WHAT'S NEXT?

We did not get into this foreign policy morass overnight and we will not fix it overnight.

This President has led us to a position of weakness from the start.  Let me count the ways:

1.  He advocated a "reset" with Russia and received nothing in return.

2.  He failed to get a "status of forces" agreement in Iraq before our wholesale withdrawal.

3.  Ditto for Afghanistan.

4.  He "led from behind" in Libya as well as Iran, North Korea, China and now Syria.

5.  He set a "red line" for chemical weapons in Syria apparently without a clue as to what his next step would be.

Syria is now dispersing its chemical weapon stockpiles. Going forward we can expect even more trouble from our adversaries. What can we do?

First of all, let's not do anything stupid. A short term solution such as a military strike now without sound leadership, national resolve and purpose is not the answer. Our problem requires a longer term view.

We can start by fixing our economy. Get rid of the impediments to our growth; fix the tax structure, reduce rates, cut government spending, reduce bureaucracies and regulations, substitute a rational health care system for Obamacare and take concrete steps to reduce our large unsustainable and crippling debt.

Strong leadership requires consistent and coherent polices. We need our leaders to take the lead, to inspire confidence in our allies so that they actually follow and support us. After all, aren't such weapons as nuclear and chemical arms a threat to all?

To back up what we stand for, we need to support our military. Better to have a strong military that we never need than an insufficient force that we are hesitant to deploy.

One last thought: To show Mr. Putin that we are truly committed to freedom and human rights let's support the Syrian rebels as we said we would and provide humanitarian aide to the millions of refugees resulting from the Syrian war. No speech necessary, Mr. President.

MILITARY ACTION (WAR) WITH SYRIA

We should all say "NO" to any military intervention (war) in Syria.
 Here are the reasons why:

1. There is no compelling reason that our national interest is in imminent danger.  Talk of a perception that our national standing may be diminished if we do not act is a poor reason to risk the lives of our proud soldiers and spend untold treasure which we can ill afford.

2.  Any action initiated on our part has a strong potential for a wider war. We know that Iran is a strong supporter of the Syrian regime and may expand the war not only in Syria but throughout the Middle East including Israel.  We know that Russia has interest in Syria and will not stand idly by if those interests are threatened.  We also know that Islamist extremists will be emboldened by our intervention and may cause untold havoc especially to civilians.

3.  Where is the strategic vision?  Assume we destroy Syria's ability to deliver chemical weapons (or even their chemical stockpiles)?  Don't you think they could get more from Iran or others? Assume we kill Assad?  Who will replace him?  Someone picked by Iran, Islamic extremists? Where will it end?  What is our strategic goal, Mr. President?  What is our exit strategy?

4. Where is the support from our allies? Each one may be ill equipped to take action on their own. But collectively, with our leadership, their contribution could be significant and not only in military terms.  Why couldn't you convince them at the G20 Meeting, Mr. President?  Is it because you are so right and they are so wrong?

5. Speaking of leadership.  The Administration insists on calling the "war on terror", everything but a war. It is calling the proposed action in Syria a "military action" not war. When there is a strong risk that American blood will be spilled and military resources spent in a foreign land, that is war.  We should have the courage to call it what it is.

6. This Administration has not proved competent in several areas.  The economy continues to be anemic.  In foreign affairs we have been weak, full of bluster with no followup, no meaning.  The Administration has dug a hole for itself in the Middle East and now it is asking us to dig the hole even deeper.  The way to build American strength is not through bluster or ill conceived responses.  The way to build American strength is through a healthy and viable economy in a free and civil society.  Let's get to work on that before we go off on another overseas misadventure.

7. A final word on the humanitarian crisis. The killing of civilians is a barbaric act. We should not intervene militarily when there is a strong probability that the Syrian regime's response will be more barbarism against civilians.  We can demonstrate our repugnance as a civilized society by providing humanitarian aid to the millions of refugees displaced by this awful war.  That is a proposition that I believe the American public and many foreign countries would agree to.  But, we need to set the example; we need to show REAL leadership.

Time for a Break

I've decided to take a break.

