U.S. Grant-Time to Retire

Read any Sunday paper and the odds are you’ll find a “help wanted” ad for a grant writer. So who awards those grants? Where does the money come from? Except for a few foundations, most of the grants are given by governments. Grant writers are needed because either the grant process is a competitive one or certain criteria must be met and/or bureaucratic hoops must be jumped before the recipient is deemed to have qualified. So, for the taxpayer it’s a double whammy. Sacrifice some your labor or profits to fund the grant, and forfeit more of your sweat equity to underwrite the grant writer.


My personal view is that grant writers represent B.S. artists who are savvy in the world of bureaucratic minutiae. They appear to be experts at generalized obfuscation, “i-dotting” and “t-crossing.” Although I am certain that someone at one time offered a reasonably valid justification for the entire grant process, I suspect that like every other Big Government function or process, it has morphed into a ludicrous exercise with minimal value that has scant constitutional purpose. The entire grant system is a sham. The feds or the states pretend to acknowledge the priorities set by the local government while, at the same time, the locals can boast about receiving “state” or “federal” funds. In Ohio, for example, Butler County officials could rejoice about their receiving federal money for a new updated recycling center. The County would be responsible for the 70% that the grant would not cover as well as any unanticipated costs, but the people should be happy because the 30% would be coming from the federal government. Maybe we should ask the folks in Warren County or Hamilton County if they wish to pay for some other county’s recycling center. What would the folks in Indiana or Kentucky say if they had been asked? This scenario is one that I have created to illustrate the folly of the grant writing shell game.

The entire process is merely the moving of taxpayer dollars from one community or state to another while providing the illusion that the locality is getting something for nothing. A recent example is the $400 million dollar grant awarded to Ohio for startup and design of a “so-called” high speed rail system. After the November election, Governor-elect Kasich declined to accept the federal funds, and Big Brother (aka Sec’y Ray LaHood) immediately offered the funds to Florida or California. These events suggest that the need for the funds in Ohio was not a burning priority, and that the federal government will continue to irresponsibly spend borrowed money even when facing a fiscal crisis.

If you employ a competent grant writer, then you can locate the moving pea under the shell. A community can take momentary advantage of a system that takes money from others, but eventually all will pay and pay dearly. Oh yes, don’t forget to include the cost of the grant writer. Remember to include salary, benefits, supplies, space, furniture and utilities, and maybe this time, local government, you can find the pea.

Comment: earl4sos@gmail.com or cearlwriting@hotmail.com

www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

The Ohio Plan-the seed

This entry will be rather short for two reasons. The first is that this plan requires further development before it can be successfully implemented, and I wanted some feedback from you about its potential efficacy. The second impetus for this abbreviated column is that we are developing a new format for “Littlestuff-minoosha” that will feature an executive summary at the beginning that will be followed by the “fleshed out” portion. Symbols and words have meaning. In our efforts to communicate concepts and ideas, we often rely on symbols to capture the essence of our thought processes. Symbolic action serves a similar purpose. When undertaken free of cynicism or hypocrisy, a symbolic gesture can create a tone or provide a worthy example for those who observe it.


One of our more recent examples of symbolic action would be when the President of the United States jets overnight to serve a holiday meal to our troops in harm’s way. The action itself has no intrinsic value because there are military professionals who can do a much better job of carving turkey or ladling gravy. The value lies in the symbolic nature of the President’s empathy for the troops in the field. We know it’s stupid. We know that it is unnecessarily costly. We know that at its base, it is a meaningless endeavor, but, nevertheless, we experience an element of “feel good” that the leader of our nation engaged in the symbolic action.

This lengthy preamble is the “set up” for my germinating idea that members of the Ohio General Assembly must take the lead for restoring liberty and fiscal sanity to our state. My nearly two-year old grandson has provided me with some valuable insights about human nature. When there is limited structure, his curious mind and busy hands will seek something to explore. Legislators are similar. They will continually search for little problems-real or imaginary- to be solved. “Idle hands are the Devil’s tools.’ Personally, I believe that the expansion of the Buckeye version of Big Brother coincided with the “need” for a “full-time” General Assembly. If we are ever to put the bloated monster back into its rightful place, then let’s begin by placing the Legislature back on a “part-time” basis.

Modern technology has provided the means for State House members and State Senators to “stay home” while fulfilling their legislative duties. They can be gainfully employed in the private sector while using the technology to complete their legislative tasks. In my view they should be limited to one week per month, and nine months per year of assembly in Columbus. The remainder of the time could be spent in their districts with the electronic umbilical cords uniting them in common purpose (geesh!). Clearly, some constitutional and legal hurdles must be overcome, but the welfare of our state is at stake.

In addition to encouraging them to communicate electronically, I would reduce their pay from the current $60,584 per year to $24,000 annually. As each member is elected and assumes office, the taxpayers would provide her or him with the $5000 package of technology and software to allow them to function. Just on the salaries alone minus the start-up costs, the savings would approach $9million every two years. This is without adjusting the benefit packages and the mileage reimbursements. Admittedly, $9 million is peanuts, but the symbol would be priceless. The greatest advantage, though, is the dispersal of the legislative body from the central location where they are accessible to lobbyists and other entities who survive on the government teat. This is merely a seed of thought and requires more development, but check the link for the current pay scale and mileage reimbursement.

An Ohio Plan.docx

Comments: earl4sos@gmail.com or cearlwriting@hotmail.com

www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

We Need a Law

We need a law that bans new laws. In my view six of the most dangerous words in our language are “there ought to be a law.” Every time a legislator, a regulator, a public interest group or a powerful corporate entity has a brain fart, they seek to enact a law that enhances their position or makes life more difficult for their opposition or competitors. As a result, we have laws upon laws upon laws. We have been outlawed. "The essence of fascism is to make laws forbidding everything and then enforce them selectively against your enemies." We are all aware of instances where our governments have current laws that are not enforced while they continue to pass new ones.


