The Government Teacher Blog Moved to Wordpress

Hello loyal reader,

On the recommendation of a person I know who does blogging for a living, I have decided to transfer my entire blog to the WordPress site.  I find that it has an easier to use interface for both me and my readers.  You will find all my old posts and all previously made comments have been transferred to my new site.  Please come over to the new home of The Government Teacher blog, subscribe and enjoy as you did before.  Thanks for your continued support and have a nice day.

Adam J. Bulava

Book Summary: "Broke" by Glenn Beck - Chapter #1: Ancient History, Modern Lessons

For a while now I have wanted to do a comprehensive summary of a book I have read in the past.  The subject matter of the book I choose (Broke:  The Plan to Restore Our Trust, Truth and Treasure by Glenn Beck) seems quite poignant considering the debate going on currently regarding federal debts, deficits and other budgetary issues in the states and local municipalities.  I could have done do a longer post summarizing the main points of each of the chapters but choose instead to devote sometime to each chapter to give the main points of these chapters in more detail.

One thing to know before we begin.  The book is broken up into three major parts.  Part One: The Past is Prologue (Chapters #1-9) outlines the history of how we got to 14.3 trillion dollars of debt and massive budget deficits.  Part Two: The Crime of the Century (Chapters #10-12) discuss the specific problems we face at the current moment regarding our budget deficits and debt.  Part Three:  The Plan (Chapters #13-20) outlines Glenn Beck's plan of how we can get our nation back on track to fiscal responsibility.

CITATION NOTE:  Any words that are quoted are directly from the book with an appropriate page number reference.  If another source is quoted from the book that is from Beck's massive amount of citations I will be sure to list it immediately after the pertinent information.  Enjoy.

Chapter #1:  Ancient  History, Modern Lessons
We are an empire in decline because we are crumbling from the inside, and I am not talking about our infrastructure.  The U.S. government and people are fighting a loosing battle against the laws of economics.  Our debts, deficits, unemployment, inflation rates and other financial indicators are just the side effects of the disease that we face as a nation.  "It's time to stop listening to the politicians, professors, and prognosticators and instead pay attention to the true predictor of the future:  the past" (4)

WHEN IN ROME

The United States can be likened to Rome before the fall of the empire.  Its financial condition is 'worse than advertised.'  It has a 'broke business model.'  It faces deficits in budgets, its balance pf payments, its savings--and its leadership. - David Walker (former comptroller general of the U.S., before the 2005 National Press Club

Where does this comparison come from?  It comes from examining the Edward Gibbons "The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire," released between 1776 and 1788 in six volumes.  Our Founders were familiar with this book, in fact Jefferson's copy had many notes in the margins.  Among the observations of Gibbons is that when people expect more from the government they fall prey to tyranny.  Sound familiar to discussions taking place today?  Gibbons even focuses on the education of the masses that required men to be reduced to the same level, to equalize the minds of men, where the masses must accept the interpretations of the men of learning, instead of interpreting things for themselves (Beck 5-6).  But just as the incentive to learn is killed so was the incentive to work.

High taxes ate away at the incentive to work hard; sons were forced into their father's trade; people stopped innovating because it was not worth their time, effort or creativity.  Roman bureaucracy exploded and by the fourth century AD less and less people worked, in fact the number of receiving benefits from the government was much larger than those paying taxes, because of the size of the tax assessments (Lactantius).  This was coupled with heavy military spending that strained the producers of commodities.  Citizens in the cities got more and more handouts in an method engineered by Augustus to make the people forget about their past and freedoms "in their enjoyment of plenty."  (Beck 6-7)

Rome could not pay their bills and resorted to higher taxes which the government had a hard time collecting because merchants spent to much time trying to legally avoid them.  To avoid the people's discontent emperors offered entertainment and other freebies to keep them "calm and docile."  The government now took on massive public works projects whether necessary or successful and the massive amounts of handouts exempted the poorer citizens from having to work.  This led to class warfare between the different segments of society.

There were other things that helped lead Rome into ruins but a simple equation can be found and has been replicated many times in history and is repeating itself today.  "The state encroaches on freedom and demands more power.  People take less responsibility for themselves and want more handouts from the government.  Taxes go up to pay for the handouts.  The size of government explodes and economic growth slows.  The government seeks to divert the public's attention from what is really going on to 'bread and circuses.'  Collapse, economic or otherwise ensues" (Beck 8).  Want some more examples?

GREECE LIGHTNING!
Freedom cannot last in a crisis.  Once they had economic troubles the citizens of the Greek city states turned to dictators and away from individualism.  These dictators often was a noble that "took the people into partnership" (Herodotus), to be the champion for the poor, get himself a private army, and rid the nation of the other leaders to seize power.  Greeks suffered from so many internal disputes, all over envy of their neighboring city's property.  The Greeks only saw one way to get rich, at the expense of their neighbors: greed (Beck 9).

THE SPANISH INQUISITION
In the sixteenth century, the Spanish empire was even more powerful than Rome, but it feel prey to this the same problems of bureaucracy, power and taxes.  The fall came when they consumed more than they produced and massive amounts of debt which required future revenues to pay that debt.  The state had to many employees, doctors and priest but not enough businessmen.  The biggest problem though was the ten percent excise tax on the transfer of all property.  Spanish business men evaded the tax using clever business managers.  The government than debased their currency inflating the prices on everything (Beck 9-11).  The key fatal move that caused this and other economic declines, "extravagance of the government" (Reginald Trevor Davis, Spain in Decline 1621-1700 (London: McMillan, 1957)

A FLOCK OF TIMID ANIMALS
"We are an empire on the edge of chaos," as Harvard Professor Niall Ferguson as stated.  How does the situation in the U.S. compare to these other examples?  Problem number one:  over fourteen trillion dollars of debt and rising.  What are our fatal mistakes?  Over centralization of power instead of true federalism has killed the entrepreneur, encouraged an attitude of entitlement, and a there is a "lack of pride in individual accomplishments" (Beck 11).  Rome grew through conquest, America through business growth that is being slowed by extreme regulation and "vilification of profits" (Beck 12). Every society faces inevitably and natural challenges, but how do we respond?  We can be a flock of timid animals looking to government to solve the problem as our shepherd or take hold of the problems ourselves and be our own shepherds.

