Tax policy and inequality in America (Part 2 of 2)

If you haven't read part 1, do so here. :)

~~~

Mellon’s Mark
Anyone taking an objective look at the American economy from 1919 to 1921 would have scoffed at the notion that the decade to come would be known in history as “The Roaring Twenties.” It certainly didn’t start with a roar. The end of World War I brought about a weak agricultural sector, tens of thousands of GIs looking for jobs, high taxes, a high national debt, a slow economy, and a fattened U.S. government (Schweikart and Allen, 2004).
Into this puddle of economic malaise stepped Warren Harding as the newly elected president of the United States in November of 1920. Harding’s secretary of the treasury, Andrew Mellon, immediately began studying the roots of the economic bleakness and sought a solution. Mellon found that the high rate of taxation had driven money underground as the rich invested abroad rather than pay the high taxes on business in the U.S. “Mellon concluded that lowering the rates on everyone, especially on the wealthiest classes, would actually result in their paying more taxes. From 1921 to 1926, Congress reduced rates…on the top income earners…. The tax take from the wealthy almost tripled, but the poor classes saw their share of taxes fall substantially…. The national debt fell by one third…in five years” (Schweikart and Allen, 2004).
When Harding died suddenly while in office, his quiet vice president, Calvin Coolidge, calmly took the helm and continued the restrained and stand-offish economic policies of his late boss. Things went from good to better in a hurry. “Unemployment reached the unheard-of low mark of less than 2 percent under Coolidge, and … union membership shrank... [due to] welfare capitalism preemptively providing employees with a wide range of benefits without pressure from unions.… With government playing only a small role in people’s everyday affairs, American entrepreneurs produced the most vibrant eight-year burst of manufacturing and innovation in the nation’s history.” (Schweikart and Allen, 2004).
Contrary to academics’ assumptions about the interaction of today’s public policies and economic prosperity, history shows that the “rising tide of strong economic growth lifted all boats. At the top end, total income grew as a result of many more people becoming prosperous, rather than a fixed number of high earners getting greatly richer….between 1922 and 1928…the number of taxpayers earning between $10,000 and $100,000 increased 84 percent, while the number reporting income of less than $10,000 fell” (Rugy, 2003). This period of restrained government and exploding wealth and prosperity across classes stands as a bright testament to the ideals of our founding: limited government and the strongest possible protection of personal liberty and the free market system.

Priorities of the Present Political Period
Robert Frank makes a compelling case that inequality does in fact harm the middle class and society as a whole. Demonstrating that the “positional arms race” engaged in by our materialistic society is a root cause of inequality, Frank argues that the estate tax and a progressive consumption tax are essential in the effort toward a more egalitarian society (Frank, 2007).
My contention with Frank is not that his proposals are necessarily wrong in their policy outcomes, but that they are wrong in their philosophical outcomes and therefore ultimately will fail. To borrow his words, I don’t think that a progressive consumption tax is “little more than a political pipe dream;” rather, the socialistic idea that man can create a perfect, egalitarian society is a philosophical “pipe dream” with dangerous consequences.
Friedrich Hayek, in his seminal 1944 work “The Road to Serfdom,” rightly wrote that
“Nobody saw more clearly than Tocqueville that democracy… stood in an irreconcilable conflict with socialism: ‘Democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom,’ he said in 1848; ‘socialism restricts it. Democracy attaches all possible value to each man; socialism makes each man a mere agent, a mere number. Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude’ (Hayek, 1944).
As a society, we must take a sober look the history of government power and intervention in the marketplace, confiscation of personal property and liberty, and attempts to create a perfect, egalitarian society. If the 20th Century’s experiments in the former Soviet Union, China, Cuba, Vietnam, and Cambodia (to name a few), are any indication, an egalitarian “workers paradise” is the ultimate philosophical pipe dream.
“Man,” wrote Declaration of Independence signer James Wilson “is intended for action. Useful and skilful industry is the soul of an active life. But industry should have her just reward. That reward is property.… What belongs to no one is wasted by every one. What belongs to one man in particular is the object of his economy and care. Exclusive property prevents disorder, and promotes peace” (Wilson, 1804). One of the lost values of the present political age is the preservation of private property as essential to a free and peaceful society. The idea that government has the right – and even the duty – to confiscate the property of the wealthy via taxes for the purpose of “equality,” is an assumption that flies in the face of all the written ideals of our founding. Yet, when it comes to tax policy, “the emphasis in Washington, DC, has once again turned to how to split up the economic pie rather than the effect of tax policy on the size of the pie” (Carroll, 2009). For our elected policy makers to continue to view the economic impact of taxation as a zero sum game is an irrational and historically ignorant viewpoint. Assuming that it is their place to allocate the servings of that pie is the pinnacle of political arrogance.
Eliminating the progressive income tax and replacing it with either a flat income tax or a national sales tax for the purpose of funding only the minimum constitutionally legitimate functions of the federal government would be a bold step toward curbing politicians’ insatiable appetite for playing god (Levin, 2009). No matter what the specific outcomes, our society must change its philosophical assumption that the government’s job is to “take care of us.” Returning to the ideas of constitutionally limited government, fiscal restraint, and the “hands off” policies of Harding and Coolidge, holds great promise for increasing the economic prosperity of all Americans.
Our beloved 16th president was dismayed at the socialistic and redistributive ideas of his day, saying, “That some should be rich shows that others may become rich, and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another; but let him labor diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built” (Lincoln, 1864). He knew that the point of taxation “isn’t to confiscate: it’s to raise revenue for things that will benefit society” (Lowenstein, 2007). That which ultimately benefits society more than all else is liberty and freedom from a tyrannical government. It is for these things our founders gave their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor (Declaration of Independence, 1776). Our tax policies and philosophical position towards the redistribution of wealth ought to take such a stance.
~~

If anyone would like a bibliography of the cited material, let me know. :)

Tax policy and inequality in America (Part 1 of 2)

Studying political science at what might be the most liberal academic institution north of Berkley has given me a lot of opportunities to observe, listen to, and digest a large volume of hyper-liberal ideology. Unfortunately, I have had far less opportunity to respond, as my silence is frequently critical to my grades and even, I suspect, my health.
One of the classes I am finishing up has been focused entirely on the issue of inequality in the United States. I decided to share with anyone who cares to read my thoughts on tax policy and inequality in America. This is the first of what will be a two part series. Your thoughts and comments are welcome. :)
~~~

