I’ve had a number of interesting conversations lately with people from a wide variety of political leanings.  One of the topics that continues to come up, regardless of who I am speaking with, is what it will take to get more people engaged in the political process.  In the midst of one of the most troubling times in our nation’s history, a lot of people are wondering why it seems that a majority of Americans are oblivious to what is going on in regards to our struggling economy and the ineffectual leadership we have at all levels who have helped create or contribute to many of the economic and social problems we face.  At the very least, even if many Americans are aware of the issues or have a cursory understanding about what is going on, why are so few getting involved to help solve the problems and what will it take to motivate them to do their civic duty?

I don’t know if there are really any simple answers to this question.  Apathy in its various forms has been a problem since the beginning of time and seems to be most apparent when people are comfortable and secure.  You may have heard the saying, “10% of the people do 90% of the work.”  I have found this to be true in almost every organization, large or small, that I have been involved in.  It seems most people are along for the ride and generally will expend the least amount of effort to obtain the greatest amount of benefits.  At some point, comforts will be lost, security jeopardized and more people will wake up to the reality that they can no longer rely on the efforts of others to provide them with the comfort and security they desire.

In recent history, I think this “wake-up” call is most apparent in the Tea Party movement.  Contrary to how most of the popular media portrays them, they are not a bunch of racist, extreme right, nut jobs (okay, so there are a few who fit that description, but every movement has their outliers).  They are people who, for the most part, are fed up with the irresponsible spending at all levels of government.  They recognize that our country has been on an unsustainable fiscal path for years and that a day of reckoning is inevitable if we do not take action now to put our house in order.  Many of these people have never been politically involved, but are now learning the ropes so they can influence the reforms that must take place to avoid sending our country into an economic abyss.

So was it a loss of comfort and security that motivated these people to engage in the political process?  I believe so.  After the housing bubble burst and the subsequent financial meltdown, the financial security of most American’s was put at risk.  It hurt enough that it got people asking questions about the causes of our economic troubles and what could be done to solve them.  It became obvious to many that our government’s spending addiction was at the root of the problem and if we were going to get our economy going we would have to get spending under control.  And so the birth of the Tea Party movement… an effort by every day Americans to demand accountability from their elected officials and the responsible use of our tax dollars. The basic message is ‘get out of our way, follow the Constitution and let the principles of liberty dictate how we do business in government at all levels.’

I think the Tea Party response is instructive and ultimately answers the question as to what it will take to get people involved.  I believe that as people feel the negative effects of our struggling economy, more and more of them will seek ways to ensure their comfort and security.  This effort will naturally lead to a better awareness of the issues and a willingness to become more politically involved.  I hope it will not take an economic catastrophe to make this happen.

