Tyranny and "Kick the Can Down the Road"

So last night, once again we hear the leaders of Congress use words like, "Masterful," "historic agreement," and the self-adulation seems to know no bounds. 

Instead, I ask you how this is anything different than the same ol' same ol' we've been seeing from our elected officials. There is nothing new here, nothing to be happy about. We have two polarized positions well-illustrated by the cartoon above. One contingent wants to raise the debt ceiling to avoid default on America's public debt (nothing more than a political red herring, I might add). The other polarized and continuously losing position is to turn off the spending faucet. And who wins? The status quo statists from both parties, who continue to "compromise" around spending more and more in perpetuity with seemingly no end in sight. 

We have not seen a long-term budget passed out of Congress since before Barack Obama took office over five years ago. The government is funded instead in a series of "continuing resolutions" to keep the doors open. The devastating result is that there is never a serious effort to confront and solve the automatic payments now baked into the budget for all the entitlement programs that have been escalating since The New Deal days of FDR. The progressives have partnered and compromised drop by drop, year by year, with Republicans only too anxious to perpetuate the government solutions as a way to solve everything.

Someone asked me last night, "So what do you think of Mike Lee now?" knowing I had supported him and worked diligently to get him elected. My response was, "I love the man for standing on his correct principles despite the fact he never had enough votes to swing anyone to his point of view."

We have a unique political reality in Utah. Because it's a one-party state (reddest in the nation), Lee has a unique opportunity to take a principled stand. My guess is he's a Republican in name only. In his heart of hearts he leans more libertarian, just like me, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul. He reflects my values, my hopes and dreams for America one day coming to her senses and putting to an end once and for all the unsustainable idiotic fiscal path we are running down at breakneck speed. I hope he succeeds. Like him, I say, "Damn the inbound political torpedoes, full speed ahead."

Warren Buffet minced no words this week in Washington: "We have spent 237 years since 1776 building a reputation as the most wonderful country on earth, and one that's entrusted with having the reserve currency of the world. . . That is being put in jeopardy now and it could be destroyed in a little while. A great reputation is like virginity. It can preserved, but it can't be restored."

"The whole idea of a debt limit is a terrible, terrible mistake. If you're going to spend more than you take in, what are you going to do except raise the debt limit? So it becomes this political weapon of mass destruction. It really is like a nuclear bomb. It's something that maybe you talk about but never dream of using."

Mike Lee, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul are scary smart. Politicians cut from the old cloth they are not, however. They will always and forever remain a marginalized minority voice in the U.S. Senate unless and until Americans recognize the alternative they are offering and embrace it. The imposition of fiscal discipline is not a popularly accepted position to advocate, however. Low information voters abound in America today. They would rather have their government-subsidized bread and circuses. And Mitt Romney was about right when he pegged that number at around 47% of the population in America.

We often lament about the political divisions in America today, but it is totally reminiscent of the debates that Americans were having for years in the run-up to the war no one in the Colonies wanted - the Revolutionary War. Check your history books. It was not popular to attack the tyranny of King George back then. It is not popular now either. How does America impeach the first POTUS of African-American heritage, though his excesses are egregious? That's a battle NO ONE wants, and so the degradation of America continues unabated on his multi-tasking agenda. Whenever the choice is between cleverly-disguised tyranny and freedom, one would think it would be an easy choice, right?

Thomas Paine

Instead, even before we were Americans, people then were concerned more about their own welfare, their crops in the ground that needed tending and cultivating. We need to be reminded every day how we began this great nation. The phrase, "These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman" originated with the pen of Thomas Paine. Those words first published as The Crisis that had followed his famous Common Sense served as an influential rallying cry against the British King. The debate raged in the Colonies for 17 long years in the run-up to putting the patriot rebels in one room who would affix their signatures to the Declaration of Independence.

Here's the practical reality: Nothing in our current crisis will change until there are enough votes in the Senate, and the veto-proof signature of a POTUS in the White House.

