E-Newsletter No. 79                       July 2020       

This is the fourth installment in a series of monthly newsletters that discuss our Editorial Board’s views on what is wrong with the federal government, and what we should do about it.

Article III of the US Constitution is where the duties and responsibilities of the Judiciary are laid out.  Article III states that… The Judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish…  The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their offices during good Behaviour…  The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution…

In our review of the Federalist Papers, it is quite clear that the Framers of the Constitution intended to have the Judiciary be a co-equal branch of the government.  Each of the branches of government has a distinct role and set of responsibilities.  The courts’ responsibilities are to protect the Constitution, as it was written.  Judges who follow this line of thinking are called “originalists”.  Justices are not supposed to “Legislate from the Bench.”  Unfortunately, this happens from time to time, and this is our biggest complaint about the Supreme Court.  By not following the original intent of the Constitution as written, this has allowed each of the other pieces of the federal government (including the Judiciary) to expand outside its “box” (its constraints) established under the Constitution. 

Pretty much every expansion of the federal government that has occurred since our country’s founding is a “non-constitutional” expansion of the federal government, and a violation of the Tenth Amendment.

As mentioned above, the original intent of the Judiciary was to protect the Constitution as it was written.  Unfortunately in the past, certain Presidents, in collaboration with an amenable legislature, have enabled this expansion of the government.  Some of the worst examples of this expansion stem from a re-interpretation of the General Welfare Clause and the Commerce Clause. 

This leads to our second primary complaint – the “politicization” of the Supreme Court.  Instead of approving only those Justices who agree to adhere to the original constitution as written, Presidents will nominate potential Justices who might share their own political philosophy and agenda.  The worst examples of this occurred during the presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and there was a subsequent massive increase in the size and scope of the federal government.

This is also the reason why the process of nominating (and having the Senate confirm) Justices to the Supreme Court has become so contentious in recent years.  This fact, coupled with the fact that these are (currently) lifetime appointments is the cause of most of this “angst”.    

We put forward the following recommendations –

The Supreme Court should not be allowed to Legislate from the Bench.  The worst example of this occurred in 2015 when the Supreme Court ruled in the King v Burwell matter regarding Obamacare that the law written by the legislature regarding the state-operated health insurance exchanges was not the intent of the legislature.  In this particular case, the Court should have ruled – “This is what you wrote.  If that is not what you intended, then you need to fix this legislatively”.

We also make the following recommendation for Term Limits for the Judiciary for several reasons.  We believe there are many well-qualified individuals who can carry out these duties.  Our proposal would cap the length of service at either 25 years in a particular position, or until a maximum age of 80.  Federal judges in the “inferior” courts would be able to have a lengthy career as a federal judge, and if appropriate, finish their career on the Supreme Court until the age of 80.  Our country has a more than adequate pipeline of potential judges who can serve in these roles in the future.  How much this Term Limit proposal could help dampen the politicization of the judiciary is yet to be seen.

US Debt Clock – – June 1st – $77,993 per citizen / July 1st – $80.200

E-Newsletter No. 78                     June 2020      

This is the third installment in a series of monthly newsletters that discuss our Editorial Board’s views on what is wrong with the federal government, and what we should do about it.

The President’s duties and responsibilities are spelled out in the Constitution in Article II, Sections 2 and 3.  Section 2 begins with the following statement – The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States…  Section 2 goes on to say that the President “shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties…  and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States…” 

The Framers of the Constitution established a federal government with limited, enumerated powers that are focused on protecting the unalienable rights of our country’s citizens and defending our country against any other nation that might want to do us harm.  Unfortunately, due to “Progressive” (expansive) laws that have been passed by the Legislature over the years, the Executive Branch has grown well beyond the intended functions listed above.  Section 2 refers to “principal officers of the executive departments”, which are now commonly referred to as the President’s cabinet.  These executive departments (the Administrative State) are where the growth in the size and scope of the federal government has occurred. 

The various departments of the Administrative State can be sorted into two lists – a list of those vital, appropriate departments that were envisioned in the original Constitution and a list of the other departments that represent a violation of the Tenth Amendment.  The appropriate departments are Defense, State, Commerce (for international and interstate commerce issues), Justice, and Treasury. 