A few years ago, I woke up to the fact that unless I researched the numbers myself, I was never going to understand and know the truth about the fiscal position of the United States.  I came to this realization while being thoroughly confused while watching the presidential debates in 2008.  Both candidates, then Senator Obama and Senator McCain, regurgitated all sorts of numbers, percentages and calculations to describe the budget, deficit, debt, taxes, etc., but neither ever used the same numbers to describe the same thing. This lack of consistency made it impossible to know who was right, or in other words, who was telling the truth; and whether or not someone could support either of them came down to who had the more convincing delivery and less on the factual underpinnings of their arguments (we know how that turned out).  This doesn’t work for me.  I wanted to know who was telling the truth and it was no surprise when I finished my research that neither candidate was being honest.
Like many of my generation, I grew up hearing the constant accusations by our national leaders that one party or the other was to blame for the national debt.  It was always a Republican problem, or a Democrat problem, but never a “leadership” problem.  I remember discussing the national debt in high school, college and then grad school and the result was always the same… there were a lot of big numbers being thrown around with a lot of finger pointing, but regardless of who was in power, the debt kept growing.  Even in the late 90’s during President Clinton’s last term in office where the Congress and President were able to balance the budget, the national debt continued to increase. Why? Because the same politicians who were taking credit for “balancing” the budget, were writing IOU’s to the non-existent Medicare and Social Security trust funds.  The tax dollars that should have been put into these accounts to ensure the solvency and long term health of these programs was being spent, thus adding to our national debt.
So this brings us to today and the political grandstanding that is going on in D.C. over whether or not Congress should increase the debt limit.  Notice I do not call it a debate.  A debate would indicate a serious discussion based on a review of the facts and what we have here is far from serious.  Based on the proposals that have been offered by the leadership of both parties (President Obama for the Democrats and Speaker John Boehner and Senator Mitch McConnell for the Republicans), what should be a serious debate, has become a political fiasco.  This is because these proposals fall so short of actually solving our fiscal crisis that it is impossible to take either party seriously.   The proposed cuts are so small that even if Speaker Boehner’s plan was adopted to cut $4 Trillion in spending over the next 10 years, the national debt would still increase by almost 60%.  I fail to see how growing the national debt from $14 Trillion to approximately $22 Trillion over the next 10 years is going to solve America’s fiscal crisis (this does not even consider the unfunded liabilities which are growing astronomically).  On the other hand, President Obama has proposed to cut $2-3 Trillion (the number has fluctuated daily) in spending, but wants to add over $1 Trillion in taxes. If we assume the increase in taxes will not have a negative effect on the economy (which is a BIG assumption), at the end of 10 years, President Obama’s plan will put us virtually in the same position as Speaker Boehner’s with maybe an additional $1 Trillion or so to the national debt. But hey, what’s another Trillion?
The only proposal that even attempts serious spending control is the plan that passed the House called “Cut, Cap and Balance.”  I will not go into the specifics here, but it is the only plan I have seen that tries to control spending.  I don’t think it goes far enough, but this makes sense considering the fact that the drafters of the plan are trying to win bipartisan support and are trying to find some middle ground.  It leaves areas open that will need to be addressed at a later date… such as Obama’s health care over-hall, but at least it takes us in a positive direction with some real spending controls.  I think the best part of the plan is the call for a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution.  I really do not like the idea of amending the Constitution, but I think there are some issues that rise to a level where our leaders have failed so miserably that we have to amend the Constitution to protect our rights.  Our leaders’ failure to control spending definitely rises to that level.
But please, don’t rely on me for the numbers, go to the source.  You can visit the U.S. Department of the Treasury website and review the budget reports of the United States for the past 15 years and see for yourself.  http://fms.treas.gov/fr/index.html Most of the years divide the reports into two, one is an abbreviated citizen’s guide and the other is the full report.  I have found that the citizen’s guide is usually sufficient in providing a clear view as to our nation’s fiscal crisis.  One thing you will notice is the difference in reporting from one administration to the next.  Sometimes this makes understanding the reports more difficult because there is an obvious angle in the report to justify the current administration’s policies.  I personally believe this is most evident between the reports of 2008 to 2010.  Timothy Geithner, our current Secretary of Treasury, has gone out of his way to defend his policies and makes the 2010 Citizen’s Guide the most difficult to understand.  To get the full picture you will have to reference the full report.  Another good source of information can be found at http://www.pgpf.org/. The Peter G. Foundation is a nonpartisan organization committed to increasing “public awareness of the nature and urgency of key fiscal challenges threatening America’s future and to accelerate action on them.”  I find their explanations and proposals very insightful and definitely not based on a particular political ideology.
I am convinced that whatever political deal is struck over the next few months will not solve our fiscal challenges.  The leadership of both parties are more concerned about their political futures, maintaining their seats and the seats of their parties and less concerned about what is best for the American people.  The plans proposed by the party leadership are laughable and obviously designed to make an ignorant electorate believe that each party is really doing something meaningful to control spending in Washington, which is clearly not the case.  The current fiasco is just another distraction to mislead the American public.

Should we rethink the way we campaign for office in America?  Specifically, should we pass a law to restrict the amount of money that can be raised and spent on campaigns?  I am curious to see what people think about this issue.  It seems to me that almost any candidate can win today at almost any level as long as they have enough money to inundate the public with advertising to secure the necessary name recognition.  I am sure there are exceptions to this, but generally I think the amount of money a candidate raises has become the most important factor to winning elections.  The establishment knows this and it is why they spend an inordinate amount of time fundraising for campaigns and why they work so hard to secure the favor of various lobbies and other organizations that have the ability to throw in large sums of money.  So what does this say?  Does this mean the guy who donates the maximum, say $10,000, has a more influential voice, than the guy who can only afford $100?  I think it does… why have the number of registered lobbyists grown exponentially over the past 20 years and why has pork barrel spending become such a hot issue?  Does the amount of money they donate and the time they spend in personal meetings with our elected officials have absolutely no affect on the decisions our politicians make?  It seems every Congress person (insert any politician’s title here, mayor, city councilman, etc.) has someone to payback for “help” getting them elected.  ”Help” meaning $10,000 donations during each election cycle.  Did our Founders intend to setup a system where only the wealthy had a voice in elections?  I do not think so. What do you think?

