Why the Two-Party System is Pure Mythology

My Twitter timeline is growing more and more libertarian all the time. And, truth be told, so am I. There was a time when I accepted the reality of the two-party tradition in America. Today it is little more than slight distinctions about which party's candidates can convince us they can manage the intricacies of big government better.

Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI)

Sadly, while I still like Paul Ryan a lot, the release of his latest version of the budget features only a slightly lower baseline over the next ten years than the trajectory of the Senate's version, released last week by the Senate's budget chairperson, Senator Patty Murray (D-WA). Give her credit - at least she came up with the first Senate budget in over 1400 days. That said, we have yet to pass a federal budget during the administration of Barack Obama, much less seriously consider balancing one. Finally, last week Barack Obama admitted he has no intention of balancing the budget nor reducing the deficit during his remaining term. At least now we know where he stands, since he no longer is accountable to voters. His budget "proposal" merely calls for more taxes and more spending.

According to Ryan’s version of what he would advocate (these numbers are lifted straight from his proposal) we would reduce federal spending as a percentage of GDP from 22.2 percent this year to 19.1 percent in 2023. That is at least a start in the right direction, but hardly draconian in its import. However, if you believe what the Democrat/progressive/liberal elements tell us, such a brutal meat cleaver reduction in the federal spending projections over the next ten years would inflict almost incomprehensible pain on Americans.

Here's what caught my attention from Ryan's CPAC speech last week: “We don’t see the debt as an excuse to cut with abandon, to shirk our obligations. We see it as an opportunity to reform government, to make it cleaner and more effective. That’s what conservatives stand for.”

But here's the rub. Isn't that exactly what Democrats believe too? Aren't they always proclaiming their efforts are designed to give us more effective and efficient government too?

I studied Ryan’s proposal to see if I could find anything that would forever end the federal government’s involvement in education. We've been talking about that since the days of Reagan who wanted to close the doors on the Department of Education. No sign of that in Ryan's budget. All the federal programs that sponsor job training are still there in the Ryan budget. There is nothing to eliminate the Departments of Energy, Transportation, and all the rest. There are so many bloated federal agencies that could be eliminated presidential candidate Rick Perry stumbled during a debate on his recitation of the list of agencies he would cut and it cost him the nomination. But nowhere in the latest Ryan budget do you find provisions for cutting them out.

There is a plus, however. Ryan's budget calls for ending Obamacare, but that isn't going to happen now as that train left the station and is picking up speed on the implementation rails as it rumbles into an insurance plan near you soon. But even if that were a successful legislative coup (and it won't be) the Ryan budget fails to eliminate the federal government’s involvement in health care. At least Ryan wants to cap higher education subsidies, but that doesn't terminate the federal government’s involvement in education. Well, you get the idea. The core problem is simple: More efficient government isn’t the same as limited government. That's the important Constitutional mandate we have bargained away over the years as both political parties have given us more and more government. Whether the federal government is efficient or effective is a debate I don't even care about. I'm becoming more libertarian because it's the only option left to us.

I'm just old enough to remember when we thought we could believe a two-party political system consisting of Republicans and Democrats representing vastly different values and objectives existed. However, true patriots who value liberty and freedom from tyranny, those who are accurately informed, well researched and historically astute know otherwise. Now I see things much differently. The thin veneer of political differentiation has finally peeled away. By the time George W. Bush and Henry Paulson at the end of the Bush era decided to bail out Wall Street and bankers, the illusion was forever evaporated. Government can only fund solutions with money it collects from taxpayers, and so far there seems to be insufficient angst among voters to stop it from escalating.

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY)

Something extraordinary happened a couple of weeks ago on the Senate floor. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) launched a nearly 13-hour filibuster over an issue that barely aroused any interest among Americans, yet it clearly illuminated this rising tide of awareness of the thinly-veiled differences between the establishment powers in both political parties. What stunned me was the reaction by certain members of the Republican party we must not minimize. I happen to like the old Jimmy Stewart movie "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," only because it's about the little guy who dares to take on the establishment against all odds. Rand Paul's filibuster was a throw-back to earlier times. Here's at least one man (and there are growing numbers) who still recognizes the Constitution of the United States and Bill of Rights as the supreme law of the land. I include Mike Lee (R-UT) and Ted Cruz (R-TX) in that group. John McCain called them "wacko birds." Then he thought better of the comment and apologized. That defiant act of filibuster by one man had much deeper meaning on many more levels than the topic at hand. When "wackos" are people who believe in limited government and liberty, then I choose to stand with the wackos.

Senator Paul asked for a simple response about the potential use of drones on American citizens on American soil from the Attorney General who represents the Executive branch of our government. Attorney General Eric Holder did not respond, so Senator Paul took to the Senate floor and spoke for 13 hours. As painful as it was for the Executive and Judicial branches and their media surrogates to even acknowledge Senator Paul’s persistence, his actions eventually generated a response. A short letter signed by Attorney General Holder was begrudgingly released. The answer was “no.” As remote as the possibility may seem to some, at least this administration is now on the record if that means anything.

Every freedom-loving American should be heralding Senator Rand Paul for what he did. It was evidence that every American who still cares about the rule of law and our God-given rights as enumerated in the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights has at least one voice who speaks for them on the Senate floor. One would think that kind of issue would resonate throughout America without regard to political party. But he received nothing but ridicule for what some claimed was a cheap political grandstanding maneuver. I saw it as much more.

I consider myself a Conservative. I used to think I was a "moderate" Conservative. I find I must distinguish what that means to me and what it means to Paul Ryan, however. My loyalty is to our Constitution and Bill of Rights. I'm increasingly more interested in like-minded individuals who share that desire above party label. To stand for only a better-managed big government is now bordering on tyrannical and treasonous in my mind.