In a December 12th article in the “Washington Post,” Philip K. Howard bemoaned that proliferation of laws in the United States. He declared, “Once a law is in place in the United States, it’s almost impossible to dislodge.” Citing the debate over the “temporary” Bush tax cuts, he illustrated that even temporary laws are often embedded in our Federal Code into perpetuity. Add to the proliferation of laws the concept that many of them have no Constitutional justification, and we find ourselves on the path to tyranny. Too many laws, too many unconstitutional laws, overregulation, whimsical rulemaking by bureaucrats seeking to justify their positions and their budgets, and we have a sure fire formula for abuse. Although Congresspersons are the elected representatives of the people, we all know that many of them lose their local, down home perspective and fall in love with the trappings of power.

The imperial attitudes of our elected leaders is often matched by the various agencies and departments who interpret and execute the laws, rules and regulations given to them by our peerless all-knowing “public servants.” The result is that we have a myriad of interlocking, overlapping and redundant proscriptions that make it impossible for the typical law abiding citizen to be fully aware of every action that may affect him or her. It’s similar to the death by a thousand cuts. Every action or movement by a citizen could potentially be an infraction of some sort. It seems possible that as this madness continues, many citizens will simply withdraw…lose their initiative and cease their efforts for creative enterprises and solutions. The overabundance of laws and regulations will have an effect similar to throwing sand in a gearbox. The great engine of ingenuity and energy that has been the historic legacy of our people will grind to a halt.

We are being smothered by an avalanche of lawmaking and rulemaking. The “promote the general welfare” clause in the Preamble of the Constitution of the United States was clearly designed to limit the federal government enactments to those issues that affect EVERYONE in the nation. A cursory reading of the Federalist papers or ratification documents will endorse that view. Can any Member of Congress or Executive branch appointee honestly attest that every one of the multiple thousands of laws, regulations and rules directly impacts every citizen and promotes the general welfare? They may try, but they cannot do so reasonably and truthfully.

Our legal landscape is like a beach that has been mined. We citizens are the ones who are attempting to cross the beach to safety on the solid land. The mines represent the legal and regulatory traps that may blow up in our faces as we seek to navigate through the treacherous sand. Each of us, as we move to safety, will face a different set of mines than our colleagues whose paths are somewhat different. The bloated, self-important government may claim that the general welfare necessity is satisfied because all of us must tread through the minefield, but the fact that each of us encounters different mines blows up the government’s argument and its legitimacy. Too many laws, too many regulations, too many rules, too many bureaucrats, and certainly, we have too much government and too little liberty.

Comment: earl4sos@gmail.com or cearlwriting@hotmail.com

www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Sedition Sentiment

So far in this series we’ve discussed various responses to an unconstitutional overreaching federal government. Tuesday’s column was about submission as a strategy. Wednesday we examined nullification as a means of counteracting big government, and yesterday we briefly reviewed secession as a means for thwarting an out-of-control federal monolith. Today, we take a look at sedition or resistance as a strategic vehicle for preserving individual liberty when confronted by an oppressive government. This is a difficult avenue to explore for a couple of reasons. One would pray that our situation doesn’t deteriorate to the point where sedition is necessary, and even with a successful outcome for the resisters, the tragedy of the process would be phenomenal.


Sedition is defined as an illegal action inciting resistance to lawful authority and tending to cause the disruption or overthrow of the government. Clearly by this definition, any seditious attempt to dislodge the federal government would be illegal or unlawful. Those who engage in the seditious activity would be subject to extremely harsh penalties. The moral justification for a citizen’s involvement and promotion of sedition is based on the premise that the federal government has exceeded its authority, exercises power beyond its mandate, and engages in practices and activities which are blatantly unconstitutional. In other words, if the government is illegitimate and operating illegally, then those who oppose it in the name of constitutional validity are functioning as lawful and legal enforcers of the Constitution. In the moral and philosophical universe the tables are reversed and the government and the resisters exchange places on the legitimacy scale. That’s the ideal. The reality is much different.

Over the years, film, television and literature have explored the nobility of a just resistance in the face of tyranny. (e.g. “Red Dawn.”). Generally the good guys win. Despite the evil government’s massive superiority in weaponry, personnel and power, the pure-of-heart remnant manages to prevail. That scenario is not real. Sedition and resistance are messy affairs. Former friends and family members will choose “security” rather than join the remnant of resistance. They may even report the resisters to the “authorities.” Trust will become a rare commodity. Fear of discovery will be a constant concern.

The fires of liberty will not be easily extinguished. While many will succumb to the power and illicit authority of the government, there will be those who yearn for freedom. They’ll have furtive encounters and obliquely test others as they seek new allies. Not all resisters will be militant warriors. Some will produce broadsides and pamphlets or sound the cry of liberty on pirate broadcast, hard-wired and satellite outlets. The huge government apparatus will be directed against the freedom fighters, and artificial crises will be generated to co-opt the people. The government will attempt to dam every rivulet of resistance and quell the flames of freedom. Because of its awesome power, and the fearful indifference of most citizens, the flame will be compromised. It will be smaller. The embers of liberty will not be extinguished however. People of faith, people of hope and people of strength will nurse the embers, and pray their prayers until the oppressive regime implodes. Liberty must prevail. For some generations it will be only in their hearts and in heaven. For others it will be a day-to-day effort to teach and inform their peers. Some generations may taste the fruits of freedom and flourish, but every generation will have those who cherish Liberty. The spark of liberty in the heart will not die.

Comments: earl4sos@gmail.com or cearlwriting@hotmail.com www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Unsuccessful Secession?

Secession as a strategy for states of the United States of America that resist imperial federal power has not been a successful maneuver for those who have attempted it. In the political context secession is the unilateral voluntary withdrawal from the federal compact. Actually, though, secession was successful in the short term for South Carolina and the other members of the Confederate States of America (CSA). It began to unravel as the numerical superiority and industrial advantages of the Union began to grind away the Confederacy. The secessionist movement was handicapped, too, because the abolitionists of the North used slavery as a rallying cry for inspiring the citizens and creating support for the war.


The secessionist argument was not only prevalent in the years leading up to the War Between the States, but had been on the burners, both front and back, since before the founding. For example, the slow process for endorsing the Constitution by the respective states is indicative that total membership or unanimity was not a given. If you recall, the first ten amendments (12 were proposed) were a product of some states’ hesitancy to enter the federation. They wanted stronger protection and a more emphatic confirmation for individual rights in the founding document. The clear evidence of the Framing Period is that the Constitution was a document that limited the federal government and provided for a contractual relationship among the various states to join together for those purposes expressly described in the Constitution. The federation was an alliance of convenience. The federal government would be given enough powers and resources to fulfill the functions that were defined for it. All other powers, duties and obligations were “reserved to the states, “or “retained by the people.”