This decision is primarily due to other commitments and the fact is that I cannot, at least for the foreseeable future, give the blog the attention that I would like.

The break comes at a time when there's not much really new on the horizon. Washington politics haven't changed in substance.  The current administration continues in its free fall of incompetence and ideological arrogance. The Congress is its own worse enemy where the members' priority is reelection, not the national interest. And the Supreme Court swings from left to right depending on the views of one justice.

The lack of direction and leadership is frustrating but it essentially reflects a country that is deeply divided. Until "WE The People" come together on some consensus on the major problems before us, we will continue to see this split. It will require leadership, some compromise, time and yes, maybe even some sacrifice to "right this ship". Until that occurs, we will continue on our drift and the country will suffer for it.

Thanks for all of you who followed this blog and especially those who took the time to write comments. The blog will remain open at least for now and I invite you to continue any comments you have as long as you like. I will continue to butt in when I can.

Thanks,

Norm Pineault

The State of our Freedom

During the current week, we will observe the anniversary of our Nation's birth. We will celebrate our independence from a "Tyrant--unfit to be the ruler of a free people--". We also celebrate the genius of our constitutional form of government established to secure the "Blessings of Liberty" but not to be so powerful as to undermine those very Blessings.

As we know, freedom is a fragile concept. Consider the words of these political commentators.

In the "Reflections on the Revolution in France" (1790), Edmond Burke:

     --- denounced a revolution that led to a reign of terror and ultimately to chaos and the despotism of Napoleon.  "Armed with a doctrinaire logic of rights , these revolutionaries were indifferent to history and hostile to tradition. 'The age of chivalry is gone', wrote Burke. 'That of sophisters, economists, and calculators has succeeded---' From Paris, Robispierre would show how an undisciplined--sentiment could animate the berserk certitude of a homicidal revolutionary. (Burke) accepted that sovereignty was formed by the social contract of free individuals. But Burke's social contract wasn't 'dissolved by fancy'. ----He prized 'civil liberty' but only for those citizens capable of putting 'moral chains upon their own appetites' ".  (Quote from Jeffrey Collins in "A Disciplined Sentiment" (a review of "Edmund Burke: The First Conservative" by Jesse Norman) Wall Street Journal- June 19. 2013).

Alexis de Tocqueville in "Democracy in America" (1833):

     "---marveled at the way Americans preferred voluntary associations to government regulations. 'The inhabitant of the United States', he wrote, 'has only a defiant and restive regard for special authority--'. Unlike Frenchmen--- who instinctively looked to the state to provide economic and social order, Americans relied on their own efforts". (Wall Street Journal article "The Regulated States of America" by Niall Ferguson-June 19, 2013).

Later de Tocqueville said:

     "Democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom, socialism restricts it. Democracy attaches all possible value to each man; socialism makes each man a mere agent, a mere number. Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." (from "Discourse pronounced in constitutional assembly in a discussion of the constitution project" (1848) as quoted by F.A. Hayek in "The Road to Serfdom" (1944)).

In his book, Hayek added:

     "---socialism was early recognized as the greatest threat to freedom---- The French writers who laid the foundation of modern socialism had no doubt that their ideas could be put into practice only by a strong, dictatorial government".

 Niall Ferguson in "The Great Degeneration" (summarized by George Melloan in "A Jeremiad To Heed"-Wall Street Journal- June 20, 2013):

     "Western civilization has entered a period of decline due mainly to the strangling of private initiative by the ever encroaching state.---The threatened institutions are representative government, the free market, the rule of law and civil society. Mr. Ferguson is dismayed at the explosion of public debt, the destruction of markets by excessive regulation, the replacement of the rule of law by 'a rule of lawyers' and the decay of civil society as represented in part by the thousands of private voluntary organizations (Rotarians, Elks, at al) that have contributed so much to social order and progress in America."

Compare Ferguson's observations to those of de Tocqueville  and to the warnings of other writers. From Burke (and before). history has shown that freedom will not thrive in either a state of chaos or that of tyranny. Freedom requires balance: a government with enough power to secure the "Blessings of Liberty" but not so much as to smother those Blessings. As Niall Ferguson observes, we have swung too far in the direction of concentrated and authoritarian government.