On the morning of the 9/11 attacks, I watched in horror as the Twin Towers collapsed and the realization we were attacked by foreign enemies slowly sank in that morning. Looking back on the aftermath of that day, I think I supported wholeheartedly, as many Americans did, the passage of legislation that formed even more agencies of the federal government. The Patriot Act and the Department of Homeland Security are only two examples. Now I believe I was wrong in my initial embrace of those moves. In the subsequent bursting of the bubble of Wall Street excesses with securitized mortgages and other dicey investment vehicles, there came clarity. I have discerned we were then, and still are to an increasing rate, being lied to by elected officials on both sides of the political spectrum. The "BIG LIE" is that we are going to be okay with the status quo they so desperately seem determined to perpetuate.

I've stopped listening to the so-called "Conservative" talk radio pundits and the TV talking heads. Like an old soap opera where you can tune out for months at a time, then tune in for a few minutes, the story lines never change and the themes are repetitive. The search for truth is paramount in these last days. And the truth cannot be found in the political realm.

Jesus Christ laments over Jerusalem

You are either loyal to God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ, or you are not. It really won't matter much which political logos you're wearing when the elements melt down in the fervent heat yet to come. What will matter instead is your allegiance to God and our Constitution and Bill of Rights in America. As Christ was rejected of His own in His day, so He is being rejected once again in our day. I surmise He laments over Washington D.C. today as He once did over Jerusalem. The imperial government, the pervasive institution to which we are all being asked to pledge allegiance and to turn for sustenance, has forsaken her birthright. These are values our great nation once represented. There is no political party left, however, to claim the crown of champion for those values. Both parties have been corrupted. As long as I live I will resist any and all attempts by others to impose a godless theocracy upon us. If America fails, there will be no other contender left on earth in the running among the super powers to champion the cause of freedom.

Merely proposing that the federal government borrow and spend less than what is currently projected is certainly better than the alternative of burying our heads in the sand and pretending we are not in a spending and debt crisis. But those who accept Paul Ryan's version of the proposed federal budget cannot be serious if their goal is limited government. We must come to a point where we must find the collective will as free citizens to impose limits all the areas where government has intruded on our rights.

Some people worry what will happen if draconian measures are taken to cut federal spending. Think of the "safety net" suddenly being snatched out from underneath everyone. Think of all the unemployment if federal employment for millions of Americans suddenly terminates. In the garden of Eden, were Adam and Eve firmly clutching their Social Security checks and food stamps? When did we lose sight of working by the sweat of our own brows? There were no promises then, and there are none now. Ryan is defending a mythological fantasy when he says he can ensure the promises their government has made to Americans in the years ahead. What he's really saying is I can do it better than Democrats, when both have moved this country beyond the ability to deliver on those promises without severe cutbacks in the status quo. That's a political agenda politicians don't dare enunciate for fear of losing the next election.

I've heard the list of horribles of what might happen if we take control of our own debt and spending now, but what if we are already at the tipping point where the collapse is imminent anyway? Isn't the path we are on amply demonstrated by now to be unsustainable? Seems to me we must prune back the spending and debt bushes voluntarily now, or the pruning will be imposed at a time not of our own choosing and by circumstances we cannot possibly foresee or control.

I'm happy for the thought and preparation that has gone into Ryan’s latest budget proposal. But it only represents a step toward a slightly cheaper big government in a time when what is needed is a return to limited government we can actually afford.

How Miserable Are You?

"So I says to Barack, 'I knew Abe Lincoln, and you ain't no Abe Lincoln'"

It was Abraham Lincoln who once observed, "People are just about as happy as they make up their minds to be." In other words, happiness is a choice. Do you believe it?

During the Reagan-Carter campaign of 1979, somebody came up with something called the "misery index." It's the sum of the inflation and unemployment rates, two nasty statistics when totaled together equate to economic misery. You'll be relieved to know the Obama administration's misery index hasn't reached the highs hit by Jimmy Carter's.

It's hard to believe but I still remember, so I looked it up today to be sure. Carter's yearly average of 20.8 was reached by 1980 and was the all-time modern high. Obama's administration hit a monthly rate of 12.8 in June of this year. Just so you can compare and remember the "good old days," the average misery index over George W. Bush's two terms was only 8.1, and Bill Clinton's administration was even lower at 7.8.

In one of their debates toward the end of the campaign Reagan quipped, "Are you better off today than you were four years ago?" He closed the deal with the American people, who decided they weren't and handed Reagan the presidency, making Jimmy Carter the poster child for one-term failure.

There are many today who are comparing the Obama administration to the Carter administration and coming up with the obvious similarities. Many of us hope the crowning likeness will be the one-term comparison.

However, nobody in America wins when the president is weak. I had at least hoped for the best a few months after Obama took office, but his steadfast adherence to his flawed Keynesian economic model is killing us. The lurch to the left went beyond traditional Democratic tax and spend philosophy. It went right off the charts into Democratic Socialism. His stimulus spending to the tune of $825 Billion did nothing. You can ignore all the rhetoric about "creating jobs" or "saving jobs." When the August number came in there were zero jobs created, and that hasn't happened in America in a very long time.

Add to it something called the "Public-Private Investment Partnership," nothing more than Obama's version of Bush's TARP, and all that happened was more toxic assets were transferred to the government, which of course translates into the taxpayers - YOU!

Remember how successful "Cash for Clunkers" was? Remember nationalizing the automotive industry to rescue it from bankruptcy? Somebody at Ford should be crowned King of Captialism for refusing the government handout when GM and Chrysler are still owned principally by the taxpayers.

Remember Obamacare? I have hated the idea since it was first introduced, largely because of the staggering costs involved. It reformed little and the cost was extraordinary in a time when America could afford it least. We won't know what its full effect will be until (and if) it takes root. I'm betting the SCOTUS will strike it down as unconstitutional because of the individual mandate. Whatever that eventual outcome, the short-term effect has been businesses by the droves are getting out of the business of providing private healthcare coverage for their employees. If you've loved Medicare and Medicaid, then you're just going to love government-sponsored health insurance exchanges.

