NJ Flood Damage, Inflation, National Debt and Politicians

From this morning's edition of American Thinker:

Hurricane damages and the national debt

Lee DeCovnick

The headline from philly.com boldly proclaimed, "Christie pegs New Jersey's Sandy damage at $29.4 billion."  The article went on to explain: 

"Gov. Christie estimates that Sandy cost New Jersey $29.4 billion in damage and economic losses, from washed-out roadways and waterlogged homes to manning storm shelters.

"This preliminary number is based on the best available data, field observations, and geographical mapping," Christie said in a statement released Friday evening. "I will spare no effort and waste no time to rebuild and restore our tourism industry, our transportation and utilities infrastructure, and the lives of our citizens for the long term."

$29.4 billion is a supertanker load of money, especially when we consider the amount of damage Sandy caused in the space of just a couple of days. But fear not, Governor, that much money is just a drop in a fifty-five gallon drum when it comes to Federal spending.

Let's look at the rampaging increases in our national debt since the election, according to the US Treasury. On November 14^th, 2012 our national debt was $16.244 trillion. Twenty-four hours later the national debt stood at $16.278 trillion.  This increase of over $34 billion dollars in a single day could easily pay for the rebuilding of thousands of houses, plus billions more for transportation, electrical and water infrastructure mitigation for the entire state of New Jersey.

New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia, Maryland are hungrily anticipating having all their "Sandy costs" reimbursed for less than weeks' worth of Federal borrowing.  No doubt these state's congressional delegations are itching to get paws on all this "free" money. After all the current Administration's unspoken policy assumes our children and grandchildren will inherit this mountain range of debt.  Why else would the US Treasury borrow $34 billion dollars a in a single day unless they never actually planned to pay it back?

* * *

The article caught my attention because it helps to put into perspective what we are up against as a nation. It would be naive to assert we got here solely because of Barack Obama. The reason there was such a steady drumbeat about the fact that it was all GWB's fault is because that line tested so well among focus groups. Americans in the majority actually believe the financial condition of this nation is the fault of the previous administration. Even that is simplistic.

We got here over the course of almost a century of slowly boiling in our own juices. As the water temperature has slowly climbed we are now at the point of peril - socialism has fouled the pistons of the engine of free enterprise, and all that remains is determining whether or not we can clear the mechanisms to once again be profitable.

Economists are still divided. "The dark science" of economics instructs some practitioners that the traditional Keynesian response - borrow to create stimulus - is still working and must be employed again and again until the economy jump starts. We are borrowing 40 cents of every dollar the federal government is spending. Does that sound like a taxation problem or a spending problem to you? Others worry that the growth potential of the GDP may never again rise above 1.5 percent annually, where historically it has averaged 4 percent growth per year. All our problems go away if the growth engine gets revved up again and we grow our way out of debt. Every year that goes by now sees just the opposite result. Instead of a proven winner at the throttles, Mitt Romney, we settled for a rank amateur with absolutely no economic track record except his last four years. God help us all with that choice, because we will need all the help we can get.

The idea that politicians may actually be thinking to themselves that there will never be a day of reckoning on the national debt, that we will never have to pay back the national debt now held by our own Treasury, is the only logical conclusion one can draw from their dithering and lack of willingness to address the obvious issues before us as a nation. Instead of curbing spending they are poised once again to do what Congress always does best when they get in a bind - increase taxes, and not just by closing loopholes for deductions. Now they are discussing increasing tax rates on the wealthy, defined as those making more than $250,000 per year.

I have had discussions with those who supported Barack Obama. Stupidly, they will tell me, "A tax increase on the wealthy doesn't really affect me, so what's the big deal?" What they are not being told is a whopping tax increase is coming their way too. The truth is THAT tax increase has already arrived - I call it the "economy tax" in the form of inflation. It's the cruelest tax of all, but it is felt most acutely by those who are struggling the most in this economy. A liberal friend of mine tried to convince me there was no inflation except on things like gasoline and food, where he had noticed an increase in prices but asserted, "Other than those two areas there doesn't seem to be any inflation." Ask yourselves, are there any two areas that affect the average American citizen more than food and gasoline? My biggest concern for folks who talk this way is they don't even recognize the water temperature in the pot has reached boiling. There is no sense of urgency and a willingness to sustain the status quo. I would maintain the status quo is unsustainable.

There are many who argue every day in cyberspace that we have already gone over the fiscal cliff and there is no way back from that reality. Perhaps they are right. Unless another midnight madness deal of some kind is hammered out in Washington to avert it, taxes will increase dramatically across the board on January 1, 2013. Payroll tax withholdings will return to their normal level, meaning an increase in each paycheck of 2 percent, reducing take home pay for all wage earners. The dreaded AMT will be re-introduced to lower-level taxpayers. Tax credits for students will be eliminated. Taxes on Obamacare will begin to take effect on employers who fail to provide health insurance for their employees. Income tax rates on the small business owners whose incomes exceed $250,000 (families) and $200,000 (individuals) will increase. And let's not forget the estate tax, or "death tax," will automatically reset in 2013. Estates valued at $5 million or more which are now taxed at 35 percent, will be taxed beginning at $1 million in value at a rate of 55 percent.

This is just a partial list of horribles that awaits us if Congress fails to act. The last time around in its infinite brilliance, Congress agree on something no one had ever heard of before - "sequestration." The idea was they would put a bicameral super committee from both houses together in a room to work out the details of who, what and how everything in America would be taxed to avoid default on the national debt. Failing to come up with a solution would mean automatic drastic cuts in military spending and other programs would begin to take effect. In it all there has never been one serious proposal, except those put forward by Congressman Paul Ryan, to reduce spending in the automatic payments generated by Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and now Obamacare. THAT's where all the big spending is happening, but absolutely no serious proposals to adjust them have been advanced, except by one man - Paul Ryan.

The political wisdom has always been to leave the social spending programs alone. Americans love their entitlements. It would be political suicide to begin even tinkering around the edges, much less threatening to begin gutting them. Spending on entitlements, it is argued by their proponents, has a stimulative effect and they are providing for the social welfare of our citizens. So goes the line of reasoning that put Barack Obama back in the White House for another four years. Unless this administration can somehow "see the light" and begin working to constructively address these critical needs with Congress, we will continue to see our credit worthiness as a nation deteriorate.

Addressing these pressing fiscal issues, of course, presumes that Congress and the White House are in agreement that the national debt needs addressing and that we are running out of time. If they are thinking, as the author cited above, Lee DeCovnick, suspects, we may have entered the twilight zone where no one in Washington actually believes they must be making plans to pay it all back.

