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

E-Newsletter No. 69                     September 2019     

Is that a good question, or what?  As we all recall, that was one of the main campaign themes for Barack Obama.  But why would we want to change the nature of our country?  In our July newsletter, we talked about three shared values that We-the-People hold dear, and which have served to make America great.  So, why does the radical Left despise each of these values? 

As we have noted, “identity politics” is the exact opposite of E Pluribus Unum.  America is the most inclusive, least racist multi-cultural society in the world.  That is the reason why so many millions of people around the world want to immigrate to our country.  The main thing conservatives want to see happen is to have each immigrant assimilate, embrace our shared values, embrace the principles in our Constitution, and learn to speak English, so that they can become a full member of our One society.  Multi-culturalism and diversity are good things, but only if they are secondary to E Pluribus Unum.  Unfortunately, if you do not agree with the radical Left’s agenda, you run the risk of being labeled a racist, a person of “privilege”, a sexist, a homophobe, a xenophobe, an Islamophobe, and / or a religious bigot (as per whatever their perceived “injustice” might be).  

Liberty is an American value as well as a French value.  However, the essence of this shared value means something entirely different in America.  The focus of the American value is on the Liberty of the individual.  The radical Left (and the French) want the equality of outcomes.  It should be readily apparent that you cannot achieve equality of outcomes without infringing upon the rights of the individual.  Many (hopefully most) Americans don’t want to be French.

Why does the radical Left want to eliminate the reference to God in our Pledge of Allegiance?  There is a quote from Karl Marx, who said “Religion is the opium of the people.”  Religion and our trust in God prevents the Left from elevating trust in government above our trust in God.  Big and Bigger Government has become the true religion of “progressives” and the American Left.

So, why DOES the Left want to transform America?  The common thread seems to be the Left’s desire for power and control.  As Dennis Prager mentioned in his video about the Seven Inevitable Results of Big Government, “The Left believes the State should be the most powerful force in society.  There should be no power that competes with government – – not parents, not businesses, not private schools, not religious institutions, not even the individual human conscience.”  Of course, the Left’s world view is exactly opposite from the founding principle that our federal government is subservient to We-the-People.  The government works for us, not the other way around.

The progressive movement is based on the belief that the political elites in Washington DC (along with their experts and “expertise”) can solve each individual’s problem, whatever it may be.  And if the radical Left is able to achieve their dream of One World Order, they would then be in a position to have power over the lives of everyone.  So of course, they want Open Borders, and want to eliminate the idea of sovereign nation-states.

As we all know, this was also the goal of global communism.  Fortunately, history intervened (along with individuals’ desire for personal liberty) and that terrifying goal was never achieved.  Having said that, this doesn’t mean the progressive movement’s desire for power and control has diminished in the least.   

US Debt Clock – – August 1st – $68,250 per citizen / September 1st – $68,426

E-Newsletter No. 68                     August 2019     

The Democrat Party’s “identity politics” agenda is the exact opposite of one of our country’s founding principles – E Pluribus Unum (Out of Many, One).  Unfortunately, this focus on various sub-segments of our citizens and on “victims” also seems to be contributing to the drop in their feelings about our country.  Is America perfect?  No.  Does America have a spotless history?  No.  Is America an exceptional country?  Absolutely yes.  That is the reason why so many millions of people around the world want to immigrate to our country (legally or otherwise).  No other country can make such a claim.

Recently, Gallup released the results of their latest Gallup Poll Social Series interviews.  Seventy-four percent of Republicans say they are “extremely proud” of our country.  This result has remained relatively consistent going back to 2013 and is on a slight upward trend over the past couple of years.  This is probably due to conservatives’ belief in our country’s shared values of Liberty, E Pluribus Unum, and In God We Trust (which are engraved on every coin).  This year’s result could also be partly due to our strong economy and low unemployment rate.

However, the Democrats’ results continue to slide.  There was a 12-point drop over the last three years of the Obama administration and an additional 12-point drop the past two years.  The Democrats’ response to the question now stands at a new all-time low of thirty-two percent.  There is now a 42-point gap between Republicans and Democrats.  Could this drop in the Democrats’ feelings be caused by the radical Left’s growing antipathy towards our country’s founding principles?

Conservatives’ pride in our country is one thing.  Unfortunately, the same thing cannot be said about our citizens’ attitude towards our federal government.  This month we have added a new Conversation Piece to our website entitled Our Federal Government is Broke and Broken –

http://www.f2ppr.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Broke-and-Broken.pdf

Our Editorial Board continues to believe that the best solution to deal with our dysfunctional federal government is to call a 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 member of Congress.

US Debt Clock – – July 1st – $68,112 per citizen / August 1st – $68,250

E-Newsletter No. 67                    July 2019     

Just a short newsletter this month, because we’re going to let Dennis Prager and Dan Crenshaw share their thoughts about our country’s heritage and the shared values that have made America great.  In our May newsletter, we mentioned that we have added a new page on our Foundation’s website entitled “Videos”.  If you haven’t had a chance yet, you should check out these two videos (along with the other videos on our website). 