History has shown us the U.S. is going down the same path as Ancient Rome, Greece and Spain.  We must learn the lessons of history because "we are not immune to the laws of economics... but we have to turn the corner now" (Beck 12).  We have the past to guide us and give us a idea of where to go, a plan to follow.

Unless current events, break up this series I intend to continue such summaries until the entire book is complete for your reading.  Next time I will address the second chapter of the same book which deals with our Founder's view on debt.  To sum it up: frugality, thrift and charity.

Questions?  Comments?  Concerns?  Class dismissed!

Time Magazine: Does It Still Matter by Richard Stengel

This week when I got my mail the newest issue of TIME magazine what should assault my eyes?  The wonderful image of the Constitution being shredded and the question "Does it still matter?" being asked by a the author and publication.  The author is the managing editor of TIME and also wrote a small piece in the Inbox of this week's issue.  This article is a response to that question.  

CITATION NOTE:  Any direct quotes will are taken from the article itself and are the property of TIME magazine and the author Richard Stengel

[Regarding what the founders gave us] the idea that a black person was three-fifths of a human being, that women were not allowed to vote, and that South Dakota should have the same number of Senator as California, which is kind of crazy.

This sentence is full of historical fallacies its not even funny, but that's par for the course in this article.  First, the three-fifths clause was not stating that imported black slaves from Africa were any less than a person than the other people of the United States.  They were only to be counted as three-fifths of a person when it came to the census and apportioning members to the House of Representatives.  The other two options before the compromise.  One, count the slaves and give the slave holding states an enormous advantage in the House of Representatives.  Two, many slave owning delegates, like George Washington, argued for not counting the slaves to help end the practice sooner, since once they were freed they would be counted in the census for representative apportionment.  So they reached a middle ground, they could count them as part of a person ONLY FOR THE CENSUS WHEN DETERMINING REPRESENTATION.  Their is no implication that this was meant to mean they were only three-fifths of a human being. This issue is dealt with in a past article on this blog.  Check it out.

Secondly, women did not have the right to vote in any society during the eighteenth century.  The idea of denying women the right of suffrage women did not start in the U.S, but the start of the women's suffrage movement in the U.S. started even before the Constitutional Convention.  Abigail Adams told her husband after signing the Declaration of Independence to not "forget about the women."

Third, the whole purpose of giving all states equal representation in the Upper House of the U.S. Congress was the result of the Great or Connecticut Compromise.  This was the most contentious argument of the entire Constitutional Convention.  It was put in place to protect the states with smaller populations from the larger states.  It is recognition that not only do the people need to be represented but so do the states.  The idea that the individual states are no greater or lesser than each other in the country so they should be represented equally in the legislature.

"The Constitution was written explicitly for one purpose--to restrain the federal government" (Ron Paul).  In fact, the framers did the precise opposite.  They strengthened the center and weakened the states.

The author is right on one point but wrong on the other.  The constitution  was written to strengthen the federal government because of the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation.  He is wrong in that it weakened the states.  If you were to do even some cursory research on the views of the founders and their views of state's powers in relation to federal power, even they would say in the unamended Constitution that the states have more power.  The Constitution had very specific and explicit powers.  Anything that was not directly forbidden by the Constitution belonged to the states.  They could write laws about everything else not expressly mentioned in the Constitution.

If the Constitution was intended to limit the federal government, it sure doesn't say so. Article I, Section 8, the longest section of the longest article of the Constitution, is a drumroll of congressional power. And it ends with the "necessary and proper" clause, which delegates to Congress the power "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." Limited government indeed.

Everyone I meet that misreads this one section of the Constitution.  In fact, I did a whole article on this one clause several years ago.  This does not expand the government's power in any way, shape or form.  It only allows the government to make additional laws to carry out the powers in this Constitution.  It does not state they can change the meaning of the words, or add any authority not already explicitly given.  It limits to government only to those things already listed.

The War Powers Resolution is a check on presidential power, but the President seeks to balance this by, well, ignoring it. That's not unconstitutional; that's how our system works. The larger question is whether the War Powers Resolution is constitutional.

If the President is ignoring the law and refusing the enforce it, his actions are unconstitutional.  He swore an oath to faithfully execute the office of President, which includes enforcing all federal laws, even the ones with which he does not agree or like.  The War Powers Resolution is federal law; he is in violation of the laws of this nation and his oath of office.  The War Powers Resolution could very well be deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in the future but it has not yet and until such time it is valid U.S. law to the enforced by the President of the United States.

The government does require us to pay taxes, serve on juries, register for the draft. The government also compels us to buy car insurance (if we want to legally drive our car), which is a product from a private company. George Washington once signed a bill asking Americans to buy a musket and ammunition.

The first three powers mentioned by the author are clearly expressed powers in the Constitution. (Taxes = Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 1; juries = Article III, Section 2 under the necessary and proper clause; draft = raising and maintaining an army and navy, Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 12).  The last one is a power of the state governments not the federal.  This is one of those areas where the state governments are superior and more powerful than the federal government.  There is no authority granted in the Constitution to force someone to buy a product.  I challenge someone to find and share the authority.  Also, the whole point of requiring a person to purchase auto insurance is to protect the people who are not at fault in an accident.  Lastly, Washington asked Americans to buy a musket, he did not require them by law, to do so.

No one really disputes Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce, and it's silly to argue that health care — which accounts for 17% of the U.S. economy — doesn't involve interstate commerce.  Your doctor's stethoscope was made in one state and was shipped to and sold in another.

