You may never hear me say this again, but I am proud to proclaim that I am more progressive than my peers here at UVA.

When a group of twenty of us were asked whether it was worth making the effort to retain objectivity in the reporting of news, nineteen said yes: reporters and news organizations should strive for objectivity, and we should highly value reportage that we determine to be without bias.

The one dissenter was, as you may have guessed, yours truly.

And really, why should we continue the pursuit of this sham we call objectivity? By objectivity, I mean reporting news in such a way as to remove any preconceived notions or opinions from the selection or documentation of facts, conveying to the reader only the relevant information and allowing him or her to form an opinion.

I’ll say it as frankly as I can: objectivity in the media is a fruitless and unfulfillable pursuit that only the naive choose to perpetuate. The more realistic and – dare I say it – forward thinking among us have exchanged objectivity for transparency, and I submit to you that transparency is what we should begin looking for in our news. Call me a cynic if you will, but this is where the world is headed.

Why not value objectivity? The idea seems logical. We would love to have the facts packaged and delivered to us, allowing us to judge for ourselves what the best course of action would be in any given situation. For example, if any of us read a news story composed simply of the current federal budget, we would love to think for ourselves and conclude that cutting spending is the best way to go. Or, if you read a short news story telling you that millions of illegal immigrants come over our southern border every year, you would probably conclude that securing the border is the best first step toward solving the problem. Objective reporting sounds wonderful, doesn’t it?

The problem is that no news outlet reports just the facts. If they did, we would be bored out of our minds. Take the budget example. Do you really want to read “just the facts” about the federal budget? Of course not. It is much more interesting to hear the two sides of the debate and cheer for whichever side has the best ideas. There is nothing wrong with that. But make no mistake: fair and balanced reporting is not objective. If we were given the option of “just the facts” objectivity, most of us would find it very unappealing.

In addition to being boring, objective reporting is a figment of news editors’ imaginations. If you watch any of the major network news outlets or read any of the major newspapers, all of which claim to be “objective,” “unbiased,” or even “no spin,” you know that unbiased reporting is not practiced anywhere and is, in fact, impossible. We have all heard about the New York Times‘ decline and slow, painful, impending death. I’ve got news for the Times: readers have realized that their claims of objectivity are hollow, and their subscriptions have been steadily cut off as a result.

What I encourage you all to do instead is to embrace and perpetuate a trend of transparency in the media rather than objectivity. Accept bias and subjectivity as par for the course. Watch Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, or Neil Cavuto. Listen to Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, or Mark Levin. And, in addition, watch Anderson Cooper, Katie Couric, and Rachel Maddow. If you have some obscure cable package that enables you, find Keith Olbermann’s show and become one of his ten viewers. Read RedState.com, the Drudge Report, the Huffington Post, the Daily Kos, or this very blog.

All of these news sources come with bias, preconceived notions, and opinions. What’s more, they wear their subjectivity on their sleeve. They are by no means objective in the way they report, but they are transparent. If you want conservative news aimed at grassroots activists, read the American Majority blog or RedState.com. If you want a conservative take on your national news, watch FoxNews. If you want to find out what the people on the other side of the debate are thinking, turn on MSNBC and grab some antacids. Regardless of what a reporter’s perspective is, we should value his or her transparency rather than objectivity in reporting.

If we know a news source’s bias before reading, we know how much credence to give it while consuming it. For decades before our current one, Americans bought into heinous stories and philosophies because they received them from what they thought were “objective” news networks reporting the “facts.” We know better now. In this world of new media, social media, blogs, and do-it-yourself reporting, we know that objectivity is impossible and fruitless. What we need is transparency and honesty. May we pursue it, and may we become better armed as a result.

So, the elections are over and the legislative sessions have begun. Everyone is waiting with bated breath to see what those freshmen legislators are going to do, and tea partiers are hanging on every quote and vote to hold them accountable. If you don’t think times are changing, think again. The Pulaski County Quorum Court now has their budget available online here http://www.co.pulaski.ar.us/comptroller.shtml and Arkansas legislators from the last session are having their reimbursements scrutinized with a fine tooth comb here http://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2011/jan/30/expense-tabs-8-10-top-50000-20110130/ It’s never good news for a lawmaker when their expense reimbursements are listed in the state’s largest newspaper. And of course, the newspaper is blamed for doing “a very detrimental thing to the people of Arkansas in the way that you constantly hound elected officials and make them look bad,” Laverty said. “You all do it more than anyone else.”

Transparency….shining the light on the good, bad and ugly. It is one thing that all activists – conservatives, liberals, and just about everybody in between can agree upon.