The fact that our borrowing rates as a nation are so low and interest on the national debt is so "cheap" (ONLY $34 Billion per day), what we may see in upcoming weeks from the lame duck session of the 112th Congress is nothing more than another joint press conference announcing yet another historic bipartisan agreement for continuation of the status quo.

And that would be yet another signal there are no adults working on the problems we face.

Control of the Senate is Paramount

Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney

There are a number of reasons to stay focused on the race for the White House. We all know what the past four years has meant to the dilution of freedom and prosperity. We cannot afford the lack of leadership coming from President Barack Obama for another four years. It is imperative that we unite behind Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan to have any chance to change the trajectory of the future of America. The current course is not only unsustainable, it will be unalterable and will subject us to changes that will be forced upon us not of our own making.

One key reason to elect Mitt Romney is the likelihood that Supreme Court nominations will be in order sometime during the next four-year POTUS term. The Court is aging. One or two seats on the nine-member SCOTUS will come up and the POTUS will make those nominations. The directional tilt of the court will be affected for many years to come. Let us be reminded again that the SCOTUS ruling on Obamacare last summer has put the voters front and center this November to pick their path forward on that and every other issue.

Some may recall the slogan "It's the economy, stupid" used by Bill Clinton during the 1992 presidential campaign. That campaign was trying to make the point that George H. W. Bush had not adequately addressed the economy. It was James Carville, Clinton's chief political strategist, who hung the poster inside campaign headquarters. It stuck as a defining political slogan for the whole election cycle that year. The clear message was that if Americans felt economically secure they would stick with Bush. If not, they would change course and vote their pocketbooks. Is the same going to be true this year? How can ANYONE claim success in the Obama administration for bolstering our economic outlook in the last four years?

I would assert the slogan is perhaps more meaningful in 2012, than it has ever been. We're considering letting  Barack Obama's dismal economic record continue into the future. His only appeal for re-election is that we're on the right path, we just need a little more time? PUHLEEZE! Will Obama suddenly become the world leader he promised he would be in 2008? Not likely. This election should be a no-brainer if you understand how devastating the policies (or lack of a coherent economic strategy) have been in dampening and nearly extinguishing economic hope and growth. The uncertainty has been palpable. Romney/Ryan will provide leadership in the vacuum Obama has created.

Let me suggest another aspect of how to get control back into the hands of the people - "It's the Senate, stupid." That's what Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) says, along with Senators Mike Lee (R-UT) and Rand Paul (R-KY), and I couldn't agree more. We must put in place Senators to help these three, who can instill conservative values as a majority in the United States Senate.

Here's what WON'T happen without a more conservative Senate:

We won't repeal Obamacare.
We won't balance the budget.
We won't secure our borders.
We won't stop the bailouts.
We won't enact the pro-growth policies needed to get America back to work.

We MUST change the control of the Senate and make Harry Reid the Senate MINORITY leader.

Winning the Senate is going to be a key element in restoring America. When (not if) Mitt Romney wins the presidency, he must have a conservative Senate to install his agenda to put America back to work again. The real percentage of unemployed is more like 21%. Just last month 384,000 were first time applicants for unemployment. Not counted in the Washington spin for unemployment is the number who have given up looking for work or dropped out of the job market. Congress writes the bills to enact a President's legislative wish list. To get Congress moving again there must be a majority in place in both Houses. Don't be surprised to see America finally get serious about reforms that will cut spending, balance the budget and begin attacking the deficit spending. The only way that happens is to elect people who are pledged to those outcomes.

Do you think for one minute Harry Reid will ever send a bill to the President Mitt Romney's desk to repeal Obamacare? Only a few states can affect this outcome of taking back the Senate this November. Only the voters in these states can make it happen. Eight states, eight candidates for the U.S. Senate. Here they are:

Josh Mandel (Ohio)
Ted Cruz (Texas)
Jeff Flake (Arizona)
Richard Mourdock (Indiana)
Deb Fischer (Nebraska)
George Allen (Virginia)
Tom Smith (Pennsylvania)
Dan Bongino (Maryland)

These candidates understand the critical role the U.S. Constitution plays in preserving our freedoms and they will champion, rather than ignore, those guiding principles. These candidates can walk the walk. They believe in small government and capitalism. If you know voters in these critical state Senate races, encourage them to step up and support the election of these candidates.

"Take Hardest Problem First, Best Way To Improve"

Not everything we do in life yields to our first impulse. We charge down a path, thinking we are headed toward a desirable outcome, only to find we have been wrong in our initial impressions. Even more frequently we are tempted to "sit this one out," reluctant to make the attempt to begin until the "time is right," or we feel "inspired" to move forward. Often results are achieved only after a long struggle in patience and faith.

This can be true in many of our pursuits in life. I'm thinking of young people who wait and postpone opportunities for marriage, schooling, employment or other endeavors. Often, newlyweds postpone having children until school is finished, until a home is purchased, or whatever else some feel needs to be in place before moving forward. How many of us have sat at our desk at work day-dreaming or avoiding diving into a difficult task, and manufactured excuses for putting off something we know must be done in exchange for an easier task?

Tchaikovsky (1840-1893)

Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky wrote to his benefactress, Nadezhda von Meck, dated March 17th, 1878, and found in the 1905 volume The Life & Letters of Pete Ilich Tchaikovsky (public domain):

"Do not believe those who try to persuade you that composition is only a cold exercise of the intellect. The only music capable of moving and touching us is that which flows from the depths of a composer's soul when he is stirred by inspiration. There is no doubt that even the greatest musical geniuses have sometimes worked without inspiration. This guest does not always respond to the first invitation. We must always work, and a self-respecting artist must not fold his hands on the pretext that he is not in the mood. If we wait for the mood, without endeavouring to meet it half-way, we easily become indolent and apathetic. We must be patient, and believe that inspiration will come to those who can master their disinclination.

"A few days ago I told you I was working every day without any real inspiration. Had I given way to my disinclination, undoubtedly I should have drifted into a long period of idleness. But my patience and faith did not fail me, and to-day I felt that inexplicable glow of inspiration of which I told you; thanks to which I know beforehand that whatever I write to-day will have power to make an impression, and to touch the hearts of those who hear it. I hope you will not think I am indulging in self-laudation, if I tell you that I very seldom suffer from this disinclination to work. I believe the reason for this is that I am naturally patient. I have learnt to master myself, and I am glad I have not followed in the steps of some of my Russian colleagues, who have no self-confidence and are so impatient that at the least difficulty they are ready to throw up the sponge. This is why, in spite of great gifts, they accomplish so little, and that in an amateur way."