Just because a piece of medical equipment is made in one state and shipped to another does not give the government the authority to regulate that company or even one-sixth of the U.S. economy.  Health insurance is not  interstate commerce.  I am only allowed to buy health insurance from companies allowed to do business in my state.  Some states have only one company their citizens can buy from.  Congress would have the authority to write a law that stated any health insurance company, could set up shop in any state, as long as they follow the appropriate state laws.  That would be in the spirit and original intent of the Founders.  The interstate commerce clause was to ensure free and unrestricted trade among the states in the Union.  Meaning one state cannot stop a company from another state from doing business in its border.  Its intent was not to give the government authority to regulate any business that makes widgets in one state and ships them to another.

But what happens when that healthy, young uninsured woman goes skiing and tears her anterior cruciate ligament and has to have emergency surgery? She can't afford to pay the full fee, and the hospital absorbs much of the cost.

That is one thing you could do.  The other thing is you could make the person responsible for paying the bill.  Allow hospitals to go after those who do not pay their bills.  It is a matter of personal responsibility; you run up a bill you have to pay for it.

The remedy for bad laws is elections.

Which explains the "shackling" the Democrats took in the 2010 midterm elections.  The American people spoke out clearly against the bad laws that were being written in the first two years of Obama's term.

Some opponents of birthright citizenship argue that illegal immigrants are not under U.S. jurisdiction and therefore their children should not automatically become citizens, but this argument doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

Firstly, the author never explains why this argument does not hold up under scrutiny.  Seconly, he ignores a large part of the 14th Amendment that explains that jurisdiction.  Let's read the 14th Amendment:  "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States..." The clause clearly states that only the born or naturalized in the United States are citizens and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Another interesting aspect of this Amendment is the last clause: "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."  What this means is Congress can by "appropriate legislation" define the limits of born and naturalization.  They have done this before.  That is one of the contentions of why birthers argue President Obama is not a natural born citizen.  When he was born his mother may not have been old enough to confer natural born citizenship upon him since his father was not a citizen of our nation.  A colleague stated that when she was in England in the 1960s and 70s she had a kid and her kid was not allowed automatic U.S. citizenship because she was not old enough when she had him to confer citizenship by blood.

It's equally strange to me that a nation that was forged through immigration — and is still formed by immigration — is also a nation that makes it constitutionally impossible for someone who was not physically born here to run for President. (Yes, the framers had their reasons for that, but those reasons have long since vanished.)

I have to respectfully disagree with the author for the need for only natural born citizens to be the constitutionally allowed citizens  to run for President.  Even my students in U.S. Government understand the motivation behind this clause.  It was written to prevent the installation or election of a king or other foreign national from becoming President.  It is still important today whether the author thinks those reasons are valid or not.

We need to make legal immigration easier, faster and cheaper so that illegal immigration becomes harder and less desirable.

Agreed but we still need to have good legislation to only allow the best and the brightest to be welcomed here.  We still need to keep out the criminals and others, which Congress has the authority to do under Article I, Section 8.

The Constitution works so well precisely because it is so opaque, so general, so open to various interpretations. Originalists contend that the Constitution has a clear, fixed meaning. But the framers argued vehemently about its meaning. For them, it was a set of principles, not a code of laws. A code of laws says you have to stop at the red light; a constitution has broad principles that are unchanging but that must accommodate each new generation and circumstance.

The Constitution is not "so general."  Look at the hundreds of documents and newspapers articles that were written, and the speeches that were given during its ratification and you will find the author is so wrong.  The Founders knew what each phrase meant and its meanings can be easily discerned with a little bit of research by looking at these documents, like the Federalists Papers or even the transcripts of the Constitutional Convention by James Madison.  And that is the major problem I have with this author. He states in "What Would the Framers Say?" from the Editor's desk feature earlier in the magazine:

Politicians ask all the time, What would the Framers say?  The truth is, we don't know, and they're not around to prove anyone wrong.

WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!  As I stated above the founders words and intent can be found with a little bit of research.  The Founders may not have known about airplanes, terrorist attacks, the internet, Ipods or anything else that has sprung up in the 222 years since the ratification of the Constitution.  I guarantee the principles, intent and solutions behind all of these modern problems and items can be found in their writings.

They gave the government specific powers of foreign relations and commerce both with foreign nations and between the states.  That was their main goals at the convention:  protect the nation from foreign invaders and from internal squabbling.  Let me give you an example of how modern issues can be solved with original intent with the Internet and its appropriate commerce.

Did you know when  you buy a product from Amazon, in most states you are still required to pay the state sales tax even if the company did not already charge you that percentage?  Now you do.  The Constitution was written to help free and unrestricted trade among the states, under Article I, Section 8.  Congress has the authority require force internet based companies that operate in the U.S. selling goods and services to incur that sales tax on the citizen that bought the item and submit that tax revenue to the appropriate state.  My wife and I had a discussion on this about how do you determine what state sets the tax rate and receives the revenue.  My contention is that the state where the person is buying the product is the state with the greater jurisdiction, even if it is shipped to another state.  If buy a product here in Nevada and then move it to another state I am not required to pay sales tax again.  There is one example; give me others and lets work on them together on whether Constitution deals with that inside is words.  And if it doesn't then those are the nearly unlimited powers of the state and local governments.

Point being, the Constitution still matters.  It is the rule above all rules in our nation.  If it does not matter than the limits on the government and protections it provides the citizens of this nation do not matter.  We are a people not bound by ethnicity or nationality, but by this document its limits on the government and its protections regardless of the era in which we are living.  But one thing to remember is even if these document did not exists...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

Questions?  Comments?  Concerns?  Thanks for reading and lets all wish a happy 235th birthday to the U.S.A.!  Class dismissed.