That time of year has come where everyone is vowing to do this or that.  Probably the most popular is to lose weight and get in shape or maybe quit some unhealthy vice or habit.  Other old standard resolutions are to de-clutter the house, clean out the closets, and reorganize the kitchen pantry.  All are quite logical resolutions to have and a couple just might last through January for those daring to make the pledge.

As I read an interview with Queen Latifah yesterday morning, I came to agree with her 2011 resolution – NO RESOLUTIONS!  Her reasoning made sense to me.  Why set yourself up to fail by making a list of so many things you want to change about yourself?  Her outlook made me think of the way I address the Lenten season, not by taking something away, but trying to do something that you don’t normally do often enough.  Anyway, Queen (We are on a first name basis now) had a great solution to the resolution problem.  She suggests to start earlier in the year to gradually make improvements upon yourself by the time your birthday rolls around.  This makes the pressure of quitting something or starting something new cold turkey on one specific day (along with the rest of the folks in your world) a thing of the past.  I think we all are familiar with the success rate of trying anything cold turkey…the statistics are not in your favor.  So instead, take it one day at a time and make every effort to be a better person without putting additional pressure on yourself. 

So, I have a few ideas for self-improvement up my sleeve for 2011 – and yes, some of these are the stereotypical resolutions previously mentioned.   However, one thing I pledge to do is to help these elected officials that are new to the political scene.  You see, we have a legislative session starting next Monday.  Plus, there are countless new justices of the peace and city council members that are trying this whole new accountability thing out.  Therefore, I am going to do my part to help them out in a friendly, got your back sort of way.  Personal phone calls, hand written letters (like thank you notes when they do something really great) and invitations for a quick cup of coffee are just a few of the ways I can encourage my new elected officials to stay on track.

In the same weekly periodical I found Queen Latifah’s article, I read an interview with Joe Scarborough, host of the Morning Joe on MSNBC.  He was asked what advice he would give the incoming elected officials who professed to be members of the Tea Party.  He mentioned that to keep conservatives from overreaching like they did in 1996, they should “focus but make sure they don’t scare little kids and pets.”  Which got me thinking.  I know, scary.  I need to help our local leaders focus.  Concentrate on what they can improve and not set themselves up for failure.  Let’s make those resolutions and do our very best to improve those things that we care about – one item at a time.  Here’s a novel idea, let’s start with the spending and go from there.

On the surface, it seems valid for conservatives to be concerned primarily with lowering taxes. After all, less taxation means that people are able to keep more of what they earn – incentivizing new wealth production, job creation, etc. Of course, it’s ideal for tax cuts to be implemented in conjunction with equal cuts in spending; a point most conservatives (at least those outside the beltway) agree on in theory. However, the focus always seems to be more on taxes than spending. Sometimes, especially within the soundbite culture of politics, it’s hard to tell if people are even distinguishing between the two extremely different matters – which is highly problematic in and of itself, because we really don’t actually PAY for much of what we get from our government as a nation.

I will always agree that it’s wrong to raise taxes during a recession. There’s no doubt in my mind that doing so will cause a great deal of suffering, and eventually lead to overall less wealth for the government to tax – sending us down the inevitable path to collapse that socialist policy necessarily leads to. However, unlike many fellow right-wingers, even including good libertarian friends of mine, I can’t get behind a compromise to extend current tax rates when the proposal contains new spending. While I wholeheartedly support the extension of current tax rates as a stand alone issue, at this point in time with a serious debt crisis looming, said extensions need to be, at the very least, deficit neutral. (And deficit neutral they would be if voted on alone).

On the politics of this matter, I agree with Ken Taylor at Red State in his analysis of the current tax rate deal, and what the GOP must do when new elects are sworn in:

(The GOP must) back away from (this) deal using earmarks as a legitimate deal busting reason, and state loudly that they will ONLY accept an up or down vote for JUST the extension of ALL rates and nothing else in the deal package. Democrats will balk at this, and the bill will die a quick death as the lame duck session runs out of time to deal with it in 2010. Once the GOP takes control, extend the rates permanently retroactive to January 1st, forcing Obama to either accept a permanent tax rate or VETO; allowing the largest tax hike in history, which will be his sole responsibility. A two year extension does nothing but make this a campaign issue in 2012, when Obama can claim he compromised, and the “tax cuts,” didn’t stimulate the economy, which they can’t because they change nothing – and claim Republicans sacrificed the middle class for the sake of the rich. Next, the GOP can create legislation that make rates even lower, combining this with real and drastic spending cuts that will reduce the size of government while stimulating the economy – as even lower rates will increase consumer spending and confidence while reducing the deficit; which too will stimulate the economy. Of course this is only a beginning but it will shut the left up as the economy improves due to REAL tax and spending cuts – and Obama and his cronies will not have a created issue that can be used to demonize “the rich” and the GOP in 2012.