                      We can only conclude that the state of our freedom is not good.
     

"Amateur Hour" at The White House

A front page article in this past week-end's edition of the Wall Street Journal "Behind Obama's About Face on Syria" states that the President:

     "----personally rebuffed a proposal to arm the rebels despite appeals from David Petraeus, then-director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and Hillary Clinton, then-Secretary of State.-----senior British officials had been agitating for months for the U.S. to do more in Syria-----King Abdullah, Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal and Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan also argued to Mr. Obama that the U.S. was allowing three of its chief historic rivals in the Middle East-Iran, Russia and the Lebanese militia Hezbollah-to dominate the battlefield in Syria and help President Assad push back recent rebel gains."

In a related editorial, "Dabbling in Syria", the following comment is made:

     "All of which suggests that Mr. Obama still doesn't appreciate the strategic stakes in the Syrian civil war. Russia, Iran and Syria want to create an arc of influence from Iran to the Mediterranean while demonstrating to America's regional allies that the U.S. is a retreating power that lacks the will to support its friends."

Anyone paying attention for the last two years could have predicted with some certainty that lacking meaningful involvement by the U.S., Russia, Iran and others would take advantage to promote their own ends.

During the "Arab Spring"(where our involvement was hesitant and insufficient) radical forces gained the upper hand in Egypt and Libya. And in Iraq and Afghanistan, moderate groups have been in danger of being overwhelmed by extremists after we withdrew from a combat role.

The delay in providing arms to the Syrian rebels may be too little and too late. One can reasonably assume that we would have acted sooner had we not been in the middle of an election. A fair question is whether this President has subordinated our role in the world to political expediency.

We have witnessed since this Administration's start, the tendency to deny responsibility for all manner of bad news (unemployment, deficits, IRS malfeasance, attacks on journalists, Benghazi, NSA data mining etc.). What ever happened to Harry Truman's observation: "The buck stops here."? Or the need for a president to lead, to be decisive when required, to honor the Constitution (and the Office of President) and to be honest and straight with us? In short, to be "presidential".

As we have stated in prior posts, Obama is a community organizer in the tradition of Saul Alinsky. He is clever but is he wise? Based on his record, his background and commitment to a far left ideology, he is not and cannot be an effective president in the mold of most of his predecessors. He has "dabbled" in foreign affairs, is unserious about many of our problems and lacking in executive experience. Or put more succinctly, he is an amateur at a time when we need serious and expert leadership.

Are Today's Politics Injurious to Our Constitutional Liberties?

Nowhere in our Constitution are political parties mentioned. The founding fathers saw them as contrary to good government. They realized (and hasn't history shown us?) that political parties arouse public passions leading to politically expedient solutions.

During times of crises--real or imagined--the Executive often easily assumes greater power. And so we have seen the passage of the Patriot Act after 9/11 and the increasing surveillance of American citizens. Going back to the early 1900's, there have been steady accumulations of power by over 2000 separate agencies, boards, commissions and departments (not including czars). Each of these has established a "new normal" which then becomes the basis for change for yet another crises.

As we have seen this past week, some changes were made to governmental authority without the Congress' or public's knowledge. As stated in the New York Times editorial of 6/6/13 regarding NSA data gathering:

     "Mr. Obama is proving the truism that the executive will use any power it is given and very likely abuse it."

Our Constitution provides limits to government power. The government is granted ONLY those powers specifically enumerated. To underscore this very point, the first ten amendments (The Bill of Rights) lists those freedoms that the government shall not infringe. Lest there be any doubt of the limits to government power, Amendment X states:

     "The powers not granted to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Apropos of the current controversies, Amendment IV says:

     "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Current activities in data collection by the NSA, IRS, FBI and potentially HHS (and the IRS) in administering the Affordable Care Act call into question their actual and potential infringements on our Constitutional liberties. The founding fathers understood that power can be abused and sought to limit its impact. On any grant of power, we must be vigilant, not only for its immediate effects but also its potential for misuse by future administrations. 

The Obama Administration is Unraveling--Here's Why.

