Select Page

NAFTA, “No Deal is Better than a Bad Deal.”

By Harold Pease, Ph. D

Much of why Donald Trump is president is because of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which always has been disastrous for the trades. Democratically controlled unions and their politicians were for it when signed into law by President Bill Clinton and without union support it would not be law.

Big corporations and globalists (often Republicans) have been for it because through it they could manage the regulations and productions codes thus keeping their monopolistic empires in place—it limited trade. It has never been free trade. Free trade is the absence of production codes, government regulations, and trade boundaries, when the consumer alone picks the winners and losers by the high quality and low cost of their performance or products.

Many union workers knew their party had betrayed them at the time but almost all know it now. When Trump dubbed NAFTA as “the worst trade deal maybe ever signed anywhere, but certainly ever signed in this country,” they had experienced it as such and thus his appeal to them. And when he said, “I’m going to tell our NAFTA partners that I intend to immediately renegotiate the terms of that agreement to get a better deal for our workers…. If they do not agree to a renegotiation, then I will submit notice under Article 2205 of the NAFTA agreement that America intends to withdraw from the deal,” they cheered.

He also told them. “I see the carnage that NAFTA has caused, I see the carnage. It’s been horrible. I see upstate New York, I see North Carolina, but I see every state. You look at New England. New England got really whacked. New England got hit.” “NAFTA has been very, very bad,” Trump said in a speech in Kenosha, Wisconsin, speaking of dairy farmers being hurt by recent Canadian price changes that the farmers believed violated trade standards. “The fact is that NAFTA has been a disaster for the United States and a complete and total disaster.”

Union workers saw their jobs lost (six million the first 16 years of NAFTA) and factories moving to Mexico to take advantage of lower-waged workers. Whatever bad things their party and their media said about Trump, they knew he spoke the truth on this issue and that they would have a friend in the White House if he kept his promise. This is a major reason he won the old northwest and the election. And this is why he could lose the next election if he doesn’t return the jobs.

The problem with Trump’s call for renegotiation of NAFTA, rather than just pulling out, is that when the government negotiates regulations, productions codes, and trade areas it is not free trade and is never fair, even if well intentioned. Free trade has no restrictions on transactions, (not 1,000 pages as in NAFTA) and fair trade implies that both trade parties feel justice in the outcome. NAFTA is government-managed trade.

Trump cannot win this argument. Fair for him is if our existing corporations (who fund his next election) retain advantage over competing new entrepreneurs and foreign competitors are disadvantaged. If advantage is determined by natural law, one out performs, gives better service or products at lower cost but with higher quality, as when individuals make selections, it is both free trade and fair trade. Government can never do this because it can never account for all the variables involved and is impacted too much by the use of government to get advantage. Even Trump fell victim to this as a private citizen when he made political contributions to both political parties should he need advantaged in a business deal down the road.

In the renegotiation special interests seek to enhance governmental powers in their behalf. Michael Brune, the executive director of the Sierra Club, expects the renegotiated NAFTA to include more environmental protections and climate change measures.

Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO, best represents the problem with government deciding winners and losers, “We will do everything we can to make this a good agreement and to hold the president at his word and make sure we get a renegotiation. If it comes out that it is not a good deal, no deal is better than a bad deal,” But what is a “good” deal? With no government intervention both seller and buyer get a “good” deal or a transaction is not processed.

Nancy Pelosi faults President Trump “for all of his rhetoric, President Trump looks to be sorely disappointing American workers on trade.” For Democrats it will never be fair because it is never enough. For Republicans it will never be free because it must be managed. Few from either major political party really believe in limited government or they would adhere to Article I, Section 8 of which most of NAFTA violates.

Congress expects to take up the NAFTA issue mid-August. The fairest and freest trade deal for all Americans is to allow natural law under the free market to rule. If negotiation does not respect these time-tested restraints, and the Constitution, Trump would be best served to work for Article 2205 and withdrawal as suggested by AFL-CIO president Trumka— “no deal is better than a bad deal.” And this, the sooner the better, or, he may pay a heavy price in 2020.

 

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 www.LibertyUnderFire.org.