An Introduction to Inequality
A great academic focus of many in today’s intellectual class is on the distribution of wealth and government policies of redistribution. The literature on the issue of inequality is staggering in its breadth and depth. It is not the purpose of this brief essay – were it even possible in any space of pen and page – to settle or presume to answer in any definitive way the myriad of questions about the extent of inequality in America and what the government might do about it. Rather, this essay will focus specifically on the role of government tax policy and its correlation with inequality in American society. What is the historical relationship between tax policy and inequality across all social strata, and how should these historical relationships influence future tax policy? More importantly, what is the philosophical rationale of government redistribution of wealth policies? No essay this breif could be expected to fully answer such questions, but herein I will make the case for a reduction in government involvement in wealth redistribution policies as the preferable method to increase liberty, economic growth, and societal happiness, these being preferred to the costs associated with the government imposition of a more egalitarian society.

Inequality’s Inherency
Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez teamed up in 2003 for The Quarterly Journal of Economics to document the top shares of wages from 1913 to 1998 in the United States. Their work shows that as early as 1913 (and others have shown it to be substantially true even earlier), the wealthiest percentile of capital owners was miles ahead of the middle class and poor, and were still, even after experiencing large and permanent losses during the Great Depression and World War II. They argue that “steep progressive income and estate taxation may have prevented large fortunes from fully recovering” after World War II, but that the gap in equality was still vast, and did grow in the post-war years. Theirs is far from the first study outlining inequality of income or of taxation, but it does make the important case that “long-run inequality trends are the consequence of real economic change, and… a short-run perspective might… attribute improperly some of these trends to fiscal manipulation.” In other words, though government policy is influential, one must carefully consider that inequality is too complex of a social condition as to be contained or controlled by “fiscal manipulation” (Piketty and Saez, 2006).
Other authors and researchers have gone to great lengths to demonstrate a rising inequality in America and its (debatably) harmful affects on American society (see Bartels, 2008; Frank, 2007), arguing for aggressive government intervention in pursuit of a more egalitarian society. Still others (Iyer et al, 2008) have dug into the issues of tax rate progressivity and its affect (or lack thereof) on real inequality, the hidden “excess burden” of high tax rates (Carroll, 2009), the necessity of high employment and union involvement in eradicating inequality (Kenworthy, 2009), and the affect of “changes in labor supply, savings, and portfolio decisions as a result of revisions in the tax code” (Karoly, 1996; Sanyal et al, 2000).
In spite of the vast quantities of time, effort, and money poured into researching inequality and what can be done about it, it strikes this author as rather odd that the basic assumption by seemingly every academic is that the government should do something about inequality, without really making the case that because action is possible, that action is inherently good. For that matter, the basic assumption that inequality is harmful is scarcely argued at all, save for the work of Robert Frank in his book “Falling Behind” (Frank, 2007).
It is my contention that the eradication of inequality by government redistribution of wealth is a fruitless and foolish endeavor. As such, we ought to look to history as a guide on to whether the societal welfare can be maximized without the obtuse intrusion of government on economic affairs and personal liberty and property.