Even without the votes in their pockets, Cruz, Lee and Paul are to be commended for their principled stand. The statists, those who defend the status quo of big government solutions from both parties, who continue to compromise for more and more spending had better beware. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), the Senate Minority Leader, took home $2 Billion in funding for a dam in Kentucky, his home state, in this "historic deal" last night. He's up for re-election next year. That is a blatant confirmation of business as usual politics - "You give me this, I'll give you that." And neither side ever advocates for a serious debate about long-term consequences.

We DON'T need to cut off ALL spending at the pockets IMMEDIATELY. All we need is to develop a spending plan that creates a gradual downward slope in the debt-to-GDP ratio over the next 8 - 10 years. Does that really sound "radical" or "extremist?" NOT doing something like that is extremist.

The mid-term elections in 2014 shape up as a chance to garner more votes for the people's representatives in government who can begin to address the long-term funding problems we face as a nation. The current participants who remain at the throttles must be deposed at the ballot box. Will it happen? Another poll last week declared 60% were ready to toss out their current representatives. That number came in at 78% in a similar Rasmussen poll.How will that public opinion shift between now and then? Recently, 51% of those polled consider themselves "moderate" and "in the middle" of politics, none of whom say they identify with EITHER political party.

Let's conclude with more from Thomas Paine: "Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated. Britain [insert Obama as the despised tyrant], with an army to enforce her tyranny [insert IRS, NSA], has declared that she has a right (not only to TAX) but 'to BIND us in ALL CASES WHATSOEVER' and if being bound in that manner, is not slavery, then is there not such a thing as slavery upon earth. Even the expression is impious; for so unlimited a power can belong only to God."

Senator Mike Lee (R-UT)

In an e-mail blast to his subscribers this morning, Mike Lee wrote: "The media keeps asking, was it worth it?  My answer is that it is always worth it to do the right thing.  Fighting against an abusive government in defense of protecting our individual rights and freedoms is always the right thing.

"Some say we shouldn’t have fought because we couldn’t win.  But this country wasn’t built by fighting only when victory was certain.  In fact, some of the most important victories in our history were the result of fighting battles against significant odds.

"And even if victory seemed difficult or impossible, that wouldn’t excuse me or anyone else from doing the right thing.  Avoiding difficult battles is how we ended up in this mess – $17 trillion in debt, out-of-control spending, a broken entitlement system, a tax code no one understands – all because Washington is willing to act only when there is guaranteed political gain.

"When the avoidance of political risk becomes our dominant motivation, only the Washington establishment wins.  And the American people lose."

Ask yourself, "Who fought honorably for liberty?" I suspect deep in the heart of Mike Lee beats a rhythm in unison with Thomas Paine. All other pretenders should be banished forever from the public trust. If only American voters had the history lessons before them. . .

IF ONLY

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.

The Iron Lady and the Future Course of America

Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) was interviewed yesterday on a radio show. He was asked if "he had a horse" in the Republican field for the nomination. His response was classic:

Senator Mike Lee (R-UT)

At this point…I haven’t endorsed anyone, but if there were such a thing as an anti-endorsement I’d be tempted to bring out an anti-endorsement against Newt Gingrich. I’ve been appalled with the fact that he has, in effect, attacked other candidates, particularly Mitt Romney, based on the fact that he’s a capitalist, based on the fact that he’s been successful. He tried to pit one group of Americans against another and become a divider, much like our President is doing. It almost has a class warfare feel to it. And that doesn’t sit well with conservatives, or Republicans in general, and I don’t think it is going to work.

When I read that this morning, it caused several responses within me.

First, it resonated with the way I've been feeling lately as I have watched the circular firing squad these candidates seem to face every time they get together. We have a strange and elongated process to select a new president in this country, don't we? In this last debate Rick Santorum wisely tried to put an end to it and asked for a concession from both sides that Newt is a lifer politician and Romney has been very successful financially in the private sector (confirmed for all to see by the release of his 2010 tax returns - all 550 pages worth). "Let's move on," he intoned. At one point Newt even asked for a "truce," after Romney exposed him yet again for his outrageous attack on Romney as "anti-immigration." 