Book Review: The Keys to the White House by Alan Lichtman

A few days ago I finished a book that I had heard about at the Silver State AP Conference a few years ago.  The teacher of my class on AP U.S. Government & Politics explained to us the thirteen indicators or "Keys" that can accurately predict who will win the popular vote in any given presidential election since the election of 1860.  While this system is not a sure guarantee since the winner of the popular vote has lost on several occasions (the most recent being the 2000 election), it is a fairly good indicator of who the President will be when the election is over.

There are several things to explain.  First, their are thirteen indicators or "Keys" that can be turned in favor or against the incumbent party candidate.  If six or more of the "Keys" statements are found to be false (Turned against the incumbent party candidate) than the challenging party candidate will win the popular vote.  If five or less of the "Keys" states are found to be false (Turned against the incumbent party candidate) then the incumbent party candidate will win the popular vote.  Let's get started on the individual keys and their application to both the most recent and the forthcoming Presidential Elections.

NOTE:  There are many keys that cannot necessarily be predicted for the 2012 election at this time.  The predictions made in the analysis are my own and reflect my best guess as to the situation of the keys as they may fall in the 2012 election.  This is not meant to be biased in anyway specifically against the current administration.  It is meant as fair assessment of how the keys may have already turned or will turn against the incumbent administration.  If a specific key is marked by a question mark that means this could still change in the months leading up to the general campaign and election.

Key 1:  Party Mandate - After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seat in the U.S. House of Representatives than it did after the previous midterm election.
2008:  False (0-1)
2012:  False (0-1)

This key is based on the proportional changes in the U.S. House of Representatives of the incumbent versus challenging parties.  The incumbent party wins the key if it achieves a net gain in its House seats from the previous presidential and midterm elections combined.  In the 2008 election, the Republicans, the incumbent party in the White House, had already lost 31 seats in the previous midterm election which meant this key was turned in favor of the challenging party, the Democrats.  The same is true for the upcoming 2012 Presidential Election.  The Republicans (Challenging party) gained 63 seats in the House during the 2010 Election, which even if you combine the previous gains in the last two House elections is a net gain over the democrats.

Key 2:  Nomination Contest - There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination.
2008:  True (1-1)
2012:  True? (1-1)

This key is turned against the incumbent party candidate if their is a serious competition for the party nomination prior to the general election.  To turn this key for the incumbent party, a candidate must "win at least two-thirds of the total delegate vote on the first ballot at the nomination convention" (Litchtman 26).  In 2008 the incumbent party nominee was John McCain who won the nomination with 98% of the delegate votes.  As of right now there is not Democratic Party candidate that will more than likely challenge sitting President Barrak Obama.  There may be a later runner but for now it is true, and will more than likely stay that way.

Key 3:  Incumbency - The incumbent-party candidate is the sitting president.
2008:  False (1-2)
2012:  True  (2-1)

This key is self-explanatory so I won't spend a lot of time on it.  In 2008, the incumbent party (Republicans) could not nominate the sitting President since he had already been elected to two terms as limited by the Twenty-Second Amendment to the Constitution.  In 2012, barring any candidates challenging President Obama to the Democratic Party nomination he this key will turn in his favor.

Key 4:  Third Party - Their is no significant third-party or independent campaign.
2008:  True (2-2)
2012:  True? (3-1)

For this key to be turned against the incumbent party candidate, a third party candidate must garner significant support on the night of the election.  The threshold that one or more third party candidates must meet is five percent or more of the popular vote.  In 2008, their were several candidates from third parties that ran also in the election, but none of them alone or combined met the five percent threshold.  We cannot necessarily accurately predict this one at the present moment.  The Libertarian Party has a good chance of getting additional support this year because of the huge backlash against the Obama administration's policies.  The Tea Party Movement could also play a factor, though they are not an established political party in the U.S.

Key 5:  Short Term Economy - The economy is not in recession during the election campaign.
2008:  False (2-3)
2012:  False? (3-2)

This is the second best predictor of an election.  In all eight elections in which the economy has been in a recession the incumbent party has lost the election (Lichtman 32).  This key plays not only on facts presented by experts, but also on the perceptions of the electorate.  In 2008, the economy was definitely in the middle of a recession that had started a year or more before.  In 2012, we don't know accurately yet if we will be in a recession.  Their could be a big change in policy that brings us out of this current recession before the campaign.  According to the National Bureau of Economic Research the economic recession ended in June 2009.  But the fact is many people in the electorate don't buy the facts.  Unless something drastic is done in the next few months that spur economic growth this key could be turned against the Obama administration.

Key 6:  Long-term Economy -  Real annual per-capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms.
2008: False (2-4)
2012:  False? (3-3)

This key relies on broad based and long term indicators of economic growth.  While the voters may not make the calculations themselves they can notice a long term trend of economic indicators.  This is also the one that confounds the most out of people when trying to predict.  In 2008, the incumbent party candidate John McCain had to deal with the down turn of the economy at the start of and end of Bush's terms.  There was also significant growth at the end of Clinton's last term and after the initial recession of Bush's first term. In 2012, President Obama has nothing to lose in this area because Bush's last term was atrocious in terms of economic growth.  This key will turn on the whether it exceeds the mean growth of both of Bush's terms.  I have looked at numerous pieces of information in trying to predict this key.  It is my estimation that this key will not turn in favor for Obama; here is why.

Using the chart above I figured out the average GDP (gross domestic product) - real growth rate of the United States.  In Bush's first term the average was 2.7125%; his second term was 2.675%.  So far in the Obama administration he has an average of 0.4% of economic growth.  Obama has a lot of ground to make up to even come close to that kind of growth with his last eighteen months of this current term.  Not impossible but I think everyone can agree this key will not be won by him.