Economic Recovery

It is a slow day in the small Minnesota town of Marshall , and streets are deserted. Times are tough, everybody is in debt, and everybody is living on credit.

A rich tourist visiting the area drives through town, stops at the motel, and lays a $100 bill on the desk saying he wants to inspect the rooms upstairs to pick one for the night.

As soon as he walks upstairs, the motel owner grabs the bill and runs next door to pay his debt to the butcher.

The butcher takes the $100 and runs down the street to retire his debt to the pig farmer.

The pig farmer takes the $100 and heads off to pay his bill to his supplier, the Farmer's Co-op.

The guy at the Farmer's Co-op takes the $100 and runs to pay his debt to the local prostitute, who has also been facing hard times and has had to offer her "services" on credit.

The hooker rushes to the hotel and pays off her room bill with the hotel owner.

The hotel proprietor then places the $100 back on the counter so the rich traveler will not suspect anything.

At that moment the traveler comes down the stairs, states that the rooms are not satisfactory, picks up the $100 bill and leaves town.

No one produced anything. No one earned anything... However, the whole town is now out of debt and now looks to the future with a lot more optimism.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how the United States government is conducting business today.

That Which is Seen

I'm discouraged that it is been so long since my last writing. Life has a way of displacing my passions and interests so as to express them in different ways at different times. Though I endeavor to more consistently express my musing upon this thing we call the internet, I seem unable to move these writings from an occasional occurrence and into the realm of habit. Such is life.
This I found to be a quite insightful writing by a frenchman by the name Frederic Bastiat. You can find the entirety of his musings on economics of the state here: http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html

My favorite portion, and quite relevant to the foolish state of perpetually accrediting the undeserving by the credit of the taxpayer, follows.

~ ~ ~

In all times, but more especially of late years, attempts have been made to extend wealth by the extension of credit.

I believe it is no exaggeration to say, that since the revolution of February, the Parisian presses have issued more than 10,000 pamphlets, crying up this solution of the social problem. The only basis, alas! of this solution, is an optical delusion - if, indeed, an optical delusion can be called a basis at all.

The first thing done is to confuse cash with produce, then paper money with cash; and from these two confusions it is pretended that a reality can be drawn.

It is absolutely necessary in this question to forget money, coin, bills, and the other instruments by means of which productions pass from hand to hand; our business is with the productions themselves, which are the real objects of the loan; for when a farmer borrows fifty francs to buy a plough, it is not, in reality, the fifty francs which are lent to him, but the plough: and when a merchant borrows 20,000 francs to purchase a house, it is not the 20,000 francs which he owes, but the house. Money only appears for the sake of facilitating the arrangements between the parties.

Peter may not be disposed to lend his plough, but James may be willing to lend his money. What does William do in this case? He borrows money of James, and with this money he buys the plough of Peter.

But, in point of fact, no one borrows money for the sake of the money itself; money is only the medium by which to obtain possession of productions. Now, it is impossible in any country to transmit from one person to another more productions than that country contains.

Whatever may be the amount of cash and of paper which is in circulation, the whole of the borrowers cannot receive more ploughs, houses, tools, and supplies of raw material, than the lenders altogether can furnish; for we must take care not to forget, that every borrower supposes a lender, and that what is once borrowed implies a loan.

This granted, what advantage is there in institutions of credit? It is, that they facilitate, between borrowers and lenders, the means of finding and treating with each other; but it is not in their power to cause an instantaneous increase of the things to be borrowed and lent. And yet they ought to be able to do so, if the aim of the reformers is to be attained, since they aspire to nothing less than to place ploughs, houses, tools, and provisions in the hands of all those who desire them.

And how do they intend to effect this?

By making the State security for the loan.

Let us try and fathom the subject, for it contains something which is seen, and also something which is not seen. We must endeavour to look at both.

We will suppose that there is but one plough in the world, and that two farmers apply for it.

