DL Tolleson

Things are bleak.

Unemployment is at 9 to 10 percent—and that's as low as it is only because boatloads of temporary government employees (census workers) are included. Of course when counting workers who've just flat thrown in the towel the actual unemployment number is somewhere between 15 and 23 percent (do a web search using the term “real unemployment.”)

Our Washington representatives just enacted a MASSIVE healthcare bill that will—if not repealed or altered—make it illegal to choose a doctor and from your own pocket pay for treatment (be it major or minor). And what if you do refuse to be told by government what coverage for yourself you must buy from someone else? Well, the murky answer to that depends upon Douglas Shulman.

And who is Shulam?

He is the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Commissioner and as he explained it to Congress, the IRS is still figuring out the "proper resources" for handling the health-care tax provisions.

That’s right, the IRS is now into another part of your life. I mean really, the IRS? That is crazy! You can read about these concerns by CLICKING HERE.

Starting this year (2010) the government begins building the redistributive healthcare funds by slashing Medicare services, benefits and money. This will continue through 2018. If you depend on Medicare or provide Medicare-related services, you're about to get sucker-punched. For more on this and a timeline of the stunning Medicare cuts, CLICK HERE.

At any rate, after just one week of Obama’s healthcare the economy is taking a beating. AT&T reported a one billion dollar hit in just the first quarter. Verizon Communications, Caterpillar Inc. and Deere & Company reported similarly. To be perfectly fair, that one billion AT&T loss might be a previous tax write-off for the cost of retirees prescription medications paid for by the government. Conceptually this could be equated to the Earned Income Credit for a child that enables a tax filer to get more money "back" than was actually paid in. It's kind of a loophoop. But whatever it is, it's gone now, baby.

Obviously it isn't as simple as all that: If it was, one of your government representatives wouldn't have demanded that these private companies present themselves and prove their comments before the Politburo—uh, I mean, Congress. For more on this CLICK HERE.

There is a glimmer of hope, but it depends upon the states and the people. A number of the states have joined together in filing a suit challenging the Constitutionality of healthcare. (A tip of the fedora to my acquaintance Jim Raymond, who forwarded to me a copy of the filing that you can get by CLICKING HERE.)

Of course, this will be tied-up in the legal system and in the meantime the wheels of Obama healthcare will continue to roll right over your puny objections.

Or maybe not. The healthcare bill is not yet funded and your puny objection can become a vote for a responsible representative during the next round of House and Senate elections.

You ask, “What has that to do with anything?”

Here’s the deal: If we vote out enough Democrats who sold us down the river (not one Republican voted for it) and vote in REAL Constitutionalists the House and Senate can simply not vote to fund the healthcare bill. Without funds it is dead until the carcass can be removed by successful Constitutional challenge or repeal.

But this depends on your vote and also brings me to the topic I actually want to address.

THE PROBLEM. The crux of what you are about to read is not about healthcare. But the egregious monstrosity of healthcare does clearly illustrate a symptom of a problem that is sending us pell-mell in a direction destructive to our health, economy and freedom. And that is the crux of what you are about to read.

As I have previously written here: Regardless of whether you are conditioned by circumstance of poverty (need), wealth (guilt), politics (power), ignorance (you don't know history) or stupidity (you think you are better than history), you have one of two mindsets. You either believe someone else owes you OR you believe that you are the only person responsible for you. If it's the former, then you promote government that takes other people's money and freedom on your behalf. If it's the latter, you're scared to death of people promoting the former.

That pretty much sums up our country’s opposing ideologies and one of them is the problem. A problem for which there is a definitive solution.

Now, by way of introduction to the solution, consider this question: If there were a proven example of turning our country around—of improving practically everything while at the same time making government less intrusive—would you vote for it?

If you are truly interested in providing the best living conditions for the most people and you are intellectually honest, your answer to the above question depends on evidence, not ideology.

Fortunately there is actual, real-world evidence of such an example that has been demonstratively effective. And it's a relatively recent example. Prior to the 1950s there was a particular country with a per capita income ranking about third in the entire world. But by the early to mid-1980s it had:

• Sunk to 27th in the world
• Unemployment of 11.6 percent
• 23 years of successive deficits
• Debt at 65 percent of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
• A constantly downgraded credit rating
• Government controls and micromanagement throughout the economy
• Price controls on all goods, services, shops and service industries
• Wage controls and freezes (no wage increases or bonuses allowed)
• Import controls on goods
• Massive levels of subsidies to industries just to keep them afloat
• 30 percent of its children failing in education
• A mass exodus of the young, upwardly mobile

THE SOLUTION. In 1984 a reform government was elected that identified three problems: Too much spending, taxing and government. So, here’s what they did:

• Stopped allocating money to their government agencies.

• Directors of government agencies were then selected from worldwide searches and given term contracts for five years with potential three-year extensions—removal based solely on lack of performance (civil service appointments were eliminated).

• With the new executives (directors) of those agencies they created purchasing contracts that detailed expectations in return for money.

• The Government then purchased from their agencies policy advice on how to eliminate problems such as hunger and homelessness in such a way as to also eliminate dependence upon government.