President Obama came to the White House with no executive experience.  It shows. Working from his background and the mindset  of a community organizer, he is dedicated (by his own admission) to the "redistribution of wealth". His administration has used the power of the federal government first and foremost to attain that goal. All other considerations are secondary and distract from his primary agenda.

The President prizes his communicative skills. They explain much of his political success. But he gives the impression that a good speech is the solution to most problems, be they substantive or political. Scott Engers in a letter to the Wall Street Journal published on May 22 wrote:

     President Obama "---seems to think that he simply has to say that he will not tolerate something  and it will stop. He will not tolerate Syria using chemical weapons--sexual harassment or rape in the military--school shootings--IRS targeting conservative groups--another debt ceiling debate--a nuclear armed Iran". 

These statements sound forceful. But too often there is little followup indicating that the Chief Executive is not fully engaged.

There have been numerous occasions where the Obama Administration has demonstrated ineptitude with its misguided policies and mismanagement. To wit:

             *The effort to harass  news organizations such as the AP and Fox News in violation of their First Amendment rights.

             *The targeting by the IRS and other agencies of non- profit conservative groups.

             *The mandate under Obamacare for religious organizations to provide health care services that are contrary to their beliefs.

             *The Administration's struggle to implement Obamacare, a poorly conceived and poorly written law that will cost us more than advertised.

              *Recess appointments to administration positions that were illegitimate and unconstitutional.

              *Changing immigration regulations without proper legislative authority.

              *A seeming indifference to our national debt and its implications for our economy and national well being.

              *The failure to protect our diplomatic delegation in Benghazi and the transparent efforts to downplay the obvious dereliction.

              *The President's confused leadership in the war on terror. Are we at "war" or not? How do we handle enemy prisoners? What if they are American citizens? These questions should have been resolved long ago.


David Axelrod, a  former advisor to the president recently said the following in connection to the IRS targeting of conservative groups:  "Part of being president is that there is so much beneath you that you can't know, because the government is so vast." (Quoted in an article "Government Gone Wild" by Daniel Henninger in the Wall Street Journal on May 23).

Mr. Axelrod is correct; the government is too vast. But given this Administration's record in expanding the government, Mr. Axelrod's comment comes across as an inept explanation for the President's failures rather than a serious recognition of a very real problem.

The Constitution established a system of government with limited enumerated powers. It includes the Bill of Rights which list specific freedoms that are not to be abridged. Amendment X of those Rights states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Today our freedoms are threatened by the very government instituted to protect those freedoms. Cries to redress the government's excess of power falls on deaf ears. Politicians have become a professional and privileged class responding to special interests. The average citizen finds it difficult if not impossible to penetrate the curtain of power and secrecy.

Honesty compels us to say that we cannot continue on our current path as we are certain to lose whatever remaining freedoms we have. How do we get out of this morass? And who will lead us?

To Improve the Lot of the Poor-----

In an article in the Wall Street Journal last Monday (Mar. 4, 2013) entitled "Republicans and Their Faulty Moral Arithmetic", Arthur C. Brooks makes the case that free enterprise is the best way to improve the lot of the poor.

He cites a book "The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion" by Jonathan Haidt  in stating "---that citizens across the political spectrum place a great importance on taking care of those in need and avoiding harm to the weak." He goes on to point out that other moral values such as sexual purity and respect for authority register with less people and that raw money arguments don't register morally at all.

The article is not meant as a discussion of whether the public has its priorities right or whether conservatives need to discard their principles. What it is about is that the conservative value of free enterprise is well aligned with the public sentiment  to take care of those in need. If conservatives hope to win elections, they need to better convey that message to the electorate.

Mr. Brooks finds the irony maddening. To quote: "---poor people have been saddled with generations of disastrous progressive policy results, from welfare induced dependency to failing schools. (The left"s) ---policies are gradually ruining the economy, which will have catastrophic results once the safety net is no longer affordable. Labyrinthine regulations, punitive taxation and wage distortions destroy the ability to create private sector jobs. Opportunities for Americans on the bottom to better their station in life are being erased".