We should all take a deep breath and enjoy the fresh air that is Geert Wilders. Even more so, we should be grateful to the Amsterdam court that dismissed the state’s hate speech case against Mr. Wilders. I have been loosely following this drama over the past few years and cannot express the level of relief to see some sanity still left in the Netherlands and a big win for free speech. See, Mr. Wilders is a politician who is willing to say what he believes regardless of who he may offend or what the results may be. Unfortunately for the political establishment in the Netherlands, what Mr. Wilders has been saying is resonating with a large number of voters and is helping spur the growth of the Party of Freedom of which he is the head. The political establishment, who benefit from maintaining the status quo, would like to see him quietly go away, but Mr. Wilders is standing firm. In this case, the leftist thought police and Islamic organizations who disagreed with Mr. Wilder’s views on Islam decided to use the legal system to try to shut him up. This may seem ludicrous to those of us who have grown up under the protection of the First Amendment, but disgracefully, the Dutch Penal Code makes these types of cases possible. Articles 137c and 137d of the code state that anyone who either “publicly, verbally or in writing or image, deliberately expresses himself in any way that incites hatred against a group of people” or “in any way that insults a group of people because of their races, their religion or belief, their hetero or homosexual inclination or their physical, psychological or mental handicap, will be punished.” So basically, when in the Netherlands, be sure you choose your words carefully, because if the chef is insulted because you didn’t like what he served up, then according to this law, you “will be punished.” I do not know the history of how this law was passed in the Netherlands, but don’t doubt for one minute that this is not possible in the U.S. One only needs to look at the passage of the hate crimes legislation a few years ago by our U.S. Congress to see where the thought police would like to take us. I celebrate Mr. Wilders for his willingness to stand up and start discussions that may be difficult and unpopular, but need to be debated in the public arena. We have a multitude of issues in the U.S. that need to be brought to the forefront of public discussion, but our weak politicians who are supposed to help facilitate these discussions lack the will and leadership to do so. Political correctness rules the day, so in an effort to protect people from being offended, the underlying causes of many of the problems we face today in our communities and nation go unnoticed or ignored instead of being tackled in open debate. The Islamization of the Netherlands, as Mr. Wilders puts it, is a growing problem and one which he is not afraid to discuss. In his own words, “Citizens should never allow themselves to be silenced. I have spoken, I speak and I shall continue to speak.” Our politicians should take a few notes and observe what will and leadership look like. Thank you Mr. Wilders… keep up the fight. To read more: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304569504576403392105899036.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

America is great, not because of its government, but because of the individual effort and sacrifice of its citizens to make it the greatest nation on earth. We are at our best as individuals and a country when we have the ability to make choices and allow freedom to drive those choices. Our economic prosperity is contingent upon each of us having the ability to make decisions independent of government oversight and control and without the heavy burden of oppressive taxes. I believe we are at a pivotal point in our history and have an opportunity in the next few election cycles to put our country back on track by reasserting our commitment to individual freedom and our Constitution. THE TIME IS NOW!

I believe we can restore our country’s greatness by electing new leadership who will fight to limit the size and power of the federal government, be fiscally disciplined, and support an “America first” policy both at home and abroad.

Our government should not have the authority to take our private property and give it to acorporation or other private entity. There is no justifiable reason for infringing upon our fundamental and constitutionally protected property rights. Whatever the rational today, will be the unwinding of more of our freedoms later. Today is the day we begin to build a bastion around our Constitution to protect our fundamental rights of Life, Liberty, andProperty.

We as Mississippians find ourselves in the unfortunate circumstance of having to fight to ensure these rights because our elected officials have been unable or unwilling to do so. We have already successfully collected signatures for the Personhood Amendment (Life), the Voter ID Amendment (Liberty), and have begun to work on the Eminent Domain Amendment (Property).

We will have the opportunity to vote on these amendments ourselves without having to rely on our elected officials to properly represent the voice of the people.