Last night, speaking with someone on an unrelated topic, I recounted an experience I had years ago with a Japanese engineer on the golf course. We were at a business retreat on the Monterrey Peninsula at a beautiful destination resort. Many will know that the Japanese people are disproportionately passionate about the game of golf. They join expensive country clubs just to get on the links and avoid long wait times at public courses. Of course, there isn't a lot of real estate in a small country like Japan that can be allocated to expansive patches of greenery like a golf course. The demand for golf in Japan far exceeds the supply.

On this particular day I was partnered with my engineer friend from Japan in what was to be a four-man "best-ball" scramble. It's a popular format for business gatherings because it speeds play and compensates for those who are hackers. There are several variations, but generally all four players tee off and then the ball that lands in the best position is the ball the rest of the foursome plays on the second shot, and so forth.

This day, however, I was surprised when my friend stopped at the worst ball of the four first. One of our foursome was an obvious rookie at golf, and had dribbled a poor tee shot barely fifty feet off the tee. At least it was in the fairway. I said, "No, you don't understand the format, we play the best ball (which happened to be my tee shot about 275 yards up the fairway)," to which he responded, "No, it's you who does not understand. Take hardest problem first, best way to improve game."

I relented, and learned a valuable lesson from my Japanese playing partner. We came in dead last, and it took us a long time to get around the course, consistently playing the worst ball of our weakest playing partner that day. At the end, my friend turned to me and asked, "Did game improve for you today?" I thought about all the tough shots I had been forced to hit in the round, and had to admit, "Yes, we hit some pretty difficult shots today, it was an exceptional practice round." He smiled and said, "Very good, now you thinking like Japanese." He wasn't the least bit interested in who had the low score that day. What he cared about most was eliminating the "muda" from his game.

What my friend taught me that day was what Tchaikovsky had mastered. Move ahead in life even when conditions are not optimal. that's how we progress and learn - by doing the things that are not easy first.

In America we often pursue what looks easiest to us first, just the opposite of the way my engineering friend attacked a problem. We avoid the hard things for as long as we can. Of course, these are generalities and may not apply to every case, but think and ponder for a moment about what is going on in the political realm in America. What is the political class doing? They are blaming each other, refusing to work together for the best interests of America, and by postponing the work on the hard problems of our fiscal crisis, we continue to languish and atrophy as a nation, stuck in the miry clay of our anemic economic recovery. Rather than tackling the hardest problems first, what do we get out of Congress and the White House? The bare minimum of effort, and very little evidence of leadership willing to take on the really tough problems of entitlement reform, debt reduction and deficit elimination. I read the poll results this morning that only 14% (an all-time low) believe their children will be better off than they are today.

On a personal note, I have a brother who suffered a massive stroke about a month ago, following a massive heart attack last year about this time. The physicians and nurses who attended him during that first week said they had never seen a more severe bleed from a stroke than this one (three areas of the brain were affected). In emergency surgery a fourth of his skull was removed to relieve the pressure on the brain. He was intubated with a ventilator, a feeding tube and a tracheotomy to save his life. He lost all functionality on his left side which was paralyzed permanently, according to his doctors. He could not swallow, he had trouble breathing on his own, he could not speak in addition to the paralysis. His lungs were filled with the dreaded hospital-acquired MRSA super virus. For four weeks he languished, hovering between life and death, his pacemaker was turned off and we were all saying our farewells and preparing ourselves for another funeral.

And then (there is no other word), he miraculously responded when all mechanical and medical interventions to save his life were withdrawn.

He has literally been snatched back from the brink. Who knows why? Maybe it's because there's some unfinished "muda" that needs to be attacked and removed first before he can move on. That's pure speculation on my part, but seldom does deferring the muda clean-up in our lives result in long-term happy outcomes. When we leave it until the end when the stakes are much higher, it's often harder to deal with than if we had tackled it in the beginning - when it was the hardest problem back then - and we weren't particularly feeling like taking it on that day.

As a general rule, like my friend the Japanese engineer suggested, it's better to tackle the hard things first.

Political Quote of the Day

From the pen of Bill O'Reilly, writing today at Townhall:

In 2012, America is not bedeviled by inflation, but we are stuck in the economic mud. Under Obama, government spending has reached record levels, and in three years, Obama has added about 130,000 federal workers to the payroll: more than the number Reagan added in five fewer years. It is breathtaking.

And now Obama wants to jack up tax rates on the affluent all over the place. Income, capital gains and dividends all will be taxed at a significantly higher rate if Congress goes along with the president. Again, this is the exact opposite of what Reagan did.

What Obama hopes to accomplish is hard to ascertain. The feds will derive about $85 billion in extra revenue a year if the president's proposed tax hike is passed. But listen to this: The feds spend $85 billion every eight and a half days, according to the Treasury Department. Talk about putting your finger in a leaking dike.

* * *

I really have come to believe President Barack Obama must think the American people are stupid. Since they make the case even better than I ever could, consider this piece of writing from Brietbart on the broken pledges of the POTUS, not the candidate Obama, but when he was president.

CBS News is quoted in the article:


The National Debt has now increased more during President Obama's three years and two months in office than it did during 8 years of the George W. Bush presidency.
The Debt rose $4.899 trillion during the two terms of the Bush presidency. It has now gone up $4.939 trillion since President Obama took office.
The latest posting from the Bureau of Public Debt at the Treasury Department shows the National Debt now stands at $15.566 trillion. It was $10.626 trillion on President Bush's last day in office, which coincided with President Obama's first day.
The National Debt also now exceeds 100% of the nation's Gross Domestic Product, the total value of goods and services.
Mr. Obama has been quick to blame his predecessor for the soaring Debt, saying Mr. Bush paid for two wars and a Medicare prescription drug program with borrowed funds.
The federal budget sent to Congress last month by Mr. Obama, projects the National Debt would continue to rise as far as the eye can see. The budget shows the Debt hitting $16.3 trillion in 2012, $17.5 trillion in 2013 and $25.9 trillion in 2022.


This POTUS could not be more toxic than he is.

So Easy a Game Show Host Could Do It

Congress is approaching another debt crisis moment. Here's evidence it's not really as difficult as they seem to want us to believe. Making meaningful cuts in the budget is so easy even a game show host could do with the aid of his crack team of experts.



So why do we keep electing the same set of politicians? It's time to finish the job we started in 2010 and clean house until we get people who can add and subtract.

Deja Vu All Over Again

About eight years ago, when Merilee (now serving as a missionary in the Washington D.C. South Mission) had two older siblings serving missions at the same time, I wrote a letter to them and made reference to a letter I had just written for Merilee.

The date was June 28, 2004. I found it buried in the archives of DearElder.com, and as I reviewed it today it seemed timely.