There is also a third “hybrid” list of a few additional departments that are probably OK, because they fall under the federal government’s responsibility to protect our country’s citizens.  These departments (and the year in which it was established) are as follows – Interior (1849), EPA (1970) and Homeland Security (2002).  However, the scope and operations of these three bureaucracies should be drastically curtailed and transformed.  These departments should become “think tanks” (policy advocates) but should not have any employees who actually administer any specific programs.  The execution of these departments’ policies and programs should be performed at the state and local level, and not run by the federal government.

And then there is the list of departments that are a violation of the Tenth Amendment.  It should be noted that it would be OK to maintain a “think tank” department that could serve as a resource to State governments.  However, the administration of any specific policies and programs should be at the state and local level.  The “non-constitutional” departments are as follows – Agriculture (1862), Labor (1913), Health and Human Services (1953), Housing and Urban Development (1965), Transportation (1966), Energy (1977) and Education (1979).  We believe that each of these departments should be required to justify its existence each year in connection with the preparation of the federal government’s annual budget.  And the President needs the power of the Line Item Veto, to eliminate any unnecessary spending.

By now, it should be readily apparent how the federal government has managed to keep growing over the years.  This growth has been caused by the progressive movement, and it has been facilitated by Congress, which has authorized this expansion of the federal government.  Article 1 states that …all legislative powers are vested in a Congress…  The worst aspect of these agencies is that each agency issues its own rules and regulations, which are, in effect, laws.  Congress has not only violated the Tenth Amendment, but it has also abdicated its legislative responsibilities under the Constitution. 

A similar problem that needs to be addressed is the President’s use of Executive Orders.  The President is not the Legislature.  However, due to the cumbersome nature of the legislative process, we generally accept the need for Executive Orders.  However, in those situations where the President has exceeded his authority, such as President Obama’s DACA Executive Order, Congress should have the ability to override and nullify any such Executive Order with a simple majority vote in the House and Senate.

Another issue that needs attention relates to the commitment of US troops in armed conflicts overseas.  Article 1 gives to Congress the sole responsibility to declare war.  A declaration of war cannot be issued by the President.  However, the President is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces and has the responsibility to protect the country.  This inherent conflict between the Legislative branch and the Executive branch was somewhat resolved by the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which was passed by Congress in connection with the undeclared war in Viet Nam.  This Act was intended to check the President’s power to commit US troops in armed conflict without the consent of Congress.  It provides that the President can send troops into action only by a declaration of war by Congress, or by “statutory authorization”, or in the case of a “national emergency.”  The Act requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing our armed forces to a war zone, and it forbids the troops from remaining more than 60 days without congressional authorization.   It appears that our current ongoing multi-year deployment of troops overseas has been covered in the past by the “statutory authorization” of Congress to provide funds for armed conflicts in those countries where there has not been a formal declaration of war.  We recommend that for transparency purposes, Congress needs to specifically vote each year on each armed conflict that is “in process” to either issue a declaration of war or confirm the continued statutory authorization for that war.

US Debt Clock – – May 1st – $75,432 per citizen / June 1st – $77,993

E-Newsletter No. 77                     May 2020     

As we mentioned last month, we are starting a series of newsletters about What’s Wrong with the Federal Government.  This month, we take a look at the Legislative Branch (aka Congress) aka the House of Representatives and Senate.  Unfortunately (and as we anticipated) the list of issues is extensive, and we also want to provide our Editorial Board’s recommendations on what We-the-People can do about it.  Therefore, we have added the following new Conversation Piece to our website (on our “Join the Conversation” page) –

http://www.f2ppr.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Whats-Wrong-with-the-Legislative-Branch.pdf

In our opinion, many of the laws that have been passed by Congress have created many of the problems we see with the federal government.  And in a few instances, the legislative branch has failed to do what it needs to do.

Congress has passed many laws over the years that have enabled the federal government to grow well beyond its enumerated powers.  Our elected representatives, who pledge to uphold the Constitution, have been the worst violators of the Tenth Amendment, which states that  “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively or to the people.” 

As we discuss in our analysis of the legislative branch, Article 1 specifically states that “The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts [etc.]…..”

Our federal government has allowed its “on-book” debt to rise to $24.9 trillion as of May 1st.  In addition, the “off book” liabilities for Social Security, Medicare, and other “entitlements” are multiples of this amount.  The cumulative historical dysfunction of Congress represents an abject failure of our country’s “leaders”.