Eminent Domain Reform is Initiative #31 and reads as follows: “Initiative #31 would amend the Mississippi Constitution to prohibit state and local government from taking private property by eminent domain and then conveying it to other persons or private businesses for a period of ten years after acquisition. Exceptions from the prohibition include drainage and levee facilities, roads, bridges, ports, airports, common carriers, and utilities. The prohibition would not apply in certain situations, including public nuisance, structures unfit for human habitation, or abandoned property.”

Farm Bureau worked hard in 2009 to pass H.B. 803 (Eminent Domain Reform). Though H.B. 803 failed to pass, Farm Bureau is continuing this fight to protect the rights of Mississippi property owners. Farm Bureau has created a website at http://savingmyland.orgwhich has instructions and petitions for Initiative #31 which can be printed directly from the website.We will need to collect 90,000 signatures by October 1st, 2010 to get this Initiative on the ballot.

Please join me in this fight to get Eminent Domain Reform on the ballot and together we can secure our rights to property and prosperity, for this generation and future generations, together.

For more information visit http://savingmyland.org.

Does anyone really believe that things are free?  Especially when the “free” good or service is being offered as part of a government program?  Well that is exactly what the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Tracfone Wireless, Inc. would have you believe.  See, the FCC created this great new program called Safelink where income-eligible consumers can receive a free cell phone and 64 minutes of free airtime per month and it will soon be available to a qualifying Mississippi consumer near you!  No, I am not making this up.  Evidently, having access to a cell phone is now a right, a necessity for daily modern life.

Allow me to explain how a seemingly reasonable government program combined with a few years of bureaucracy and a solid dose of lobbying became yet another out of control entitlement program. In 1984, the FCC created the Lifeline Assistance Program to ensure that affordable telephone service was available to low income households.  Initially the program was funded by long distance carriers through contributions to the Universal Service Fund (USF) and only included fixed line telephone services. The program was permanently established when Congress passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996 requiring that “[e]very telecommunications carrier that provides interstate telecommunications services shall contribute to the USF (emphasis added)”.  Note that the FCC had levied a tax on long distance carriers long before the enactment of this law and received congressional approval to do so 12 years later (it is Congress’s duty under the Constitution to lay and collect taxes, not the FCC’s). This FCC required “contribution” is nothing more than a tax on telephone companies that they pass on to you and me.  You have probably seen the Universal Service Fund line item on your phone bill.  Those of us that pay for a landline or cell phone are required to “donate” to this fund each month as part of the fees our telephone service provider passes on to us compliments of the federal government. But remember, this is a contribution, not a tax.

As with all government programs, let’s not forget the layers of inefficiency…  Since the FCC lacked the expertise to manage the USF and Lifeline program, it created the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) to collect the taxes and implement the program.  Last year the USAC collected $7.1 billion dollars through the USF and spent about $170 Million in operating costs.  Presently it’s CEO and other executive officers’ pay is capped at a hefty $190,000 per year but a request for a merit based increase in pay is in the works. Interesting that the folks who want an increase in pay are the same ones who determine how much money the telecommunications companies (telecoms) have to contribute to the USF every year.  Basically, if I want to boost my performance as measured by total dollars coming in, I just have to require the telecoms to pay more taxes… brilliant!

So how do we get Safelink out of all of this?  Well, that is the name Tracfone calls its government subsidized program to provide free cell phones and airtime to its customers.  Tracfone has a posh arrangement with the FCC, through USAC, and funded by the USF that allows it to give away cell phones and a few minutes of airtime to income-eligible consumers.  Once a user burns through their airtime they can purchase more minutes through Tracfone.  Having worked with a number of wireless carriers, I know that many of them use their own money to offer these types of incentives to attract new customers. Tracfone, however found an ingenious, or should we say insidious, way to pass this investment cost onto the American tax payer. You may also find it interesting that Tracfone is owned by America Movil, a Mexican corporation.  A subsidy is bad enough, but to a foreign company! Ouch!

At this point, you might be asking yourself, “Can the FCC really take our money and use it to give away cell phones and airtime?” Well, based on decisions coming out of Washington, you should not be surprised that this is happening and it cost American tax payers nearly a billion dollars last year.  When it comes to the federal government, taking our money and giving it away to our neighbors has become the rule, not the exception.

I sincerely hope Americans will think twice before applying for this program and remember that “free” comes at a very high cost, not just monetarily, but to our own individual liberty.  Now onto “free” Health Care…