Peter is the possessor of the only plough which is to be had in France; John and James wish to borrow it. John, by his honesty, his property, and good reputation, offers security. He inspires confidence; he has credit. James inspires little or no confidence. It naturally happens that Peter lends his plough to John.

But now, according to the Socialist plan, the State interferes, and says to Peter, "Lend your plough to James, I will be security for its return, and this security will be better than that of John, for he has no one to be responsible for him but himself; and I, although it is true that I have nothing, dispose of the fortune of the taxpayers, and it is with their money that, in case of need, I shall pay you the principal and interest." Consequently, Peter lends his plough to James: this is what is seen.

And the Socialists rub their hands, and say, "See how well our plan has answered. Thanks to the intervention of the State, poor James has a plough. He will no longer be obliged to dig the ground; he is on the road to make a fortune. It is a good thing for him, and an advantage to the nation as a whole."

Indeed, gentlemen, it is no such thing; it is no advantage to the nation, for there is something behind which is not seen.

It is not seen, that the plough is in the hands of James, only because it is not in those of John.

It is not seen, that if James farms instead of digging, John will be reduced to the necessity of digging instead of farming.

That, consequently, what was considered an increase of loan, is nothing but a displacement of loan. Besides, it is not seen that this displacement implies two acts of deep injustice.

It is an injustice to John, who, after having deserved and obtained credit by his honesty and activity, sees himself robbed of it.

It is an injustice to the tax-payers, who are made to pay a debt which is no concern of theirs.

Will any one say, that Government offers the same facilities to John as it does to James? But as there is only one plough to be had, two cannot be lent. The argument always maintains that, thanks to the intervention of the State, more will be borrowed than there are things to be lent; for the plough represents here the bulk of available capitals.

It is true, I have reduced the operation to the most simple expression of it, but if you submit the most complicated Government institutions of credit to the same test, you will be convinced that they can have but on result; viz., to displace credit, not to augment it. In one country, and in a given time, there is only a certain amount of capital available, and all are employed. In guaranteeing the non-payers, the State may, indeed, increase the number of borrowers, and thus raise the rate of interest (always to the prejudice of the tax-payer), but it has no power to increase the number of lenders, and the importance of the total of the loans.

There is one conclusion, however, which I would not for the world be suspected of drawing. I say, that the law ought not to favour, artificially, the power of borrowing, but I do not say that it ought not to restrain them artificially. If, in our system of mortgage, or in any other, there be obstacles to the diffusion of the application of credit, let them be got rid of; nothing can be better or more just than this. But this is all which is consistent with liberty, and it is all that any who are worthy of the name of reformers will ask.

Corruption in Washington: The Life and Times of John Murtha

I'll take Freedom, with a full side of responsibility, please.