US Debt Clock – – April 1st – $71,888 per citizen / May 1st – $75,432

E-Newsletter No. 76                     April 2020     

This month, we are starting a series of newsletters regarding our Editorial Board’s views on why our federal government has become dysfunctional, and why this dysfunction is contributing to the growing divide between conservatives and the radical Left.  This month’s letter will address some of the “root causes” of this dysfunction and why, over time, our federal government has become “not so great.”  The members of our Editorial Board continue to believe in American Exceptionalism, and we want to ensure that we can keep it that way for future generations.  Therefore, we must begin to fix our federal government.   Next month, we are going to discuss the legislative branch, then the executive branch, then the judiciary, and lastly, the unelected / unaccountable “fourth branch of government” aka the Administrative State / the Bureaucracy / the Deep State.

America continues to be the most successful “melting pot” in world history.  People want to live here.  We take in more immigrants (by far) than any other country in the world.  And why is that?  We believe the primary reasons are Liberty and Freedom (which are under attack by the Left).  And we also believe in the power of E Pluribus Unum – our ability to help new legal immigrants learn and embrace our shared values and effectively assimilate to life in our country.  Unfortunately, because of the Left’s obsession with identity politics, this shared American value is also under constant attack. 

What is even more alarming is that the radical Left has now come to believe our country is fatally flawed.  The radical Left (the New York Times, etc.) believe our country is flawed because slaves were brought to our shores in 1619.  Therefore, last year, the New York Times launched The 1619 Project to “re-interpret” (spin) our country’s history to fit their (Leftist) narrative.  Please keep in mind that slavery was not an uncommon phenomenon throughout the world in 1619.  And even though slavery was ended in America in the 1860s (after a massive loss of life during the Civil War) the radical Left and The New York Times believe this stain on our country’s history is the root cause of all of our country’s current ills.  We have a different assessment of history and a different viewpoint regarding the trendlines of our country’s history, especially since the 1920s.  We believe the root cause of our growing divide is the steady (relentless) onward march of the “progressive” movement, which has as its primary goal the fundamental “transformation” of our country.

The members of our Editorial Board have grave concerns about the size and scope and growing intrusiveness of the federal government.  The Framers of our Constitution put into place a unique form of government, centered on the individual.   The federal government is supposed to be subservient to We-the-People (not the other way around).  The Constitution was based on sound, time-tested principles, and was based on the Framers’ study of history and their assessment of what has worked in the past.  We have strayed from the Framers’ original vision of a small, effective federal government that has specific (limited) powers and responsibilities, which focus on protecting the general welfare of the country as a whole and protecting each individual’s rights.  We reject the concept of a “living constitution.”   Unfortunately, the seed of the progressive movement was planted a long time ago, and it has given root to a constantly expanding federal government. 

We believe in the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution – “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively or to the people.”  These delegated (limited) powers of the federal government are enumerated in Article 1 of the constitution.

US Debt Clock – – March 1st – $71,024 per citizen / April 1st – $71,888

E-Newsletter No. 75                    March 2020     

Last month, we made an offer to mail a free yard sign (with a conservative theme) to anyone who wanted to request a sign (or two).  Please note that we still have a supply on hand that will continue to be available for the upcoming elections in November.

This month, we are offering some new free videos that we have posted to the Videos page on our website.  The only “cost decision” that you will need to make is whether you want to invest some time to watch these timely (and pertinent) videos.  (“Time is money” – Benjamin Franklin, 1748). 

Candace Owens’ Congressional Testimony on Nationalism –

Candace Owens’ Congressional Testimony on Being Black in America –

Joe Biden on Bribery –

Brian Riedl on the Federal Government’s Growing Debt Blob –

https://www.prageru.com/video/national-debt-who-cares/   

And because the purpose of our Foundation is to promote the concept of personal responsibility, we are providing the following link to a video about fixing yourself –

https://www.prageru.com/video/fix-yourself/

Please note that in addition to the five videos listed above, we added ten other video links on our website this month –  

Unfortunately, we have a bit of sobering news this month – – The $1,808 increase in the amount of federal government debt per person is the highest monthly increase since we began tracking this statistic these past six years.  With $23.6 trillion already borrowed, we should all brace ourselves for the fact that the hole our federal government has been digging is going to get a lot deeper over the course of the next few months. 