Furthermore: "---the record of free enterprise in improving the lot of the poor both here and abroad is spectacular. ----the percentage of people in the world living on a dollar a day or less--a traditional poverty measure--has fallen 80% since 1970. This is the greatest antipoverty achievement in world history. That achievement is not the result of philanthropy or foreign aid. It occurred because billions of souls have been able to pull themselves out of poverty thanks to global free trade, property rights, the rule of law and entrepreneurship."

His conclusion: "By making the vulnerable a primary focus, conservatives will be better able to confront some common blind spots. Corporate cronyism should be decried as every bit as noxious as statism---. Entrepreneurship should not be extolled as a path to accumulating wealth but as a celebration of everyday men and women who want to build their own lives, whether they start a business and make a lot of money or not. And conservative leaders will be able to stand before Americans who are struggling and feel marginalized and say, 'We will fight for you and your family, whether you vote for us or not'---and truly mean it."

There is still much to be accomplished. We know what works and what does not. The Brooks article points to global free trade, property rights, the rule of law and entrepreneurship as the reasons for a world wide decrease in poverty since 1970. To those I would add individual rights and limited government as indispensable components for a just and free society.

We Need Real Solutions--Tax Reform is a Good Start.

When Barack Obama first ran for the Presidency, we had only a dim idea of what his goals were and what he really meant by "change". Nor were we fully aware of how he would lead the nation to attain his rather vague ends.

Now we know what his leadership does not encompass. In particular, he has not been honest and transparent about our very real problems, especially that of the unrelenting rise of a dangerous and crushing debt.

In this week-end's edition of the Wall Street Journal ("Notable & Quotable"), Sen. Tom Coburn (R., Okla.) is quoted from a letter that he sent to the White House Office of Management and Budget on Feb. 26. It reads as follows:

     "The administration is warning sequestration may force the laying off or furloughing of air traffic controllers, border patrol officers, food inspectors, Transportation Security Administration screeners or civilians supporting our men and women in combat in Afghanistan. I would suggest the better approach is to consolidate duplicative positions with overlapping responsibilities and nearly identical jobs."
     "In just the past two years, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has identified more than 1,362 duplicative programs accounting for at least $364.5 billion in federal spending every single year...."
     "During a time of budget cuts, it is irresponsible to pay two or more people to do the same job, while laying off other employees in essential positions performing critical duties."

In an article titled "Obama Is Playing a New Game"in the same edition of the Journal, Peggy Noonan states in part:

     "Past presidents, certainly since Ronald Reagan, went over the heads of the media to win the people, to get them to contact Congress and push Congress to deal. Fine, and fair enough. But Mr. Obama goes to the people to get them to enhance his position by hating Republicans. He's playing only to the polls, not to Congress, not to get the other side to the bargaining table. He doesn't even like the bargaining table. He doesn't like bargaining."

There have been numerous and substantial ideas on how to fix our fiscal problems. Among them are cuts in spending, elimination of unnecessary and duplicative programs, a balanced budget amendment, changes to entitlement programs and tax reform.

In an article in Friday's (Mar. 1, 2013) titled "The GOP Takes Back Tax Reform", Kimberley Strassel states that the Republicans are ready to make tax reform their  "signature issue". She points out that there are many pitfalls in this effort and tough votes ahead for such topics as tax breaks for business and for charitable and mortgage deductions. However, Republicans need to do this for both defensive and offensive reasons. To quote:

     Tax reform "-----is a path to a bold and rejuvenated message on taxes--one that links simplicity and lower rates to economic revival. Done right, it's a GOP response to Mr. Obama' 'fairness' line, allowing the party to stand with the millions of average Americans who can't afford tax lawyers or lobbyists to carve out shelters. It's a means for the GOP to make a growth argument that clicks. Tax cuts and new jobs aside, tax reform is a path to higher wages and more money for the weekly budget, the college fund and the retirement account."

In conclusion, if we continue on our current path of more acrimony, more misrepresentations and more gridlock, we will continue to get the same results: more debt and more crises leading to ultimate failure. The time for real solutions is now and tax reform is a good place to start. It will provide both sides the opportunity to put politics aside and show some statesmanship. Kicking the can further down the road is irresponsible and dangerous.