It follows, therefore, that if all parties are legally and constitutionally executing their respective roles, a state may withdraw from the compact. Although the prospect of secession is not explicitly addressed, neither is any penalty contemplated for those states that may choose to suspend their involvement in the federation. The sections of Article I of the Constitution describe some prohibitions for states. Also, Article IV provides a more thorough view of the states’ position within the federation. There is no direct prohibition for seceding, but perhaps some would cite the portion of the Constitution in Article IV, Section 3, as an oblique denial of a state’s right to leave the federation. The clear reality is that for many decades the federal government has violated the Constitution, thus abdicating any contractual claim it may advance to prevent a state from leaving the federation.

Based on our last column (A Salvation Message) which discussed nullification as a means for states to resist unconstitutional federal power, secession is an option only if the state has diligently and consistently attempted to thwart excessive federal intervention via nullification. There are practical problems associated with this progression of response: 1) the state legislature must nullify because if they do not, then it seems rather logical that the political will to secede will not be present; 2) if the state does employ nullification against every instance of federal power abuse, there is no guarantee that the federal government will honor the individual state’s right to withdraw from the federation. We could have a flashback to 1861. The confrontation might be avoided, however, if the state refrained from occupying constitutional federal property such as military installations. One of the most important mitigating factors is that the federal government has become a self-perpetuating entity that seeks to command the states rather than serve them. The feds would, therefore, enforce their own preservation interests even if they did not have the support and acquiescence of the states that remained in the union. It has become a circular conundrum. A state secedes because the federal government exceeds its mandate, and the federal government in turn employs force to require the state to yield to its power and authority.

Although the secession remedy appears as the third alternative in this four-part series, it may be the most difficult to implement. Most states and their political leaders lack the will. If the federal government responds with all the power that it has available, the state may be incapable of any meaningful resistance. On the face of it secession is a lose-lose strategy. Achieving overwhelming support for leaving the union within any given state is probably impossible. A remnant of liberty loving patriots can resist an out-of-control federal government, but to marshal the citizens of an entire state is unlikely. Too many people will watch “American Idol” while the resistance is battling for freedom.

Comments: earl4sos@gmail.com or cearlwriting@hotmail.com

www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

A Salvation Message

One of the definitions for salvation is redemption, and redemption is precisely what is needed in the United States at this time. Anyone who has read all of the Constitution of the United States of America while doing so literally will understand that the current method of operation has strayed far off the path designed by the Framers and Founders. The procedures, policies and practices of the Federal Government bear a mere token resemblance to the original concept that was conceived at the founding. Throughout the decades of our Nation’s existence, the government and its power have grown to the point where they have become unmanageable and uncontrollable.


So if Big Brother has indeed become uncontrollable, how do we the people regain our control? How do we save or redeem our legacy of liberty? How do we reassert our power as a free people who hold the reins of power in our country? Prayer is a solid beginning, but if you’re a secularist, you may choose to study the Constitution for remedies that embedded there. On page 79 of his 1952 book, The Ordeal of Change, Eric Hoffer states “A society that in normal times cannot function adequately without unanimity is unfit for freedom.” (That title was prophetic, wasn’t it?). In other words Hoffer suggests the Rodney King lament (“Can we all get along?) undermines the cause of freedom. Attempts to secure universal results or broad based legislation to “level the playing field” are intended to force us all to get along. Much of our legislative agendas these days are directed towards the squeaking wheels. By greasing the lives of the petitioners government seeks to eliminate or minimize discord. As a result, government grows geometrically and individual freedom (and responsibility) shrinks accordingly. One cannot be all things to all people, and neither can government satisfy the whims of everyone. Discord, passion and inequitable outcomes are necessary for freedom to thrive. Complacent populations squander their opportunities, and liberty becomes a secondary preference.

Despite Judy Collins’ assertive claim, the answer isn’t “blowing in the wind.” The answer is found in the Constitution and reinforced by the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798 and 1799. Whereas individual outliers have little power when confronting an overly zealous federal government, their voices are magnified within the borders of their respective states. In Ohio, for example, the 132 state legislators are more approachable than the 535 members of the federal legislature. The drive from any point in Ohio to Columbus pales in comparison to the trek from Dayton to D.C. Accountability and responsiveness are more easily attained on a state level than federally. Clearly, an unengaged citizenry has allowed state governments in most cases to avoid constitutional scrutiny. When the people have become disgruntled, their wrath has often been directed at local dog wardens or focused on the incomprehensible federal apparatus. The states have often been spared the spotlight of review. State governments have coasted along under the radar despite some lurches into profligacy and power grabbing.

The salvation of our nation and our liberty is acquired in a fashion similar to spiritual salvation. According to evangelical Christian doctrine, the petitioner recognizes that he is a sinner, that she is estranged from God, and that he is incapable of navigating through life without Christ’s assistance. In a similar fashion the citizens must recognize that they have failed their responsibilities as watchdogs. The people should study and understand the Constitution so as to identify where government has corrupted the document, and then work together with like-minded patriots to grasp control of the state capitols throughout the land. State legislative candidates who are committed to the principle of nullification are the ONLY ones—regardless of party—who should be supported and elected. Principles must outweigh party labels if salvation or restoration is to succeed. The journey toward “we the people” must begin in the states….actually; the trip will begin in the living rooms of each respective state.

Once enough nullifying legislators are elected, they can begin to reject unconstitutional federal laws, mandates, rules and regulations. Those legislators can be held accountable by their respective constituencies who will discourage them from trading state overreaching for the federal version. This stratagem is constitutional, legal and much more quickly and effectively pursued than is a federal focus.

What if the state-based nullification strategy fails? Tomorrow we’ll discuss secession as a remedy. We’ll examine its viability and practicality.