Remember the national debt clock? It's still ticking at a more rapid pace now than ever before in our history. It has now exceeded $14 Trillion and will hit $15 Trillion by the end of September (yes, this month). When it happens, don't expect a flurry of headlines, because the story will be tucked away somewhere on page 10 below the fold. It will be the first time since World War II that the debt will exceed the GDP.

Remember the first downgrade on our debt in our history from "AAA" to "AA?" Unless Congress takes substantive steps to change course this fall in the supercommittee, the credit markets will continue to react negatively.

Remember "tax the rich?" He's still thumping that theme as recently as yesterday in his stump speech. I was heartened yesterday to hear a report that thirty-six senators from both parties are now calling upon the super committee to enact sweeping tax reform as part of their work product. Knock on wood. With an approval rating of 12%, Congress had better do SOMETHING, ANYTHING to demonstrate their willingness to do the bidding of the American people who employ them. The polling data is suggesting there are very few who are inclined to send the same members of Congress back in 2012 unless they prove worthy of their hire.

We're running up debt for the next generations of Americans that will prove to be impossible to repay unless the growth engine in our economy is jump-started and begins to hum again.

There are those who say it isn't fair to hold Obama or any POTUS to the same standard as private business measurements for success. Honestly, why not? If he were CEO of America, Inc., no board of directors worth its salt would retain him given his record. Here's a stunner for comparison: This "recovery" has been underway for two and half years and employment has actually dropped by a full percentage point. The only other president in American history to have witnessed negative job growth for a comparable period is Herbert Hoover. I'm certain when Barack Obama took office he wanted to be considered an historic president, but I doubt this is what he had in mind. Nor did any of us.

Despite the clear record, he continues to blame George W. Bush for the mess we're in. I have stated repeatedly it is more complicated than blaming your successsor. Presidents, let me say it once again, DO NOT create jobs. Their policies, however, provide either an environment for job growth or an environment that stifles job growth. So what does this failing president flail away at? The same failed European economic model that won't work, and he keeps doubling down on his bets.

Obama might do well to take a page out of Bill Clinton's playbook. Clinton lost control of both houses of Congress in 1994. But Clinton the pragmatist, wanting to be re-elected, decided a 180-degree turn was in order. He put Al Gore in charge of downsizing the federal government and he worked with Republicans in Congress. Together they passed the North American Free Trade Act, they reformed a badly broken welfare system, and (listen for the drum roll) they enacted and achieved a balanced budget!!!

It's been done before. When correct principles are applied they work.

Barack Obama is no Bill Clinton, and he's certainly proven he's no Abe Lincoln, but he needs to pick a new path and try something dramatically different than giving another speech before a joint session of Congress about all the jobs he's going to create with government debt and deficit spending.

I just hope it's not too late before he becomes another Jimmy Carter.

On the other hand, there are only thirteen and a half months left until the next election. Maybe we'll all just have to be patient.

Until then, I choose happiness instead of misery.

Political Quote of the Day

On the heels of another announcement of mass layoffs this week (23,000 combined from Cisco, Lockheed Martin and Borders, after 41,432 planned cuts in June, plus 142,000 government jobs lost so far this year), I stumbled over this quote this morning:

Howard Davidowitz

Howard Davidowitz is bipartisan in his criticism, calling the U.S. political system "dysfunctional and deranged."

Still, the restructuring expert is a longtime and vocal critic of President Obama. Today, he said:

"There has never been a situation in my lifetime where a guy increases the debt by 40%, GDP growth is on the way down, Food Stamps are up, millions more are unemployed -- and to accomplish this we spent $4 trillion."


Further evidence we are indeed living in unprecedented times.

WASHINGTON – Following a procedural vote to prevent the “Cut, Cap, and Balance Act” from coming to the Senate floor, Senator Mike Lee released the following statement:

“Today, Majority Leader Harry Reid used procedural tactic to prevent a vote on a bill that is supported by two-thirds of the country.  It is shameful, despicable, and an abuse of this chamber.  We weren’t even allowed sufficient time to debate the one bill in Congress that would address the country’s most immediate challenges.

“The Democrats have blocked a vote for now, but the fight is not over.  I will continue to make sure ‘Cut, Cap, and Balance’ receives a proper up or down vote in the Senate.”

Democrats and Their Non Sequitur Nonsense

In Latin a "non sequitur" is literally translated as "it does not follow." In effect it is a statement that makes no sense and many such assumptions are constantly on display among Democrats these days.

It seems their solution for solving our debt and deficit problems as a country is to raise taxes. They have proposed or championed during the ongoing debt-limit debate and negotiations some ridiculous ideas about how they think the deficit spending and the total debt can be addressed in this session of Congress.

Here are four proposals to increase taxes and a table showing the approximate amount of time each proposal might "plug" the federal budget deficit, projected in 2011 to be $1.48 trillion (or roughly $4.05 billion per day).

“The four tax increases Democrats have publicly or privately advanced in the deficit reduction debate would reduce the federal deficit by – at most – $40.35 billion a year, a little less than the United States currently borrows every 10 days.

“Even if fully implemented, and even in the unlikely event that these tax hikes do bring in their full projected amount, they will barely make a dent in the deficit, and almost none in a $14.3 trillion national debt.

“These are unserious deficit-reduction proposals -- but they are very serious jobs-reduction proposals.  $40.35 billion is equal to roughly 69,000 average middle class jobs, which cost private businesses about $58,500 each to create.”  (Memo from the Joint Economic Committee).

Do Democrats simply have a death wish? Do they think Americans are stupid? Other countries have figured it out, and America can't? I don't believe it.

They had better get serious soon. Everyone in Washington D.C., including Republicans like Orrin Hatch, have amassed this debt load for many, many years, and now it's time to dismantle the socialist entitlement programs that are really at fault.