Resolved: The Federal Government is "Too Big to Fail".

The Federal Government has a $16 trillion debt and it is still growing. If we don't get this problem under control soon (and I'm not hopeful that we will), we are heading for higher interest rates, lost jobs, diminished wealth and possible civil unrest.

Our government in Washington bailed out large banks and businesses that were "too big to fail". Who will bail out the government? For surely, we cannot allow an entity that has become so big that it's failure would be disastrous for each one of us. Perhaps we should consider that such a government is just too damn big.

The Constitution calls for a government that is limited with powers diffused not only by a system of checks and balances but also by its federalist nature. The advantage of such constraints are not only beneficial to a free society and effective governance but also to ameliorate damages possible by the failure of a single governing entity. For example, the effects of a single state going bankrupt are much less than that of a large unitary government.

As the old saying says: we have met the enemy and it is us. We must get our spending under control. To those who say that we must raise taxes to balance the budget, I would ask how high do they think taxes should be? My next question would be to ask if they understood how a free enterprise system really works? For it is not government spending that drives the economy but the diverse interaction of many in a free exchange of goods and services.

Cutting spending (and decreasing the size of government) makes sense not only in lowering the debt but in other ways as well. For example, it is often said in reference to federal laws and regulations that "one size does not fit all". We live in a diverse country with different cultures, economies, faiths etc.
A law that may be apropos for New York may not be for Montana. Federal programs (such as gun laws) may have public acceptance in some states but not in others. For these reasons, some issues may best be left to the states. An added benefit is that our national government can't seem to resolve them anyway.

Which leads to my final point. Why is the Federal Government so dysfunctional? We might be able to lessen this dysfunction by implementing various changes such as term limits, an amendment to require balanced budgets, tax code revisions etc. But assuming they would be enacted (unlikely) would their passage change anything? Would we still have an atmosphere of acrimony and distrust? And attitudes of disrespect if not outright disdain for the other side.

In the past, there have been sufficient reasons to struggle for important programs such as civil rights. There will continue to be important issues to face the Nation in the future. We need to get beyond those of the past and learn how to resolve the ones remaining and to come. If we can't trust one another and not respect other opinions, we are doomed to failure. For love of Country and our constitutional form of government, it is time for constructive debate and resolution of our problems.

Two Very Different Views of Government

President Obama has one view of government. Senator Marco Rubio and Dr. Ben Carson have another.

In his State of the Union message last week, the President outlined his proposals to fix the economy, create jobs, encourage more growth and to provide for every conceivable problem that the nation faces. Our purpose is not to comment on his specific policies but to question his approach to governing.

President Obama is apparently of the view that the Federal Government should be involved in every phase of our lives. From birth to adolescence and to our working and senior years, the government "would be there" if the President had his way.

In our last post, we described the role of the Federal Government as limited to the powers enumerated in the Constitution and granted to it by the people. Our founding fathers would be rather bewildered if they could witness the present scope of our government and how the President would like to expand it even further. They may even ponder as to why there is little attention given our large national debt and the absence of a formal budget both of which should be legitimate concerns of Washington DC.

The President's policies relying on unprecedented expenditures to improve the economy have not worked and may have diminished the general welfare, not improved it. We cannot remain on this path without significant degradation of our standard of living and our role in a world that is increasingly interdependent. It is we the people that should initiate the necessary changes by choosing leaders who represent us, not established power, just as it is intended in the Constitution.

Senator Rubio's background as the son of Cuban immigrants is well known. In his response to President Obama's State of the Union's speech, he emphasized the blessings of America where all, including immigrants, had a chance to improve their lot. That result is possible because our country is based on individual freedom and the opportunity to advance through hard work, determination and individual merit.

Dr. Ben Carson was raised by a single mother in Detroit. Despite significant hardship and with his mother's unrelenting support and guidance plus his own hard work and determination, he is now director of pediatric neurosurgery at John Hopkins. In a speech at the White House prayer breakfast recently, he talked of the need for a tax system that doesn't seek to "hurt" those who are successful. Their money could be better used "---building our infrastructure and creating jobs".  On health care, he favors the use of "health savings accounts" where individuals are in charge of their own health care     "---instead of sending all this money to some bureaucracy".