Comments: earl4sos@gmail.com or cearlwriting@hotmail.com

www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Active Submission

When we examine our options for engaging our government, we have arbitrarily defined them as submission, salvation, secession and sedition. These remedies appear to be graduated ones wherein one follows the other if the previous efforts were unsuccessful. Today we’ll focus on submission as a citizen’s response to governmental action. Historically, submission has been the most common reaction to governmental edicts and power. Throughout recorded human history, governments have primarily been patriarchal, tyrannical or imperial. Citizens have been little more than chattel or property of the ruling monarch. It was the Judeo-Christian tradition that recognized individuals as stand-alone entities capable of reasoning and executing sound decisions. The awareness of self probably occurred before Abram (Abraham), but our first consistent and recorded chronicle of individuality is found in the Old Testament.


Despite the clear biblical acknowledgement of an individual’s relationship with God, many Christians who belong to mainline denominations have succumbed to a passive stance of submission when confronted with an over-reaching government. Their justification for such a position is rooted in Matthew 22:21b: Then he said to them, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” The inference that is drawn by submissive Christians is that one must submit to the state in worldly matters and practice obedience to God in the spiritual realm. They fail to detect the difference between Roman governance and our constitutional republic as designed for our United States. There are three critical words that provide a stark line of demarcation between the system of Rome and our method of governance. They are “We the people”….the opening words of our foundational document. I haven’t authored a systematic theology, but it seems clear to me that Christ’s teaching was that the individual must conform to the practices of the system in which she/he found themselves while continuing to be a positive reflection for God. There are theological justifications for resisting an unjust government, but they aren’t necessary to further this discussion. “We the people” can stand alone as a reason for individuals, Christian and non-Christian, to become actively involved in determining the role of government in their lives. To passively submit to a government that habitually violates its own rules becomes a ringing failure to follow the biblical admonition to engage with Caesar. One who allows government to run roughshod over individual rights while claiming the mantle of Christ is failing others and the Lord.

Certainly, submission as an approach to government should not be universally rejected. That would be anarchy. There are instances, legal and spiritual, where submission is vital for the survival of the state and the protection of the citizens. The occasions are rare and should be judiciously undertaken. Theologically speaking in the context of a constitutional republic, the citizen should always trust the Lord completely while skeptically working within government to “secure the blessings of liberty.” The secular aspect of a citizen’s submissive role is much more clearly defined. While the Christian recognizes the supremacy of God, the secular citizen must first define the primary focus of his allegiance. “We the people,” it seems, directs the citizen’s fealty to liberty. Because the state is creation of the people, and the nation is a product of the states, the citizen must honor the individual. Individuality cannot flourish without liberty. Therefore, it follows that submission is a secondary element of citizenship. The preservation of liberty for every citizen must be the overriding impetus for involvement with the state. Any activity that arbitrarily undermines freedom for the citizens is contrary to good stewardship. Anytime a citizen voluntarily submits to an unconstitutional or unjust action by government, then that citizen is derelict.

Active, consistent and unyielding efforts for liberty are the defining elements of a good citizen. Unthinking submission to government’s abuses of its mandate is the equivalent of treasonous activity. When the citizen passively submits to an unruly government, he tacitly encourages tyranny. He or she violates the obligation to protect and defend liberty from the grasp of illicit government action.

Discipleship and citizenship are active endeavors and should be the norm for spiritual and governmental involvement. Submission should be a conscious reasoned activity and not the default mode. God wants pro-active disciples, and the state requires our action to hold it accountable. Tomorrow we’ll discuss the salvation aspect of good citizenship.

Comments: earl4sos@gmail.com or cearlwriting@hotmail.com

www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

UNmoving

For nearly my entire life I’ve heard “get the U.S. out of the U.N., and the United Nations out of the United States.” For a period of my life I found that sentiment somewhat curious. I suffered under the illusion (advanced by government-run school monopolies) that if all the people of the world could meet together, our problems could be resolved. Over the years, however, my position has shifted and hardened. The United Nations is the crucible of tyranny that encourages festering corruption and promotes the elitist mindset. Just as one must lance an infected area, the pus that the U.N. represents must be purged from our shores and cleansed from our nation’s agenda.


Looking back at 2009, United Nations diplomats and their flunkies had more than 18 million dollars in unpaid parking tickets to the city of New York and the five boroughs. Understandably, in the grand scheme of international finance and intrigue, this is a paltry sum, but it is representative of the parasitic nature of the United Nation’s presence in our land. When the elegant headquarters building was constructed at Turtle Bay in 1952, it appears likely that many were filled with hope and optimism for a new global initiative that would improve the lives of every global citizen. It was another utopian lie. Today the massive structure is crumbling and unsound. Billions of dollars will be required to restore the edifice overlooking the East River to a functional level. Unfortunately, a functional building does not guarantee a functional General Assembly or Security Council.

In a recent column in “Townhall.com” (10/17/2010), former Ohio Secretary of State, Ken Blackwell, proposed relocating the U.N. to Geneva, Switzerland. The international clown school (UN) already has a satellite office there, so Blackwell reasoned that the move to Geneva would drastically lower the costs for maintaining the U.N. headquarters. Given that the United States contributes or is assessed 22% of the UN’s annual operating costs amounting to 1.8 billion dollars per year, Blackwell suggested that with a move to Geneva, the United States could reduce its portion to six per cent which is more in line with our portion of the global populace. The savings for our country would exceed 1.3 billion dollars annually. It isn’t going to happen. Our political class doesn’t have the courage or the foresight to pursue a policy that seems so reasonable. The striped-pant, tuxedo dressed diplomatic corps would vigorously howl if they believed that their opportunities for interacting with the tin-pot dictators of the world might be compromised or made somewhat more difficult.

In January of this year two columnists for “Forbes.com” had a better suggestion for relocating the UN. In my view, it’s an inspirational suggestion mainly because I have been promoting this idea since mid-2008. Joel Kotkin and Robert J. Cristiano (1/12/2010)were the authors. Their proposal was for the entire New York infrastructure of the United Nations to be transplanted to Dubai….among the United Arab Emirates. The world’s tallest building, the Burj Khalifa, was completed in January. It soars 2700 feet into the air, has 160 floors and contains 3.3 million square feet of unoccupied space. Only ten per cent of the structure is currently occupied, so the UN would have ample space, a world-class airport and every imaginable amenity available for its self-indulgent representatives and staff. In addition, there is ample parking space available so that New York wouldn’t shoulder the loss of all those unpaid parking tickets. By the way, that $18 million in unpaid tickets could fund 20-30 cops per year including bribes. This Dubai remedy seems to me to be a win-win-win-win solution. The building owners increase the occupancy, the UN gets a brand spanking new facility with much more space, the Third World nations will be gratified to have the global busy-body in their midst, and the United States’ taxpayers can save some bucks. To me, this is the perfect solution short of our total withdrawal from the UN (which I prefer). As a starter, I want them out of sight and out of mind. Instead of soiling Manhattan, the clowns can play in the Mid East litter box. As Iran becomes feistier, the elegant diplomats can stand on the helipad at the top of the building, and track the incoming ordinance.