US Debt Clock – – February 1st – $70,539 per citizen / March 1st – $72,347

E-Newsletter No. 74                     February 2020     

Last month, we discussed how Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wants our country’s citizens to stop using the term “Free Stuff” when she discusses all of the new programs and giveaways that the radical Left is proposing.  Instead, she wants us to use the term “Public Goods”, even if those goodies aren’t necessarily provided to (or even available to) everyone in our country.  (Some of our country’s citizens have actually already paid the cost for their own college education).

The members of our Foundation know that nothing in life is “free”.  However, it should be noted that it’s quite possible you may receive something from someone without being asked to pay for it.  But in those situations, the provider has freely agreed (without coercion) to bear the cost (because nothing in life is free). 

Our Editorial Board is pleased to announce this month that we have added a new page to our website for our new on-line Store.  We are also providing the following links, so you can check out our initial offering of “free” yard signs.  We initially discussed whether we should ask for a small donation to cover the cost of postage, but then decided we would cover that cost, too.  However, there is a small catch.  We are not going to be able to ship you the wire frame for your yard sign, so you will have to bear the cost of obtaining 7 – 8 feet of 9-gauge wire from your local hardware store.  Once you have your wire, you will need to make two 90-degree bends about 22 inches apart, plant your wire frame into the ground, and then slip your yard sign over the frame.    

Here is the link to our on-line Store –

 https://www.f2ppr.org/store/

The above link will take you to our website, where you can find additional details, along with a link to a template that can be used to email your order form to   info @ f2ppr.org.

And here is the link to the catalogue of available yard signs –

http://www.f2ppr.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/F2PPR-Yard-Signs.pdf

It’s time for our conservative messages to be heard. 

Don’t be shy about sharing your views.

US Debt Clock – – January 1st – $70,096 per citizen / February 1st – $70,539

E-Newsletter No. 73                     January 2020     

The Left continues to be quite masterful in utilizing the English language as one of their means to advance their political agenda.  Several examples come readily to mind.  The Left’s “progressive” agenda sends a message that they believe their policies and programs will somehow better our society.  However, we all know that this is simply part of their attempts to grow an ever-expanding government.  And history has shown that as government grows, liberty declines.

The “radical Leftists” want to deceive our country’s citizens by inserting the word “Democratic” in front of the word “Socialism”.  They believe that this adjective will somehow change the nature of Socialism (but we all know that it’s still Socialism).  They think that if they can trick a simple majority of our country’s citizens into believing that Socialism is a good thing, then they will be able to further their “progressive” agenda.  Alexander Fraser Tytler warned us that “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government.  It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury.  From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy…”  (See below).

The latest example of such “word perversion” is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’ attempt to stop our citizens from using the term “Free Stuff”.  In a recent town hall meeting in front of her Bronx constituents, she said “I never want to hear the term “Free Stuff” ever again.”  Instead, she wants to replace the term “Free Stuff” with the term “Public Goods”.  However, there is a very significant difference between these two terms that she is trying to obscure. 

According to the Oxford Dictionary, a Public Good is defined as “A commodity or service that is provided without profit to all members of a society…”  A Public Good has two characteristics.  The first characteristic is that when the good is consumed, it doesn’t reduce the amount available for others – i.e., benefiting from a streetlight or a public library doesn’t reduce the amount of light or knowledge that is available to others.  The same can be said for national defense, law enforcement, and fire protection, all of which are legitimate roles of government.

The second characteristic is that it must be “non-excludable”.  The members of our Editorial Board like to equate this characteristic with the Founders’ original intent behind the “General Welfare” clause (see our November newsletter).  Unfortunately, the Democratic Socialists want us to believe that higher education, health insurance, housing (along with utilities, transportation, food, etc.) are Public Goods, i.e., new “Rights” that should be provided by the government (for “free”).  Conversely, we believe that these are examples of Personal Responsibilities, and we believe that such goods and services are best provided by the free market, not the public sector.   

So, here is the pertinent question – Once the government provides “free” higher education, “free” health care, “free” housing, “free” utilities, transportation, food, etc. where does such a list of Public Goods end?  Some members of the radical Left actually go so far as to believe the government should provide a Universal Basic Income, regardless of whether someone wants to work or not.  (See the above warning from Alexander Fraser Tytler).  As you will note below, this past month, the federal government’s “on-book” debt of $23.1 trillion has now passed an amount that exceeds $70,000 for every man, woman, child, and retiree in the country.  We believe this is a textbook example of “loose fiscal policy.”