Many of us, like Senator Rubio and Dr. Carson, are not children of privilege but children of opportunity. We know the promise of America. We celebrate success; we don't envy it. We believe in individual rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness granted by our Creator. We believe that government should serve the people and not the people serve the government.

Our governing principles should be based on the Constitution and the laws duly enacted under it. Results are important but it is process that defines us. The process of governing should be based on the limited authority granted to government by the people under the Constitution. It should not be based on capricious and arbitrary dictates of a governing elite. For we, and our leaders, live in a country of laws and not of men. And it is more honorable to be honest than to be clever.

Have We Lost Our Way?

All of us have our individual opinions and values. What is true now was also true during our nation's early history. Each of the American colonies was founded by persons of differing backgrounds, principles and aspirations. In this new land, they had the opportunity to establish a new way of life. It is also where a new concept of government would be born.

The separate and distinct colonies were brought together by their united opposition to a despotic monarch ruling from afar. They won that fight. But after it was over, they essentially remained independent of each other. They ultimately realized that they needed to act in concert in matters where they had mutual interests such as defense, trade and currency.

Because they had recently won their hard earned independence from an authoritarian government, they were not disposed to establish another. The result of these opposing sentiments is our Constitution. It is  a constitution that grants limited and enumerated powers to the national government and states explicitly that powers not granted are reserved to the states or to the people.

The Constitution also provides for elected representatives to make laws. This republic form of government has obvious practical advantages. But along with the constitutional requirements for a division of powers, checks and balances, periodic but staggered elections and a federalist system this republic form is (or should be) more conducive to reasoned deliberations, apart from the daily passions of fleeting public opinion.

In such a system of government of various constituencies, compromise is key to effective governance.

Which leads us to our time. We seldom hear much about our government as a Republic, with limited, enumerated powers, of federalism and the importance of states' role or even of individual sovereignty and freedom granted to us by our Creator (and not the government).

Our body politic has degenerated into political theater, much of which is performed in the mass media. Consider a system where:

     *Reasoned debate is often drowned out by emotional comments aided and abetted by the media and unprincipled politicians.

     *Elected officials don't make the hard decisions but follow the poll numbers.

     *Leaders don't lead but pander and bloviate.

     *Political dialog is reduced to personal attack, ridicule and innuendo.

     *Special interests have an inordinate influence on legislation.

     *The Constitution and the rule of law is circumvented for political expediency.

The root cause of this condition has been often described as an attitude among too many of us as selfishness, of what's in it for me and a corresponding disregard of what's in the national interest.

Demands that each of us are entitled to what we want, to consistently demand "our way or the highway" can only lead to a dysfunctional society and government. And ultimately chaos. To maintain a civil and just society, we should respect the opinions of others and we must also be ready to compromise when it is necessary for the common good.

At the same time, we should be guided by the principles of the Constitution and the laws duly enacted under its provisions.

A New Year--Same Old Politics

It shouldn't be news to anyone that the country is essentially split on many policy levels: political, economic, social, environment, the role of government etc.

An indication of this split was seen in this week's acrimonious debate and last minute settlement to avoid the so-called "fiscal cliff". Some may view this agreement as a positive sign. I do not.

What the agreement accomplished was the bare minimum to avoid a large tax increase for 99% of taxpayers--it essentially kicked the can down the road for the rest of our problems. This result reflects the November election which was not one of change but one of status quo.

What is left to address is an unsustainable debt, the debt limit, sequestration, a reduction in spending, tax reform and an overhaul of entitlement programs. That is just for starters. Longer range, the country would be well advised to pass some constitutional amendments regarding term limits, a balanced budget    requirement and some clearer guidelines on the limits of the federal government especially its power of taxation and role vis-a-vis the states.

That is a tall order which will not come to fruition unless and until the public becomes more educated as to the real nature of the threat to our national well being. Only then will our so called political "leaders" take notice and start to make the very necessary changes that we need.

In the interim, we should expect more of the same: more acrimony, deadlock and minimal agreements which will only kick the can down the road yet again.