Raising taxes just isn't going to do it. They're still playing the class warfare tune that expired a long time ago. If all you can do is get 9 days and 23 hours worth of benefit for all those tax increases on the wealthiest of Americans, better go back to the counting house and keep counting.

Mr. Lee Goes to Washington

There's a striking parallel between the old Jimmy Stewart movie and what Mike Lee (R-UT) is doing right now in Washington. Like Stewart in his role as Mr. Smith, Lee has taken a principled stand against all the forces arrayed against him, and he is doing what few before him have ever dared to do -- he's questioning the status quo, asking the obvious questions, and seeking to round up support from his like-minded colleagues.

The Senate still hasn't reconvened yet, but when it does the debate about spending will be front and center.

Mike Lee is doing what President Obama is failing miserably to do: provide true and effective leadership.

As never before, those who are playing politics as usual are easier to spot. Those with serious ideas are boldly declaring themselves despite the potentially suicidal political ramifications of attacking Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. The polling data would suggest Americans don't really want to dismantle or rearrange their entitlement programs, but if someone can make an honest case why it needs to be done and done now, I believe that principled stand will prevail.

The political miscalculation currently being made by the status quo club -- doing whatever you have to do to win the next election with enough votes -- has a very short shelf life. The America public is now poised to back leadership when they perceive leaders doing what true leaders always must do by taking a principled, rather than a politically popular, position.

In this phone interview yesterday, Lee discusses the progress being made in rounding up enough votes to pass out of the Congress a Balance Budget Amendment. He points out there will be no favorable vote on raising the debt ceiling forthcoming from him and a growing number of his colleagues without an up or down vote on the BBA. Once again, the threshold for amending Constitution is a high bar -- 2/3 in favor in both Houses of Congress, then a 3/4 ratification by the states.

Knowing it will take years to achieve, perhaps, isn't as important as the signal it sends to Americans and the whole world that the United States is serious about taking the corrective steps necessary to rescue our economy from the disastrous trajectory that it is on.

That said, Lee adds in this interview what is fact. The U.S. would not default on its credit obligations if the debt ceiling isn't raised. The Treasury takes in ten times what it owes in interest obligations. Suggesting a credit default in the absence of the vote to raise the debt ceiling is just wildly irresponsible. It hasn't seemed to matter which political party is in power, they have gone to that trough now one too many times.

I like Mike. He's speaking from a position of strength. I don't know how persuasive he'll be in the end of the day among his colleagues in the Senate, but whatever the final outcome may be I am grateful for his leadership in this area. It's only going to take a few more votes to make his proposition viable. I'm hoping the American people will have the integrity to back their elected representatives when it comes to the final vote after all the debating ahead. Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) also has a plan worth considering.

We have a better chance now than ever to put the federal government in a strangle hold on discretionary spending. People from both parties would be well-advised to follow Senator Lee's admonitions.

Breaking the Debt Ceiling Cycle

Senator Mike Lee (R-UT)

It's amazing how the "flip-flop" label never seems to stick to Barack Obama, but the debt ceiling debate is where it is most obvious.

While a junior senator from Illinois, he regaled George W. Bush when he proposed hiking the ceiling. He said Bush lacked the leadership to resist spending more. What a laugher! Now as POTUS, he insists that it has to be done or the U.S. faces "catastrophic consequences."

There is at least one U.S. Senator, the junior Senator from Utah, Mike Lee, who is determined to stop the cycle before it gets any worse than it is. Today, he penned an online article for the National Review Online. All it takes is 66 more Senators of like mind and he will veto-proof the proposed Hatch-Lee Balanced Budget Amendment and send it out to the states for ratification.

There's a report I just saw today from the International Monetary Fund in The Wall Street Journal predicting the end of U.S. dominance in the world as early as 2016. The IMF is saying China will overtake the U.S. as the world's number one economy. A forecast is not infallible, but it indicates one thing -- the sharks are circling the blood in the water. When I was in business school the 10-year Treasury note was considered to be the benchmark for risk-free investment. How much longer can that perception last unless the U.S. gets its fiscal house in order?

What's at stake? In just the last three years the national debt load has burgeoned from 64% to 93% of the GDP. Mike Lee and the other 46 Senators in the Senate Republican caucus are absolutely right in their refusal to vote for an increase in the debt limit without insisting on the BBA. So far it looks like he's got 5 Democrats who have agreed to go along, leaving the need for 5 more to sign up for the veto-proof majority. Don't rule it out. There should be no doubt what the people back home are expecting their elected representatives to do, and that's to stop the presses printing more worthless currency and issuing more Treasury notes. Investors in Treasuries are already cooling off, and it won't be long before the perceived adjusted risk will push interest rates for U.S. borrowing higher and higher.

That's why we sent Mike Lee to the Senate in place of Bob Bennett. He won't back down in the face of the forces aligned against him. Forcing the vote on the BBA will finally force Senators to declare themselves in the showdown, and that's not a bad thing for anyone.

The Abundant Life and Government Prosperity

I awoke this morning to news that a threatened midnight shutdown of the government had been avoided. The politicians on both sides were claiming that a monumental achievement had been accomplished.

Last week, the much-anticipated 2012 budget labeled “The Path to Prosperity” was rolled out by Paul Ryan (R-WI), Chairman of the House Budget Committee. It’s certainly better than Obama’s version of the future, but it still is woefully short of what is required.

The Balanced Budget Amendment is favorable to all this posturing, where we put government in a spending straight jacket of our own choosing.

I awoke with a scripture ringing in my head this morning: ". . . I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly." (John 10:10).

It is distressing to me that politicians of late have so badly mangled that scripture in attempting to deliver man-made economic philosophies. I see government promising more and more and requiring less and less to realize its version of the abundant life, and it is little more than empty rhetoric.