• Government put a halt on what the agencies identified as things they should not do.

• Government then identified whether taxpayers, users, consumers or industry were paying for benefits they were receiving: This allowed for the reduction/elimination of taxpayers subsidizing things that did not benefit them.

• The Government sold off telecommunications, airlines, irrigation services, computing services, government printing offices, insurance companies, banks, securities, mortgages, railways, bus services, hotels, shipping lines, agricultural advisory services, etc., etc. And what’s more, for those things sold off and privatized, costs went down while productivity went up.The net effect of theses changes was stunning.

• Government agencies were then turned into profit-making and tax-paying enterprises. For example, their air traffic control system was turned into a “stand-alone” company that was required to turn in an “acceptable rate of return” without any investment upon the part of government. Roughly speaking, about 35 government agencies went from costing one billion dollars per year to producing one billion dollars in revenue and taxes per year.

• The Department of Transportation went from regularly requiring licensing renewals to issuing licenses good until age of 74, whereupon annual medical tests ensured drivers remained competent to drive. The Department also went from 5,600 employees to 53.

• The Forest Service went from 17,000 employees to 17.

• The Ministry of Works, responsible for construction and engineering, went from 28,000 employees to 1 employee.

• As measured by employees, government reduced its overall size by 66 percent and reduced its share of GDP from 44 to 27 percent.

• They began running surpluses and used that to pay down government debt from 63 percent to 17 percent of the GDP.

• The remainder of the surplus went into tax relief along with the slashing of tax rates by half and the elimination of incidental taxes. All of that resulted in a revenue increase of 20 percent.

• They eliminated subsidies and thus the systemic dependency such things engender. For example, they did away with the 44 percent of government subsidies received by their sheep farming industry. Before they did this, the industry was receiving a marketplace value of $12.50 per lamb carcass, which the government matched. Within two years of eliminating subsidies, the industry altered its processing methods expanded into new markets and more than doubled their previous $12.50 per carcass income. Things continued to improve and by 1999 the industry was making $115 per carcass. In American restaurants we now pay roughly between $35 and $60 per pound for lamb from this country. They did it without the government paying a single dime to keep the industry afloat.

• The reform government even turned a 120-year-old liability into a success story. Having been plagued by the expense of trying to eradicate an ever-increasing wild deer population, the government allowed the farming community to catch, contain and farm deer within fenced boundaries. From that time onward the country did not spend one penny on the deer problem while becoming the supplier of 40 percent of the world’s market in venison.

• In education the country was failing 30 percent of its children—more so those in lower socio-economic areas. Historically, throwing more money at the problem had resulted in lower results. The reform government hired outside consultants that reported 70 cents of every education dollar was spent on administration.

• In response, they eliminated all Boards of Education in the entire country and turned over that responsibility to the parents and schools. Each school then came under the control of a board of trustees elected by the parents of the children at each school—and nobody else. Based on the number of students at each school the Government issued a sum of money without restrictions. They also arranged to make it possible for privately owned schools to be funded in exactly the same way. Within three years 87 percent of students were going to public schools and education attainment went from 15 percent below their international peers to 15 percent above those same countries.

• The reform government also decided that social services and behavioral modification were not within the purview of taxation and thus imposed lower taxation through only two areas: Income and consumption. The high income tax rate dropped from 66 percent to 33 percent (for high-income earners) and from 38 to 19 percent for low-income earners. The consumption tax rate of 10 percent replaced all other eliminated taxes (capital gains, property, etc). The system was designed to result in a zero change to revenue but instead increased revenue by 20 percent. The increase was the result of willing compliance and the eliminated need for lawyers, accountants and loopholes.

• Statutory law did not escape reform, either. Environmental laws, for example, were rewritten, going from a 25-inch thick code to 348 pages. The tax code, farm codes and Occupation Safety and Health Acts were all scaled back, measured by the yardstick of reduced taxation and regulation.

What an amazing success story! No doubt some people reading this suspect me of leading them down the primrose path of fiction or theory. Rest assured I have not.

Remember the country’s Ministry of Works that went from 28,000 employees to 1 employee? It was that one man who reported all of the above facts. He was a member of the country’s Parliament and their ambassador to Canada. He was involved with their deregulation of transportation, labor markets and the fishing industry. He was a Minister of Employment, Minster of State Owned Enterprises, Minister of Railways, Minister of Labor, and Minister of Immigration. In fact, he has a laundry list of accomplishments and at the time he divulged all of the above was a Visiting Scholar at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.

His name is Maurice P. McTigue and the country is New Zealand.

All of this is freely available from the April 2004, Volume 33, Number 4 issue of a national speech digest, excerpts of which I've reprinted by permission of IMPRIMIS, a publication of HILLSDALE COLLEGE where Mr. McTigue was part of a five-day seminar on “The Conditions of Free-Market Capitalism.”

By using the lesson learned from New Zealand, we can unleash mind-boggling economic power, accomplishments and freedom. Through the power of the vote we can stop the perversion of America and at the same time prepare for real reform similar to that which swept through New Zealand. All we have to do is put the right people in office. People who do what we tell them to do and who are not institutional politicians. People who cut back government instead of grow it, cut taxes instead of impose them and allow for the expression of freedom instead of erroneously acting as if they have the authority to grant or deny it.