US Debt Clock – – December 1st – $69,895 per citizen / January 1st – $70,096

E-Newsletter No. 72                     December 2019     

Last month we discussed the progressive agenda and the Left’s erroneous view that the US Constitution is a “living constitution.” This view enables the Left to advance its belief that the General Welfare clause is an open invitation to have the federal government grow to be whatever the political elites in Washington DC want it to be. 

There are 4,543 words in the original US Constitution (excluding the subsequent amendments).  The original constitution, along with all twenty-seven amendments that have since been ratified, is oftentimes published in a booklet format that usually totals around twenty pages. 

The federal government’s General Printing Office periodically publishes a book entitled “The Constitution of the United States of America:  Analysis and Interpretation”.  This book, oftentimes referred to as The Constitution Annotated, contains an analysis of virtually all Supreme Court cases that are relevant to interpreting the constitution.  The latest edition of this book is now over 3,000 pages long and weighs more than ten pounds.  Very few citizens know about the existence of this book, and even fewer know about its contents, but in effect, it represents the printed version of the “living constitution” under which we now live.

Under the original constitution, one of the Supreme Court’s primary functions was to hear testimony about a wide variety of matters and make rulings based on the original intent of the country’s Founders.  But over the years, there have been a number of unfortunate rulings that have contributed to the unchecked growth of the federal government.  Many of these Supreme Court rulings occurred during the 1930s and 1940s under pressure from President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who was one of our country’s first “progressive” presidents.  FDR and the Democrat Congress pushed through several “non-constitutional” programs, such as Social Security, that have contributed to the growth of the federal government and drive a large portion of its taxation and spending, AND “borrowings” from future generations.

FDR’s progressive Supreme Court also made several “interpretations” that fundamentally altered some of the Founders’ original intentions.  One of the worst examples is in regards to the Commerce Clause (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3) which gives the Congress the power “to regulate Commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states…“  The case in question is Wickard vs Filburn, and dealt with an Ohio farmer and his wheat crop.  The federal government had passed The Agriculture Adjustment Act of 1938 to establish quotas for wheat production (aka as meddling in the marketplace).  Roscoe Filburn produced twice as much wheat than the quota allowed, and he was fined under the act. 

Filburn challenged the fine, claiming that the excess wheat could not be regulated because it was for private consumption to feed his animals and not to sell on the market.  The wheat was never in commerce, and therefore could not affect interstate commerce.  Unfortunately, the Supreme Court ruled against him, stating that because he produced additional wheat, he would not go into the marketplace to buy wheat for his private use, which affected interstate commerce (even though his “excess” production was for “intra-farm” use and was non-commercial).

Similar perversions of the Commerce clause over the years have greatly expanded the size and scope and jurisdiction of the federal government.  These instances of meddling in the marketplace have enabled the federal government to further intrude into various aspects of our lives.  Because of the size and coercive power of the federal government, there are oftentimes significant price distortions in the marketplace.  Some of these examples are particularly noteworthy, such as the meddling in the home mortgage loan marketplace, the effects on the cost of higher education, and the total disruption of the health insurance marketplace.

By the way, this past month, the federal government’s “on-book” debt passed the $23 trillion mark.

US Debt Clock – – November 1st – $69,505 per citizen / December 1st – $69,895

E-Newsletter No. 71                     November 2019     

Last month we pondered the question about why the Left is fixated on the “non-issue” of income inequality.  Is that fixation driven by envy, or by the Left’s sense of entitlement to other people’s wealth, or is it simply a desire for power and control?  Here is another possible reason – – Maybe the Left thinks the political elites and their experts in Washington DC can spend our citizens’ money more wisely than we can.

The US Constitution says the federal government was being established to form a more perfect union and to promote the general welfare of the country.  Unfortunately, Big Government Leftists have erroneously interpreted the General Welfare clause as a blank check to expand the federal government to whatever the political elites want it to be.  The Left has a tendency to forget that Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution explicitly lays out the duties and responsibilities of the (limited) federal government, and the Tenth Amendment explicitly states that the powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the individual States or to the people themselves (aka civil society / not the federal government).

Today, there is a widening gap between conservatives and progressives regarding the role of the federal government.  Half of us believe we live under the original Constitution, as it was written and understood by the country’s Founders, with its guarantee of liberty and its expectation of self-reliance.  The other half believes in a “living constitution” that permits countless Administrative State agencies that make rules like a legislature, administer those rules like an executive, and adjudicate and punish infractions of those rules like a judiciary.  The progressive agenda has become an agenda of tyranny.