Dennis Prager discusses the American Trinity, which are the three mottos (our shared values) engraved on every coin – E Pluribus Unum, Liberty, and In God We Trust.

https://www.prageru.com/video/the-american-trinity-the-three-values-that-make-america-great/

Most Americans don’t care about a person’s national or ethnic origins.  However, it should be noted that the radical Left’s “identity politics” agenda is the exact opposite of E Pluribus Unum.

America gives Liberty to people, so they can end up wherever their abilities, work ethic, and luck take them.  Our shared value is that each individual is equal under the law.  Dennis makes some interesting observations about France, and he notes that even though each person is born equal, with Liberty, there will not be equality of outcomes.

Rights come from God, not from men.  If rights are given by men, men can take them away.

Dan Crenshaw’s video expands upon this discussion about American values.

Our Editorial Board is very appreciative of Dan’s comments about personal responsibility – “That is why personal responsibility is so important.  Because that leads to Liberty.  These things are connected.  You can’t escape them.  And that’s what America is about.”

Happy 243^rd Birthday, America. 

Our Editorial Board hopes that you and your family have a great 4^th of July.

US Debt Clock – – June 1st – $67,897 per citizen / July 1st – $68,112

E-Newsletter No. 66                    June 2019     

When you were growing up, how often were you told that “Driving is a privilege, not a right.”  Well, there is some basis to that statement.  If you screw up enough times (by speeding, or driving under the influence, etc.) the government can take away that privilege.

So, there is a distinction between privileges and rights.  There are also differences between “government-granted” rights and an individual’s unalienable rights that we discussed last month.  Through the legislative process, governments can grant (and can take away) certain rights.  Many of the instances where rights are being taken away are situations where an individual’s personal property rights (and liberty) are being diminished, oftentimes under the theory of being “for the greater good”.  Many people hold the view that government taxation is an attack on personal property rights.  (In fact, it was one of the main reasons for the Revolutionary War.  But we digress).

During the 2016 presidential election and during the 2018 midterm elections we began to hear a constant refrain from the Left that “healthcare is a right”.  Before we go any further, let’s ask a few fundamental questions – – Is food a right?  Is shelter a right?  Is transportation a right?  Is a job a right?  Is a guaranteed universal basic income a right?   Our Editorial Board has come to the conclusion that many individuals on the Left have lost the ability to distinguish between a personal responsibility and a right. 

Here is another way to address this question.  If someone wants a “right”, but it requires that someone else must be forced to fulfill that right, do you really have a legitimate right?  If healthcare is a right, can the benefit of that “right” be received without coercing someone else to provide that right?  This is a slippery socialist slope, and so we need to step back and have a conversation.  Unfortunately, the Left wants to finish the government’s takeover of the healthcare industry – it started with Medicare and Medicaid, and then Obamacare, and now the new proposed “Medicare-for-All” solution.  But doesn’t that Socialist line of thinking then also apply to food, shelter, transportation, jobs, universal basic income, social security benefits, government provided disability benefits, and / or a whole host of other yet-to-be listed “government-granted” rights?  Isn’t it time to halt the spread of socialism (which knows no boundaries) and re-educate our country’s citizens on the difference between personal responsibilities and “rights”?

Alexander Fraser Tytler (a Scottish history professor from the 1700s) once observed “A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.  From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy.”  Isn’t $22 trillion enough already?      

We began last month’s newsletter with the question “Should convicted felons who are currently incarcerated be allowed to vote?”  Voting in an election is a right that can be granted by a governing body.  In fact, the rules associated with the right to vote are generally specified by the applicable governing body, whether it be a civil society group, a committee, a legislative body, a local municipality, a state, or the federal government.  As we all know, former slaves were granted the right to vote via the 15th Amendment, women were granted the right to vote via the 19th Amendment, and eighteen-year-olds were granted the right to vote via the 26th Amendment.  So, as you can see, these “government-granted” voting rights can be modified by the applicable governing body, and the question about incarcerated felons is a question that must be answered by We-the-People and the representatives that we elect. 

Our Editorial Board is opposed to any form of voter suppression.  However, we also feel that there needs to be adequate safeguards to protect the integrity of the voting process.  Therefore, we support voter ID laws.  If you need a photo ID to get on an airplane or to drive a car, it is not unreasonable to require a photo ID when you vote.  We also believe that voting is a right AND a privilege.  We believe in personal responsibility, along with a person being held accountable and being subject to the consequences of their actions.  We also believe in personal redemption and second chances (once a convicted felon has served their time).  And we believe that the current debate about whether convicted, incarcerated felons should be allowed to vote is absurd.  That line of thinking can only come from a world view that says you do not have to take any personal responsibility for your actions, and there shouldn’t be any consequences for your criminal act(s).

US Debt Clock – – May 1st – $67,672 per citizen / June 1st – $67,897

E-Newsletter No. 65                     May 2019  

Should convicted felons who are currently incarcerated be allowed to vote?  Before we get into a discussion that will help us arrive at an answer to that question (which is currently being debated by a number of candidates running to be the Democrat party nominee for President) we probably need to back up a few steps and have a discussion about the nature of rights in general.