If Frank Sinatra were still with us, he would probably sing, “Dubai, Dubai, Doooo.”

Comment: earl4sos@gmail.com or cearlwriting@hotmail.com

www.littlestuff-minoosha.blogspot.com

Food for Thought

Addressing the impact of pending legislation is always a risky undertaking. At any step along the tortuous path to passage the piece can be amended…either marginally or significantly. Despite my caution I will forge ahead to analyze the underlying basis for the Food Safety Act (the former S. 510) that has been folded into the continuing resolution for maintaining federal spending in lieu of a budget. Will the bill do everything its critics claim it does? Is the concept as beneficial and benign as promoted by its advocates? Frankly, I don’t know, but I DO know that I cannot trust any sweeping legislation from MY government.


The EPA was introduced by Nixon to regulate and moderate air and water. The implied goal was that their mandate involved not allowing room temperature air or water to become “chunky.” We now have in this nation some of the cleanest air and water in the industrialized world. We have developed new technologies and practices for protecting the environment without dismantling the economic engine. But the EPA and its gaggle of anti-capitalists couldn’t stop with success. They insisted on regulating, squeezing and demanding until they, along with greedy labor, forced many of our domestic manufacturers to pack up and relocate off shore. Admittedly, the EPA and labor unions were not the only responsible parties for the decimation of our heavy manufacturing base. I use them only as an illustration of how a government agency goes amok.

Like any bureaucracy, public or private, once a department or agency has fulfilled its mandate, it must seek greater fields to harvest. Smaller concerns yield greater power which morphs into an over- regulating Nanny environment. Bureaucracies must grow to increase their budgets and their power. Eventually they metastasize into tyrannical behemoths that cannot be thwarted no matter how silly or harmful their rulings may be. Proponents of the “Food Safety Act” cite the necessity for limiting the damage to people from e-coli, salmonella and other nasty things that are infrequently found in our food supply. Hallelujah! We need never fear the ravages of sickness or death again because the all-knowing, all-caring and reasonably restrained FDA (Food and Drug Administration) is on the job.

Even if the proponents are telling the truth about the relatively limited purview of the FDA, can they guarantee us that the agency will not grasp for a broader jurisdiction? Can the advocates assure us that Monsanto and ADM with their unlimited funds for lobbying and bribery will not seek to have naturally grown products regulated beyond the cost of production? Can those who seek this legislation honestly promise that the entire food supply of the United States will not, at some future point, be limited to genetically engineered products whose bad effects or side effects may not manifest themselves for a couple of generations? Yes, they may guarantee, they may assure and they may promise, but their statements are as worthless as lips on a chicken.

The so-called “Food Safety Act” represents the camel’s nose. Once the ungainly beast secures an entry into our food supply, the ears will follow as just a little more regulation is deemed necessary. Our beneficent, all-knowing leaders will then decide that if some regulation is good, more is preferable, and the camel’s hump will sidle into the tent. Small farmers, gardeners and survivalists will complain about the camel’s stench, and Big Brother will respond with a “reform” package, the Food On Our Labels Safety act….FOOLS. The new reform will firmly place the entire camel inside every tent (except those who can afford exemptions). Food variety will suffer, and food production will dwindle. Our future will include Mid-East petroleum, Chinese manufactured products and South American food. The best way to avoid the camel’s stench in our tents is to kill it before it comes in. It is past the time for open season on camels.

Comment: earl4sos@gmail.com or cearlwriting@hotmail.com

Who's Counting?

The 2010 Census results are in the final stages of tabulation and validation. Even so, I suspect that the numbers we are given will be, at best, approximations and, at worst, fabrications. Taking the census is a constitutionally mandated function that is found in Article 1, Section 2 of our pre-eminent governing document. The primary (and only constitutional) purpose of the “actual Enumeration” is to determine representation for the United States House of Representatives. The congressional districts are to be designed so that each member of the House represents a similar number of citizens. There are other uses for the census data that are outside the constitutional requirement, and the data that are collected have gone far beyond mere enumeration. Some would argue that the information sought by census takers transforms the census from a representation determinant to an intrusive social engineering mechanism. Indeed it does as many of the data are used to identify community clusters of poverty, households that lack amenities that may be more prevalent in other economic strata (e.g. 1 bathroom versus 2 bathrooms), or households that suffer because the available square footage per resident is lower than the typical figure.


The Constitution requires that we execute an “actual Enumeration.” In other words…count the people. The Constitution does NOT demand that all manner of intrusive busybody questions be asked. The Constitution does NOT call for or anticipate that computer modeling be used to “fill the gaps of knowledge.” The Constitution does NOT require that millions of people be hired for temporary positions. The Constitution does not demand that those millions of temporary workers ferret out minute details of people’s lives. If the long form census document were abandoned, then enumerators could COUNT, models would be unnecessary and the temporary boost in employment figures wouldn’t be so dramatic. Just like everything else the federal government undertakes, the census has become too cumbersome, too unwieldy and has distorted its original purpose.

Now that my rant about the census has ended, let’s look at the impact for Ohio’s congressional delegation. Currently, we have 18 M.O.C. (members of Congress), but early indications are that we will slip to 16 for the next decade. Because the House of Representatives is limited to 435 members from the 50 states (57 in Obama math), the total population is divided by 435 then apportioned accordingly. The growth in the Southwest, particularly Texas, has minimized the impact of Ohio’s relatively stable population of roughly 11 million people. So, the influence of the Buckeye State on the national scene will be diluted once again, and our impact on the Electoral College will slip from 20 to 18 electoral votes. The Presidential votes in a winner-take-all system in Ohio mean that we represent just fewer than seven per cent of the Electoral College. The reasons for our stagnate growth and our diminishing electoral influence are many, and I will explore them at a later time. I wish to briefly examine how the Census results will impact Ohio.