Merging Globalism and Climate Control

By Harold Pease, Ph. D

The first billionaire in U.S. History was John D. Rockefeller. He and J. P. Morgan dominated late 19th and early 20th Centuries economic and political history, more especially after they teamed up to create The Council on Foreign Relations in 1921—quickly becoming the most powerful political special interest group in U.S. History. Recently we published a column showing John D. Rockefeller’s grandson David, as the most influential individual in post World War II America and perhaps in the world.

Most U.S. History textbooks show how oil baron John D. Rockefeller worked ruthlessly to monopolize 90% of the oil industry in the United States but few have given focus to David’s working to demonize the fossil fuel industry of his grandfather in favor of alternative energy dominance wherein the Rockefeller family is now heavily vested. But first he had to popularize a myth—fossil fuels change the climate and thus must be managed at the world level. The myth insures their place of wealth with alternative energy and creates a need for a world government that they, because of their wealth, would manage, as they have the U.S. government.

What has been known by those who specialize in special interest group politics, is now more fully explained in a 24 page report by the Energy and Environmental Legal Institute called The Rockefeller Way: The Family’s Covert ‘Climate Change’ Plan, released December 2016. They concluded: “Since the beginning of their philanthropic endeavors, the Rockefellers have used social causes to amass influence in policy areas of their choosing. Since the 1980s, their cause of choice has been the climate change agenda (originally called global warming). Their crusade to collapse the fossil fuel industry in favor of renewable energy is well-documented, from their involvement in major global climate treaties and organizations—the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 1992 to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol—to spending hundreds of millions to advance the renewable energy industry. Through their Sustainable Development Program, the Rockefellers continue to promote their self-serving ‘clean energy’ policies throughout both the federal government and general public.”

Their point, As the most prolific benefactors of the climate activist movement, the Rockefellers’ impact on the energy industry sees no bounds, as the family’s objectives permeate throughout federal and state energy policy, as well as international social engineering globalist compacts such as Agenda 21.”

So how has the public been convinced that global warming is real? This they accomplished, “through the Rockefellers’ web of family foundations, universities, and institutions, as well as huge grants to other charities….” As a result of this web, “they have gained unprecedented influence in healthcare, pharmaceuticals, agriculture, energy, and the environment. Their highly complex integration of hedge funds, interlocking boards positions, and non-profit organizations has steered public policy on these issues and provided them with foreknowledge of emerging markets and access to the developing worlds’ natural resources.”

Conditioning Americans to accept their views has progressed through multiple generations affecting most areas. The report continues: “Since the beginning of their philanthropic endeavors, the Rockefellers have used social causes to amass influence in policy areas of their choosing. Since the 1980’s their cause of choice has been the climate change agenda (originally called global warming).” When global warming could not be proved they changed terminology to climate change that can be shown to change over time somewhere on the globe.

When one side of an issue receives much greater funding than the other the resultant public support or non-support becomes predictable. Catastrophic science (the world is coming to an end) has always been more easily funded. When the Rockefellers want something they fund those “proving” the need, as with Columbia University’s Journalism School’s Energy and Environmental Reporting Fellowship Project, then Rockefeller media outlets such as The New York Times, the Washington Post and Time magazine publicize the findings of the Rockefeller financed studies. It’s really quite simple.

It is no wonder the Rockefeller Brothers Fund (RBF), created in 1940 by John D.’s five grandsons: John, Nelson, Laurence, Winthrop, and finally David, to advance international governing bodies, “boast of being one of the first major global warming activists” institutions. Certainly funding attests to the boast: the formation of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 1988 and the establishment of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1992. RBF funded the global adaptation of the Rio Treaty reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 5.2 % by 2012 and in 1997 “helped promote and orchestrate the Kyoto Protocol with Japan.” In Europe the RBF “donated $10 million to fund an alliance of local, state, and federal leaders in the United Kingdom and Germany to address the issue.”

Major Rockefeller tax-exempt foundations are The Rockefeller Foundation, The Rockefeller Brothers Fund, The Rockefeller Family Fund, and Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors Inc. All four have “poured tens of millions into major green activist groups.” Indeed without them the global warming or climate change issue comparatively would be non-existent. For the Rockefellers it does not matter whether true, only that it is the vehicle that sustains their wealth and power over the United States and their best argument to expand that power, through their New World Order, over the whole world. In the late 1800’s John D. Rockefeller did not have the power to veil his influence over America, today the Rockefeller family does.