Key 7:  Policy Change - The incumbent party administration effects major changes in national policy.
2008:  False (2-5)
2012:  True (4-3)

This key is also fairly self-explanatory.  Again these keys do not rely on political ideology or partisan politics.  The policy change must not only depart from established practices or break new ground, but this must be widely perceived at the time (Lichtman 37).  This can be both domestic or foreign policies.  In 2008 this key was turned against John McCain because the Bush Administration did not have any major policy changes in his second term.  Most of them were continuations of what had already been accomplished during his first term.  President Obama secured this key during this first two years in office with the health insurance reforms that are now known as Obamacare.  Even if  the legislation is repealed or deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, this key still will turn in his favor.

Key 8:  Social Unrest - There is no sustained social unrest during the term.
2008:  True (3-5)
2012:  True (5-3)

To turn this key against the incumbent party "unrest must manifest itself in violent challenges to authority that either are sustained or raise concerns that remain unresolved at the time of the election campaign.  This key shows that the administration is unable to cope with with crisis (Lichtman 38).  This key has not been turned against an incumbent since 1968.  While there have been major political protests against both President Bush and Obama neither of these have been violent challenges against the government.  It is unlikely to turn against Obama in the next eighteen months. 

Key 9:  Scandal - The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal.
2008:  True (4-5)
2012:  True? (6-3)

Only one administration has ever survived a major scandal to be elected to a second term and that is because the incumbent candidate could not be linked to the scandal itself. A major scandal must "bring discredit upon the president himself, calling into question his personal integrity, or at least his faithfulness in upholding the law."  These must touch the president personally or actions of other administration officials that the president "mishandled" (Lichtman 39). While there may have been some questionable actions by the President Bush in during this second term, there was nothing to the level described above to turn the key against the incumbent party.  As of right now there is not pending scandal directly attached to the President.  Though, given the information coming forward about Operation Fast and Furious this key could easily be turned against President Obama.

Key 10:  Foreign/Military Failure - The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs.
2008:  False (4-6)
2012:  False? (6-4)

"A foreign policy setback can result in a single, 'splash' event that commands public attention or from sustained disappointment with the conduct of high-visibility foreign enterprise" (Lichtman 43).  In 2008, the failure of a major successes in the Iraq War turned this key against President Bush and the incumbent party candidate John McCain.  This key could very much be up in the air and subject interpretation.  I predict this key being turned against President Obama because of the many minor things he has been subjected himself too in foreign affairs.  The many occasions of him bowing to foreign leaders, limited involvement in the political protests around the world, being dressed down by Israeli PM Netanyahu while out of the country, and the several times he has brought himself forward at several world conferences and not achieved any success could all work against him with this key.

Key 11:  Foreign/Military Success - The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs.
2008:  False (4-7)
2012:  True (7-4)

"The great majority of foreign successes have been decisive victories in war or momentous treaties.  Judgement about foreign successes... must be made in the context of the times" (Lichtman 44, 45).  The book states that this key turned against President Bush, but due to a "lack of an offsetting triumph abroad" (Lichtman 178).  I would argue that the Surge tactic of President Bush as recommended by General Petraeus in 2007.  It can be argued that the increased number of soldiers in was a success in that it helped stem that sectarian and terrorism based violence in that nation.  I am not sure whether or not it might meet the high standard of this key though; so I keep it as a false statement and turn it against the incumbent party candidate.  Even if it had been a true statement, the keys still work because the incumbent party candidate would still have six keys turned against them, therefor they lose.  This key is hung one major military success of President Obama: the assassination of Osama bin Laden.  While it may have only given him a slight bump in the polls and it was accomplished because of Bush Administration policies, it is a decisive victory against our enemies, Al-Qaeda.

Key 12:  Incumbent Charisma - The incumbent-party candidate is charismatic or a national hero.
2008:  False (4-8)
2012:  True (8-4)

"Few candidates have reached this threshold... but only when there is an extraordinary persuasive or dynamic candidate, or one who has attained heroic status through achievements prior to his nomination" (Lichtman 46).  In 2008, the incumbent party candidate, John McCain could not turn this key.  While he was a Vietnam Veteran, spending many years abroad in a prisoner of war camp, he does not have a heroic status in the military.  Meanwhile, President Obama is without a charismatic candidate; that is without doubt or debate.

Key 13:  Challenger Charisma - The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or national hero.
2008:  False (4-9)
2012:  ????? (8-4 or 5)

This is the only key where the challenging party organization and candidate can affect any major change in the campaign.  The party must be willing to nominate a person who matches the description above in Key 12.  In 2008, this was Senator Barrack Obama, as stated before, it is beyond doubt that he is charismatic.  In the upcoming election, this could go either way.  A nomination of a candidate like Sarah Palin or Governor Chris Christie, or a national hero like Generals McCrystal or Petraeus could turn this key against the incumbent party.  This one cannot be determined until early next year.

2012 Predicted Results:  Undecided
Looking at the predictions above President Obama could very easily attain a win in the popular vote and a second term as President of the United States.  But if you look at there are several of the keys that could be in question or interpreted in a different way.  If the Republicans nominate a charismatic candidate and Operation Fast and Furious gets pegged directly to President Obama, we may have a new President on January 20, 2013.  Some of the false statements could also be returned to a true as we approach the election as well and therefore give him a second term. 

I would be interested in you, my readers, views of the these keys and how they can be turned for the 2012 Presidential election.  Remember, this predicts who wins the popular vote, not the Presidency itself, because of the electoral college.

Questions?  Comments?  Concerns?  Class dismissed.

Public Policy: Reforming Taxes, Debts and Deficits

Today's article will focus on my message, if I were the President of the United States, to Congress about our taxes, debts and deficits.  Unfortunately today, people on both sides of the aisle are playing political chicken about the reforms that must be made to make the United States government solvent and be able to pay its bills.  Here would be a rough transcript of my speech to Congress and the U.S. regarding these topics.