Dear Sister Mel & Elder Jake:

I was thinking yesterday as I sat in Church that no one even acknowledged the 160th anniversary of the martyrdom of Joseph and Hyrum Smith in Carthage Jail. We seemed to be focused in the sacrament meeting on the upcoming July 4th weekend. I sang with the ward choir, and we performed “America the Beautiful” and “The Battle Hymn of the Republic.” It was a good program, but to let that day pass without even so much as a reference to Joseph and Hyrum’s ultimate sacrifice seemed strange to me.

I wrote a letter to Merilee (to be delivered to her this week by the “Pony Express” while they are out in the wilderness trek), and as I wrote to her to try and give her an appreciation for the sacrifice of her ancestors I was struck again with how much we have today because of those who have gone before us. I was also struck with how little we truly understand of the lives of those forefathers – how difficult it is for us to comprehend their existence!

Imagine the hardships of wagon train travel – heat and cold, wet and dry, extremes that vary so dramatically from our “controlled environmental range” that never varies that much from 70 degrees Fahrenheit. I don’t know what to make of it all, only to express gratitude that our situation today is what it is in relative ease comparatively.

I believe we are uniquely positioned in this late date in the dispensation to recognize our “time and place” circumstances. Indeed, where much is given, much is required (D&C 82:3-4; that verse 4 is especially sobering). I have struggled to keep in perspective all that we know is coming in the years ahead in these last days.

There is a lot to be happy about in what we know – that good will ultimately triumph is sufficient in so many ways. But, nevertheless, there are some bone-chilling realities that the world is going to become yet more wicked. Who are we in the midst of these realities? We are the children of light, according to my good friend Paul (see 1 Thessalonians 5):

"But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you. For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape. But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief. Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness. Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober. For they that sleep sleep in the night; and they that be drunken are drunken in the night. But let us, who are of the day, be sober, putting on the breastplate of faith and love; and for an helmet, the hope of salvation. For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ, Who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him. Wherefore comfort yourselves together, and edify one another, even as also ye do. And we beseech you, brethren, to know them which labour among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you; And to esteem them very highly in love for their work's sake. And be at peace among yourselves. Now we exhort you, brethren, warn them that are unruly, comfort the feebleminded, support the weak, be patient toward all men. See that none render evil for evil unto any man; but ever follow that which is good, both among yourselves, and to all men. Rejoice evermore. Pray without ceasing. In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you. Quench not the Spirit. Despise not prophesyings. Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. Abstain from all appearance of evil. And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. Faithful is he that calleth you, who also will do it. Brethren, pray for us. Greet all the brethren with an holy kiss. I charge you by the Lord that this epistle be read unto all the holy brethren. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen."

I’ve got to tell you, that’s about as timeless a piece of scripture as there is. It especially applies to our day.

Here’s another sobering reality that struck me again as we studied it recently in our family scripture study. It’s King Mosiah explaining to the people that he will serve as their king only until the end of his life, then admonishing them to abolish kings for these hauntingly familiar reasons in our day as we witness from the front-row seats what it takes to overthrow a wicked king in Iraq (see Mosiah 29:16-27):

"Now I say unto you, that because all men are not just it is not expedient that ye should have a king or kings to rule over you. For behold, how much iniquity doth one wicked king cause to be committed, yea, and what great destruction! Yea, remember king Noah, his wickedness and his abominations, and also the wickedness and abominations of his people. Behold what great destruction did come upon them; and also because of their iniquities they were brought into bondage. And were it not for the interposition of their all-wise Creator, and this because of their sincere repentance, they must unavoidably remain in bondage until now. But behold, he did deliver them because they did humble themselves before him; and because they cried mightily unto him he did deliver them out of bondage; and thus doth the Lord work with his power in all cases among the children of men, extending the arm of mercy towards them that put their trust in him. And behold, now I say unto you, ye cannot dethrone an iniquitous king save it be through much contention, and the shedding of much blood. For behold, he has his friends in iniquity, and he keepeth his guards about him; and he teareth up the laws of those who have reigned in righteousness before him; and he trampleth under his feet the commandments of God; And he enacteth laws, and sendeth them forth among his people, yea, laws after the manner of his own wickedness; and whosoever doth not obey his laws he causeth to be destroyed; and whosoever doth rebel against him he will send his armies against them to war, and if he can he will destroy them; and thus an unrighteous king doth pervert the ways of all righteousness. And now behold I say unto you, it is not expedient that such abominations should come upon you. Therefore, choose you by the voice of this people, judges, that ye may be judged according to the laws which have been given you by our fathers, which are correct, and which were given them by the hand of the Lord. Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law — to do your business by the voice of the people. And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land."

Once again, the prophets nearly nail our present world to the wall. Oh, let’s see – that would be because we’re dealing with an all-knowing God who reveals the future to inspired prophets who write it all down – now I remember. Despite all the evidence to the contrary right now in this political presidential season, the good news is that there is good news – it will all work out! Truth will prevail and flourish – it will even pierce through the mists of darkness. I am constantly humbled by the goodness of your lives, your desires to do good, and your ever-present ability to seek even more improvement.

I love you both,

Dad

Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and Congressional Budget Chairman Paul Ryan

Eight short years later after writing this letter, little did I suspect we would have a POTUS who is openly advocating for same-sex marriage, we have a SCOTUS debating the constitutional merits of an unpopular healthcare law not favored by the people, and we have the Catholic Church suing the federal government over its mandate forcing the Church to provide contraception through their various medical plans provided by their church-owned entities. And let's not forget $5 Trillion in new debt in just the last three years, more than at any other similar period in our history. Once again, after last year's downgrade in its credit rating, America is faced with another downgrade this year. It's deja vu all over again, according to today's Deseret Morning News editorial page.

Who says things can't deteriorate quickly? However you choose to define and quantify the phrase, "it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right," you may rest assured that Americans are increasingly aware of the loss of their liberties through the imposition of the tyrannical rule of the federal government. The slow erosion of moral values seems to be picking up momentum, and it's not so slow anymore. Much of it has come about in eight short years since we were laboring as a country in Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein from power.

Now the tables seem to have turned and we have a tyrant here in this country determined to regulate and tax everything that moves in America. We have a Senate that has not passed or even offered so much as a counter-proposal for a federal budget for over three years, though the House has sent them one for the last two years. We used to call that malfeasance in office, and now we are told it's just "good politics."

But hopefully there is a counterbalance at work also. We are witnessing a "Mormon moment" having the potential to produce nothing but more good for the economy, the institutions of government and the righteousness of the people who hear and learn more about the gospel in its fullness in these last days. One can always hope for good things to come.