Let’s start with the Bill of Rights, and specifically the first nine amendments.  (We will have a separate e-newsletter in the future about the tenth amendment).  But before we even get to the Bill of Rights, we need to back up even further to The Declaration of Independence. 

The second paragraph of the Declaration begins with “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”  So, let’s start with a discussion about unalienable rights.  Simply put, each individual person is born with these rights, and you do not need to look to the government or to any other individual as being the source of those rights.  These personal rights include the freedom of speech and the right to peaceably assemble to address grievances (1^st Amendment) and the right to protect yourself and your family members (2^nd Amendment). 

The next six amendments are basically unalienable rights that deal with protecting the individual from the government (or a mob).  These include the right to not be forced to house members of the military (3^rd Amendment), to protect yourself against illegal searches and seizures (4^th Amendment), to not force yourself to be a witness against yourself or be deprived of your private property without just compensation (5^th Amendment). 

In regards to all criminal prosecutions, you have a right to a speedy and public trial and to be able to confront any witnesses against you (6^th Amendment), in suits at common law, you have the right to a trial by jury (7^th Amendment), and you have protections against excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishments (8^th Amendment).  It should be noted that under the 6^th and 7^th Amendments, there is a presumption of innocence, rather than a presumption of guilt.

When the Bill of Rights was being debated, it was recognized that Amendments 1 through 8 are  unalienable rights of each individual, but each of these rights needed to be specifically added to the Constitution and guaranteed by the government.  However, as we all know, ever since these amendments in the Bill of Rights were approved in 1791, each and every one of these rights has come under attack by forces who want to diminish liberty and increase the power of the government.

The 9^th Amendment simply states that we are not capable of being able to list every unalienable right that has been endowed by our Creator.  Therefore, the 9^th Amendment states that “the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people” (on behalf of each individual).

The other key passage in the second paragraph of The Declaration of Independence states “That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”  Unfortunately, this last phrase, along with the subsequent perversions of both the General Welfare clause and the Commerce clause, are the primary reasons why we have an out-of-control, intrusive, coercive federal government.  This phrase about “the consent of the governed” has become the primary gateway exploited by the progressive movement to alter the original intent of the Constitution.  We will have more discussion about that problem next month.  

In the meantime, please note that we have added a new page to the Foundation’s website entitled “Videos”.  If you have a moment, feel free to check it out      www.f2ppr.org/videos/ .

US Debt Clock – – April 1st – $67,462 per citizen / May 1st – $67,672

E-Newsletter No. 64  ______  April 2019  

If you weren’t looking for it last month, you might have missed the fact that the federal government’s “debt limit” was reinstated at an amount somewhat in excess of $22.0 trillion.  The main stream media seems to have overlooked any substantive reporting about this event, primarily because few in Washington DC seem to care about our government’s growing debt problem.

The federal government’s debt ceiling was enacted in 1917 via the Second Liberty Bond Act.  Since it was first established, the federal government has increased the debt ceiling roughly 100 times, and lawmakers have suspended the debt limit six times since February 2013.  The most recent suspension began on February 9, 2018, with the passage of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018.  With the passage of this piece of legislation, Congress “bi-partisan-ly” overrode the (ineffective) budget caps that had been established in the 2011 Budget Control Act. 

The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 was a deal between the Republicans and the Democrats to suspend the debt ceiling until March 1, 2019.  It also allowed them to bust the budget caps, so that both parties could approve more spending for both “guns and butter”.  It’s interesting to note that the US Constitution only talks about federal government spending for guns, and it makes no mention of spending for butter.  It’s also interesting to note that Thomas Paine (in his pamphlet entitled Common Sense) discussed the differences between a government (which is established to protect us from evil) and the role of civil society.  

The Treasury Department is now using “extraordinary measures” to avoid defaulting on the government’s obligations.  The government is anticipating that April tax receipts will help defer the day when the government runs out of wiggle room.  The extraordinary measures include halting contributions to certain government pensions funds, suspending certain payments to state and local governments, and borrowing from money set aside to manage exchange rate fluctuations.  The best estimate is that these extraordinary measures will run out sometime during September or October.   So of course, there is no sense of urgency to deal with the growing debt problem, because, hey, we have another five or six months.

The biggest problem is that spending caps and sequesters and the upcoming budget fights will deal with just 30% of the federal government’s annual spending.  But the annual deficit is primarily driven by the other 70% – – “mandatory” spending for “entitlement” programs and interest on the debt.

Based on all of the above, it is easy to conclude that the federal government does not (in any practical sense) have a debt limit, and the reinstated “debt limit ceiling” is a farce.  It has been said that government debt is simply deferred / future taxation.  The $22.0 trillion has been “borrowed” (some would say “stolen”) from future generations.  The career politicians in Washington DC, who supposedly control the federal government’s purse strings, have a long history of buying votes with other people’s money.  Is that “fair” to future generations?  We think not.  The federal government’s growing debt problem can only begin to get fixed if We-the-People call a Convention of States to consider amendments to the US Constitution to impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit its size and jurisdiction, and impose Term Limits on the members of the Senate and House of Representatives.

US Debt Clock – – March 1st – $67,141 per citizen / April 1st – $67,462