The Congressional districts are determined by the Ohio General Assembly. Following the November 2010 midterm elections, the GOP will assume control of both chambers with overwhelming numerical advantages. In the House the Republicans hold 59 seats and the Democrats have 40. The Senate favors the GOP by a 23 to 10 margin. Historically, the redistricting process has involved the two parties working together to equally distribute the pain of lost congressional seats. If that model were to be implemented this time, I would expect Dennis Kucinich and Jean Schmidt will see their districts carved and dismantled. It would not surprise me, however, for the GOP to exercise its new power and place four Democratic incumbents in primary races for two districts. To quote the inept Colonel Klink, “verrry interesting.” However the redistricting process unfolds (I understand that it has been drawn already), the GOP General Assembly will face some justified criticism. Work with the “D’s” and it’s the same old business as usual…the two parties working to undermine the will of the electorate. Exercise the raw power of the numbers, and the GOP becomes the party of bullies who run roughshod over the minority. Whatever route the majority chooses to follow, they have ten years to recover.

Comment: earl4sos@gmail.com or cearlwriting@hotmail.com

Big Bang - Local view

One of my favorite bumper stickers claims that “An armed society is a polite society.” Works for me. For those of you who remember the Cold War, we had a policy of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) when the Soviet Union and the United States were the two nuclear superpowers. Although nuclear proliferation throughout the globe has, to some degree, removed the certainty of mutual destruction, the principle still endures. If you possess the ability and the will to retaliate, then those who seek to harm you will be very cautious and careful to not provoke you. Although each of the major powers had a sense of the overall capabilities of the other, there were generally some knowledge gaps regarding deployment schemes and technological upgrades. In other words, it was the unknown factors that led to a reasonable hesitancy to engage the opponent. Even when a nation had the firepower to destroy an adversary, it was aware that the opponent could, in turn, decimate it. Stalemate.


When proposed, the Second Amendment to the Constitution was deemed to be a necessary reiteration of an individual’s right to protect himself/herself. Clearly the Founders believed that an armed citizenry was a major deterrent for those in government who were inclined towards tyranny. It should be obvious that all governments drift toward tyranny when their power accumulates to the level that the citizens feel impotent and frustrated. It should also be noted that tyranny is not only the outgrowth of evil intent, but can morph from the government’s overzealous efforts to do “good.” Elitists who manipulate the levers of state power always believe that their visions for a society are superior to the competing ideals. So, given the geometric growth of our out-of-control government and its plethora of laws, rules and regulations that circumscribe and limit our freedom, then an armed citizenry is critical if freedom is to endure.

Another vital aspect of our right to bear arms is in the realm of personal protection. If a potential perpetrator suspects that a likely target may be packing, the perp may hesitate and seek greener pastures. It follows, therefore, that if ALL citizens could exercise their rights to bear arms, then opportunistic criminals would find their targets of opportunity severely curtailed. This represents the local community version of Mutually Assured Destruction. It shouldn’t require a JD in Constitutional Law to understand that many states and localities have “infringed” upon a natural right by their implementation of overly restrictive laws and ordinances that in essence disarm the populace. The McDonald v. Chicago and D.C v. Heller were helpful, …..but not definitive. Certainly two of the most toxic anti-Second Amendment cities were put in their places (somewhat), but the narrow SCOTUS margins encouraged the disarmament crowd to continue tweaking their restrictive measures in hopes of passing Court muster. The slim margins within the court were further compounded by the narrow scopes of the decisions. The likelihood of a clear MAD policy in the realm of personal protection will always be at risk as long as state and local governments seek to usurp our natural and constitutional rights. In addition, if the SCOTUS fails to unequivocally and emphatically uphold and restore our rights to bear arms, then those who wish to do harm, within and outside government, need merely to target more selectively.

It has been argued that a citizenry that can be armed would not be a deterrent against terrorists. After all the argument goes, a terrorist is committed to martyrdom, and an armed citizen can do nothing to short-circuit his (or her) fast track to paradise. My understanding of the theology underlying martyrdom is that the terrorist must destroy infidels to earn his ticket to the heavenly realm and its bevy of virgins. If the crazed zealot unsuccessfully executes the mission, then he/she simply becomes a dead spiritual warrior with no appreciable heavenly benefit. In my view an armed and observant citizenry has the capacity to preempt fast-track trips to paradise. If the alert, armed citizen is present when an individual with theologically-based murderous intent begins to implement the deadly plan, the conscientious and armed citizen can, perhaps, help the zealot to meet his maker….and enjoy eternity alone.

Health conscious people, dentists and accountants all warn us that prevention is the best cure for whatever may ail us. It follows, therefore, that when confronting crime, terrorism or an out-of-control government, then a forewarned and well armed citizenry may be our best and maybe our only cure. When one watches the news or reads the papers, one becomes aware that ALL of our natural rights as identified in the Constitution are under assault. Thoughtful citizens must understand that our rights cannot be taken or given away. Concerned citizens must exercise every available mechanism for protecting our rights. Free citizens will NOT allow our rights to be infringed or abridged.

Comments: earl4sos@gmail.com or cearlwriting@hotmail.com

Fair to Middling

This is our fifth and final entry about the Fair Tax (perhaps). This analysis has not explored every nuance and consequence that would occur should we radically transform our system of federal taxation from an income-based to a consumption-based model. For example, there are estimates that compliance costs for the present tax structure range from $250 billion to $400 billion per year. With a consumption oriented and simpler tax system, many of these non-productive wasteful costs would be redirected into the general economy. Consider it a “non borrowed stimulus” wherein the taxpayers or businesses choose how the resources are allocated rather than mandated by complex indecipherable tax law. Certainly there would be some application or administrative costs for the Fair Tax and those costs would be higher in the beginning because of the fact that six states are not presently structured to levy the tax at the cash register, but overall the compliance costs should be dramatically lower than we are experiencing in the current system.