The attacks between the candidates against each other have been withering. Some say it's good to prolong the debates, extend the nominating process, fully vet the candidates. And ironically, who is it that's calling for support for Newt the most loudly? None other than perhaps the least vetted Vice-Presidential candidate in modern history, Sarah Palin. 

When I hear her whiney voice as a Fox News "analyst," I honestly have to ask, "Is anyone listening to her anymore?" Really? Who cares what she thinks? The world today has an ample supply of cable news network "contributors" in the punditocracy without Sarah Palin. I never knew there were so many "strategists" for both sides. The only voices I'm listening to are the people who have the guts to climb into the arena and get bloodied. Palin is certainly NOT one of those people, who is now living comfortably on her John McCain-bestowed celebrity. Gingrich has her and John King to thank for his hollow victory in South Carolina, pure and simple. He capitalized on one shining debate moment and knocked it out of the park.

Second, I went to see "The Iron Lady" last night because I wanted to be reminded once again about how ironic and unfortunate it seems to me that America has repeated the same mistakes Great Britain made during the last century in going down the path of socialism. 

Margaret Thatcher

I was not disappointed. Meryl Streep did a phenomenal turn as Margaret Thatcher, who is still living in her 87th year. The film for me was like reliving history. When she began her political career, she had visited America and drew inspiration from what she learned here. "They are unafraid, they look to the future, they take bold and decisive action," was the essence of her take-away revelation, and it propelled her into leadership of the Conservative Party, and eventually into an 11 1/2-year residency at Number 10 Downing Street as the longest-tenured 20th century Prime Minister of Great Britain. 

Thatcher had to overturn decades of Labor Party rule in England that had stifled economic growth through the implementation of all the socialist ideals, including national health care. She countered by privatizing everything, deregulated industries, restored confidence by taking back the Falkland Islands from the naked aggression of terrorist elements in Argentina, when England could least afford it, then presided over a sustained return to capitalism that inspired a nation. Thatcher stood on principle, politics be damned. I'd vote for her steely resolve in a New York minute if she were running today.

The themes of the movie last night were an eerie echo of the debates and stump speeches we are hearing daily in America from both sides. We would do well to pay attention to those who would propose turning our backs once and for all on socialism. It is the only way we will survive, as Thatcher's England once learned by their sad experiment with socialism in the last century. Socialism was not the road to prosperity then, and it certainly is not the right road today.

Third, this election in 2012 is going to easily become the most intense and hotly contested in our nation's history. There are a number of good reasons why this will be so, not the least of which is a polarized cable news community, to say nothing of what used to be a believable journalistic profession that is filled now with little more than political prostitutes from both sides. Never forget they are entertainers first and foremost, and the more they can keep the boiling pot stirred and bubbling the higher their ratings. The voices are shrill and piercing every day. "Fair and balanced" news reporting in this country is a populist myth. It seems everyone has picked a position and is defending it vociferously. No one seems to listen to anyone else. 

It may not be overstating it to say this election will be the most important we have ever seen in our lifetimes. Why? Because the outcome will determine many things, not the least of which will be to settle the argument about whether socialism can be put behind us and trampled under the feet of freedom now on the march. Obama, instead of being interested in engaging in constructive dialogue with his opponents on the other side, is more entrenched and isolated than ever before, more hardened, more repetitive, tone deaf and more certain he is right than ever before. His SOTU address the other night was pathetic if you measure it by his unwillingness to acknowledge the hard realities of his debt and deficit proliferation in the name of social re-engineering. No mention of the first-ever downgrade to the U.S. bond rating in history, nor a viable plan to reverse course against the profligate spending and deficit binge. Unthinkable. 