Mr. Taylor makes his case well. I think he’s correct to say Democrats are tricking Republicans with this one, and that really, there’s no practical reason not to wait until the new elects are sworn in to deal with this issue in a manner that’s productive rather than damaging.

To add another dimension to the point, I firmly believe that when where we’re experiencing relative economic growth and have a manageable national debt, it’s comprehensible, even if I disagree as a deficit hawk, that conservatives might support trading an increase in spending for a deal that prevents taxes from going up. It’s a well taken point within the context of understanding that less taxation spurs economic growth, and therefore, aggregate availability of revenue to pay down the debt in the future. However, our national debt is currently at a record $13,848,017,156,749.09 – a truly incomprehensible number that realistically, can NEVER be paid back.  In fact, earlier this week:

Moody’s warned that it could move a step closer to cutting the U.S. Aaa rating if President Obama’s tax and unemployment benefit package becomes law. The plan agreed to by President Obama and Republican leaders last week could push up debt levels, increasing the likelihood of a negative outlook on the United States rating in the coming two years, the ratings agency said. A negative outlook, if adopted, would make a rating cut more likely over the following 12-to-18 months. For the United States, a loss of the top Aaa rating, reduce the appeal of U.S. Treasuries, which currently rank as among the world’s safest investments.

Clearly, the sobering truth of the situation we’re facing cannot be described honestly without utilizing the word crisis. And in Europe, where countries are just a bit further down the rabbit hole than we are, the situation has been referred to widely in such terms. Very real debt crises continue to plague European nations. The first to fall in a major way was Greece, when the country was bailed out in April of this year amidst violent protests to necessary tax increases foisted upon them in conjunction with spending cuts. Portugal and Spain are in similar economic positions, with Great Britain and others not far behind. Most recently, Ireland had its banks bailed out to “stabilize” the economy (IE: a European version of TARP on steroids). In light of this, we must pose a serious question: At what point does the bailout money (which is a product of private sector wealth creation – a phenomenon discouraged by “progressive” taxation) simply run out?

In the U.S., we have the Federal Reserve in crisis mode, diligently (ahem …) working to make sure that we don’t, in fact, “run out of money” – which is easy to do when you’re allowed legal counterfeiting privileges. Ok, sure, so we won’t run out of physical dollar bills – but let’s look at the wider implications of this behavior, and analyze it within the context of supporting more spending as a means to avoid tax increases – which is exactly what many conservatives, are advocating right now; despite both the political and economic shortsightedness of doing so.

Hopefully at this point, you’re familiar with the Fed’s “Quantitative Easing II” project, which, not so conincidentally, was rolled out the day after this year’s election – so naturally, it didn’t get the media coverage such a massive undertaking deserves. Clearly, given its moniker, the point is to make one assume that it’s a corollary to an earlier (failed) attempt at stabilizing the economy with “Quantitative Easing I”. My friend Arkady at Right Condition summarizes QE1 (and why it failed) perfectly:

“During QE1, Bernanke bailed out the banks by buying mortgage paper that nobody else wanted to purchase. He bought all this paper at unknown prices and saved the banks by providing them a mechanism to stay afloat without addressing the trillions in their bad purchases. They of course turned around and padded their pockets with it, bought commodities and created asset bubbles in the stock market. However QE1 was supposed to be more than just a life line for banks; it was also supposed to be a catalyst for inflation. Banks were supposed to generate loans and flood the economy with liquidity. They did not. They refused to and rightfully so. Because this is not 1987, or 1992 or even 2000. Economic activity is so dead that nobody is interested in lending and thus, Bernanke failed.”

Given that artificially lowering interest rates to zero and QE1, among other tinkering, didn’t spur growth or restart our lagging economy, Bernanke figured that more intervention was the next logical step, and despite prior promises, has moved toward the dangerous policy of debt monetization.

Per Congressman Jeb Hensarling in March of this year:

Without spending discipline, only one option is left — monetizing the debt, also known as inflation. Although Chairman Bernanke has repeatedly said that will not happen on his watch, many think it inevitable.

Sadly, when QE2 was announced on November 3rd of this year, only one member of the Fed’s Board of Governors had the foresight to vote against the measure – and for the right reasons:

“Voting against the policy was Thomas M. Hoenig. Mr. Hoenig believed the risks of additional securities purchases outweighed the benefits. Mr. Hoenig also was concerned that this continued high level of monetary accommodation (emphasis added) increased the risks of future financial imbalances and, over time, would cause an increase in long-term inflation expectations that could destabilize the economy.”