My fellow Americans it is time that we face the problem of our generation, debts, deficits and taxes.  I am going to take the lead and, as our Constitution states, "recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient," and make no mistake about it our need is necessary and expedient.  What I am suggesting today will be my attempt to address the budget deficits that have grown so large in the last few years, the national debt that we have ballooned out of proportion to our economy, and a tax system that is made to take advantage and benefit many people instead of collecting revenue for the essential job of government.  I would like to start with the tax code.

The tax code is over 80,000 pages long with numerous tax breaks, tax credits, deductions and other tax tricks that allow people to get out of paying their fair share to the government.  Everyone expects money back from the government every year and that is not how our tax system should be run.  It is time to overhaul our entire tax code.  While I may not agree with the income tax in principle, since it was strictly forbidden in the unamended U.S. Constitution, we can use this system to ensure everyone pays their share for the protections they receive from the federal government.  I would like to see on my desk in the next six months a reformed tax code by the U.S. Congress, that would be implemented at the start of the next calender year.  I am looking for a few basic things in this tax code.

First, a flat simple tax rate that everyone is pays into regardless of income level.  I would be open to having a few different levels of tax rates, at the most three, but no individual tax rate should be exorbitantly or unreasonably high.  We need to get rid of the pages and pages of documents printed each year for taxes and simplify it to a single page return.

Second, no deductions, subsidies, or tax credits.  It is not the job of the single, renter with no kids to subsidize the married, homeowner with 19 kids.  It is not the job of the government to subsidize or encourage any economic behavior.  Let the tax we pay be the tax we pay.

Thirdly, all federal, state and local welfare benefits that provide direct monetary assistance will be counted as income and counted towards their income taxes.  The state, local and all federal agencies that provide such assistance from tax payer dollars must provide each recipient with a valid tax documents stating the money the received from the program and how much of it was taken out via taxes like in your pay checks.  Also, every single company must have every single employee on the books for tax purposes.  If any company is paying anyone under the table we will come after you.

Fourthly, to protect the weakest among us.  No taxes will be paid until a person's income is above the locally determined poverty level.  Employers and government agencies may still withdraw from a person's paycheck or benefits, a specific percentage each paycheck to send to the government in taxes.  They will still provide W2s and other documentation to prove wages earned and taxes paid, and if a person paid more than was required above the poverty level that will be returned to the person as a tax refund.

Another problem we have is with how much we spend each year in the federal government.  I am submitting a budget to Congress in the next few weeks that asks each individual department, agency and part of the executive branch and the federal bureaucracy to cut at a minimum of 10% from their budgets.  I will submit this to Congress when it is prepared.  Also, over the next year I will be talking to each and every executive department and federal agency to discuss what it does for the people of this nation.  The substance of those discussions is to submit to Congress at the start of the next year a plan to drastically reorganize and to make the executive branch more efficient and less wasteful.  This will include the elimination or consolidation of many departments, and federal agencies.  I encourage Congress to also, look it its own budget and structure to submit to me a change in how they could be more efficient and cost effective for the American people.  I have several ideas, but will only push them on this if they cannot make the changes themselves in the next 18 months.

The major last problem we have in facing our debts and deficits is from our mandatory spending in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid , and other entitlement programs.  It is time for reform on this issue.  These programs were meant to only be safety net programs, not programs everyone can draw upon.  I strongly urge Congress to make the requirements for all of these programs stricter for those who will draw upon them in the future.  They should be designed only to help the weakest among us and only when absolutely necessary.  It is not the Constitutional duty to provide for the citizens retirement pensions, or old age health insurance.  The free market will do it cheaper and more efficiently.  Also it is the job of the people through local charity to help out their neighbors; we need to get back to that mentality.  But also we must consider that only the taxes taken out of the paychecks for that purpose is the only money we can use to pay for those programs.  And everyone should help bear the cost of these programs.

One more thing, a smaller reasons why our government costs so much is all the laws that Congress decides to pass.  All these laws must be enforced by me, which cost the tax payers a lot of money.  I will not sign any law that I feel does not meet the standard of the expressed powers of the U.S. Constitution.  I will also sign no laws until these measure, as I directed above are passed. 

Questions?  Comments?  Concerns?

CNN GOP Debate

Ok sorry about this article not being posted sooner.  I swear I told Blogger to post it the day after the debate.  But here it is now for your reading pleasure.

On June 13, CNN held an open debate for declared and undeclared GOP candidates for the Republican nomination in the 2012 Presidential race.  Today’s blog is devoted to answer the questions that were asked of the candidates.  Some questions were posed specifically to specific candidates and will be answered as a general question.  The questions were pulled from the CNN.com Live Blog of the event as well as my own viewing of the event.  The full event can be watched at the CNN website.

What are your plans to create jobs and cut government spending? (Follow up: How do we get to 5% growth with tax cuts if that did not happen under President Bush?)
As President of the United States I first would order a full scale audit of all federal regulations and the entire federal bureaucracy.  The purpose of this audit is to look for unnecessary, conflicting and unconstitutional federal regulations that are placed on business.  Each federal agency will be required within my first six months in office to report on those regulations to me which I would submit to Congress for their debate and approval.  Secondly, I would submit a plan to government to massively overhaul the federal bureaucracy.  This plan would eliminate, consolidate, or reform many executive departments and other federal agencies to save the American citizens money. 

The United States did not get a 5% economic growth under President Bush because he just cut taxes.  President Bush and the Republicans in Congress, most of whom were kicked out of office in 2006, 2008 and 2010, did not cut spending.  The government must cut its spending as well as the taxes we lay on our citizens to get the economy of the United States growing at any percentage.