Our Editorial Board doesn’t like to quibble about words, but words are important.  The Left has altered the meaning of the word General to fit their narrative.  We believe the word General (as put forward by the Founders) pertains to the country as a whole.  Therefore, the federal government’s primary role is to militarily protect our country’s sovereignty and protect each and every citizen’s rights that are spelled out in the Bill of Rights.  The federal government should promote the general welfare of the country by creating Opportunities for All and should show Favoritism to None. 

The Left’s “identity politics” agenda, and the Democrat party’s innumerable attempts to try to fix each and every problem of each and every special interest group is a perversion of the General Welfare clause.  Until we return to the concept of a limited federal government, we will continue to experience the damaging effects of the progressive agenda.  Simply put, the Left’s agenda of Favoritism to Each and Every Special Interest Group will cause resentment in others who will not be similarly benefiting.  While many might sympathize with a particular group’s issue(s), they might also be offended by the idea that the federal government needs to expand beyond its stated, limited role.

US Debt Clock – – October 1st – $68,652 per citizen / November 1st – $69,505

E-Newsletter No. 70                     October 2019     

Let’s flip the script on Bernie Sanders and ask a very pertinent question – ”What is the direct impact on my own specific personal life today that stems from the fact that Bill Gates’ net worth is $90 billion and Warren Buffett’s net worth is $83 billion?”  By the way, we are not picking on Bill and Warren.  It’s just that they are two of the most financially successful, wealthiest people in America.  

If you ask yourself that question (and answer it honestly) you would have to admit “The wealth of Bill Gates and Warren Buffett does not have any direct effect on my own personal life.”  So, what is the source of the moral outrage that you constantly hear from Bernie Sanders, AOC, and the other “Democratic Socialists”?  Could it possibly stem from one of the Seven Deadly Sins called Envy?  OK, maybe that’s a little harsh.  So, maybe it’s just because they feel they are entitled to a large chunk of Bill’s and Warren’s wealth.  (More on that later).

So, let’s flip the script on Bernie once again, and ask “What is the direct impact on my own specific personal life today that stems from the fact that Bernie Sanders owns three homes, including a home in one of the most expensive areas of the country called Washington DC, and one on the shores of Lake Champlain?”  Again, an honest answer would have to be “The wealth of Bernie Sanders has no direct effect on my own personal life.”

So now let’s alter the question slightly to ask “Do these individuals’ wealth have a possible effect on my own personal life in the future?”  In the case of Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, the answer is “possibly”.  Because they are entrepreneurs and businessmen, they might possibly use some of that wealth to create new companies that could employ additional members of our society, which just might possibly include you.  In the case of Bernie Sanders, he might use his public platform to push for more crony socialism in our country, in an attempt to draw even more of our citizens’ tax dollars to Washington DC.

Here are a couple of other thoughts about the “non-issue” of wealth inequality – – if the federal government were to “appropriate” (aka “confiscate”) the entire net worth of both Bill Gates and Warren Buffet (which they have accumulated over their lifetimes) that one-time confiscation would not even put a dent in our federal government’s one-trillion-dollar  ANNUAL deficit.  Please note that in The 2020 Initiative, we do recommend that the top marginal income tax rate be increased to 45%.  (The socialists want a 70% rate).  However, we oppose the idea of a “wealth tax,” because that idea simply means the federal government would then be taking four different cuts from a person’s income – Social Security Taxes, Medicare Taxes, Income Taxes, and a new additional wealth tax down the road on the same income.  Our message to Elizabeth Warren is “Stop!  Enough is enough!”  It’s time for the federal government to cut spending.

This month, we have added a new Conversation Piece on our website entitled “Some Wisdom from Thomas Sowell”.  Here is the link –

https://www.f2ppr.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Some-Wisdom-from-Thomas-Sowell.pdf

We hope you appreciate his Pearl of Wisdom at the end of the piece – “If you have been voting for politicians who promise to give you goodies at someone else’s expense, then you have no right to complain when they take your money and give it to someone else including themselves.”

It is time to call for an Article V Convention of States, to propose amendments to the US Constitution to impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limit the terms of office for its officials and for members of Congress.

US Debt Clock – – September 1st – $68,426 per citizen / October 1st – $68,652