Obama Claims Huge Budget Cut Victory

As the nation emerged from the Great Depression of the Thirties, the slogans were not dissimilar to what we hear today: "We stand for a full dinner pail," and "We stand for a chicken in every pot," and still later, "Two cars in every garage," then more recently, “Every American should be able to realize the great American dream of owning their own home.” I remember LBJ’s anthem in putting forth the dream of the Great Society, "Full employment for everybody in America and a pint of milk for everybody in the world." 

The more things change, the more the rhetoric remains the same, but the promises are now more reckless and more frantic, and less true than ever.

After running the biggest deficit in this nation's history, and spending more in two years than Franklin D. Roosevelt did in four whole terms as president, Obama stepped to the microphone last night to proudly announce this budget deal to cut spending is the largest in history. Even House Speaker Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid are trumpeting their grand collaborative achievement. Just to put it in perspective, the government debt mounted to $54 billion in the eight days covered by the last continuing resolution to create savings of something in the range of $38 billion over the next six months. 

We're still talking a few crumbs here, not much to get excited about. 

In commenting on this page about my belief in the role of America in the days that lie ahead as we continue to lay the foundation of Zion in preparation for the Lord’s Second Coming, make no mistake that I am deeply concerned about the fictions that abound in our political solutions. This wrong-headed ideal of endless comfort with little or no effort required to achieve it will never be realized as a new world order because we can never be comfortable enough, we can never have enough things, and this ideal will be destroyed by the divisions it produces. I see no peace or prosperity in that course.

I fear no contradiction when I state we may never have seen a time in the world’s history when so much has been said about the abundant life and so little effort has been expended in preparing to obtain it.

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.

Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep.

I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture. (John 10:1, 7, 9).

And then He closed His lesson with this statement: ". . . I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly." (John 10:10, emphasis mine).

To His disciples on another occasion He said: "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." (John 14:6).

It was the same message that He gave to Nicodemus, who asked what he must do to be saved, and in reply the Master answered: "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (John 3:5).

The way the Savior has laid out in the gospel plan is His way. Anybody who tries to lay out a different definition comes to you "as a thief and a robber," to use the Savior's words. Poverty will always follow those who would take the true abundant life from you. They will be left desolate in the day of their greatest spiritual needs.

Paul urged: "Therefore not leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection. . . ." (JST Hebrews 6:1).

In explaining what salvation means, the Prophet Joseph Smith declared:

Joseph Smith

Salvation is nothing more nor less than to triumph over all our enemies and put them under our feet. And when we have power to put all enemies under our feet in this world, and a knowledge to triumph over all evil spirits in the world to come, then we are saved. . .  (TPJS, 297).

The full realization of the abundant life, of course, comes later, as the Prophet Joseph Smith reminds us: "Wherefore, fear not even unto death; for in this world your joy is not full, but in me your joy is full." (D&C 101:36).

Peter gave us the true Path to Prosperity, not Paul Ryan:

And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge;

And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness;

And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity.

For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.

But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins.

Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:

For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. (2 Peter 1:5-11, emphasis mine).

We do not obtain temporal gratuities in counting the essentials for the abundant life, for the Lord declared: "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." (Matthew 7:21).

Before he was Paul the Apostle, Saul of Tarsus was one who had been persistent in his attempts to stamp out early Christianity. He was a zealot until that day around noon:

And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:

And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?

And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do. (Acts 9:3-6).

Ananias, a humble man of God, was the messenger to Saul and taught him the way to an abundant life. He baptized him and then sent him to the apostles, where he received his commission that sent him out to be one of the greatest missionaries among the gentiles, and we know him from that time forth as the Apostle Paul.

As a prisoner on his way to Rome later in his life, Paul and his shipmates put out from an island in the Mediterranean Sea. He had the impression all would not be well, and they were hardly out of sight of land when a furious storm broke, and for fourteen days that frail ship was tossed about, and when, as the scriptures say, "neither sun nor stars in many days appeared, and no small tempest lay on us, all hope that we should be saved was then taken away." (Acts 27:20).

Then it was that the Apostle Paul went down into a place by himself and prayed, and here are the words that are recorded in the scriptures which describe his experience:

. . . after long abstinence Paul stood forth in the midst of them, and said, . . .

And now I exhort you to be of good cheer: for there shall be no loss of any man's life among you, but of the ship.

For there stood by me this night the angel of God, whose I am, and whom I serve,

Saying, Fear not, Paul; thou must be brought before Caesar: and, lo, God hath given thee all them that sail with thee.

Then Paul quieted his shipmates with this testimony: "Wherefore, sirs, be of good cheer: for I believe God, that it shall be even as it was told me." (Acts 27:21-25).

Paul found the abundant life in what could only be described as ironic circumstances.

So it is for each of us. The first step is to live the kind of life that permits us to receive the light of heaven, and a testimony that Jesus is a living reality and that He can speak to us. One possessed of such testimony, then, from the depths of his heart will say, as did Paul: "Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?"

We could all determine better whatever in our lives would lead best and quickest for the welfare of Zion by asking, "Heavenly Father, what wilt thou have me do?"

We may only be one, but together of like mind we are many and we are powerful beyond our wildest imaginations.

When we pray in real sincerity and faith, there will come back to us the answer to that prayerful inquiry. The answer has come oft repeated, time and time again, that all that we do should be done "with an eye single to the glory of God." What is the glory of God? The Lord told Moses, ". . . this is my work and my glory — to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man." (Moses 1:39).

With that goal always before us — seeing every act of our lives, every decision we make, as patterned toward the development of a life that shall permit us to enter into the presence of the Lord, our Heavenly Father, to gain which is to obtain eternal life — how much more wisdom there would be in the many things of life.

If all our selfish motives, then, and all our personal desires and expediency would be subordinated to a desire to know the will of the Lord, one could have the companionship of heavenly vision. If our problems be too great for human intelligence or too much for human strength, we too, if we are faithful and appeal rightly unto the source of divine power, might have standing by us in our hour of peril or great need an angel of God.

