Select Page

Is the “Deep State” Constitutional?

By Harold Pease, Ph. D

Recent revelations, notably the March 8, Wikileaks dump of over 9,000 emails, is reportedly a dump far larger and worse than the Edward Snowden revelations in 2013. A dump disclosing potential spying of Americans by their own television sets, whether on or off, or by their automobiles. Sophisticated cyber technology “beyond what Snowden could have imagined,” capable of spying leaving the footprint of other countries (such as Russia) so our government remains undetected, has caused many to look to the Constitution for protection from their own government. Remember Snowden had revealed the National Security Agency’s “intercepting 200 million text messages every day worldwide through a program called Dishfire” (Lorenzo Franceschi-Bicchierai, “The 10 Biggest Revelations from Edward Snowden’s Leaks,” Mashable, Jun. 05, 2014). Is the “Deep State” constitutional?

In the Constitution the words “national security” are not used but “common defense” is mentioned twice, first in the Preamble, which is but a statement of intent and is not generally seen as usable for codification of law, and next in Article I, Section 8 as one of the four powers of congress; the others being the power to tax, pay the debts, and provide for the general welfare. Sections 2-9 are the qualifiers on what is meant by “common defense” so as to limit government’s inclination to define everything as common defense, as it now does by using the words national security instead.

Unfortunately for big government advocates, collecting and storing data on its citizens is not cited or even alluded to. Nor has such authority been added by way of an amendment to the Constitution.

Fortunately for Americans this behavior is specifically forbidden in the Fourth Amendment which reads: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,” (is the strongest possible language conceivable) “and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” The amendment was specifically designed to prevent government spying on its own people.

Prior to the American Revolution the British government used what was called “a general search warrant” which allowed their agents to harass the people thought to be doing, or saying, something disapproved by the government. No such flexible interpretation was allowed in our government until recent times. In our day, computers, cellphone messages and phones are our “papers and effects.” Simply confiscating their messages and storing them, perhaps indefinitely, should be no different than the police walking into your home and taking any letters you have received or are about to send and housing them in police headquarters in case they should need them to use against you at a later day. As a first principle your house and papers are off-limits to the government.

Moreover, unreasonable was not to be decided by the police. All searches are unreasonable without probable cause that you are doing something harmful to others. Elected judges exist for assessing probable cause. Should they get cozy with the police they can be defeated in the next election. As initially interpreted there were to be few federal laws, hence few unelected federal justices. This was to be a state, county, or city matter. Judges rousted out of a good sleep in the middle of the night were not likely to be too happy about having to assess frivolous charges.

There exists no constitutional authority for a blanket extraction of all our electronic data. Judges swear an oath to preserve the Constitution. They are not to perform with a private view outside that document. Notice also the specific restrictive phraseology with respect to this power; they are to particularly describe “the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized”—evidence that something unlawful already happened. There is no authority for a “fishing expedition.” NSA spying on its own citizens without a search warrant is clearly unconstitutional.

So what of the government’s secret FISA court where since 1979 special federal (unelected) judges have only turned down 12 spying requests out of 38,169 made? Isn’t that based upon probable cause? Not necessarily! The request is more likely made because they lack probable cause and wish to find it by accessing your private records or conversations. The FISA court is hampered by three major flaws: judges therein are not elected and accountable to the people, the court operates behind an impenetrable double-door in a vault-like room in total secrecy, and the rules empowering the spying activities are far more permissive than those allowed other judges in other federal courts.

Moreover, the FISA court violates the Fifth Amendment in that the accused is, in a very real sense, forced to be a witness against himself—perhaps the only witness. It is his papers, emails, and phone conversations that convict him.

“No, federal government!” The power of the “Deep State” as practiced is a blatant violation of the Constitution. You may argue that you are only protecting us from bad people out there by gathering our private information without our consent or knowledge, but who protects us from you? Historically more terroristic acts happen under government authority than under private authority. Fortunately the Constitution protects us from you.

Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit

Democracy Rejected by Founders

By Dr. Harold W. Pease

In the 2016 presidential election the Democrats never used the word republic to describe our political system and Republicans rarely used it, both preferring to use the word democracy. Most people ignorantly refer to our political system as a democracy and have to be reminded that this word is not in the Declaration of Independence, U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, or any other document given to us by our Founding Fathers. Our Pledge of Allegiance to the flag identifies our form of government as a republic.

Benjamin Franklin wrote in 1759, “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.” A republic has seven major components.

First, the importance of majority rules is recognized but limited. Is the majority always right? No! Mother made this point when her teenager asked to smoke marijuana on the basis that everyone was doing it. “If everyone jumped off a bridge would you?”

Second, minority rights (less than 50%) are protected from the majority. In Franklin’s analogy the lamb had the right to exist even if the majority, the wolves, said differently. A lynch mob is a democracy, everyone votes but the one being hanged. Even if caught in the act of a crime the defendant is entitled to the protection of law, a judge, jury, witnesses for his defense, and a lawyer to argue his innocence; all necessary but expensive. Then, if found guilty, hanged. Because democracy only considers majority rules it is much less expensive. A rope tossed over a tree limb will do.

Third, a republic is based upon natural inalienable rights first acknowledged in the Declaration of Independence. This document asserted to the world that we acknowledge that humans have rights from a source higher than mere man. A reference to deity is mentioned five times. If there is no God there can be no inalienable rights coming from him and we are left with man as God. What man is good enough?

Fourth, a Republic emphasizes individual differences rather than absolute equality, as does democracy. We are not equal, even from the womb, and never will be if equality means sameness. One baby with a cleft pallet needs three operations to look normal. Some come out of the womb with a laptop, others with a basketball, and the real tough deliveries are from those bringing their golf clubs. One of my first great insights in life was that everyone was better at everything than I. The second was that life is not fair and never will be. Free men are not equal and equal men are not free. Genetics makes one fat, another bald, and gives yet another terminal cancer in his youth.

Even economically it is not possible to be equal. Should I give each of my students a million dollars in exchange for everything they now own, shave their heads, and give them identical uniforms, to approximate sameness as much as possible, with the only requirement that they return in five years with some ledger of net worth. Would they be the same in what was left of the million? No! Why does government try so hard to do that which is impossible? A Republic looks upon our differences as assets—decidedly not the base of democracy.

Fifth, limited government is also a major aspect of a republic. Centralized government is good so long as it remembers that when it oversteps its bounds it becomes the greatest obstacle to liberty as it pulls decision-making power away from the individual. Excessive government, as the cause of the American Revolution, is never forgotten. The Constitution as created, handcuffed the government from dominating our lives thus the powers of the federal government were listed (Article I, Section 8). The Founders understood that the more government at the top the less at the bottom and that was the essence of freedom.

Sixth, a republic has frequent elections with options. Frequent elections happen in some socialist countries, so this alone does not ensure liberty. In fact, it may be somewhat deceiving as it fosters the notion that we choose, thus deserve, our elected officers. It also assumes that the people are correctly informed, which assumes a free press and equal access to all information. The part of the phrase “with options” is the part that ensures liberty. Elections under socialism provided choices but often no options as all participants are from the same party.

Seventh, there is a healthy fear of the emotion of the masses and of its potential to destabilize natural law upon which real freedom is based, as for example the notion that some one else’s wealth belongs to them. Such destroys freedom as it had in Athens and Rome. We need a caring, sensitive, compassionate government but emotion must not be allowed to overwhelm reason and time-tested natural law constants. Aristotle taught that the poor will always envy the rich and that the rich will always have contempt for the poor. A republic will not allow the poor to destroy the rich in their quest for the wealth of the rich, but does incentivize the poor to increase their wealth thus becoming the middle class, which in time become the largest body.

As explained, democracy does not protect liberty. In Ben Franklin’s analogy it would have allowed the wolves to have eaten the lamb simply because the lamb had been outvoted. No wonder our Founders rejected democracy in favor of a republic.

Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit

Enslaving Debt Sours to Almost $20 Trillion

By Harold Pease, Ph. D

Within 40 days our national debt is likely to be $20 trillion; four of which is from eight years of George W. Bush and ten from eight years of Barack Obama—the two biggest spending presidents in U.S. History. Obama alone accumulated more debt than all previous presidents put together.