What three steps would you do to de-fund "Obamacare" and repeal it as soon as possible?
First, I would not appropriate any funding in the budgets I submit to Congress every year.   Any budget that would try to restore or add funding to enforce such legislation would be vetoed by me as President.  Secondly, I would ask members of Congress to submit a new bill that would replace Obamacare with common sense legislation that creates a true free market system for our citizens to buy affordable health insurance but also hold insurance companies responsible for cutting citizens who have premiums all their life and then are dropped when they need it most.  Thirdly, I would go after waste and abuse within Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and other federal entitlement and welfare programs to save the American people more money and make the federal government more fiscally responsible.

Will you have a balanced approach to governing including all parties and groups?
I guess it depends on what you mean by a balanced approach to governing.  All groups, caucuses, political parties, intentest groups have a right and a privilege to lobby their case before the Congress of the United States.  As President my balanced approaches to governing will include balancing the power of the federal government against the Constitution of the United States.  And if the Constitution does not give the federal government the authority to govern in that area then it will be vetoed.  I don’t care if the ideas come from Republicans, Democrats or Libertarians, from Conservatives, Liberals or Moderates.  The Constitution is the balancing that all laws must be weighted against and many have been found wanting.

How will you return or keep manufacturing jobs in the U.S.?
For manufacturing jobs to be returned to the United States must include steps taken within the first question.  Federal regulations on businesses must be reduced only to the necessary and proper regulations that are constitutional.  I would return the regulation of businesses to the states.  There is no authority in the Constitution for the federal government to generally regulate business.  The original intent interstate commerce clause of Article I, Section 8 was to prevent the states from hindering trade with the other states since they were supposedly in union with each other.  As Presidents, I will let the free market decide where businesses thrive and flourish based on the different regulations of the 50 states returning authority in this area back to the states and local governments.

Where do you fall on the right to work?  Would you support federal right to work legislation?
Every citizen has the right to work in any job that they want to pursue, if they are the best citizens for that job.   It is not the job of the government to force its workers to join a specific group to practice their chosen profession.  It is not the job of the government to force any private business to support or hire employees from a particular group.  It is an inalienable right of the people to freely work in any legal profession without restriction or forced association with another group.  I would not support federal right to work legislation because it has not authority within the U.S. Constitution.  I would strongly encourage the states to pass such legislation if they choose to do so, under the 10TH Amendment and the principle of Federalism.

What standards to do you have for government assistance in private enterprise?
None.  It is not the job of the federal government to assist private enterprise.  It is the job of the federal government to ensure the states are not practicing commercial protectionism or monopolistic practices that prevent private enterprise.

TARP?  Bailout a success?
Bad idea, hastily drawn together and is quickly becoming a federal government slush fund.  Bailouts are never a success, but if there is one way TARP was a success it is this.  Banks did not lend out the money we gave them.  If they had, the influx of $800 billion in new loans would have decreased the value of the dollar and increased inflation.  The banks saved us by not lending out the money.

Those banks that made bad choices should have been allowed to fail.  Stronger banks would have been created or risen up to take their places.  The same is true in the cases of GM and Chrysler.

What is the role of government in space exploration?
It is the job of the government to provide the standards by which private enterprise can start the exploration and research of space.  I do not see a need to cut funding from NASA as this time nor stop setting our sights for higher goals in this area.  I want to set a goal that the U.S. will have a permanent citizen run base on the moon in the next ten years.

How will you improve housing? (What would you do to right the housing ship?)
It is not the job of the federal government to ensure every citizen owns a house.  It is not the job of the government to subsidize home ownership with the taxes of the citizens who rent.  It is the job of the state and local governments to improve and regulate housing legislation.

How would you keep Medicare solvent?  Social Security?
The United States citizens are on the hook for more than $63 trillion in unfunded liabilities in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.  The first act I would take as President is to recommend to Congress that they enact legislation that prevents the Congress and future presidents from drawing upon the surplus taxes collected from individuals and businesses would not be included in the general fund.  Included in that legislation would be that Congress cannot appropriate revenue from specific purposes and taxes to other programs.

Secondly, I would encourage Congress to consider a serious overhaul of both system which would include raising the age that citizens could draw upon Social Security and Medicare.  When the system was designed, the “retirement age” was three years past the average life expectancy.  The system needs to be reformed in a responsible way to protect it for future generations or to spit us all out of the system while protecting those in the system and those who will realistically need the system for their retirement survival.  It is not the job to provide retirement pensions or old age medical insurance to the citizens of this nation.  This is a job of personal responsibility for the citizens to accomplish.

Will Congress raise the debt ceiling?
I hope not, because it will finally force us as a government to confront the serious fiscal situation we face as a nation.

Separation of Church and State?
This is not a constitutional doctrine.  The original intent of the Freedoms of Religious practice in the 1ST Amendment was to prevent the encroachment of government in religion, not to prevent religion from encroaching on the job of government.  In fact many of our laws and parts of our Constitution are based off of religious text such as the Bible. 

Are American Muslims less committed to the constitution than Christians or Jews?
Not necessarily, but there are elements of the Muslim community that would like to see Sharia Law implemented as the law of the land inside the United States.  This would be a violation of the establishment clause in the 1ST Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  Any separatist Muslim  community in the U.S. that lives by these standards is more than likely in violation of the U.S. and state constitutions, as well as state statutes in several areas. 

Overturn laws allowing same-sex couples to legally marry?
It is not the job of the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the laws passed by the people of the states in regards to marriage.  The states have the right under the 10TH Amendment to regulate marriage, and this power does not belong to the federal government.  Any Supreme Court decision regarding this issue should be focusing on the issues related to Full Faith and Credit in Article IV of the Constitution.

Stance on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell?"
I believe that homosexual men and women have the right to serve without prejudice or discrimination in the United States military.  I also know this makes many people, including some men and women in our military, uncomfortable.  I feel that there are regulations and laws on the books within the Uniform Code of Military Justice that would protect any man or women who serve in our military from being harassed sexually by any member serving with them.  This change over will also take time and must be handled sensitively.  Homosexual men and women must be protected from those who might do them harm or harass them.  But there will also be heterosexual men and women who will not want to be housed or shower with homosexual men and women.  We need to make sure their needs and beliefs of these men and women respected, as much as we protect the beliefs of homosexual men and women.