Reagan Republicans

The following is an appeal to conservatives across America to reclaim the Republican party on the principles of freedom, individual liberty, and limited government. Thanks first to Ronald Reagan, who penned these words in 1977 under the title "The New Republican Party" and also to http://reagan2020.us for making them available.

~~~~

We, the members of the New Republican Party, believe that the preservation and enhancement of the values that strengthen and protect individual freedom, family life, communities and neighborhoods and the liberty of our beloved nation should be at the heart of any legislative or political program presented to the American people. Toward that end, we, therefore, commit ourselves to the following propositions and offer them to each American believing that the New Republican Party, based on such principles, will serve the interest of all the American people.

We believe that liberty can be measured by how much freedom Americans have to make their own decisions, even their own mistakes. Government must step in when one’s liberties impinge on one’s neighbor’s. Government must protect constitutional rights, deal with other governments, protect citizens from aggressors, assure equal opportunity, and be compassionate in caring for those citizens who are unable to care for themselves.

Our federal system of local-state-national government is designed to sort out on what level these actions should be taken. Those concerns of a national character -- such as air and water pollution that do not respect state boundaries, or the national transportation system, or efforts to safeguard your civil liberties -- must, of course, be handled on the national level.

As a general rule, however, we believe that government action should be taken first by the government that resides as close to you as possible.

We also believe that Americans, often acting through voluntary organizations, should have the opportunity to solve many of the social problems of their communities. This spirit of freely helping others is uniquely American and should be encouraged in every way by government.

Families must continue to be the foundation of our nation.

Families -- not government programs -- are the best way to make sure our children are properly nurtured, our elderly are cared for, our cultural and spiritual heritages are perpetuated, our laws are observed and our values are preserved.

Thus it is imperative that our government’s programs, actions, officials and social welfare institutions never be allowed to jeopardize the family. We fear the government may be powerful enough to destroy our families; we know that it is not powerful enough to replace them. The New Republican Party must be committed to working always in the interest of the American family.

Every dollar spent by government is a dollar earned by individuals. Government must always ask: Are your dollars being wisely spent? Can we afford it? Is it not better for the country to leave your dollars in your pocket?

Elected officials, their appointees, and government workers are expected to perform their public acts with honesty, openness, diligence, and special integrity.

Government must work for the goal of justice and the elimination of unfair practices, but no government has yet designed a more productive economic system or one which benefits as many people as the American market system.

The beauty of our land is our legacy to our children. It must be protected by us so that they can pass it on intact to their children.

The United States must always stand for peace and liberty in the world and the rights of the individual. We must form sturdy partnerships with our allies for the preservation of freedom. We must be ever willing to negotiate differences, but equally mindful that there are American ideals that cannot be compromised. Given that there are other nations with potentially hostile design, we recognize that we can reach our goals only while maintaining a superior national defense, second to none....

Our task now is not to sell a philosophy, but to make the majority of Americans, who already share that philosophy, see that modern conservatism offers them a political home. We are not a cult, we are members of a majority. Let’s act and talk like it.

The job is ours and the job must be done. If not by us, who? If not now, when?

Our party must be the party of the individual. It must not sell out the individual to cater to the group. No greater challenge faces our society today than ensuring that each one of us can maintain his dignity and his identity in an increasingly complex, centralized society.

Extreme taxation, excessive controls, oppressive government competition with business ... frustrated minorities and forgotten Americans are not the products of free enterprise. They are the residue of centralized bureaucracy, of government by a self-anointed elite.

Our party must be based on the kind of leadership that grows and takes its strength from the people. Any organization is in actuality only the lengthened shadow of its members. A political party is a mechanical structure created to further a cause. The cause, not the mechanism, brings and holds the members together. And our cause must be to rediscover, reassert and reapply America’s spiritual heritage to our national affairs.

Then with God’s help we shall indeed be as a city upon a hill with the eyes of all people upon us.

Thank you, Ted!

A New Dearth Of Freedom

One of the prevailing themes early on in the presidency of Barack Hussein Obama was the comparison of him to our nation’s 16th president, Abraham Lincoln. Media members, pundits, and others even went so far as to declare Obama’s inauguration “a new birth of freedom,” borrowing [and I’d say abusively so] the words from Lincoln’s “Gettysburg Address”. Considering the significant investment of emotion, identity, and ego by the media in our new president, it is strange how those comparisons have died down in recent months. It is worth considering that perhaps the policies and practices of Obama and his cronies in Congress are undermining any comparisons to man who preserved our United States.

On November 19, 1863, Lincoln addressed a group of people mourning and remembering the loss of as many as 27,000 lives. In his speech, Lincoln solemnly pledged that the death of so many Americans would give birth to freedom for a long-enslaved population and that the government “of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” Lincoln’s commitment to the preservation of the Union and the abolition of slavery would eventually cost him his very life.

On January 20, 2009, Obama was addressing a massive throng of emotionally invested supporters, willing to believe that the race of a man gave him the presidency as the birthright of a formerly enslaved people. He responded by stoking their belief that “change” had finally come, that there was “hope” for the future, and convincing at least one person that she wouldn’t “have to worry about putting gas in [her] car” or about “paying [her] mortgage.” Indeed, Obama was all set to be the greatest American President of all time.