Again, I am amazed we have even flirted with the idea of socialism as long as we have. There has been a steady erosion of freedom and self-determination for decades in this country. Gradually yet persistently, since the Great Depression, the social safety net has been built. Both parties have contributed to its creation. Now both sides must admit their errors of the past and begin quickly to dismantle their Frankenstein, if it takes repetitive election cycles to ensure it. 

I was perusing some pamphlets my father gave me recently to read when Medicare was first introduced in the sixties. He was in hospital administration back in the day, and gave speeches in which he frankly admitted no one knew where it was headed. With the advantage of hindsight in 2012 we may now know for ourselves where it was headed back then - into oblivion and bankruptcy if we don't arrest the escalating cost trends. It may have been LBJ's inspiration as part of his "Great Society" initiatives, but the Republicans back then went along because their constituents demanded it. So, please stop the finger pointing.

Surprising to me, an overwhelming majority of Utahns (2/3) favored national health insurance, when asked whether they supported it in some polling data contained in the reports I reviewed. The only holdouts were the residents of Utah County, home to Church-owned BYU, who opposed a national plan. It seems the more things change, the more they remain the same. 

You can make the argument our politicians from either side today cannot seem to draw a bright line between themselves on these issues, and perhaps you would be right in almost every particular. I have said repeatedly I do not believe much distinction can be found anymore between traditional Republicans and Democrats. 

But this year the contrasts must be made with bold strokes and clear bright yellow lines. We are in danger of collapse financially as nation, and the perils of continuing down this path toward self-destruction are real. Our military leaders are confirming our biggest security threat as a nation today has nothing to do with our enemies abroad. They say it is the size of our national debt and deficits. 

You can point to politicians on both side and find ample justification for your angst. The point is we put them into the positions where they are, including Barack Obama. We have self-inflicted wounds that will take years to heal, and we must begin applying the "hard medicine" prescribed by Margaret Thatcher to make a beginning or we are doomed to failure. And that must not happen in the world if freedom is to survive.

Fourth, there is no evidence yet to suggest we can identify one single "white knight candidate" who will cure all our ills. Once America awakens from its long sleepy drift down the road toward socialism, and I think the awakening began in the elections of 2010, we may have a chance to make the course corrections needed to turn things around again, but we must act now. 

While no one person can do it - it would be fool-hearty to suggest that the "only one person" might be Mitt Romney, the turn-around specialist of Bain Capital and the 2002 Winter Olympics - nevertheless we must pick a leader who can and must bring together the disparate stakeholders and begin again to restore America's founding principles of self-reliance, capitalism and self-determination under the banner of freedom, not more taxation, class distinction, class envy and burdensome regulation. Study Margaret Thatcher for the role model we must seek in leadership. 

At this point in the election cycle I am convinced beyond any doubt that "only one person" is NOT Barack Obama. 

We must turn our attention first and foremost to the make-up of the next Senate. There is a chance that enough conservative thinkers like Mike Lee and Rand Paul can be elected to give new hope to legislation that would arrest our profligate tendencies for fiscal recklessness. 

The House is where spending bills originate, and there are enough there from the gains of the 2010 election to at least halt the speeding train since then, but now the job must be to put like-minded people in the Senate in 2012. That's why I say "only one person" cannot do it alone. I'd like to think Mitt Romney could be the leader to help put all the pieces together, but it may still be too early to make the determination whether the nation has the will to line up behind his leadership. With 33 new conservative senators in this election whose seats are up for grabs, we might have a fighting chance together to reverse course.

President Ezra Taft Benson

Fifth, and finally, there are ample lessons about our present condition in The Book of Mormon. Let me cite but a few, beginning with President Ezra Taft Benson:

The record of the Nephite history just prior to the Savior’s visit reveals many parallels to our own day as we anticipate the Savior’s second coming. The Nephite civilization had reached great heights. They were prosperous and industrious. They had built many cities with great highways connecting them. They engaged in shipping and trade. They built temples and palaces.