One who lives to glean a testimony that God lives and that Jesus is the Christ, and who is willing to reach out to Him in constant inquiry to know if his course is approved, is the one who is living life to its full abundance here and is preparing for the celestial world, which is to live eternally with his Heavenly Father.

Who's Really Serious About Budget Slashing?

Take a look at this interview -- Judge Napolitano interviews Mike Lee (R-UT). There is at least one guy in the Senate who is serious about it. They are going to bring up the BBA again BEFORE the next vote to raise the debt ceiling. $1.7 Trillion per year being added to the debt. Serious? This guy is totally serious. Can a filibuster stop the vote to raise the debt ceiling? It will take 60 votes in the Senate to get it. Lee rounded up seven Democrat senators to vote for a BBA -- it's moving in the right direction. Lee is going to do everything he can to muster more support among the Democrats to move this question further than either Democrats or Republicans are currently doing.



This is exactly what his constituents elected him to do, and as a freshmen senator he is having an important impact on these discussions. He's the answer to the question, "Who's serious?" and those names will emerge as the debate continues and he compels people to go on the record to declare themselves. Look for new leadership to break out for the first time to address the out of control spending addiction in Washington D. C.

Lee released this statement today: “The fight over cutting $10 billion or $60 billion is not a serious discussion about how to fix what’s broken,” said Lee. “It does not begin to address our massive $1.65 trillion deficit, and completely ignores any long-term structural restraints necessary to impede Congress’s insatiable appetite to spend. If you think of our annual deficit as a football field, the Democrat proposal moves the ball just over half a yard toward the goal line. The Republican proposal moves it just three and a half yards. That is not a winning strategy for the country.

“As long as these spending proposals maintain the status quo on our deficit and debt without instituting some measure of external structural control, I will oppose them.”

One Man's Patriot, Another's Radical

Talk about polarization! I call her a patriot, others would dismiss her as a conservative radical. You choose for yourself after you listen to her.

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-MN) is outraged by the secretive spending appropriation in the Obamacare legislation that was passed last year. She's calling on the unholy alliance of Obama, Reid and Pelosi to apologize to the American people for the deception.

In case anyone is keeping score and actually cares about the Constitution, appropriation bills must originate in the House -- the People's House -- where duly elected representatives of the people of the United States of America get to decide what is spent, how much, and on what.

When Obamacare was passed through both houses of Congress along party lines with the Democrats in the majority in both houses, however, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) famously said, "We have to pass this legislation first to know what's in it," and that is exactly what happened.

It was cobbled together hastily in the dead of night in both houses of Congress without anyone (or very few, Pelosi herself apparently) knowing what was in it.

Ronald Reagan, fifty years ago, presaged what would happen. Said he:

"Back in 1927, an American socialist, Norman Thomas, six times candidate for president on the Socialist Party ticket, said the American people would never vote for socialism. But he said under the name of liberalism the American people will adopt every fragment of the socialist program. ...

"One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It's very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project. Most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can’t afford it.

"Now, the American people, if you put it to them about socialized medicine and gave them a chance to choose, would unhesitatingly vote against it. We had an example of this. Under the Truman administration, it was proposed that we have a compulsory health insurance program for all people in the United States, and, of course, the American people unhesitatingly rejected this." (Radio address on socialized medicine, 1961).

You can bet when the House passes this next continuing resolution for the next two weeks of enough funding to keep the government running temporarily, Bachmann is not going to go quietly into the night without a fight over $105 Billion being stripped out -- "clawed back" as she puts it.




On a related topic: There are Big Issues facing America right now. Tax revenues in the states are simply not available to fund public union pension and healthcare plans. The tried and true principles of tax and spend are outdated. As a nation and in the several states, we are spending more than we are bringing in. That is nuts, and it will change either voluntarily or because gravity is still the predominant law of the universe. What goes up (spending) must always come back to earth. It's not a question of if this is going to happen, only a matter of when, how much and how hard will the landing be?

Yes, the states have made promises to public unions, and yes they are in default on those agreements. Yes, the unions have won concession after concession through their collective bargaining muscle from the politicians who come and go. What is going on in New Jersey and Wisconsin, not to mention Ohio, Indiana and other states like Illinois, is nothing more than the profligate spending habits finally coming back to bite, and bite hard. It's time for the unions to step back, take a moment to reflect on the gains they have made in the past, recognize these are desperate times and begin to back away and be responsible under present conditions.

Since 2008 and the collapse of the sub-prime mortgage market and the onset of the "Great Recession" as it is now being called, there is not a segment of the economy that has not suffered. Historically, unions represented both public and private sector workers. They were able to negotiate and protect their workers from egregious practices of some powerful businesses that had abused their privileges and exploited labor. They succeeded so well, in fact, that companies like General Motors were decimated and went bankrupt. Of course, to blame their gross mismanagement solely upon union contracts is simplistic, but the benefits granted to unions were so magnanimous they have now damaged the entire U.S. economy. It's simple math, really: Not enough tax revenue to cover expenses among the several states. Millions of jobs formerly held by Americans are now outsourced to China and India. Why? Labor unions, doing their darnedest for their workers pushed the cost of labor too high. If you're management and you're beholden to shareholders, you have no choice but to seek lower costs anywhere you can find them to boost profits.

In this sense capitalism is brutal. It is not a cradle to grave entitlement plan like we see in smaller European countries where "we take care of our own." In Sweden, for example, 10 million Swedes love their socialism and it seems to work on some level. Pit that solution against over 300 million Americans, and the blankets on the entitlement bed just aren't big enough to cover everyone.

Class warfare has always part of the political debate in this country. This is nothing new. The haves against the have nots is always an interesting discussion to follow, but it is pointless now. We're in crisis, a political crisis of gridlock and a funding crisis begging immediate attention.