There is much to remember this Memorial Day weekend. We can give thanks for those who made the ultimate sacrifice that we may have and be what we are today.

We can give thanks for the patience and long-suffering of God despite the abuse of agency by His children.

Federalism And Why It Matters To You

I've been reading a lot of American history this last year. The Federalist Papers are most revealing, along with other writings of our founders. The term "federalism" is one of those slippery terms bandied about in political rhetoric today needing a clear definition if we are to understand why it is relevant today.


Washington at Valley Forge

For forty-five years George Washington gave himself to his country. No one deserves the title "Father of Our Country," more than he. There was an overriding concern, however, that he was still fighting until the day he left office.

Throughout his presidency he was grieved by all the wrangling between the two predominant parties of his day -- the Federalists and the Republicans. He was usually successful in standing above the fray and warned against the divisions infused by the parties into the American fabric at the time, fearing dissolution of the union he had forged so diligently. Here's a sample of his effort to warn his countrymen "in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party. . . The spirit unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. . .

"The alternate domination of one faction over another sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension. . . is itself a frightful despotism. . . A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume."

We are close to that place, it would seem, where Washington's warning is near fulfillment. He suggested the antidote was morality in government. From his farewell address, we are advised:

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness - these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

One searches in vain today for such wisdom. His farewell address was not given as a speech at all. It was drafted first, then sent to his friends, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, for polishing. It was dated September 17, 1796, and subsequently printed two days later in Philadelphia's American Daily Advertiser. He offered it he said, as the parting counsel from "an old and affectionate friend."

Thomas Jefferson

As the new nation under Washington took shape two polarizing points of view emerged. Thomas Jefferson's followers called themselves Republicans. They stood for a true republic of the people. Alexander Hamilton disciples called themselves Federalists, seeking to strengthen the federal Union. Those two simple ideas are the origins of our how the country became divided into two predominant points of view on the role of the federal government. Hamilton deeply believed only a strong national government could rule effectively, and was advocating the idea the common man was incapable of self-rule. Jefferson was a strong proponent of states' rights, while Hamilton was seeking an ever-stronger central government.



Alexander Hamilton

 Before their lives were over, Jefferson and Hamilton became bitter enemies. Each accused the other of trying to destroy the country. The central idea dividing them? Hamilton had some "radical ideas" about fiscal policies. Jefferson saw the establishment of a national bank as simply a way to enrich the few money men behind it, and everything else Hamilton proposed was viewed with the same skepticism by Jefferson, who saw Hamilton's financial practices as harmful to the poor and destructive to the nation's long-term well-being.

Hamilton countered that his policies were essential to a strong national economy. He did not deny a few would be enriched, but saw that outcome as the necessary step to a thriving economy where everyone could become wealthier.

The differences ran deep, and beyond policy they became implacable personal enemies even though Washington repeatedly tried to reconcile them to each other without success. Jefferson finally resigned as Secretary of State at the end of 1793, and a year later Hamilton quit as Secretary of the Treasury.

The core issues separating these two powerful individuals then persist today. The Constitution was established to create two tiers of governing -- one at the federal level, the other at the state level. This was called "federalism," a shared role for each.

Federalism in the United States is still evolving. It attempts to define the proper relationship between state governments and the federal government. American government has evolved from a system of dual federalism to one of associative federalism. In "Federalist No. 46," James Madison asserted that the states and national government "are in fact but different agents and trustees of the people, constituted with different powers." Alexander Hamilton, writing in "Federalist No. 28," suggested that both levels of government would exercise authority to the citizens' benefit: "If their [the peoples'] rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress."

The states established the first level of governance to be formed in this country. Their pre-eminent existence, some would argue today, give them "more rights" than the specific and limited "enumerated powers" spelled out in the Constitution. These include the right to levy taxes, declare war, and regulate interstate and foreign commerce. Also, the "Necessary and Proper Clause" gives the federal government the "implied power" to pass any law "necessary and proper" for the execution of its express powers.

These arguments are the very arguments one hears today in the ongoing attempts to reform health care and other transformative issues. The core issue is shall the states or the federal government be the instrument to decide for the people? Jefferson would have argued for the states and Hamilton would have sided with the federal government.

Powers that the Constitution does not delegate to the federal government or forbid to the states, the "reserved powers," are reserved to the people or the states under the Constitution. Jefferson said, "That government that governs best is closest to the people." Over time, however, the power delegated to the federal government was significantly expanded by the Supreme Court decision in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), subsequent amendments to the Constitution following the Civil War, and by some later amendments. The overall claim of the Civil War, that the states were legally subject to the final dictates of the federal government, had the effect of deferring to a strong federal government in the evolution of federalism and how it is defined today.

The old Hamiltonian Federalist party in the United States was finally dissolved in 1824. They were heavily opposed by the Democratic-Republicans, which included powerful figures such as Thomas Jefferson. The Democratic-Republicans mainly believed:

• The Legislative had too much power (mainly because of the Necessary and Proper Clause) and that they were unchecked.
• The Executive branch had too much power, and that there was no check on him. A dictator would arise.
• A bill of rights for the people should be coupled with the Constitution to prevent a dictator from exploiting citizens. The threat then, as always, is that the Executive could become a dictator.

The Federalists, on the other hand, argued it was impossible to list all the rights, and those that were not listed could be easily overlooked because they were not in the official bill of rights. Rather, rights in specific cases were to be decided by the judicial system of courts.

A larger role and influence for the federal government, however, continued to emerge decades after the Civil War. The reasons included the need to regulate businesses and industries that span state borders, attempts to secure civil rights, and the provision of social services. The federal government acquired no substantial new powers until the acceptance by the Supreme Court of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act in State of Minnesota v. Northern Securities Company.

It is the belief of many today (myself included) that the federal government has grown beyond the bounds permitted by the express and limited powers granted in the Constitution. Opponents to that view think they find some legal latitude among the express powers, such as the Commerce Clause. The Commerce Clause is used by Congress to justify certain federal laws, but its applicability has been narrowing in recent years by Supreme Court rulings.

"Dual federalism" suggests the federal government and the state governments are co-equals, each sovereign. In this theory, parts of the Constitution are interpreted narrowly, such as the Tenth Amendment, the Supremacy Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the Commerce Clause. Under a narrow interpretation, the federal government has jurisdiction only if the Constitution clearly grants it. In this case, there is a large group of powers belonging to the states or the people, and the federal government is limited to only those powers explicitly listed in the Constitution.

