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?