So far there have only been a few problems; a projected 2009 budget deficit of $1,700,000,000,000 is near the top of the list. The massive failure of 88 [and counting] banks, the firing of General Motor’s CEO [and subsequent takeover by Team Obama], the endless appointment of “czars” to control and run virtually every aspect of American life, and the arrogance of the Obama administration’s forceful oppression of economic freedom under the guise of “environmental responsibility” are a few other problems in the way of Obama’s fantasy as the next Lincoln.

Instead of a new birth of freedom and opportunity, America is facing a new dearth of freedom, the loss on a scale unseen by any previous generation. With the heartbreaking tragedy of tens of thousands of lost lives, Lincoln humbly assumed that the history would “little note, nor long remember what we say here,” preferring to focus on “these honored dead” and “that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion…that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” Like the greatest presidents before him, Lincoln wholly believed in the governing principles of our republic; principles such as the separation of powers and a system of checks and balances to “enable the government to control the governed” and in turn “oblige it to control itself.”

In contrast, Obama has persistently focused on himself, his ambition, and the consolidation of his political power. As has been noted [also see this], Obama can barely restrain his obsession with himself, even in televised speeches. He ardently clings to the “progressive” ideas of state power, state control, and most insidiously, state-given rights [as opposed to unalienable rights given by our Creator]. More recently, Team Obama’s massive failure in securing the 2016 Olympics for their pals [and their egos] back in Chicago is another disgusting display of arrogant self-absorption.

In spite of the doom and gloom that threatens to invade the bright minds of conservatives and Christians all across this great nation, I persist in my optimism. I believe in the resiliency of the American people and the ideals which have made America great. The Bible reminds us that “Pride comes before destruction” and “In his pride the wicked does not seek Him; in all his thoughts there is no room for God.” Though I will respect the office of the Presidency and pray fervently for Obama and the government entrusted with protecting this nation, I do believe that revival and restoration begins in one year. The 2010 elections will reveal and define the heart of America.

Will we reject corruption and cronyism? Will we stand for righteousness, integrity, humility, and the principles and values that are foundational to the preservation of the Union? Will we elect governors, congressmen, and senators in the mold of “Honest Abe?” Time will tell. Until then, I will pray that the hearts and minds of Americans will be awakened to the real and present danger facing our constitution, our republic, and our very way of life.

Psalm 33:12 “Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord.”

Embracing Community Organization

In recent weeks, the new media has diligently uncovered and exposed the depths of corruption at the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now – commonly known as ACORN. One year ago, most Americans didn’t know what a “community organizer” was, much less what one did. Today, Americans of every political affiliation are finding out more and more about the corruption and cancer that is ACORN than we could possibly have imagined. The purpose of this author is not to blast ACORN, Obama, his Czars, Congress, or any of the other radicals bent on destroying – no wait, Obama is deconstructing language too, so we ought to use his words and call it “fundamentally transform[ing]” – America as we know it. Indeed, there is plenty of damning information to be had to demonstrate the cancerous rot these radicals are fomenting in communities across the country.

My contention is that, far from rejecting idea of “change,” “hope,” and community organizers, we ought to embrace their structure as the IV by which we insert the chemotherapy of right thinking to eradicate the cancer of the radical statists.

As I’ve written in previous posts, the preeminent purpose of this blog is to cause you, dear reader, to think carefully and rightly about the most fundamentally important ideas, or “pillars,” upon which our country was founded. I would like here to build upon that.

It is time for the long silent majority of moderate, temperate, and politically disinclined Americans to get off the couch and stand for something. If you refuse to stand for something, you will be made a serf, a pawn, and a statistic to be manipulated and used by politicians for their own personal gain. Enter the “community organizing” template.

By taking seriously the grave condition our Republic* finds itself in, Americans can begin to speak out. It remains to be seen what people motivated by a common goal, a sense of urgency, right thinking, and a fearless regard for the truth can accomplish. Although most of us are “too busy” to think about politics, much less DO something, I cannot stress enough how desperately urgent this time is. It is that very same attitude that has allowed radical statists to high-jack our government. It is time to take it back.

So, although this is far from a complete list, here are a few simple steps that you can take to join the rest of the silent majority and reclaim the America that was:

1) Get informed! This means broadening the sources of media that you expose yourself to. To any objective person, it is clear that the “old media” [CBS, NBC, ABC, NY Times, MSNBC, WA Post, etc] have a distinct political objective. Embracing the “new media” [FoxNews, talk radio, and internet news sites such as breitbart.com] is a key first step in getting informed.
2) Think! Stop spewing political talking points and start thinking! Buy books on logical thinking, or take a course at a community college, I don’t care, just teach yourself to think rationally and logically!
3) Speak! Exercise your Constitutional rights to assemble peaceably and speak freely. DO NOT BE COWED by those whom your speech threatens! Whether it is talking to a neighbor, writing a blog, writing to your local newspaper, calling a talk radio show, or organizing a community forum to discuss local or national issues, do it without fear!
4) Call your congressional representatives in the House and Senate. Demand accountability! Demand that they uphold their oath of office!

By embracing local, social involvement as the primary means by which the greatest majority of Americans can influence the national political debates, America CAN be restored, one voter, one family, one community at a time.


*If you have been brainwashed by your public school teachers, the media, or anyone else into thinking America was founded as a democracy, it’s time to do some research. Seriously. That lie in and of itself has been unbelievably destructive in American civic education. I may just have to write a complete post on this later.