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 www.LibertyUnderFire.org.

A “Government Shutdown” May Be a Good Thing

Harold Pease, Ph. D

Democrats won’t fund a border wall and threaten a “government shutdown” if included in the budget under consideration. Without President Donald Trump removing for now the wall from consideration, a shutdown would be likely. President Trump largely won on the popularity of the wall but promised to make Mexico pay for it with a better trade balance, so he cannot back down long term without the loss of credibility with core supporters. But a government shutdown is never as bad as portrayed and, in fact, may be a good thing.

The fear generated by media when Republicans threaten a “government shutdown” is many times worse than when Democrats do so; compare three years ago with today. The hysteria peddlers using this terminology, and the media that purposely play to it, must know these two words emit an extreme emotional response. Moreover, the phrase essentially becomes a weapon to be used on other potential government “shutdowners.” It appears designed to frighten the least informed against the other political party, thus the terminology. This enables the media to have undue influence in spending and undermines the sole power of the House on this issue.

A budget always involves the House of Representatives, as it alone constitutionally must initiate all government spending. “All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives” (Article I, Sec. 7, Clause 1). This places the people in charge of taxation. The Senate cannot initiate a tax bill but can adjust any initiated by the House.

So what does a “government shutdown” look like? Do the president and vice president resign now that the government ends? No, they stay on the job and receive full pay as before. Does Congress fly out of Washington D. C. the following day and cease to draw their pay, and the Supreme Court cease to deliberate on constitutional questions? Does the army come home and cease to protect us? No! No, NO! Do states, counties, and cities no longer function? No again, they have their own tax base and policemen, prisons, and teachers remain in place. Will we still get mail? Yes. The U.S. Postal Service functions as an independent business unit. Will we still get Social Security benefits, food stamps, unemployment compensation and veterans’ benefits? Yes!

Why then the hysteria? Because these two words, “government shutdown,” and the possibility of missed food stamps send the largely uninformed into a frenzy—they finally awake from their stupor. They largely know nothing of the wrangling of government to protect them from themselves and oppose any proposed government diet that might reduce their daily feed. They worshipfully listen to the party and political leaders that are least likely to disturb this base.

There will never be a government shut down because none of these things will ever happen, short of an overthrow of the government from within, the collapse of our financial structure (which is becoming ever more likely due to our obsession to live beyond our means), or a successful invasion from without. So cease the media frenzy and subsequent over-reaction.

How do we know this? Because we have had 18 “government shutdowns” since 1977 according to the Congressional Research Service, the Reagan Administration having 8 of them alone. Because in 1979 the government was shut down for 10 days while Congress argued over a proposed salary increase for the legislative branch. Because we had a five-day shutdown between November 14 and November 19, 1995, and a second one of 21 days, between December 16, and January 6, 1996, and none of the bad things mentioned above happened. No! Not even one. In fact, the public as a whole didn’t even notice it.

Then what did happen? “The Federal government of the United States put non-essential government workers on furlough and suspended non-essential services…(Wikipedia).” Essentially all went on as before except some paychecks were a few days late. Apparently the federal government does (when forced to do so) know what non-essential services are after all, and is capable of closing them if it has the will.

Our spending addiction has given our children and grandchildren a 20 trillion dollar debt. Of course it is painful to curb our appetite, but the longer we wait the more painful, drastic, and life threatening it becomes. Most of the programs cut in both shutdowns, were not areas of clear constitutional authority as defined in Article I, Section 8, so in time such cuts should become permanent or be subjected to the amending process for appropriate authority.

Usually diets have some benefits in and of themselves. In the case of the federal government shutdowns of 1995 and 1996, both parties benefited: Democrats, under President Bill Clinton, because thereafter he was credited with “the first four consecutive balanced budgets since the 1920’s” and Republicans because they retained control of both houses of Congress largely because of the popularity of their hard line on the budget (Wikipedia).