To summarize:

We face "ominous challenges" as a nation today. Here's a BYU professor who suggests there are at least five requiring immediate attention by the 112th Congress. There was little in Obama's SOTU address last week to suggest he will take a leadership role in tackling those clear and present dangers lurking on the horizon. He played a large role in creating those challenges with the 111th Congress. It appears, instead, he will play politics as usual, hoping the Republicans by reducing spending make life so miserable for Americans he can ride a wave of displeasure into a second term in 2012, and last long enough without specifically addressing the issues that he might still be popular enough with the people by then to be re-elected. His re-election campaign is launching into high gear now and he'll be on the stump between now and then doing what he does best -- talking and talking and talking and talking.

The arguments debating the meaning of "federalism" today are framed around the concept of "dual federalism," the shared powers and the evolving roles of the federal government and the states. It is my belief it is absolutely essential for Americans to become engaged in the debate using the proper definitions and advocating for states' rights as opposed to further expansion of the role of the federal government. The only question remaining is whether it is too late to finally rein it in. It seems both political parties have expanded federal government, now the question is which one will shrink it, if it can really be "shrunk" at all.

Last week in his press conference following his State of the State address, Governor Gary Herbert here in Utah was mystified by the unilateral imposition of Obamacare upon the states without even so much as a consult with the governors of the various states over the last two years when it was rammed down their throats, and he signaled his adamant opposition to the taking of any more Utah land for federal wilderness and monument designations. The states are on the move to reassert their claims against the monolithic federalism they see as a threat to our existence.

Half the fifty states' attorneys general are now involved in lawsuits to challenge the constitutionality of Obamacare, and the border states of Arizona and Texas are imposing their wills against the federal government's inaction to control the borders.

Henry David Thoreau asserted, though it is often attributed to either Thomas Paine or Thomas Jefferson, "That government is best that governs least."

The polar opposite positions held by Hamilton and Jefferson have played out two hundred plus years later exactly as Hamilton and Jefferson framed the original debate then, and the question is still not settled -- far from it.

A return to Washington's thoughts from his farewell address is sagacious wisdom for America today: "Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

Beware of those who would take God out of this equation.

"Symbolic" House Vote Repeals Obamacare

It was newsworthy last week only if you don't tune in to the mainstream media.  They didn't give it much play.  But the newly-elected Republican-dominant U.S. House of Representatives resoundingly voted anyway by a margin of 245-189 to repeal the most costly entitlement program in nation's history.  They don't call this body "The People's House" for no reason!

It's no secret I was opposed to it from the moment it was announced, but more than being opposed to it, I was opposed to HOW it was done.  It is that aspect of the ongoing debate that interests me most today.

There was opposition to Social Security when it first was introduced and enacted into law.  But there was no vote within a year to repeal it.  That was also the case when Medicare was first introduced, along with Medicaid.  None of those programs faced this kind of perpetual anger and frustration from the public, united in their dislike in majority numbers. 

How it was done

The difference in my mind is that unlike Obamacare, the other entitlement programs listed did not pass on a one vote margin bought and paid for in the middle of the night on Christmas Eve in the Senate.  Further, one year after its passage Obamacare has managed to inflame half the states in the nation who have gone to court to challenge its constitutionality.  None of those other programs were struck down within a year of their passage as "unconstitutional" by a federal court.

Handout or empty hand?

We have all been partaking at the trough of government entitlement programs for a long time, and the majority of Americans now like them.  The difference with Obamacare, in my humble opinion, is that it represented a bridge too far in the minds of Americans.  Rather than welcome a handout when the economy had punished so many so severely recently, they pushed back knowing it was not a hand up, only an empty hand promising unsustainable debt and deficits.

Most economists and others who have studied its provisions (I have not) now conclude there is little of anything representing cost savings in the measures enacted.  It went too far, and fewer and fewer have indicated they really want more government intruding into their lives and their choices, especially when it is being paid for with more foreign debt.

Maybe more than symbolic

There is some indication, however, the vote may actually be more than symbolic.  Often, split government produces real progress.  A measure proposed by the White House to a divided Congress thought to be DOA is often debated fairly, both sides expressing their views and a helpful and useful conclusion reached.  Those were the days when a Ronald Reagan could persuade a Tip O'Neill that tax cuts in a bad economy might just be a good idea to present to a Democratic Congress.  It's happened before, why not again? 

The useful reality about debate and a straight up or down vote on proposed measures is that such actions put people on the record, forcing them to declare themselves, compelling them to take a stand for their constituents, and revealing whether or not they give a hang about what their bosses, the people, think and believe.  That's why this vote to repeal is maybe more than symbolic, even though everyone knows it's not a big enough margin of victory to be veto proof and Harry Reid won't let it see the light of day in the Senate, thus dooming it to "symbolic" status.  But only for now, perhaps.

I'm hoping what will happen is Obamacare will die a death of a thousand cuts.  This vote last week extends the debate; opens it up for the first time, really.  Voters will increasingly use the information they glean from successive votes to gauge whether or not they need to do further reassessments about whom they will choose to represent their wishes.  In that sense it may go beyond "symbolic."

SCOTUS will weigh in

I'm wondering what impact this vote will have on the eventual judgment to be rendered by the Supreme Court, where Obamacare will ultimately be adjudicated.  Knowing the Constitution trumps all the laws of the land, will the expressed will of the people stand?  I'm wondering if the SCOTUS also realizes they are subject to the people.  I hope they still are.

Predictably, the administration poo-pooed the whole exercise last week.  Nancy Pelosi openly ridiculed a reporter last year who asked her if she was concerned about its constitutionality, with "Are you serious?"  Well, now we know the people are serious, and so was at least one federal court judge in Virginia.  If this repeal vote was merely "symbolic," then someone forgot to inform the White House about how seriously the new members of Congress have taken their oath to reflect the people's will when they got to Washington.  They heard the message from the voters, loud and clear.  That's why the vote had to be taken -- it's the primary reason they were sent there.

Real health care reform will happen when Obamacare is reversed.  Congressman Jim Matheson (D-UT) said it best:  "It reforms too little and costs too much."  He voted against it last year because he knew he would have no chance for re-election if he had done otherwise, and remains practically the lone man standing among the so-called "Blue Dog" Democrats in Congress who went along with Obamacare.  However, last week he reversed course and voted against repeal.  Go figure.

Why the sustained anger?

So maybe, just maybe, it is more than "symbolic."  There was more than Obamacare factoring into the historic tidal wave that washed ashore last November in Washington.  The voters felt disenfranchised and they were angry at not having their wishes realized.  For me and the vast majority, it started with TARP that opened the floodgates for rampant ($862 billion) stimulus spending failing to stimulate as promised, and a $1.3 trillion price tag on health care reform.  The deficit climbed rapidly to over $1 trillion, then the red ink flowed to overflowing with bailouts for "Government Motors" and Chrysler.