But, as so often happens, the people rejected the Lord. Pride became commonplace. Dishonesty and immorality were widespread. Secret combinations flourished because, as Helaman tells us, the Gadianton robbers “had seduced the more part of the righteous until they had come down to believe in their works and partake of their spoils” (Helaman 6:38). “The people began to be distinguished by ranks, according to their riches and their chances for learning” (3 Nephi 6:12). And “Satan had great power, unto the stirring up of the people to do all manner of iniquity, and to the puffing them up with pride, tempting them to seek for power, and authority, and riches, and the vain things of the world,” even as today (3 Nephi 6:15).

Mormon noted that the Nephites “did not sin ignorantly, for they knew the will of God concerning them” (3 Nephi 6:18).

There were but few righteous among them (see 3 Nephi 6:14). Nephi led the Church with great power and performed many miracles, yet “there were but few who were converted unto the Lord” (3 Nephi 6:21). The people as a whole rejected the Lord. They stoned the prophets and persecuted those who sought to follow Christ. (Ensign, May 1987, 4).

There are three familiar "break-ups" that occur in the historical record. First, "there became a great inequality in all the land, insomuch that the church began to be broken up." (3 Nephi 6:14). Second, "the people were divided one against another; and they did separate one from another into tribes, every man according to his family and his kindred and friends; and thus they did destroy the government of the land." (3 Nephi 7:2). And finally, just before Christ comes among the Nephites, "the face of the whole earth became deformed, because of the tempests and the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the quaking of the earth." (See 3 Nephi 8:4-20).

You can make your own judgments about where we might be on the timeline as we move toward the Second Coming, but certainly the earmarks described in the Nephite record are hauntingly familiar, aren't they? It may well be the case that we have reached a point of no return as the "America in decline" buzz continues unabated in some circles, but I'd like to think there is still hope. The hope lies in repentance, as summarized by Mormon's final appeal to those who would receive the record of The Book of Mormon in these latter days:

And then, O ye Gentiles, how can ye stand before the power of God, except ye shall repent and turn from your evil ways?

Know ye not that ye are in the hands of God? Know ye not that he hath all power, and at his great command the earth shall be rolled together as a scroll?

Therefore, repent ye, and humble yourselves before him, lest he shall come out in justice against you — lest a remnant of the seed of Jacob shall go forth among you as a lion, and tear you in pieces, and there is none to deliver. (Mormon 5:22-24).

Mormon writes to his son near the end of the record:

My son, be faithful in Christ; and may not the things which I have written grieve thee, to weigh thee down unto death; but may Christ lift thee up, and may his sufferings and death, and the showing his body unto our fathers, and his mercy and long-suffering, and the hope of his glory and of eternal life, rest in your mind forever.
And may the grace of God the Father, whose throne is high in the heavens, and our Lord Jesus Christ, who sitteth on the right hand of his power, until all things shall become subject unto him, be, and abide with you forever. Amen. (Moroni 9:25-26).

When we repent, mercy is immediately extended. Let us claim mercy, and may we never be past the need to feel after it.

The 2011 Budget Pie Debate

I've always believed a good picture is worth a thousand words. That's why this illustration is so perfect. It requires no further explanation (click to enlarge):

To be clear, this budget pie represents the debate over Obama's 2011 budget, and only yesterday the House introduced the 2012 budget for consideration. Neither the Republicans or the Democrats in their debate over which amount of budget cuts to adopt -- $61 Billion or $33 Billion -- is really serious yet about budget, debt and deficit reform. Those numbers are well represented here by a few crumbs.

Obama with full majorities in both houses of Congress did not even submit a budget in 2010, and the government has been operating on temporary "continuing resolutions" ever since. That is a losing strategy no one believes is sustainable, at least among conservatives.

I know the average Joe American doesn't focus on this stuff on a daily basis, which is exactly why we keep kicking the can down the road with no one stepping up to the plate and telling Americans the truth. I maintain anyone with an average education can look at this picture and completely understand what's at stake here.

But answer me this: How in blazes can the POTUS, Barack Obama, seriously believe people are this stupid? Would we ever sit still for a leader who presents a budget with a straight face and tries to tell us we can somehow conjure up 43% over and above what we're going to bring in?