As an ardent supporter of liberty and individual choice, I find that the opportunity to have more personal power over my tax liability to be an appealing prospect. I do understand, however, that many of my fellow citizens will not be persuaded by a freedom-based argument. These citizens resist taking responsibility for their government and often confuse government involvement with security. As I stated earlier, I believe that if we could implement the Fair Tax, then a significant portion of the electorate would embrace their new freedom. Perhaps they’ll become motivated to expand their liberty and opportunities. So, how do we sell this puppy? How do we market the concept of enhanced liberty to our cohorts? How, pray tell, do we get it done?

First, we must identify and neutralize the opposition. In my view there are four significant clusters of interest that will forcefully resist any attempt to change the present federal tax mechanism. The first group is comprised of the entrenched political power structure. The politicians and their bureaucratic sidekicks relish the complexity of the current system because it allows them to tweak, to alter, and to manipulate the system to advance their preferred social agendas or to reward/punish various sectors of the nation’s citizens. The second source of fierce opposition will be the Internal Revenue Service bureaucracy and the legions of people throughout the fruited plain who benefit from trying to decipher the snarled convoluted tax code. Their livelihoods are anchored to the impossible-to-understand, always potentially punitive system that current intimidates so many of our citizens.

Corporations and special interest groups who are reaping benefits from extra consideration in the existing code will battle to retain their favored status. They are the ones who have proven themselves adept at manipulating the system (with the assistance of their treasured politicians) for their own benefit. Sometimes the tax code provides them an advantage by negatively affecting their competitors. At any rate, they may resist a more level playing (paying?) field. The final groups who will scream and howl if the Fair Tax is chosen are those individuals who gain from the current system through the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and the child deduction. The prebate aspect of the Fair Tax may squelch a lot of their discontent, but there are many advocates for the tax-break recipients who will forecast massive starvation in the streets if the EITC, in particular, is ended. The opposition will be fierce and relentless, but I, nevertheless, hold to the proposition that implementing the Fair Tax will provide a large enough taste of freedom that our citizens may be more willing to consider constitutional government.

So, how do we sell it? First we have to acknowledge that many of us have a sense of entitlement that has been nurtured by the Nanny State, so appeals to the constitution, smaller government and more individual freedom will not resonate for a large portion of our audience. The bottom line is to replicate the tactics of the progressives by promoting blatant self interest, opportunism and perceived class warfare. Self interest is “keeping all of your check.” The approach would be to encourage everyone to carefully examine her/his check…the gross, then the net, and sell the sizzle: the all new Fair Tax will give you an instant raise by allowing you to KEEP YOUR OWN MONEY.

Winning the support of the political class is more difficult, but it can be done with a good amendment, a workable transition plan and raw political power. The power aspect will arise after the initial sales campaign to the citizenry. Following an “underground orientation” period to inform and develop the key cadre of supporters, then the massive education campaign for the citizens, the next step would be to organize “committees of correspondence (sound familiar?)” to bombard the legislators and other political types. As it develops, the organizational structure should be wide and deep enough to convince the politicos that the movement is real and is strong. We must remember that freedom is merely a byproduct for the average American. Keep your own money is the primary motivating message.

The business and special interest classes should be persuadable through reason and number crunching. I do understand, however, that they are not homogeneous…that each sits in a different niche. The Fair Tax, though, would drastically reduce paperwork for them, and make budgeting and planning much easier. The subsidized poor would probably embrace the concept of the Fair Tax with the prebate, but the real hostility will come from the poverty lobby. They have the same reverence for an easily manipulated tax structure as do the corporate honchos and the political harlots. Theirs will be a noisy, accusative, screeching, cacophony of doom that will occur if the Fair Tax is implemented. In a sense, they may be the most difficult constituency to counter because many in the mass media will provide them with a platform. This inevitability requires that an aggressive media campaign be implemented concurrent with the roll-out of the concept.

Can the Fair Tax be an effective and reasonable improvement over the present labyrinth of taxation? Yes, I believe, although I still have constitutional and philosophical reservations about it. I do believe that it is vastly better than what we now have. It is fairer (a little). It is less intrusive (somewhat). It allows for more personal freedom (it’s a step). It is too much money (that revenue-neutral thingy), but we can limit it to a percentage of sale maximum or a calculated amount based on a percentage of GDP.

It is a start, only a start. Our liberty has yet to be secured.

Comment: earl4sos@gmail.com or cearlwriting@hotmail.com

Fair Thee Well

My ears are buzzing with your silent questions. Charlie, what about the poor? And, and …the underground economy? Well, take heart, Binky; we have some answers for you. The Fair Tax as currently designed does have an allowance for those who have lower incomes. Generally, I would find such an offset to be discriminatory because it does seem to impose a “progressive” element to the levying of the tax. There is, however, a mitigating aspect that I find acceptable. When implemented, the Fair Tax would provide a “prebate” to EVERYONE that represents 23% of the federally-designated poverty line for each respective household or person. For example, a single person living alone would receive a monthly prebate via direct deposit of $207.58. This figure represents 23% of the 2010 poverty level income of $10,830.00 for one person. For a family of four the prebate amount would be $422.63 which is 23% of the 2010 poverty level income for four of $22,050.00. So, the poor, the rich and the in-between would ALL get a direct deposit at the beginning of every month which, to some degree, minimizes the effect of the tax on individual taxpayers.


Earlier we discussed the embedded tax on current products and services. I’m going to provide an example of how those hidden costs accumulate. This analysis will not be exhaustive, but I do hope that it will be illustrative. Let’s use bread for our example. It’s a commodity that is purchased by nearly every household in the nation. To arrive at a true number for embedded taxes on bread, one would have to pro-rate all the federal taxes paid by the farmer, the grain elevator or buyer, the miller who grinds the flour or cracks the grain, the baker, the supermarket and all the miscellaneous shippers, truckers and handlers who facilitate the movement of the grain. Also, included in the final tally would be the pro-rated federal taxes for the seed distributor, the fertilizer provider (if used) and whatever extraneous treatments are needed to preserve the crop. Who knew that a tiny little grain of wheat or oats or barley or rye would be such a prolific generator of tax dollars for Big Brother and lots of paperwork for the private sector? Now that “faith of a mustard seed” analogy makes more sense, doesn’t it? There’s lots of power in those little seeds or grains.

When considering the example cited above, please remember than your dedicated public servants in Washington have been considering a Value Added Tax for debt reduction (yeah, right). Every step in the process from seed to bread to seed that adds value to the tiny little botanical grain would add more tax. Sneaky S.O.B.’s want your money, but also want to hide its collection from you.