So Americans reacted justifiably -- we tossed out nearly everybody we could and began again, as America does every two years.  It's why this country is so viable.  Even when we make mistakes in judgment the founders gave us the reassurance we could begin afresh every two years.  We've all had to make readjustments in our lives these last two years.  We've cut back, we're learning how to save again, we're reducing debt, and we're somehow surviving in spite of it.  And now we demand the same of our federal government.  Some say individual households don't operate the same way as government.  That's true, because the government can print money.  We can't.  We can send representatives to Washington, however, who will do as we do and stop the presses.

Watch for more fiscal responsibility and big reductions in spending.  Those who refuse will be voted out.  That's the way politics works.  The Piper will be paid.

Chipping away now at Obamacare, and if Americans increasingly can stand by their convictions that it won't produce anything but grief if left to another generation to pay for it, then a large enough majority in both houses of Congress and maybe the White House in 2012 can finally bury it so deeply it cannot resurrect.

Federalism must be re-enthroned

The analysts I have read have been uniformly critical about the measure doing nothing to solve the upward tilt of the cost curve associated with health care, references to "bending the curve" in the years ahead notwithstanding.  Obamacare doesn't address the escalating costs associated with malpractice lawsuits.  The states were given virtually no latitude to develop their own solutions, since health care, like education, is administered at the local level.  Utah was already well underway in its efforts.  Federalism (giving states the right to be self-determining) has all but died in the wake of Obamacare.

Finally, one would hope the individual mandate in the law, forcing Americans to buy health insurance or face fines, must certainly be declared unconstitutional in the end.  This is still America, the land of the free.

But rather than let the moniker "the party of NO" stick, Republicans would be well advised to form committees, hold hearings, and work to craft real solutions lacking in Obamacare.  Keep the parts (if there are any) that might work, and scrap the rest.  We do have a health care crisis.  The costs are out of control, the incentives are skewed in the wrong direction, and Medicare and Medicaid are already too much to bear in a bankrupt nation borrowing to sustain an "even keel" level of care.  What do I mean by "incentives" being skewed?  Physicians and health care providers are reimbursed for a never-ending cycle of life-sustaining expenditures for seniors that extend life but sometimes with the tradeoff for quality of life compromises in the name of advancing medical science.  Aged grandparents and great-grandparents become little more than lab rats for government funded research.  Is that too harsh for you?  That's what we've got now.

Re-enthroning states' rights linked with free market competition among carriers would be a huge first step.  Given choices, let consumers be in charge of their care.  Intermountain Health Care is well on the way to showing the path to the rest of the nation.  The federal government needs to stand down and get out of health care reform and education.

The House last week finally heard and acted based upon the will of the electorate.  Yes, it may be "symbolic" as a repeal vote this year, but if the trend continues look for the electorate to take back the other chamber and the White House before the real damage is done when Obamacare kicks into high gear in 2014.  The question remains, will the angst survive another two years?

Power still resides in the majority that can choose to defund or repeal.  This "symbolic" vote was the first step.

Political Quote of the Day

George F. Will

I stumbled over this magnificent summary of where we were at America's exceptional founding, where we are today at the commencement of the 112th Congress, and where we are headed in the future.  It comes from George Will, and you can read the whole article here:

The American Revolution was a political, not a social revolution; it was about emancipating individuals for the pursuit of happiness, not about the state allocating wealth and opportunity. Hence our exceptional Constitution, which says not what government must do for Americans but what it cannot do to them.

Americans are exceptionally committed to limited government because they are exceptionally confident of social mobility through personal striving. And they are exceptionally immune to a distinctively modern pessimism: It holds that individuals are powerless to assert their autonomy against society's vast impersonal forces, so people must become wards of government, which supposedly is the locus and engine of society's creativity.

Two years into Barack Obama's presidency, we now know what he meant about "hope" and "change" — he and other progressives hope to change our national character. Three weeks into his presidency, Newsweek, unhinged by adoration of him, and allowing its wishes to father its thoughts, announced that "we are all socialists now" and that America "is moving toward a modern European state." The electorate emphatically disagreed, and created the 112th Congress, with its exceptionally important agenda.

* * *

As I read Will's article this morning, I was reminded of a particularly tense moment in my personal history.  We were a group of bold entrepreneurs attempting the impossible -- lobbying Congress for an important piece of a financial puzzle for the benefit of charities.  We had been gathered in an anteroom next to the hearing room normally occupied by the Senate Finance Committee in the Senate Office Building in Washington D.C.  

We had been in a session with representatives from the Congressional Budget Office and staff members of two senators on the Senate Finance Committee.  It had not gone well.  It was obvious there was opposition from the other senator's chief of staff, who had apparently urged the CBO not to cooperate.  Whatever the explanation, clearly no one was acting in good faith.  As we left without the needed resolution in hand, we were beaten down, abjectly defeated and without hope.  

We returned to our hotel, gathered our luggage and left in dismay for the airport to return to our various destinations.  We felt as though our project had failed, the limo ride to the airport uncharacteristically silent and the mood morose.  

One phone call changed everything.  "Turn around and come back to my condo, cancel your flights and be prepared to stay another day.  We have a solution."  

As we gathered again early that evening we learned the senator who had been championing our cause had instructed his chief of staff to "fix it" when he heard about our rejection by the CBO.  

We learned there is a devise often used between senators called a colloquy that could be inserted into the Senate record, summarizing our position with the negotiated acquiescence of the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.  A colloquy is a summary of a "conversation" that never really happens but it is put into the record as though it did.  The details are hammered out by staff, an agreement over language is secured by the two senators, and it becomes part of the official record as though the conversation had actually occurred.

We labored over the language that evening together, spelling out in detail what we needed as an exception in the pending adverse legislation, negotiating as we went between the two staffs of the opposing senators (even though they were both Republicans).  

Finally, late that night we reached agreement on the needed language for the colloquy and one of our group uttered this memorable phrase I have never forgotten:  "A spontaneous display of morale suddenly broke out."   

Our senator personally walked the colloquy onto the Senate floor at 1:00 a.m. in the morning to give it to the clerk so it could be inserted into the Senate record.  We had come back from the brink of a seemingly impossible precipice moment to final achievement of our goal.  We had won the battle and we had won the war, but it didn't happen until the last extremity had been visited.  (I suppose to be brutally honest, we lost the "war" when the financial markets melted down and our project cratered, but we sure won a lot of improbable battles like this one along the way).

I wonder if that isn't analogous to where we are today in America.  The 112th Congress, as they commence their path back from the brink of the legislative devastation of the last two years has all our hopes for the future of America in their hands.