And I'm not just picking on Obama -- Dick Cheney was advocating paying for wars out of money we didn't have as a nation and telling us, "Deficits don't matter." Bush forever tainted his legacy with TARP and bailouts that set the stage for what followed in multiples that have staggered us. And now explain to me how people who are screaming, "It just ain't so, Mr. President," can be considered "extremists?" If that's "extreme," then let's all enlist in the extremist category.

Tell me why it seems so hard to get it figured out among elected representatives of the people who are sick and tired of politics as usual?



Kudos to Paul Ryan, Rand Paul, Mike Lee and others who are telling it straight!

The Illusory God of Government

Several years ago (1984) a successful ad campaign for Wendy's Hamburgers featured a little old lady played by actress Clara Peller, who immortalized the words, "Where's the beef?" when shown a competitor's product featuring a large fluffy and yummy bun with little or no hamburger patty.

Well might one ask today with regard to Social Security, "Where's the trust fund?" that was supposedly locked away in the "lock box" Bill Clinton used to talk about. In the category of lies politicians have told me, that one could only be called "The Whopper!" (with apologies to Burger King).

Like most political realities we face today, my fellow Americans, there IS no trust fund with fungible assets. That's what the meaning of the word "IS" is. What we have instead is a "bookkeeping adjustment" made with each year's budget. I will qualify that statement quickly, because it all depends on what your definition of "fungible" is. If you are satisified with an explanation that the trust fund is filled with IOUs from the Treasury to retirees, then you'll be happy to know the trust fund is full of that kind of asset. If you insist on something more tangible, however, you will be disappointed to learn there's no "beef" between the big fluffy, yummy political double-speak going on in Washington today.

The Social Security Ponzi Scheme

That's why Alan Simpson called it a "Ponzi scheme" the other day in his Senate testimony. The original "inventor" was not a man named Charles Ponzi, but when he deployed its tactics his name was forever associated with it and he went to prison for his crimes.

In a nutshell, here's the way Social Security works today:  Paid-in contributions that exceed the amount required to fully fund current payments to beneficiaries are invested in securities issued by the federal government. The securities issued under this scheme constitute the assets of the Social Security Trust Fund. Because under current federal law these securities represent future obligations that must be repaid, the federal government includes these securities within the overall national debt. When politicians wrangle over the budget, it's more than mere political posturing. Nobody really wants to declare the Emperor has no clothes for fear of incurring the wrath of a growing segment of the voting public -- we baby boomers who actually believed there would be something there for us when we retired.

The portion of the national debt that is not considered "publicly held" represents the obligations incurred by the government to itself, the bulk of which consists of the government's obligations to the Social Security Trust Fund.

So what we really have is a "promise to pay," from our government. The actual assets of the fund were consumed long ago.

The trust fund contains the securities that will be redeemed to make benefit payments in the future when contributions derived from payroll taxes and self-employment contributions no longer are sufficient to fully fund then-current benefit payments. (Here's the rub: Whether or not this is a meaningful topic for discussion depends upon one's belief in the sustainability of the unified Federal budget).

Freshmen Senators Mike Lee (R-UT) and Rand Paul (R-KY)

My position, of course, is that the day of reckoning has arrived and our current course is unsustainable. It's the case Mike Lee and Rand Paul, two young freshmen senators are now trying to make to their esteemed establishment colleagues. If we fail to choose now as free men, our freedom of choice will be overtaken by the immutable law of financial gravity and we will land hard.

The number of contributors to the trust fund has been in gradual decline since the average life expectancy of a retiree was 63 years of age. Now average life expectancy is 77, still a little higher for women than for men.

The first POTUS to bring up the nature of what's really going on inside the trust fund was George W. Bush. On February 2, 2005, he made Social Security a prominent theme of his State of the Union Address. The public debate over this issue has never been quite the same since. The fund holds non-negotiable (the opposite of "fungible") United States Treasury bonds and U.S. securities backed "by the full faith and credit of the government."

