest in the world, punishing profits at a rate up to 38%.  President Obama proposes to raise this further, even as our competitors lower their rates - which will make America an even less attractive place to do business and drive more jobs overseas, many permanently. 

The federal government's progressive tax rates are a result of generations of class warfare, but a close examination gives the lie to popular myths about the middle class crunch - how middle income Americans pay most of the taxes while the rich get off scott-free.  According to IRS figures from 2005, the top 5% of wage earners paid more than half of all income tax revenue in 2003.  The top 50% of earners, taken together, accounted for over 96% of all income taxes paid, while the bottom 50% make up the difference - a paltry 3.46%.  While some may find such rates fair, consider that many in the top 5% are small businesses - the engine of job growth in our economy. 

The truly insidious nature of the tax code, however, lies in its use as a weapon.  Government, in its infinite wisdom, uses the tax code to blackmail taxpayers into behaving in certain ways through tax credits and deductions - handy tools for bypassing the Constitution and grabbing power the Founders never intended government to have.  Whether it is hybrid cars or solar panels, tax credits not only distort the free market by persuading people to make economic decisions that would otherwise make no sense, but they add complexity to the tax code and provide fodder for accountants and lawyers to find all the loopholes.  Even worse, the tax code is a prime tool for political corruption as politicians carve out special favors and tax breaks for cronies and campaign contributors.  Greasing the right palm can save millions of dollars in taxes for the special friends of a politician, a break the average American will never get.

I know, I know - everything I have written is pretty standard stuff, and others have said it more eloquently than I can.  But what can we do about it?  How can we make the tax code simpler and easier to understand while freeing our economy to do what it does best - innovate, grow, and create jobs? 

I can remember calls to simplify the tax code as far back as the Reagan administration.  Politicians such as Steve Forbes have proposed flat tax rates so Americans could file their taxes on a form no larger than a postcard.  America rejected Forbes' proposal, but other countries listened.  Russia and other countries of Eastern Europe experienced significant economic growth after implementing flat tax schemes.  Why shouldn't America follow suit and institute a flat tax? 

Because we can't trust Washington, that's why.  Over time, a flat tax would be subject to the same pressures that created the current quagmire as politicians engage in class warfare and wax eloquently about the inherent "unfairness" of a flat rate that applies to the rich and poor alike.  Sooner or later, a crisis would come along to serve as a justification for credits and deductions to alter the economic behavior of Americans by rewarding decisions government likes (putting solar panels on your home, for example) and punishing decisions it doesn't lke (buying a Hummer instead of a Yugo).  In addition, politicians, eager to maintain a death grip on elective office, would find the temptation to write exemptions and credits as favors to campaign contributors irresistible - and they would even exempt themselves from taxes paid by ordinary Americans.  Before long, we would be right back where we started - with another tax code that requires legions of lawyers and accountants to decipher.

I propose something much simpler than that - eliminate the income tax and create a national sales tax.  It would take power away from Washington and put it back in the hands of consumers - back in the hands of ordinary Americans.   The very nature of a sales tax would make it less friendly for politicians seeking to raise rates or grant favors because it is transparent - everyone knows the rate up front.  It makes good economic sense, too.  A sales tax would encourage savings and investment to spur economic growth while simultaneously putting a tighter reign on government spending.  When voters ask politicians, "How will you pay for this?" the question will take on a whole new meaning.  Neither would anyone have to worry about others not paying their share.  Rest assured that the guy who bought the expensive yacht paid through the nose for it in taxes.  Big spenders would pay exorbitant amounts of taxes, while people who live more modestly pay less.

Imagine setting the vast resources expended on our current tax code set free for investment and consumer spending.  Imagine how much easier it would be to live on a paycheck devoid of tax withdrawals - even with the cost of a sales tax added in.  Imagine the empowerment voters would feel when their take home pay is based on the work they do, not on the arbitrary whim of politicians in Washington deciding how much of their own earnings they are entitled to.

For this to work, it has to be a literal sales tax - a tax added on when goods and services are purchased.  Don't fall for European-style "value added taxes" (or VATs).  These are added to the price of products before purchase, and are subject to the same kinds of government games as the income tax.  They are free to raise it, grant exemptions, and do whatever they want, all without the consumer being aware at the point of purchase because it is simply added into the final price.  The VAT is a welcome mat for more government corruption and centralized control.  A sales tax is the only way to go - because it holds government's feet to the fire.  Politicians who seek to raise it or grant special favors will face the judgment of voters on election day.

Of course, I know the current system is entrenched.  Not only do politicians have a vested interest in maintaining the current system, but a lot of special interests depend on the complexity of the tax code for their very survival.  However, the movement to take power back from Washington and put it back in the hands of the people and the states has begun.  It may take years to get there, but it can happen if enough people are determined to make it happen.

With our current president's reckless spending, the day may come sooner than we think.