So at worst a “government shutdown” is really only a partial shutdown of non-essential services and a delay of payment for some few federal workers. So the federal government goes on a long overdue diet and gets back to the basics. Let’s abandon this terminology in the future so that we don’t frighten the less informed and they overreact?

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 www.LibertyUnderFire.org.

 

Until 1913 No One Paid Income Tax. Why Now?

Harold Pease. Ph. D

As a nation under the U.S. Constitution we are 228 years old. It may surprise readers to learn that for the first 124 of these years we had no federal income tax and handled our expenses quite well. Today those paying may be assessed a fifth to a fourth of their income. Prior to 1913 one kept what is now taken from them.

What would you spend it on were it not taken? Not on the basics such as food, housing, and utilities for they are covered in what you are allowed to retain. You would spend the extra fourth of your salary on thousands of items that are made by others as well as services you might like. This not only would enrich your life but it would provide jobs for others making those items or providing those services. Many middle class folks could purchase a new car every year with what they are forced to give to the federal government.

Would you spend it more wisely than the federal government? Certainly! Most of the money taken from you by the federal government is spent on perpetual war, foreign aid, grants to privileged portions of our society, and endless unconstitutional subsidized programs; the last two of which basically take the money of those who produce and redistribute it to those who do not. Even some non-tax payers get income tax refunds—so corrupt is the system.

Of course, those receiving and benefiting from these programs will defend them. But the fact remains that tax monies provide largely government jobs, which are almost entirely consumption jobs (jobs that consume the production of society but produce little consumable). Such jobs cannot produce for public consumption a potato, a carton of milk, or even a can of hair spray. They bring another guy to the table to eat, but not another to produce something to eat.

What largely brought about the give-away programs of the Twentieth Century was the now 104-year-old 16th Amendment—the federal income tax. All three 1912 presidential candidates Teddy Roosevelt, William Howard Taft and Woodrow Wilson, and their respective parties, wanted this financial water faucet that they could turn on at will. They could purchase anything—even people.

Prior to 1913 the federal government remained mostly faithful to her grants of power in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, which left them with only four powers: to tax, pay the debts, provide for the general welfare and provide for the common defense. Because the federal government has the inclination to maximize their authority the last two power grants, general welfare and common defense, each had eight qualifiers to harness them more fully. Outside these qualifiers the federal government had no power to tax or spend.

General welfare then meant everyone equally (general) as opposed to “specific welfare” or “privileged welfare” as it is today, targeting those to forfeit and those to receive monies. The Constitution did not deny states, counties, or cities from having such programs, only the federal government. But politicians soon learned that the more they promised to the people, from the money of others, the easier it was to get elected and stay elected.

The problem with the federal government going off the list and funding things clearly not on it was that each time they did so the stronger the inclination to do so again. One minor departure begets another until one notices that what the federal government does has little or no relationship to the list. I ask my students what would happen if they took one lollypop to kindergarten and gave it to one child? What would the others say? Where is mine? Try taking away long provided benefits from a privileged group, as for example food stamps, and see how popular you are with that voting group in the next election.

So why does the government now need a fourth of everything you make and it is still not enough? Answer, because we went off the listed powers of the Constitution and every departure required more taxpayer funding. The solution to less tax is less government. A side benefit is more freedom. The productive classes would not be hurt as might be supposed. Seldom do they qualify for the federally subsidized programs anyway. The fourth taken from the productive classes would be spent by them creating a haven of jobs for those who wished to work and give them no excuse not to. The cycle of dependency would be drastically reduced. The federal government would no longer be an enabler to those not working. States would decide for themselves what assistance programs they could afford with some states offering more and others less as the Tenth Amendment mandates.

So, how did we cover the expenses of the federal government—even wars—our first 124 years? Products coming into the country were assessed a fee to market in the U.S. called a tariff. We got product producers in other countries to cover our national expenses and thus we were able to spend on ourselves every cent of what the federal government now takes, which inadvertently stimulated the economy. No one should be able to argue that our approaching $20 trillion national debt is fair, has really worked for any of us, and is a better plan. I personally like the idea of being able to purchase a new car every year.

 

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 www.LibertyUnderFire.org.

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 USDebtClock.org), 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” CNNmoney.com. 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 www.LibertyUnderFire.org.

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 www.LibertyUnderFire.org.