So what is a trillion dollars? To begin with a trillion is the number one followed by twelve zeros. A trillion dollars is a thousand billion and a billion is a thousand million. This still means very little to my students who count their money in fives, tens and twenties.

One mathematician gave us a more practical way to evaluate our outstanding debt. One trillion, one-dollar bills stacked atop each other (not end to end but flat) would reach nearly 68,000 miles into space—a third of the way to the moon (See CNN News Cast, Feb. 4, 2009). If so, the debt incurred under President Obama alone, $10 trillion, would reach the moon and back and to the moon again. Moreover, if you like traveling atop this stack of ones, our total $20 trillion in debt would take you to the moon and back three times and almost to the moon again.

Senator Mitch McConnell gave another illustration just as awe striking. He calculated that if we spent a million dollars every day since Jesus was born we still would not have spent a trillion dollars—only three-fourths of a trillion dollars (ibid.).

Someone else equated our national debt to seconds and concluded that a million seconds is about 11½ days and a billion seconds is about 32 years. A trillion seconds is about 32,000 years thus 20 trillion seconds is 640,000 years (See CNN News Cast, Feb. 4, 2009). This only makes my head spin, as my Ph. D is not in math.

I ask my students, “Who gets to go without so that this debt can be paid?” “Go without!!!?” That is a concept foreign to this generation!! They do not know, and neither do their parents and grandparents who laid it on their backs. When they are told that their share of the debt is $61,457 (see, due immediately, they are angry. Someone should have told them that government handouts are not free.

The 13th Amendment ending slavery has been rescinded, they are America’s new slaves. Bondage was given them before their birth, or while they were in the womb, or before they were old enough to know what it meant to be sold into slavery. The past generation wanted nice costly programs for free and were willing to sell their children in order to have them. Communist China now owns an eighth of our debt and the bills are due. What is worse the older generation is still anxious to incur even more debt on our defenseless children and grandchildren. Are we not the most debt addicted, insensitive generation in U.S. History?

The latest new theory to avoid fiscal responsibility and continue unlimited spending used by Bush in late 2009 and Obama thereafter is referred to as Quantitative Easing. Crudely it means printing more money out of thin air to cover our debt, but it is far more sophisticated than that. For Bush the money supply was greatly expanded by having the Federal Reserve purchase $600 billion in Mortgage-backed securities (Harding, Robin. 3 November 2010, Quantitative Easing Explained. Financial Times). Obama purchased $600 billion of Treasury securities over a six month period of time beginning in November 2010 in what has been called Quantitative Easing or QE2 to distinguish it from QE1, the Bush expansion of the money supply (Cesky, Annalyn,3 Nov.2010, “QE2: Fed Pulls the Trigger” Retrieved 10 Aug. 2011). Neither president really stimulated the economy long term or created jobs, but for a few months, like a drug high, things seemed to feel better. Other, less publicized, Quantitative Easements followed.

The biggest problem with expanding the money supply is that it reduces the value of the money that you have in your pocket. Prices go up. My 1968 new Camaro cost me $ 2,700. Had I instead put the money under a mattress and tried to purchase a Camaro today it would cost more than ten times that much. In this instance money has lost 90% of its value since then. Those on fixed incomes are robbed as surely as if a thief had lifted their wallet or purse. They cannot return to their employer for a raise to compensate for the loss caused by their own government.

Still, with all the sophisticated “doublespeak,” as for example quantitative easement, it means that we will print whatever money we need to purchase whatever we wish. Neither party is serious about stopping the debt and removing the bondage that we are imposing upon our children and grandchildren. In last Fall’s presidential election the Democrats proposed “free” college. Donald Trump’s proposed trillion-dollar infrastructure program, shared with us in his first address to Congress, does not appear to suggest a change. Who cares if our debt of dollar bills stacked upon one another can go to the moon and back three times and almost to the moon again, so long as the government fills our stomachs and, in the case of Obama, buys our cell phones?

Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit

Repeal, Don’t Replace, ObamaCare

By Harold Pease, Ph. D

Republicans are criticized for not having a plan ready to replace the failed ObamaCare as most of the 2016 Republican Party presidential contenders had promised its demise if elected. The House of Representatives made over 60 attempts to repeal The Affordable Care Act since its passage in 2010. So why has this not happened with Republicans now in control of the Legislative and Executive branch’s of government?

Many Republicans like their new found power over a seventh of the economy and are reluctant to give it up. They propose allowing insurers to sell across state lines, forming high-risk pools for people with pre-existing conditions, creating a tax credit to help people afford coverage, and “beefing up” health saving accounts. The basic difference between Republicans and Democrats is simply, “We can do it better.” Notice their use of controlling adjectives: allowing, forming, creating, and “beefing up.” Healthcare would remain nationalized.

Missed entirely is that the Constitution allows only the option of repeal. Anything more would require a new amendment to the Constitution transferring a new power, healthcare, from the states where it resided, to the federal government as per Article V. All power was distributed in 1787. Any rearrangement of that distribution requires a new amendment to the Constitution.

Many do not know that we live under two political systems: one primarily national in function, the other primarily domestic. Thomas Jefferson expressed it best when he said: The states are not subordinate to the national government but rather the two are coordinate departments of one single and integral whole…. The one is domestic the other the foreign branch of the same government.” Its called federalism—the two share power and are equal. Neither was to be subservient to the other and each was to have separate duties.

So it is with federal and state governments as Jefferson suggested. The Founders, however, were aware of the nature of all governments to grow. George Washington said it best: “Government is like fire, a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” So one builds a fireplace before one brings fire into his home for warmth so that it does not burn down his home. That fireplace is the Constitution, in particular Article I, Section VIII.

Simply, government grows. To harness this tendency both partners in government were given lists of duties: the federal government Article I, Section VIII. Everything it did was to be clearly linked to an enumerated grant of power. Healthcare cannot be linked to an existing enumerated grant of power. The States, who created the Federal Government, retained unto themselves all other powers as per Amendments 9 and 10 of the Constitution. “James Madison wrote: “The powers delegated…to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite.” That the federal government took this power unto themselves in 2010 is not constitutional authority to continue the confiscation.

The advantages of federalism are enormous. States become laboratories of experimentation. States have the tendency to look at sister states for models and to borrow this from New Jersey and that from Oregon and yet something else from Alabama in refining their own programs. These places of experimentation work to everyone’s advantage. This process refines legislation and when enough states think it better handled at the federal level they, in a new constitutional amendment, can pass it to the federal partner. Citizens of a state not happy with experimental regulation can move to one of the 49 other states less controlling.

Had our “power crazed” federal partner refrained from their natural inclination to take over healthcare we could have gone through this experimental process designed by our Founding Fathers and been able to identify the weaknesses or strengths while they were still geographically isolated. Only three states had tried state healthcare: Oregon, Massachusetts, and Hawaii. That was clearly not enough to identify the “pitfalls” in the area. The federal partner took a half-baked idea and made it mandatory on the whole nation, thus it failed.

The Founders did not dare leave the vague phrase “general welfare” to future federal power grabbers. To prevent the interpretation that it meant “everything” they added clauses 2-9. Listed are 14 powers, five dealing with borrowing money, regulating its value, and counterfeiting. The other nine included naturalization, bankruptcies, establishing post offices, protecting inventors and authors, establishing “tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court” and “regulating commerce with foreign nations and among the several states.” healthcare, or anything remotely like unto it, is not listed.

Who decided the division of powers—the states? And they kept that right to decide in Article V of the Constitution. They forfeited only specific named powers that they could not reasonably do as states, as for example, a common currency. Why would they give any more power? They had just rejected the flow of power from the Colonies to Parliament and the resultant avalanche of rules descending from them in return. After all, the cause of the American Revolution was excessive government. There intent was to handcuff the federal government so that such could never happen again, not give it free reign.

Constitutionalists must insist that Republicans and Democrats restrict themselves to the Constitution. Repeal, don’t replace, ObamaCare or get a new amendment to it. Don’t damage the Constitution further by ignorance of it.

Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit

The Constitution Will Automatically “Drain the Swamp”

By Harold Pease, Ph. D

A major campaign promise of President Donald Trump was to “drain the swamp” in Washington DC but anyone the least bit familiar with the Constitution as designed by the Founders understands that it automatically does this if adhered to strictly, which neither major political party has done for most of a century. That is why we have the swamp to drain now.

Swamp drainage is not new. Collectively the Founders were against big government, which they had experienced and rejected by revolution. The “Swarms of Officers to harass our People, and eat out their Substance,” noted in the Declaration of Independence, ended with the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution was designed to prevent its return.

State government already predated the Revolution, by in the case of Virginia 157 years, and it was the states that performed the primary role in both early national Constitutions to organize a federated government, not to dominate or replace them, but to perform the functions they collectively viewed as national. Under federalism two governments would co-exist, the federal to handle primarily foreign related issues and the states domestic issues—neither master nor servant to the other.

Both the Articles and the Constitution specifically were design to harness the federal government from expansion in light of George Washington’s famous analogy. “Government is like fire, a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” The first contract placed too much restriction on the federal government necessitating in the Constitution a readjustment but in each case states played the primary role in the readjustment.

The first division of power is between the states and the newly created federal government with the states getting all power not specifically assigned to the federal government. Again, this division predates either national contract. The Constitution then divided federal power into three co-equal and separate branches of government: the Legislative, Executive and Judicial. Each with specific and limited grants of power and each designed to serve as a check on sister branches preventing them from growing that power.

The legislative branch was to make “all” federal law as stated in Article I, Section I (no authority to create unelected bureaucracies to do it for them, which goes far in draining the swamp) with House and Senate members fully reading and understanding every law or rule placed over the people. But their ability to make “all law,” (Article I, Section I) was restricted to just four areas as per Article I, Section 8: to tax, to pay debts, to provide for the general welfare and to provide for the national defense. Taxes were to “be uniform” throughout the states and there were no qualifiers on “to pay the debts.” General welfare and national defense were far too vague and subject to wide interpretation and abuse thus the semi-colon following Clause I, Clauses 2-9 defined what was general welfare and Clauses 10-17 what was national defense. Giving them too necessary specificity.

Most of the swamp is housed under Congress’s failure to accept the limitations of this section of the Constitution. Today they legislate as though there were no limitations. Consequently, whether challenged by the Supreme Court or not, most federal law is outside the Constitution and the “Swarms of Officers to harass our People, and eat out their Substance,” are found in the programs they created without specific constitutional base as for example: Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, environmental protection, climate control, Obamacare, growth of federal land without military purpose, foreign aid, nation regime change, creation of regional or international governments like the United Nations that impacts our national defense, to name a few.

All of these should have been added to the Constitution by way of amendment, which requires three fourths of the states to approve —or not, as required in Article V. Draining the swamp would include the thousands of people who manage these programs because if we really followed the Constitution most of these functions would not exist or would have been incorporated by the states that wanted them. At any given time there exist 9-15 thousand lobbyists that hang around our legislators enticing them to go off the Section 8 list to make law that benefits their interest in exchange for election contributions. Legislators fall like over-ripe fruit to this ploy. Certainly congressional adherence to the Constitution would remove most of them.

The President too is limited to a list housed in Article II, Sections II and III as is the Supreme Court in Article III, Section II. Neither has constitutional authority to create swamps but they can impact them, the president by executive orders and the Court by rulings that give legitimacy to swamps created by its sister branches. All other power was reserved to the states as per Amendment 10 of the Bill of Rights.

So serious swamp drainage would follow serious adherence to the Constitution, which Congress has shown little interest is following. Constitutionally they have no authority to do anything that is not listed, or added to the list by way of amendment to the Constitution. Ignoring Article I, Section 8 gives them power to exchange legislative favors for campaign contributions, which keeps them in office. Although Trump appears to be serious about swamp drainage both major political parties like swamps. Until that ends real swamp drainage is not likely to happen any time soon.

Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit

Letter to Trump, How to Cut the Federal Bureaucracy

By Harold Pease, Ph. D

Dear President Donald Trump,

The bureaucracy is out of control enlarging itself at every turn. Every political science Intro to Government text has a chapter addressing this problem convincingly showing why the government is unable to stop or even significantly slow this expansion and Ronald Reagan was the only president before you that even tried. The fifties movie “The Blob” starring Steve McQueen comes to mind; an enemy absorbing and devouring people, with an ever enlarging appetite as it did.

The Constitution designates Congress as the only federal rule-making branch of government. “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives,” Article I, Section 1. The choice of the word “all,” was deliberate. There exists no constitutional authority for Congress to delegate this responsibility to any other body. Citizens should be secure in the knowledge that they have three elected officials (their House and Senate members) that have fully read and understand every law or rule placed over them. The Founders made no distinction between laws or rules, as each is a prohibition of some activity.

But decades ago Congress got lazy and started creating organizations to administer and create the details of a law, thus thousands of “little laws” (“regs,” short for regulations) emerged—often giving the law a twist never intended by the original bill.   The Founding Fathers were aware of this practice and listed it in the Declaration of Independence as one of the reasons supporting the revolution from Great Britain, “He has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harass our People, and eat out their Substance.”

Congress has allowed these “multitudes of new offices,” to essentially decide what the law means. These creations benefit Congress in two ways. Bureaucracies do most of the work—making “little laws”—and this also conveniently leaves Congress with an enemy to combat of their own making. Members love, and get elected by, “bureaucracy bashing.” An example is the 2700 page National Healthcare Bill that created 159 separate organizations to manage, each capable of hundreds of additional rules and regulations. An older example is the Environmental Protection Agency. A prominent housing contractor once told me that one-third of the cost of a new home went to fulfill regulation requirements. “It did not lift a shovel of dirt or pound a single nail.” But it did “harass our People.”

Seemingly there is no way to stop bureaucratic growth, but the growth, like cancer, must be fed by taxes, which “eat out their substance.” But what is obvious to everyone else is seldom so to the enlarging bureaucracy whose new employees become ever more vocal, with a vested interest in its defense, sustainment, and enlargement. Obviously any plan to succeed must have bureaucratic support. “Goliath” must agree to undertake one serious diet or it will never happen.

Some thirty-five years ago such a diet came across my desk authored by F. F. McClatchie. My students since were asked to be the bureaucracy to determine if it would work. At least 90% chose to be laid off. It seems so easy. It has five steps.

One, freeze immediately all federal hiring of new employees. There will be resistance but not enough to stop this step because “their” job is secure. Mr. President, you are to be commended for having implemented this step, please consider the next four.

Two, lay off 10% of all existing employees each year, selecting those to be laid off by lottery. This ensures that the layoffs will be “fair,” that is, the bureaucrats can’t play with the deck. That way, those who are part of the fat are not in charge of cutting the fat. This step will meet serious resistance so must simultaneously be accompanied by step three.

Three, continue to pay the laid-off bureaucrats at their wages as of the layoff date. This would insure their full cooperation. In fact, their full-time vacations would no doubt thrill them. This would save billions of dollars since they would no longer occupy office space or waste paper, to say nothing of working mischief. They could no longer interfere with business, saving countless billions for productive uses. Few will reject this offer but it can’t go on forever, as it is immoral to pay someone for doing nothing.

Four, reduce each laid-off employee’s paycheck by 10% per year. This would ensure that sooner or later he would seek productive employment. He may choose to bank the new salary, or vacation a year or two, before returning to full employment in the private sector. In the meantime, he will spend the money on hobbies, travel, etc., and keep the economy roaring along with no additional tax burden

Fifth, continue this process until the government is operating efficiently at approximately 1/10th the current payroll or less. Those opting not to be laid off could be part of these.

At 20 trillion dollars in debt this nation is close to bankruptcy. We desperately need a solution that works before we bankrupt. President Trump, together with your reduction of bureaucratic regulation by 70%, this plan has the highest probability of any solution suggested of saving us from the bureaucracy blob.

Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit