Most agree that the national debt is out of control. So how do we fix this problem in order to prevent it from becoming our children’s’ problem? We have waited so long avoiding all warning signs, some very dyer, that radical solutions may be our only real answer. What follows are six of those solutions.
Immediately cease the printing of 600 billion dollars that the Federal Reserve, under the leadership of Ben Bernanke, has authorized to be infused into the existing currency by mid-summer. This reduces the value of all existing money and the value of all saving, is potentially drastically compromised. Prices of new commodities and services could skyrocket. Wages would not rise to an equal level thus potentially impoverishing the middle and lower classes. Life pensions will be compromised. This does not liquidate the National Debt but does refuse to add to it.
Immediately end all foreign aid except for natural disasters. Countries taught by us to be dependent upon us through our ravishment of money upon them must now learn to be self-reliant. Before potentially destroying the value of our money we should cease giving it away. The savings would be in the billions.
Within six months relocate all American troops to Afghanistan from the 32 countries where they are now deployed. Have Congress define an acceptable, definable end to this war. If the enemy does not accept such in a reasonable amount of time (say 45 days) return to the Bush strategy of “shock and awe” warfare that brought down Iraq but continue it until unconditional surrender is accomplished. No halfway measures. End all semi-secret Rules of Engagement that limit our ability to destroy the enemy, or actually lose the war for us as in Vietnam. When the enemy is destroyed, as in Japan after World War II, establish a new government under the U.S. Constitution keeping a minimal force there until firmly established. Afghanistan is an endless and extreme financial liability for us. Ending it much faster would potentially save trillions.
When unconditional surrender has been achieved in Afghanistan, return 90% of all troops worldwide to end the invasion on our southern border for the duration of their enrollment in the service. New enlistees would serve their first year of service on the border. History has shown that a country that refuses to protect its border ceases to remain a country. Redeploying troops who are already under salary in the military should not cost us more than we already expend, plus it would reduce the expenses of “rounding up” illegals and the costs of crime and housing them in prisons at our expense, potentially saving billions. Moreover, their medical and educational expenses would be reduced drastically, potentially saving billions more.
Within six months cease funding all new federal programs created the last five years. The Constitution requires that all bills raising revenue must originate in the House of Representatives. The new Tea Party members of the House could block budget items funding such programs if they vote as a block. There are no existing estimates on the cost savings here, but enacting the new healthcare program with its list of 159 new federal departments to govern or enforce the new bill will cost billions.
Freeze all federal taxes with the goal of reducing them first to the 2000-year level then perhaps even the 1980 level. The idea that the government can spend your money better than you has proven flawed time and again. When you spend, you buy things that have to be made by someone other than you. In doing so, sustainable jobs are created and the tax-paying portion of the population is increased as is the revenue going to the government because of the enlarged tax base. Simple.
Dr. Harold Pease is 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 25 years at Taft College. To read more of his articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
I live in a district that will always have a republican congressman, state senator and assemblyperson. In fact, my congressman did not even have an opponent and was able to store his contributions for a nuclear election on the first democrat that dares to be an opponent in the future. My assemblywoman also did not have an opponent. Nancy Pelosi will serve forever or until she dies or chooses to leave. She will never be defeated, as she too lives in a district that will always be democrat. The odds of turning either congress person out, even if the district was not purposely created to never change, is only at best 10% because of name recognition, campaign contributions, and resources of office, especially franking privileges (free mailing to constituents at tax payers expense) of the incumbent. In the U. S. Senate the odds of a challenger victory is only 20%.
These are safe districts. In California’s November election, voters were offered two solutions to theoretically end the practice of safe districts: either the legislature continues to draw boundaries as before, or a Citizens Redistricting Commission (unclear as to who selects them) now does so. Keeping the first group means that nothing will ever change. The politicians will always favor reducing or illuminating the competition in their boundary choices. Having a committee do so may be no better, as someone has to choose these people. The formula that California voters chose was a commission of 14: five democrats, five republicans, and four independents; none elected by the people. Obviously the independents will be making the choice. Independents are not a party, so they too still vote democratic or republican.
I propose something that would take party out of the formula all together. Let’s grid beginning in one corner of the state, say the northwest corner, moving east and south. The estimated population of California is 37,221,852 so divide this number by 53 for congressional seats, 40 for state senators, and 80 for assembly seats. All districts will be “population similar” and created as close to a square format as possible using existing school districts. Federal law requires the integrity of cities, counties, neighborhoods, and communities of interest be factored in. The latter of which should be contested constitutionally. Let the grid fall where it falls. Would this end the republican monopoly in my area or the democratic monopoly in San Francisco for Nancy Pelosi? Maybe not, but it does help make the game feel less “rigged.“
A “Nuclear” election results when the incumbent candidate stores unused contributions from one or more previous elections and uses these contributions to “nuke” his next opponent. This, in effect, allows incumbents the right to raise funds years before the challenger. Unused contributions need to be returned to their contributors or given to charity after each election. Saving or storing them to be spent at another time does not represent the will of the people necessarily at the time it first was given; more so if it comes from out of district contributors. It favors the incumbent. At the very least a gigantic war chest from unused campaign contributions intimidates potential candidates from the opposing party. As a result they often field no candidates or only weak ones.
Still, another campaign reform would require all funds for all contestants to come from the voters within the district one represents. No money from outside the district. It seems so unfair to have outside money flood into your opponent’s coffers. The argument exists that both sides are doing it, yet it is still outside money buying your congressman or senator for you and perhaps against you.
Dr. Harold Pease is 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 25 years at Taft College.
Please understand that I am deeply offended when called either a conservative or a liberal. These labels are traps for the ignorant who wish to reduce my years of serious study to a word so that a part of my readers can praise me and the other part can dismiss me by a single word—even hate me. My views are the Founding Fathers’ collective views. I draw from the same fountain of natural law and appeal to the same “father of lights to illuminate my understanding” (Ben Franklins words at the Constitutional Convention) as they did.
During the many years I have been a college professor, students sit in front of me just waiting to tag me with some label that does not exist and dismiss me or marginalize me in some way so that they do not have to think. As long as they are not successful in doing so, they are teachable and have to deal with the inconsistencies of both ideologies. I have friends in both camps, and sooner or later they say to me “I thought you were one of us.”
Like George Washington, I dislike political parties as they undermine the Constitution. They also create pooled or reinforced ignorance, which is more damaging than individual ignorance. I have publically challenged the Republican Party for getting us into a war with Iraq and against Saddam Hussein because the evidence for doing so (9/11, weapons of mass destruction, and preemption, which is the concept that they would do something to us eventually) did not exist and had to be constantly changed to justify our presence. I did not oppose the war in Afghanistan because the evidence was there for 9/11, but I oppose it now because we have no clear definable win objectives and lack the will to unleash everything we have to win. It is another Vietnam. It was the Bush administration that gave us the Patriot Act, which allowed the government to define terrorists as her own people, which severely damaged the Bill of Rights. While the government looks within for the enemy it fails to secure our borders from Middle Eastern intruders from countries with a known intent to harm us.
Democrats have taken spending to an unacceptable new level (especially in time of relative peace) and seem intent to risk collapsing the entire economy. With each crisis they help to create, their answer is always more government as they hamstring businesses that create our jobs with numberless rules and regulations. Their model is not the Founding Fathers or the Constitution, but is socialist countries in Europe, some of whom tax their people over 50% of their income and have far less freedom. Even some devout revolutionary communists such as Van Jones have served in the Obama administration. They seem to glorify Mao Za Tung, the greatest mass murder in history, as some kind of model. A worshipful press has never properly explained even the President’s past connection with revolutionary Bill Ayers, founder of the militant Weather Underground that bombed government buildings in the seventies. While China, Cuba, and even Canada are showing clear signs of backing off socialism, we seem hell bent to rush into it.
So what do I embrace? I usually cry when the National Anthem is played. I am touched by George Washington, who loved his country so much that he risked his life in a doubtful cause. He battled against England, the most powerful nation on earth, and refused pay from the government for his services as a general or as president. I love knowing that Founders and presidents have acknowledged the hand of God in their crisis, and shamelessly went to him for help. I love the stories of service men that put their lives on the line to save a buddy. I have undying respect for those who served their country with the primary intent of saving freedom—even if they did not understand the motives of the politicians who sent them. I love people who stand for traditional values of honesty, integrity and morality and do not wink at the numerous extramarital affairs of a president. And I love the Constitution, which gave us the richest, freest country on earth.
So what am I if not a conservative or a liberal? A typical American that wants to return to our base. I think more people embrace this description than either political ideology. So please just call me an American. That is a title that I wear with honor.
Dr. Harold Pease is 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 25 years at Taft College.
The following video describes the stunning painting by artist Jon McNaughton, which captures how our former presidents must feel about the direction in which our country is headed.
The concept of “anchor babies” refers to those whose parents are illegal immigrants into the United States and have a baby on this soil. That baby then inherits full citizenship and even the right later, as an adult, to sponsor his/her own illegal parents in their quest for citizenship. Is this practice Constitutional?
For the casual reader the amendment seems to validate such: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” The debate for or against the practice of allowing citizenship for babies of illegals born in the U.S. rages on with virtually no one going to the source of the alleged authority—the crafters of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.
Senator Jacob Merritt Howard, architect of the 14th Amendment, actually structured the Amendment (one of two defining the legal status of freed slaves after the Civil War, the other being the 13th which gave them freedom) to prevent that very interpretation. He said: “This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign minister accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.” It was he who insisted that the qualifying phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” be inserted into Section I. Those sneaking across our borders in the cover of darkness are clearly foreigners and thus specifically exempted from citizenship; the Constitution was not meant to protect those who are here illegally. Also notice the exclusion of babies born of ambassadors while here as well.
The record of the Senate deliberations on the 14th amendment shows this to be the view of the Senate. There is no such thing as automatic citizenship from this amendment without serious distortion of it. In fact, Lyman Trumbull, co-author of the 13th Amendment outlawing slavery, addressing the definition of the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” asked, “What do we mean by complete jurisdiction thereof? Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”
Those crossing our borders illegally have jurisdiction or allegiance elsewhere and thus cannot have citizenship. How can a child of such a parentage have what his parents clearly do not have? How many are born illegally in the United States per year? Statistics are difficult to validate but the Pew Hispanic Center study estimated 340,000 in 2008 alone. If they in turn are used as sponsors for their parents in their quest for citizenship, such could be a million per year.
Citizenship was denied some of my ancestors and yours. Native Americans owed allegiance to their Sioux or Apache or Blackfoot or whatever Indian nations, and thus were not yet “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” of the nation they sought citizenship in. Certainly one must cease to be at war or conflict with the newly embraced country. This was not granted until 1924 when this requirement was satisfied.
Many of our Mexican friends send portions of their checks home to Mexico and plan to return to their native land upon retirement with pensions and/or social security sent to their “first” country from the country they extracted the wealth- us. Some vote in Mexican elections from here. It is indeed hard to argue that they are not instead subject to the jurisdiction of another land other than the United States- and most admit it. Unfortunately for them, the U. S. Constitution specifically denies such citizenship.
Dr. Harold Pease is 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 25 years at Taft College.
I did not celebrate Constitution Day September 17, primarily because I did not know how to do so. The Federal Government requires the college where I work to do something on that day to qualify for it’s Title IV grant for which, if people really read the document, they would find no authority.
I was asked to give suggestions. The assigned administrator and I pondered several options, none of which seemed fitting or particularly meaningful. Still, we should do something; ignorance on this document is appalling and patriotism from those under 25 seems virtually dead. Even the president was filmed recently with his hands to his side during the playing of the national anthem, expressing total ignorance, total disrespect, or both.
Nearly no one reads this document anymore. Republicans only give lip service to it, and Democrats don’t even pretend to do that much. So how shall we celebrate Constitution Day? Should we celebrate the total disregard of the list in Article I, Section 8 from which the government is limited in making laws? The Founders created the list so that government could not rule wherever it pleased as in other countries. Perhaps we could talk about the 10th Amendment, which strengthens the argument that all powers not specifically mentioned remain with the states and with the people. This is flagrantly violated almost daily by a renegade, inept, or ignorant congress.
Perhaps we should celebrate the separation of powers created by the Founders where one branch made the law, another enforced the law, and yet a third adjudicated the law—a separation that we used to honor. However, we would also have to acknowledge how the government has corrupted that separation. For the last three generations an unelected bureaucracy made most federal laws because Congress got lazy. They skirt around it by calling them “rules and regulations” instead of laws, but they still exact a punishment if a business or individual is out of harmony. Presidents make law by executive orders, many with no legislative authorization. “Signing Statements”, popularized by the Bush Administration, distort laws passed by Congress by removing portions he disagreed with. The Obama Administration created a new level of administrators he called “Czars” (purposely skirting Senate confirmation) to manage areas where no Constitutional authority exists—last count was 34. To all of this Congress remains silent to the abduction of her power. The Supreme Court also makes laws by ruling in such a way as to give existing law new meaning. Even Clarence Thomas admitted that some justices attempt to ascertain what the Founder had in mind before ruling; others he says, “just make it up.” This certainly would be an interesting presentation for Constitution Day.
Maybe we could celebrate the concept of federalism, the notion that the states handle domestic issues and the federal government handles primarily foreign issues and that they are coequal (like a marriage) neither being master or slave to the other; but this is gone. Perhaps we could celebrate the Constitutional mandate Article V that federal empowerment required the consent of 3/4ths of the states. Unfortunately, this notion of shared and equal was abandoned in the fifties and sixties, and as a result the federal government clearly rules the states; all but Arizona bow in near total obedience.
There are so many other topics one might “celebrate”, such as the distortion of the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution from an intended individual right to have a weapon, whether government approved or not, to only a collective right through a militia now interpreted as the National Guard which organization did not then exist.
The Constitution is a foreign language to most and this ignorance has resulted in our being out of harmony so long. The perversions are almost numberless. Perhaps we could celebrate Constitution Day by bussing in an assemblage of elected officials assigned to tell us how they are going to return us to the Constitution before it is too late. But how do we keep them from just giving lip service to the document instead giving self-serving speeches? Check with me next September 17. We will do something in honor of the Constitution because it is mandated; but will it be meaningful?
Dr. Harold Pease is 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 25 years at Taft College.