It is obvious to even the most casual of observers that our country is dangerously off track.  From the credit crisis and the recession, to the anger and unrest at town hall meetings, and the accompanying finger-pointing and blame, the fabric of our nation as we have known it is coming apart at the seems.  

To be sure, the US has weathered crisis before.  We emerged from the Civil War, the Great Depression, and two world wars – events that put the very existence of our nation at stake.  However, the issues we face today are but symptoms of a larger problem, the scope of which renders petty partisan bickering to little more than whistling past the graveyard.  The root problem beneath it all threatens our future prosperity, the security of our children, and freedom of generations unborn: government spending.

In little more than a month, the federal government will be over $12 trillion in debt.  To put this in perspective, a trillion dollars is a million times a million.  To visualize it, consider that a dollar bill is 0.0043” thick.  Twelve trillion dollar bills would make a stack 814,394 miles high.  To put that in even better perspective, the moon’s average distance from the Earth is only 238,897 miles.  This stack of bills stretching past the moon would weigh an astounding 26.4 billion pounds.  

To put it in monetary terms: last year, the government estimated tax receipts in 2009 would be $2.7 trillion, less than a quarter of the total debt.  In addition, the 2009 federal budget includes nearly $2 trillion in “mandatory” spending on programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.  That leaves approximately $700 billion (only a quarter of the total) for discretionary spending on items like national defense and education.  

This is the end result of Washington refusing to live within its means.  It spends far more than it takes in, borrows to make up the difference, and runs deficits that put us further and further into the hole.  It has come to be the status quo – business as usual.  However, as we all know, these are extraordinary times.  To Washington, that means extraordinary debt.  President Obama and the majority leadership in Congress think they can spend their way out of a recession, so they are doing so with reckless abandon, running up more debt than all previous administrations combined.  On March 20, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimated the deficit for 2009 alone will be over $1.85 trillion.

What does this mean to you?  Simply put, this is the road to financial ruin.  Interest payments alone will be enough to severely hamstring our economy, consuming more and more of our GDP and ever larger shares of the annual budget.  To manage the debt, the Federal Reserve is monetizing it – printing more money to ease credit – which will lead to either hyper-inflation or significantly higher interest rates as the Fed moves to soak up the excess liquidity.  

Worst of all, our financial security will be firmly in the hands of countries like China, who do not necessarily have our best interests at heart (and that’s putting it mildly).  Meanwhile, governments around the world are losing confidence in the dollar.  We are saddling future generations of Americans with a debt they will never be able to pay, fueled by massive entitlements like Social Security and Medicare that gobble up 75% of all tax receipts.  That percentage will only get worse in the future, causing ever higher deficits to maintain current spending levels, never mind increases in discretionary spending that are built into the system through the government’s base-line budgeting process.

All of this means we no longer have the luxury of apathy when it comes to politics.  We can’t just go along as usual and assume that people in Washington know what they are doing and that everything will work out in the end.  The scale of the problem is too big.  None other than Obama himself says these levels of debt are unsustainable.  Unfortunately, there is a vast difference between what he says and what he does.  CBO projections show that he will pile up an additional $9.27 trillion in debt between 2010 and 2019 – and that doesn’t even include the massive health care and tax and cap schemes he is currently pushing through Congress.

Fixing the debt problem will require a massive paradigm shift not only in Washington, but in America itself.  With a government this big and out of control, can we finally admit what the Founding Fathers knew all along?  Government itself is the problem.  It’s not the solution.  Our only hope lies in limited government, and that means drastically scaling back what we expect government to do for us and what its real and vital responsibilities actually are.

I’m not sure this kind of change in people’s attitudes is possible without the massive financial collapse our leaders in Washington have set in motion.  Nor will it be easy to persuade politicians to give up central control to states, local governments, and individuals.  Big government means power, and to most politicians in Washington, acquiring and maintaining power is an end unto itself.   To that end, Congressmen use the tax code and the budget to dispense favors to lobbyists, campaign contributors, and corporations, while they bribe voters with handouts and wealth transfers.  Meanwhile, the good of the country is of secondary concern.  At most, the common good is a convenient rationale to fool unsuspecting voters into supporting their newest power-grabbing schemes.  

It is time to recognize how truly corrupt our government has become.  More than that, it is time to forget about ourselves and think about our children and the future of our country.  We can survive without a huge central government redistributing wealth from on high.  We have done it before.  Americans can take responsibility not only for themselves and their families, but for their communities, neighborhoods, towns, and cities – and local responsibility will lead to more people getting involved, not less.  It means forcing Washington to live by the Constitution and exercise only those powers explicitly enumerated to Congress.  

This will not lead to homeless people dying of starvation on the streets.  It will not lead to senior citizens being cast out of their homes en masse.  It will lead to better, more efficient programs for those who need help.  We can have stronger safety nets for those who need them because those making the decisions will know what their communities need and what they don’t.  It will lead to market-based solutions that are more efficient and responsive to people’s needs.

Government can’t fix all our problems, but the American people can. 
We merely need the will to do it.