Should Romney's changed position on abortion rights be an issue in this primary?
The right to an abortion is not about a woman’s right to choose, it is about the inalienable right to life we all have granted by our Creator, which was expressed in the Declaration of Independence.  We in the United States must make it a point to protect those who are the most vulnerable. 

Most abortions in the United States are elective.  Many people make the argument about babies created out of rape or incest.  Less than 1% of all abortions are because of these reasons.  I would be willing to consider this as an option in legislation but there are better options than killing an innocent victim of said crimes.

What is your plan for preventing illegal immigrants from using U.S. services?
Enforce immigration law currently on the books.  Period.  There is much more to be said about immigration law, its enforcement and removal of the old quota system, but if we enforce the laws of this nation, many will voluntarily self-deport to their countries of origin.  Enforcing current passed legislation would go a long way in preventing illegal immigrants from taking advantage of U.S. services.

Should governments be allowed to seize private land for major projects to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil?
The government is prevented by the 5TH Amendment to the U.S. Constitution from seizing private property unless it is being used for public use.  Giving land to private companies to make jobs that benefit a local community or tax base is not a viable public use, which is why many states are fighting back against these eminent domain abuses by local and state governments.  Nevada is one example when the citizens of that state passed the PISTOL initiative a few years ago.

Time to bring our combat troops home from Afghanistan?
As long as the mission is accomplished and we have no fear that terrorist organizations will be setting up bases within that country anymore.  It is time to withdraw all American soldiers from areas of the world where we are no longer needed.  We have bases all over the world that cost the American tax payers billions of dollars a year and are unnecessary for our protection, the sole job of the United States military.  Our main military and defensive objective is the capture or destruction of all elements of Al-Queda and any other terrorist organizations that seek to destroy and kill Americans.

Opinion on involvement in Libya?
We have no reason to be there.  The people of Libya have never asked for our help, nor do we really know whom we are helping.

Shut down military bases that aren't vital to national security to pay off national debt?
Ask and answered.  If we close these bases along with several other reforms and changes that need to be made to the Department of Defense, U.S. citizens could be saved billions every year.

Which person on this stage would you ask to join your administration?
I would ask that Congressmen Paul to serve as my Secretary to the Treasury.  I would ask former governor Cain to serve as my Secretary of Commerce.  The general rule which I would follow though in appoints to the administration would be to take people with common sense and separate from government to serve in their capacity.  These normal everyday people could probably point out the fraud, waste and abuse that are found in these systems, easier than those already in the system.

Current Events: Libya, Bin Laden and Obama

Its been a while and a lot of things have happened since I last wrote you.  The biggest items of which I want to talk about today is the involvement of the United States in Libya and the assassination of Osama bin Laden this past week by American military forces in Pakistan.  In both cases, people on the political left and the right have questioned whether President Obama has the authority to do either of those things.  Many politicians have been caught in their own words, from the past, regarding the authority the President's authority as Commander-in-Chief of the military.  This article will focus on several points regarding the President's authority as top military commander in the U.S.  First, did the President overstep his bounds when he authorized military strikes in Libya?  Second, did the president have the authority to order the capture or killing of Osama bin Laden?  As always the discussion will focus on his constitutional authority and its original intent.

Over a month ago the President Obama committed some of our military forces to be involved in the obvious civil war taking place in the North African nation of Libya.  During the start of the new year many middle eastern Arabic nations and people have started to rise up and protest against their governments, with mixed results.  Libya was one of them that quickly expanded into full on civil unrest and a civil war with citizens rebelling against their tyrannical leader.

First and foremost, the President has under his authority in the U.S. Constitution the power to command the U.S. military forces in any and all cases.  This would be one of them.  Whether you agree with it or not he has that power.  Some people may bring up that he must abide by the War Powers Act, but that has never truly been enforced by the U.S. government.  The main reason, people wonder about its constitutionality if it was enforced.  It clearly violates the President's power to command the military.

Do I agree with the President's choice of getting us involved in another military conflict?  No, but he has the authority to do so.  He has not taken us into a war; he has committed a limited number of troops to a limited field of combat.  The President was given this authority, like that of a monarch, so he can make the split second decision that must be made without long and drawn out debate, like military operations to protect the lives of innocent civilians.  It may be getting us involved in a war that we don't need to stick our nose in but every President has used this power in undeclared operations.

Side bar on the Iraq War:  Regarding the last statement of the previous paragraph.  Iraq does not count because Bush 43 actually did seek authorization from the Congress and they gladly gave it.  Yes it was fouhgt on false pretenses, but if you look at the resolutions that went through Congress in late 2002 and early 2003 BEFORE we went into Iraq their were multiple reasons for why representatives on both the political left and right thought we should invade; weapons of Mass Destruction was only one of them.

This weekend President Obama authorize a strike against a compound in Pakistan believed to be housing the most wanted man alive, Osama bin Laden.  It was carried out successfully with bin Laden being killed during the operation.  Now everyone is questioning whether the President had the authority to order the death of the man.  The simple answer to this question is yes.

Again the president has the military authority to order them into the field of battle, whether we agree with it or not.  Osama bin Laden was a military target of our on-going conflict with the extremist members of the Islamic faith, know as al-Queda.  Since it was a military operation against our current foe he had every reason to the operation and to order the possible kill shot. 

Its about the Constitution people.  We must learn to follow it and respect it even when it leads us to decision with which we do may not agree.  If you don't like the way a person interprets that authority or how they exercise that limited power then you can elect new representatives.  I may not like the President authorizing our military's involvement in Libya or in other nations, but he has the authority to do so and pay for the consequences at the ballot box.