The OMB and the Empty Cupboard

In an effort to clarify, the bi-partisan and apolitical body, the Office of Management and Budget, describes it this way:

"These [Trust Fund] balances are available to finance future benefit payments and other Trust Fund expenditures – but only in a bookkeeping sense. . . They do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Instead, they are claims [nothing more than IOUs] on the Treasury that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures. The existence of large Trust Fund balances, therefore, does not, by itself, have any impact on the Government’s ability to pay benefits." (From FY 2000 Budget, Analytical Perspectives, p. 337, emphasis mine).

It took me awhile to wrap my pea-sized brain around that admission, but here it is: "You let me take some periodic payments (as in a FICA deduction out of every single paycheck you earn over your lifetime), and I will promise to pay you an annuity someday when you retire. Oh, and don't worry, I'm the U.S. Treasury and I'm good for it."

That's it, my friends. GWB was pilloried for even suggesting U.S citizens might do a better job of managing their own retirement funds better than the U.S. Treasury -- remember "private accounts?" -- and now six years later we're still having the same debate. It centers on one simple feature -- who will choose and make decisions, the individual or the federal government? Nothing has changed much since the original war in heaven where the question was first posed. We're here today because we chose agency, leaving us free to choose. Are these IOUs claims against real resources? Or are they worthless pieces of paper backed by nothing but "good faith and credit?" Shall we be self-determining free Americans like our ancestors, or will we bow to the misrepresentations and fraud of the federal government? For me, the answers to the questions are distilling rapidly.

Krauthammer the Truth Teller

Appearing in his weekly column today is this analysis by Charles Krauthammer:

"The new line from the White House is: no need to fix it because there is no problem. As Office of Management and Budget Director Jack Lew wrote in USA Today just a few weeks ago, the trust fund is solvent until 2037. Therefore, Social Security is now off the table in debt-reduction talks.
"This claim is a breathtaking fraud.
"The pretense is that a flush trust fund will pay retirees for the next 26 years. Lovely, except for one thing: The Social Security trust fund is a fiction." (Italics in original).

Krauthammer continues:

"Here's why. When your FICA tax is taken out of your paycheck, it does not get squirreled away in some lockbox in West Virginia where it's kept until you and your contemporaries retire. Most goes out immediately to pay current retirees, and the rest (say, $100) goes to the U.S. Treasury — and is spent. On roads, bridges, national defense, public television, whatever — spent, gone.
"In return for that $100, the Treasury sends the Social Security Administration a piece of paper that says: IOU $100. There are countless such pieces of paper in the lockbox. They are called 'special issue' bonds.
"Special they are: They are worthless. As the OMB explained, they are nothing more than 'claims on the Treasury (i.e., promises) that, when redeemed (when you retire and are awaiting your check), will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures.' That's what it means to have a so-called trust fund with no 'real economic assets.' When you retire, the 'trust fund' will have to go to the Treasury for the money for your Social Security check."

I got into a exchange on the forum board the other day in a local newspaper over this very topic. Is there money in the bank, or is this a fraud? You be the judge. It's not a fraud, I guess, if we can all collectively continue to muster and believe the myth the government is being well-run. If we don't believe in the government's ability to pay its obligations, after all, then our money is also worthless, because that's what our money is based upon -- that same promise. It's called "fiat money," "cross-my-heart-and-hope-to-die-I'm-good-for-it" money. They used to say, "Don't take any wooden nickels," but now they all appear to be wooden.

Krauthammer puts the final nail in the coffin:

"Why is this a problem? Because as of 2010, the pay-as-you-go Social Security system is in the red. For decades it had been in the black, taking in more in FICA taxes than it sent out in Social Security benefits. The surplus, scooped up by the Treasury, reduced the federal debt by tens of billions. But demography is destiny. The ratio of workers to retirees is shrinking year by year. Instead of Social Security producing annual surpluses that reduce the federal deficit, it is now producing shortfalls that increase the federal deficit — $37 billion in 2010. It will only get worse as the baby boomers retire." (Emphasis mine).