America must pay its bills. China holds well over $1 Trillion in U.S. debt. We are well over $14 Trillion in total debt, and the President who once adamantly opposed raising the debt ceiling as a freshman senator, is now warning that unless he gets what he's asking for in a higher debt ceiling America will default on its obligations to its creditors. After all his bluster over the issue, Obama then proffered a laughable budget calling for another Trillion to be spent in this fiscal year's budget with minuscule spending cuts. This after ignoring the recommendations of his own blue-ribbon bi-partisan debt and spending commission appointed by him to study what to do about the spending problem.

That is insanity and utter irresponsibility in light of the current conditions. Then Obama condescendingly lectures to Wisconsin to uphold its obligations to the public workers' union. To which Wisconsin's governor shot back, "Better get your own house in order, Mr. President, before you start giving me advice."

I have been quick to criticize spending in the Bush administration, but the magnitude and the audacity of what Obama has done pales into insignificance by contrast.

People say China might just call our bluff and unload all their U.S. paper. Reality, however, suggests they'd have to find another place to park it -- not as easy as it looks. However, America really has no choice now. We are at another crossroad and we must choose which road to go down. Straight ahead is no longer possible because it is unsustainable. We've got to come up with a short-term and a long-term spending reduction plan that puts Congress in "a straight jacket" as Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) and others are advocating. That includes a Balanced Budget Amendment that allows for exceeding well-defined limits with a super (2/3) majority from both houses of Congress in the event of national emergency. It also means public unions must and will be compelled to back down on their demands to keep the states solvent.

I am continually amazed at the liberal agenda. Despite fiscal reality, they continue to scream, "Tax the rich!" to bring down debt. Taxation crushes economic expansion. Corporations and rich folks are like water running downhill to seek lower tax rates wherever they can be found. Exporting jobs and production facilities to business friendly states like Utah, or overseas, is the only way decision makers can respond when taxes continue to rise. The flight from California and Illinois is emblematic, not to mention what happened to the once proud Motor City, Detroit.

Debt and spending reductions in the states and in the federal government is JOB ONE. America is watching. If Congress can't get its act together in the next two years, the unrest and unwillingness of the voters to continue doing business as usual with its elected representatives will bring further changes in 2012.

And you can take THAT to the bank.

Michele Bachmann found $105 B to cut

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-MN) explains she has found $105 Billion that was appropriated for Obamacare and is already out the gate unless it is pulled back. So what is so hard about finding significant and deep spending cuts? Only the politics. Finding the waste and cutting it out isn't the problem.

Mike Lee -- He's got the bully pulpit

Mike Lee (R-UT) interviewed by Fox Business News on his belief others will soon be joining in the serious discussion about spending cuts, instead of just "kicking the can" down the road again. It's put up or shut up time.

How to Cut Government Spending

It's funny how some politicians are posturing over the proposed cuts.  I stumbled over this video today, illustrating that all it takes is a little willpower on the part of the politicians coupled with an aroused constituency who insist upon it.

The Cato Institute looks at four countries that did what they needed to do:



Remember, it's not a question of "IF" we need to apply similar spending restraint, it's only a question of "WHEN." Beware of anyone who says it can't be done.

Returning Sanity to the Political Discourse

This interview with Congressman Allen West (R-FL) should give all Americans renewed hope that fiscal sanity and spending restraint can actually happen. It's not a matter of "if" we can and must do this, it's only a matter of "how much." When he was running for office last year, I wished this man and others like him could be elected in every precinct in America. You'll understand why when you listen to him articulate his positions:



A new era has finally dawned. The work ahead is not going to be easy. America, however, will get this fixed. There just isn't any other alternative if freedom for us and the rest of the world is to be preserved.

Four Reasons the Dems Lose the Senate in 2012

Going into the final week of the 2010 midterm campaign, it was obvious the Republicans were going to win the House of Representatives in shocking numbers. It wasn't "if" they would win, only by "how much?"

I harbored hope the same thing would happen in the Senate, but at the end two narrow victories and two "surprises" preserved the 52-48 majority for the Democrats. Chistine O'Donnell in Delaware proved a big disappointment to the tea partiers, but her loss was not one of the surprises.

The two narrow victories came in Colorado and Washington. Recounts settled both those states and they went to the Democrats. The two surprises happened in Nevada and West Virginia, when the Republican candidates faltered down the stretch though they had led earlier, preserving Harry Reid's seat and the old seat vacated by the death of Robert Byrd.

I am optimistic (but not yet convinced) the Republicans can retain the House and regain the Senate, but they will have a shot at it only if they can now demonstrate their will to bow to the expressed will of the people to put our national house of fiscal responsibility in order. The reason it's dicey is the Republicans have not proven to be any better than the Democrats in reining in spending in recent years. It's got to change, and they will have one last shot at it.

That's JOB ONE. They will not retain the confidence of the voters unless they succeed with that.

However, with that one caveat attached to my assessment, 2012 shapes up as a better chance for success at retaking the Senate than this last election. The Constitution provides for a turnover every two years of one-third of the Senate seats. The last several years have brought several new faces into the two houses of Congress. I suspect that trend to continue unabated.

There are four good reasons why:

1. The states up for seats in 2012 offer more "red" possibilities than the blue ones. Here are the states to watch as the 2012 election season swings into high gear. Switching seats in North Dakota, Florida, Nebraska, Virginia and Montana will put the Republicans in control by 52 - 48, and there are good reasons to suspect that might be the case.

2. Retirement announcements continue to pour in. Kent Conrad (D-ND) has announced he will not run again. Jim Webb (D-VA) has been vocally cool and coy about his enthusiasm for the Obama agenda, and hasn't been raising money for his re-election bid. George Allen has come out with his announcement to oppose Webb if he runs, and the smart money says it will be enough to get Webb to drop out. Herbert Kohl (D-WI) may also decide not to run (he's in his eighties now). Former Senator Russ Feingold may decide to challenge Kohl in a primary, and if he does Kohl may just hang it up. It's in the "hopeful" category for Republicans because they picked up the governorship in Wisconsin, both houses in the state legislature, a Senate seat and more House seats in 2010. Bill Nelson (D-FL), and Ben Nelson (D-NE) will both face tough races in 2012 from stronger Republican candidates. Neither may run because of the strong opposition against the Democrats in 2010.

3. I heard Dick Morris, Clinton's former strategist (turned traitor against the Clintonistas) handicapping the Senate races in an interview last week. According to Morris, Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) may sit it out in 2012 after watching New Mexico go Republican in 2010. John Tester (D-MT) won by less than 1 point in 2006, and should be an easy target for someone in red Montana. So now you can put North Dakota, Nebraska, Virginia and Montana in the "highly likely" column for Republican victories in 2012.

4. In the "good possibility" column pencil in whoever opposes either Kohl or Feingold in Wisconsin. Morris goes on to speculate Bob Casey (D-PA) can be beaten, as well as Sherrod Brown (D-OH). Bill Nelson (D-FA) probably won't win again, and Claire McCaskill (D-MO) will likely lose to former state Treasurer Sarah Steelman. Republicans will also have a good shot against Debbie Stabenow (D-MI). Joe Manchin (D-WV) faces mounting scandals, and his failure to make good on his promise to "vote like a Republican" may cost him his seat. New Governor Chris Christie (R-NJ) is making big waves in that state since his victory in November, and when one looks out to 2012, Bob Menendez (D-NJ) who suffers from lack of moral turpitude (I'm being kind) could be easy pickings.

Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT)

Of course, here in Utah a Republican "hold" is virtually a lock. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), currently the ranking member on the Senate Finance Committee, is a 36-year veteran of the Senate from the "reddest state" in the Union. He is building his re-election bid on the hope the Republicans WILL indeed win the majority in the Senate, making him the de facto incoming Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee in 2012. He's leading the way again by proposing (for the 17th time in his storied Senate career) a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U. S. Constitution. If ever there were a time for it, that time has finally come.

There's absolutely no threat of the Utah senate seat going Democrat, but Hatch faces the almost impossible uphill battle against his age and longevity. No one in the history of Utah has been elected to the Senate who would be as old as Hatch (78) on election day 2012. He's popping up everywhere in the social media as he tries to connect with his constituents. He's never lost an election! Even Abraham Lincoln can't say that!

He's much more formidable than Bob Bennett, but there are many who believe despite his strengths he can be taken down. All it will take is the right replacement candidate, so watch for those who emerge from within the ranks of the Republicans to challenge him. As good as Hatch has been, the people are whispering, "Enough is enough, Orrin." They would prefer that he bow out gracefully now and make way for a younger generation. But it won't happen. Hatch is determined to set some longevity records and damn the torpedoes.


If he is re-elected (and it's still a big IF), he will have served 42 years of his 84 years at the end of his next term as a U.S. Senator. Love him or loathe him he's got proven staying power, but there will be many challengers on the Republican side who will hope to repeat Mike Lee's stunning defeat of Bob Bennett in 2010.

It's still too early to handicap any of these races just yet, but it's fun to speculate.

It's the Spending, Stupid -- Part Deux

Recently, I posted with a headline, "It's About the Spending, Stupid!"  Today, the headline was repeated by Daniel Henninger in The Wall Street Journal and bolstered with even more recent polling data from Rasmussen to back up the claim.

"Look at the astonishing numbers in the Rasmussen poll released last week. Nearly seven in 10 respondents (68%) want a smaller government, lower taxes and fewer services. The party breakdown: GOP, 88%; Democrats, 44%; and Other, 74%. In short, the independent voters who decide national elections have moved into the anti-spending column. I don't think they'll leave any time soon.

"In a note on last week's poll, Rasmussen points out that the only time it recorded a higher shrink-the-government number, at 70%, was in August 2006. That was just ahead of the famous off-year election in which Republican voters withheld support for their party's free-spending members in Congress."

In a prior post I talked about how Obama had lost the middle.  It wasn't wishful thinking -- the numbers are proving it now.

Peggy Noonan observed as much in her column today.  She talked about pendulums swinging in a shorter and quicker political arc than ever before, as I did in a prior post.  There is something MONUMENTAL about to happen in America on November 2nd.

Yikes!  National commentators are making all my earlier predictions come true!

We are increasingly a country of one heart and one mind regardless of political party, and I like it.  You can be part of it too, but you have to get out and vote this year.  You have to help put an end to spending.  You have to vote for people who will scale back government.  The Republicans couldn't ever do it, and the Democrats couldn't ever do it. 

But you can.  Because the government is what you say it is.  You have to stop those who would perpetuate the status quo of profligate borrowing and spending.  We are the people who founded this government.  It will yield to our will.

Change is on the way, and this time it will be change YOU can believe in. 

And because YOU believe, YOU will do it.

The pendulum swings right and then left. . .

The struggle between political philosophies has been raging since our founding as a nation.  Thomas Jefferson and John Adams started tangling soon after the Constitution was signed over something so simple as how the new country would address President George Washington. 

Jefferson as Secretary of State favored no titles, and Adams as Vice-President (and President of the Senate) made a fool of himself trying to come up with high-sounding titles nobody liked. 

That's how we ended up with "Mr. President" as the appropriate title. 

Adams was at the head of the "Monarchists," with Jefferson heading up the "Federalists" (convenient labels, but meaningless) in that debate, and in spite of it all they began and ended as tried and true friends.  Adams became the second, then Jefferson the third president of the United States.  The political divide has always been part of our American fabric.

This one has made the rounds before. It's a classic political cartoon from a 1934 edition of the Chicago Tribune (in case you missed it) -- "PLANNED ECONOMY OR PLANNED DESTRUCTION?"

The caption on the sign in the bottom left reads: 

Plan of Action for U.S.

Spend! Spend! Spend

under the guise of

recovery -- bust the

government -- blame

the captialists for

the failure --

junk the Constitution

and declare

a

dictatorship.

The more things change, the more they tend to remain the same!  Keep smilin' . . .