It is time to add your voice—and soon your vote—in order to put Constitutionalists in Washington.

So, now, what will you do with this information?

RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE

Previously in The Great American Novel Blog

JANUARY 19, 2010—23 YEARS IN THE MAKING. EXCERPT—SOCIALS is an e-book exclusively available from my publisher, The Lighthouse Press, Inc. 20 some-odd years in the making it came with a cost that I would not have choosen to pay. But I am a better writer for having paid the price.

SEPTEMBER, 11, 2009—FUNDAMENTAL BELIEFS IN A NUTSHELL. EXCERPT—My very good friend Larry Farr recently sent me the text of a news feature entitled Bargaining with Thieves by Bojidar Marinov. In this excellent article the writer recalls being in Eastern Europe in 1989: It seems that when the morally justified citizens rose up against the communist political party for taking their lives, liberty and property, the communists called the protestors "extremists” that “refuse to come to an agreement," didn't want "constructive dialog, " wore "swastikas and brown shirts" and were "nothing less than fascists.” Wow. That's pretty brazen talk for communists. CLICK HERE FOR BARGAINING WITH THIEVES BY BOJIDAR MARINOV

SEPTEMBER, 11, 2009—THE DOOM OF HISTORY. EXCERPT—This man was probably one of the most influential economists of the last half of the 20th century. I refer to Melton Friedman. So impressive are his observations that I have actually transcribed a few of his comments made during a 1979 interview with Phil Donahue. What follows are those comments (and links to the YouTube videos).

EXCERPT—Friedman: So that the record of history is absolutely crystal clear: That there is no alternative way—so far discovered—of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by a Free Enterprise System.

EXCERPT—Friedman: And what does reward virtue? You think that the Communist Commissar rewards virtue? You think a Hitler rewards virtue? You think—excuse me, if you’ll pardon me—do you think American Presidents reward virtue? Do they choose their appointees on the basis of the virtue of the people appointed or on the basis of their political clout? Is it really true that political self-interest is nobler somehow than economic self-interest? You know, I think you’re taking a lot of things for granted. Just tell me where in the world you’d find these angels who are going to organize society for us? I don’t even trust you to do that. WATCH THE ABOVE SEGMENT ON YOUTUBE BY CLICKING HERE

EXCERPT—Friedman: It was not a failure of Capitalism; it was a failure of government. And Herbert Hoover himself—in his memoirs at the end of that time—said he had learned to his sorrow that the Federal Reserve was a—was a weak reed for a nation in time of trouble. So you can’t blame Hoover for the depression: You can’t blame business for the depression.

EXCERPT—Friedman: The government has been helping to kill Chrysler, but it should not help to save Chrysler—of course not. This is a Private Enterprise System: It’s often described as a Profit System but that is a misleading label. It is a Profit and Losses System and the Loss part is even more important than the Profit part because it’s what gets rid of badly managed, poorly operated companies.

EXCERPT—Friedman: The question at issue is, “Should the people in this country bail out Chrysler by taking money out of their pockets—not to buy cars which they want to buy—but to pay for whatever has been the cause of losses at Chrysler?” Government has been responsible for many of those losses by unrealistic regulations and rules—but they have affected all of the companies. WATCH THE ABOVE INTERVIEW ON YOUTUBE BY CLICKING HERE

JUNE, 8, 2009—WORDS HAVE MEANING. EXCERPT—Oh, I'm sure some of you are about to blow your stack about now. I can just hear it: "Tolleson, you capitalistic pig, the problem with our economy isn't a Democratic or Republican issue! We've let too many crooks get away with financial murder!" Well, you're partly right: It's just that the crooks who got away with financial murder were the Democrats who now run the show by covering up their tracks with high and mighty sound bites. And no, I'm not just pulling this out of thin air. Have a look at the this news item:

YOUTUBE: SEPTEMBER 24, 2004 REPORT

Or this one:

YOUTUBE: DEMOCRATS FIGHT REGULATION IN 2004

Or any of these more than sixty video clips of crooks in their own words:

YOUTUBE: 60 PLUS VIDEO CLIPS ON FANNIE MAE HEARINGS

JUNE, 8, 2009—THE RICH DON’T PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE. EXCERPT—The filthy rich top 5% of wage earners pay over half (about 54%) of the taxes collected in this country. The top 10% of the wage earners pay about 65% of ALL taxes collected. Nearly the entire burden of taxation—roughly 3½ to 4% shy of the ENTIRE collection of taxes is paid by the top 50% of wage earners. Not 50% of everybody, but rather just half of the top wage earners are paying roughly 96% of all taxes. This group also includes mom and pop operations that hire employees while paying other business-related expenses, overhead, fees and taxes. If you have Excel, you can look at the numbers for yourself at the IRS web site: IRS EXCEL 2003 TABLE REGARDING WHO PAYS TAXES. Those are 2003 figures released in late 2005. The so-called “rich” are getting taken to the cleaners.

RETURN TO TOP OF PAGE