Sorry if that sounds too melodramatic.  To those who insist the last two years have been a legislative "triumph" for social re-engineering, you have valid point.  The sheer weight of the paper alone is prodigious and without precedent. But I would ask, "At what cost?"

Men and women of goodwill from both parties serving in this 112th Congress must (and I believe WILL) find critical solutions to America's most pressing problem -- reducing spending, debt and deficits. Polling data among Americans suggests they still have a long way to go before they are pleasing their boss.  Once that is achieved, let's reduce government and make it truly "limited." In a crisis, America has always risen to the occasion.  Freedom depends upon it.

Watch for new leadership and morale to break out.

Hatch/Cornyn Balanced Budget Amendment

Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT)

Senator John Cornyn (R-TX)

Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and John Cornyn (R-TX) have proposed a new balanced budget amendment, one designed to compel the Federal Government to put its financial house in order each year.

They have written a cover letter seeking co-sponsors within the Senate, and have made available the provisions for everyone to review. It is not difficult to understand. Unlike legislation we have seen over the past two years, it is a few short pages, concise, to the point and ready for action.

Perhaps America is finally ready for such a bold step. It failed by only one vote a few years ago. Had it passed back then we may have avoided the financial house of cards that has been erected since then.

For it to pass and be enacted, here's the array of hurdles it must leap: 1) a two-thirds vote of approval in each of the two bodies, the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate; followed by 2) ratification by three-fourths (38) of the number of the individual state legislatures.

It's time to begin the writing campaign to your members of Congress.  If you really believe the November election was about putting our financial house in order as a nation, then voice your support NOW.

It's a tall order, to be sure, but not impossible. If two-thirds of the members of both houses of Congress can discern the will of their constituents based upon the results of November's election, then perhaps there will never be a better time in our history when the over-spending, the constant increase in the debt ceiling and the deficits can be curbed and eliminated.

The Hatch-Cornyn letter to their colleagues points out what should be obvious in the hearts and minds of all Americans: “They don’t want any more empty rhetoric or excuses.” The time to slash government spending is NOW, and a balanced budget amendment is as good a place to start as I can imagine.

When the 112th Congress reconvenes the week of January 25, 2011, they will find a proposed Constitutional amendment simply stating that total spending cannot exceed total receipts; total spending for any fiscal year cannot exceed 20 percent of the gross domestic product of the previous calendar year; and a two-thirds vote would be needed in both chambers to pass legislation that increases taxes. A two-thirds vote would also be required to waive any of the other limits, although the limits may be waived if war is declared or an imminent threat is declared by a joint resolution of Congress. That's language anybody can understand and comprehend. Beware of those who preach fear of what might happen if the initiative passes.

Also included is a provision compelling the Executive Branch -- the President of the United States of America -- to submit a balanced budget each year. That would be a clear improvement.

Hatch’s office is reporting they are picking up co-sponsors and looking for more.

Senator Mike Lee (R-UT)

Already on board are Republican Senators Saxby Chambliss (GA), Jim DeMint (SC), Olympia Snowe (ME), John Ensign (NV), Mike Enzi (WY), and David Vitter (LA). Hatch discloses in his letter to his colleagues that their proposal has picked up endorsements from the American Conservative Union and Americans for Tax Reform, with other conservative groups certain to follow. You can bet my new favorite Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) is going to be deeply involved in championing its passage.

They also remind their colleagues in their letter about a comment by Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen, who said the national debt is "the most significant threat to our national security.”

“Yet year after year, decade after decade, Congress proves that it will not solve the crisis on its own,” the letter said. “There are simply too many ways for Washington to avoid controlling spending and balancing its budget. But continuing failure and a deepening budget crisis are not acceptable.”

Here's the latest scorecard for deficit watchers: At the end of the government's fiscal year 2010 (October 1), the deficit was slightly less than $1.3 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The final numbers are in for the 2010 deficit, and it amounted to 8.9 percent of the gross domestic product, the second highest level as a share of the economy since 1945.  It has deficit watchers nervous for good reason.

Let me remind you what a large number the deficit is:

($1,300,000,000,000.00) 

Numbers that appear in brackets on a financial report are negative numbers and they are posted in red, hence the phrase "red ink."  The deficit is the difference between what the federal government is taking in and what it's spending.  That trend must be reversed because it cannot be sustained indefinitely.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner warned last week the nation will hit the debt limit as soon as the end of March.

Here are the latest numbers on the debt picture as of last week: Total debt outstanding that is subject to the limit was $13.95 trillion, roughly $335 billion below the $14.29 trillion limit set by Congress in February 2010.  You also need to be reminded about what a large number our debt ceiling really is:

$14,290,000,000,000.00

When he was the lowly junior Senator from Illinois, Barack Obama vehemently trumpeted his opposition for an increase in the debt ceiling at a time when America was at war.  His stated position as a Senator will now be tested as the POTUS. We'll see if he was just blowing smoke as a Senator.

A word of warning in the weeks that lie ahead.  Fear tactics will be deployed by this administration to manipulate the 112th Congress into raising the debt ceiling, predicting dire consequences if it isn't done.  There may be increasing threats of a government shut down. Government workers may be faced with their share of the unemployment burden. Business as usual will be revised. It's obvious the 111th Congress would have been a pushover for more debt and spending against such threats. Let's see if this first stern test for the 112th will signal a change in attitude among elected officials.

My bet: The debt ceiling will be raised but not before there are some profound agreements in place to curb spending. If you get a raised debt ceiling with little or no opposition, it will be an early warning sign the 112th is nothing more than a clone of the 111th.

Speaker of the House, John Boehner (R-OH)

Here's another sign to watch for meaningful change.  If Harry Reid and the Democrats in the Senate continue to award committee chairmanships to members based solely upon their longevity in seniority, you may know it will be business as usual.  There are some early signs he may be rethinking that long-standing tradition and Americans would welcome that adjustment.  John Boehner (R-OH), the new Speaker of the House who replaced Nancy Pelosi, would be well-advised to make similar adjustments.  If the two parties would voluntarily dismantle the seniority system together, it would not have to be done by Constitutional amendment.

CBS just completed a poll of public opinion on what should be the first order of business for this new Congress. Those sampled say they are willing to reduce spending first, and do not favor raising taxes.  I know, it's a no brainer, but maybe Congress needs to be reminded.

This just in -- they also want the deficit spending spree to stop, to the tune of 77 percent!

The next few weeks portend good things to come if Congress will deliver on what matters most. A symbolic vote to repeal Obamacare in the House, since repeal has no chance in the Senate and Obama would veto it while he remains in office, is not one of those things that matters most.

The House would be better advised to stick to its knitting on balancing the budget by passing the Hatch/Cornyn proposal.