There is a huge benefit that results from the Fair Tax that is often overlooked or minimized. When taxes are paid on final consumption, then every drug dealer, hooker, criminal thug and international tourist will be paying “their fair share.” Also, every individual who has entered the United States illegally will contribute to the tax coffers when they purchase something. In other words, a broad range of the underground economy will be forced into the sunlight merely because of their needs for routine products and services. When that inbred Saudi Prince brings his extended family and retinue of servants to Cleveland while commandeering an entire wing of a world-class hospital, his lavish lifestyle will generate a large sum of Fair Tax receipts….and no prebate for Abdullah.

So, you may ask, when the Fair Tax merely offsets the embedded tax, how can that be revenue neutral? How can those limited sources of money…minus the prebates…actually equal all the dollars collected from the hundreds or thousands of taxes that are in the government’s quiver today? It’s simple, Boy Wonder. No exemptions. Let me repeat that. No exemptions. No special clauses in the code. No non-profit ruses. No artificially structured entities to game the tax code. We all ride on the same pond, but we can choose our own boat. New Lexus versus used Lexus. Bakery bread versus Bunny Bread versus day old bread. Sears or Jenn-Aire. Freedom…it’s a beautiful thing. Political freedom is vital for a nation to thrive economically, intellectually and politically. Perhaps, just perhaps when the semi-comatose sheeple of our nation savor the taste of economic freedom, they will understand how desirable liberty is. Maybe then, they’ll finish the job.

Tomorrow I’ll explore how I believe that the Fair Tax can be sold, promoted and implemented.

Comments: earl4sos@gmail.com or cearlwriting@hotmail.com

Going to the Fair

Today I wish to explore some of the lesser known benefits of the Fair Tax. As we briefly mentioned in previous columns the Fair Tax would (as currently structured) eliminate all federal taxes on individuals and businesses except for excise taxes, extraction taxes (mining etc.) and fees. The AMT, the alternative minimum tax, is one that would be discarded under this proposal. The AMT is a noxious class-warfare, social-engineering device that was levied to capture tax dollars from high and middle income families who were/are entitled to deductions that, in effect, reduce their tax obligation to nothing or peanuts. In other words, even if you complied with the tax code and legally deducted expenses to which you were entitled, your government decided that you should pay taxes anyway—deductions be damned. This gem of equity was initiated in 1969 and updated in 1982 and is NOT indexed for inflation. So, in essence, some 18 years after the “update,” we find that middle income people are being pounded by this surcharge. This unethical tax that surprises so many citizens on April 15th will be tossed into the dustbin if the Fair Tax becomes law.


One of the engines of a vibrant economic system is capital (the others are freedom, creativity and effort). When you as a wage earner have paid your taxes, provided a living for your family and perhaps purchased a home, you may take whatever amount of money remaining and invest it. You have already paid taxes on it, remember. You may start a business, buy some land, a mutual fund or stock. When at a later time, you decide to sell your investment because you’ve retired or you have large expenses, then the government assesses you for your capital gain. These funds are, in effect, removed from the pool for business expansion and job creation. This job-killing, enterprise-choking tax will not exist under the Fair Tax.

Our present tax code is contained in more than 40,000 (yes, 40 thousand) pages. It is nightmarish in its complexity, and there is a multitude of anecdotal accounts of people calling the IRS for help and receiving conflicting information. In other words, the code is too difficult for the enforcers to understand. This phenomenon leads to an environment whereby it is nearly impossible for a long-form tax filer to be in total compliance. In a sense, even if you were diligent and patriotic, it might be possible to find you in violation of some obscure or vague regulation. Additionally, many wage earners and salaried people are unaware of the size of their federal tax bill. They live their lives based on the “net amount” in the paychecks without calculating the difference between gross and net. One of the beauties of the Fair Tax is its transparency. The employed individual receives the entire paycheck less VOLUNTARY deductions then is fully cognizant of the tax liability when a transaction occurs.

Earlier I discussed the complex maze that is the current tax code. There are two primary reasons for the existence of such an unintelligible mess: 1) special favors and exemptions (vote buying); and 2) stealth taxes. Members of Congress become nearly orgasmic when they can secure benefits in the tax code for well-heeled and politically generous sectors, corporations or individuals. Coincidentally, campaign contributions often correlate with the special benefits legislation. Hmmm, there’s a pattern developing here, Claudine. The Fair Tax will stop the protective backslapping buddy system that is our current tax code…if the amendment is written tightly enough to prevent “tweaking” for special interests. The “stealth” tax elements are those “minor” adjustments that appear to have little effect, but in the aggregate have a negative impact on taxpayers and the economy. The AMT is a prime example of a stealth tax that originally was targeted toward wealthy tax “avoiders” but has become just another broad-based “revenue enhancement.” Other stealth taxes could be the “tweaking” of the “progressive” brackets or altering the brackets on any number of tax schemes or schedules. The openness of the Fair Tax would minimize political opportunities for reaching into our purses and wallets.

One more benefit that I wish to discuss is the impact of the Fair Tax on non-profits. Presently many organizations operate under the umbrella of a non-profit, but actually promote political agendas. These so-called non-profits are exempt from federal corporate taxes. A couple of the more prominent examples of such entities are ACORN and NPR. NPR, for example, is a money swallowing shell game with its nearly incessant fund raising meanwhile it avoids paying federal taxes while the commercial sector must comply. The Fair Tax would eliminate this inequity without eroding the purchasing power of the public broadcast property. I should note here that I am adamantly opposed to “public broadcasting,” but until Congress sees fits to cease funding it, we can level the playing field as much as possible. Churches that function as non-profits would realize a massive advantage with the Fair Tax. Under the current system they operate as if their First Amendment rights for political speech have been sacrificed upon the altar of “tax free” status. With no appreciable differential in cash flow requirements, the Fair Tax would relieve churches of the fear that their status could be changed by the IRS if it were decided that they were “political.” Political speech is the most protected of all speech, and it seems to me that churches should speak without fear of retribution from the government. In my view, every church member with a conscience should support the Fair Tax for this reason alone.

More tomorrow. Comment: earl4sos@gmail.com or cearlwriting@hotmail.com