So basically, there aren't many accounting tricks left to invent -- they've all been employed -- and the average American Joe, whom the government elitists always figured was just too dumb to figure all this out, is finally awake and on task. He and his buddies are tossing out the bums who are running this scheme and choosing self-determination instead. Meanwhile, Obama thinks he's got enough people dumbed down and content now that he'll blame the enemy and ride his high horse to re-election in 2012. We have this reality before us, however. Our "watchmen on the tower" have seen the enemy coming from afar off, and the enemy is us unless (and until) we wake up.

True Prophets Always Get it Right


Joseph Smith the Prophet

I've said it before, and I'll keep saying it again and again. My belief is anchored in this declaration from Joseph Smith: "We . . . must be under [God's] guidance if we are prospered, preserved and sustained. Our only confidence can be in God; our only wisdom obtained from Him: and He alone must be our protector and safeguard, spiritually and temporally, or we fall." (HC, 5:64).

There is no salvation in the collective salvation being offered by the federal government. If you thought there was, better make other plans and find the real God in your life. The United States of America still has a vital role to play in preparing the world for the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. I still believe it, but now after watching Barak Obama and his minions at work for two years I've had to add some "qualifiers." Those include "if" we wake up before it's too late.

President Harold B. Lee, 1973

If you click the link in that last paragraph, you'll find the source for this prophetic statement by President Harold B. Lee:  "Men may fail in this country. Earthquakes may come, seas may heave themselves beyond their bounds, there may be great drought and disaster and hardship, as we may call it, but this nation, founded as it was on a foundation of principles laid down by men whom God raised up, will never fail."

He could have added, "If we hold fast to that foundation of principles." If we do, we will not be deceived into accepting this government we now see as our God. It is illusory, anti-Christ and delusional. What you can see and touch (government) is imaginary at best, and what you can't see and touch (the real God of heaven) ironically "has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's." (D&C 130:22-23).

The so-called "Christian world’s" definition of God is founded on fiction not unlike the Social Security Trust Fund. When the scholars at Nicea defined Him as being "three in one and one in three without any body parts or passions," Christianity went astray. It took a magnificent latter-day theophany of the Father and the Son in a personal appearance to the boy Joseph Smith to put Christianity back on track again. The only problem in the world is it's hard for most to salute a fourteen-year-old's testimony as authentic. But then again, why would he lie? I testify he didn't.

Whenever we allow ourselves to be misled by sophistry, one has only to observe how benighted, deceived and darkened we subsequently become as a human family. Wanting to believe a fiction, cannot, worlds without end, make that fiction into an abiding absolute truth with merit.

Join me in putting your faith in the only living and real God there is -- the one you can't see and touch just yet -- the one that is sending back His Son to clean up the mess we've made. By the power of the Holy Ghost, however, you can feel Him in your heart of hearts where the absolute truth always resides.

I conclude with one further insight from Joseph Smith:

“. . . other attempts to promote the unusual peace and happiness in the human family have proved abortive; every effort has failed; every plan and design has fallen to the ground; it needs the wisdom of God, the intelligence of God, and the power of God to accomplish this. The world has had a fair trial for 6000 years; the Lord will try the seventh thousand himself.” (TPJS, 252).

Planning on government to give you cradle-to-grave security and collective salvation? Better make other plans.

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.”

Economics 101, Professor Rand Paul

This exchange between freshman Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) and David Letterman tells you everything you need to know about snarky liberal comedians and Tea Party/Republicans. It's Econ 101 for beginners in simple understandable, non-technical terms. The audience, however, applauds in all the wrong places:



I'm not certain how long it's going to take, but the liberal agenda is on full display here and those who are preaching small government and private sector are eventually going to prevail.  Why?  Because when Letterman and other liberals keep saying "tax the rich" to pay for everything under the sun there will come a day when the rich will no longer be able to afford the agenda.