Anyone want to help translate from FedSpeak to English, “high level of monetary accommodation“? If you guessed inevitable debt monetization to sustain our addiction to deficit spending, IE, deliberate inflation, IE, steep increases in basic commodity prices and a devaluation of your savings, you’re correct. This is the point a complete and utter lack of fiscal discipline has brought us to – and it’s why at this point in our nation’s history, I can’t support any measure that add one cent to the deficit – because it’ll come back to haunt us in a much, much bigger way later.

My overall point in tying the debt monetization discussion into the debate over this tax deal is to suggest that my fellow conservatives consider the issue within a big picture context. While conventional wisdom might suggest that deficit spending is permissible within reason because tax cuts lead to economic growth and in turn more revenue, we’re living in rather extraordinary times, and I don’t think that reasoning applies right now. When Republican politicians have defended tax cuts without relative decreases in spending (which I’m not excusing, by the way), we weren’t facing an unprecedented debt crisis, nor was the Federal Reserve knee deep in fully implementing the kind of backhanded policies we’re seeing Bernanke undertake now.

What does an extension of current tax rates really do for anyone when our savings are being devalued through an inflation tax levied on us by an unelected “Board of Governors” in a last ditch effort to sustain our spending? Letting the current tax rates expire if Democrats aren’t willing to have an up or down vote on the issue alone is vastly preferable to continuing the policies that make the Federal Reserve resort to actions that have the very real potential of making Carter era inflation look like a joke. And please – keep in mind that Republicans, many of whom were backed by tea party activists, have the House. Let’s deal with tax rates on our own terms when the new elects are sworn in. It really believe that it’s politically untenable for President Obama to veto a tax rate extension given his current rhetoric – so why are we playing into his hands now? He knows the current tax rates need to be extended. He doesn’t want to shoulder the blame for increasing taxes during a recession, and Republicans are giving into his demands when they actually have the upper hand.

If newly elected conservatives don’t take serious action regarding spending cuts, debt monetization will continue – making this tax deal debacle look like a joke – especially because the legislation on the table now only extends the rates for two years – rendering the claim about creating stability for businesses moot. Take a cue from guys like Congressman Jason Chaffetz and Senator Jim DeMint, and recognize that our debt crisis is a far greater threat to our nation than something that’s really, nothing more than a temporary tax increase, which can be dealt with retroactively, and on its face, pales in comparison to the economic dangers inherent in debt monetization; a policy the tax deal perpetuates by adding significantly to the deficit.

It gave me great hope to read headlines such as “Judge Calls Health Law Unconstitutional” and similar titles, but to say that U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson of Virginia ruled the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional is simply not true.

Now, make no mistake. I am pleased to hear of Hudson’s ruling on the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision, as should be every American. In short, Virginia’s challenge to the constitutionality of a penalty to be imposed on any taxpayer refusing to purchase health insurance was upheld in a federal court today, and this is good news. Hudson, a George W. Bush appointee, has become “the first judge to rule against the law,” according to the Associated Press.

However, as lexington_concord writes over at RedState, it is essential for conservatives to realize that Hudson severed the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision from the larger Affordable Care Act, ruling only the “problematic” portion of the bill (namely, the penalty) unconstitutional.

Hudson’s argument is comprehensive and his reasoning sound. After reading through the ruling (it takes about an hour or so), one can be more or less satisfied with Hudson’s understanding of the Tenth Amendment and constitutional limits on the Commerce Clause and the General Welfare Clause.

Most importantly, Hudson ruled that the federal government does not have the power to impose a penalty to enforce any law that is not an enumerated power. Unfortunately for Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, Hudson firmly believes that the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision “is neither within the letter nor the spirit of the Constitution.” Despite Congress’ attempt to categorize the penalty as a tax, thus bringing it under the legislature’s enumerated authority to tax, Hudson was not convinced. “The two words [tax v. penalty] are not interchangeable,” Hudson quotes, “and if the exaction [is] clearly a penalty, it cannot be converted into a tax by the simple expedient of calling it such.”

Amen.

Also importantly, Hudson is doubtful as to Congress’ authority to forcibly compel citizens to participate in a market by unwillingly purchasing a commodity. He writes, “A thorough survey of pertinent constitutional case law has yielded no reported decisions…extending the Commerce Clause or General Welfare Clause to encompass regulation of a person’s decision not to purchase a product.” That’s right. Just as we thought, this is an unprecedented move by Congress, or as Hudson calls it, an extension of the Commerce Clause “well beyond its current high water mark.”

Despite these encouraging statements and Hudson’s sound reasoning, his severance of the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision from the larger health care bill is less than many had hoped for. In effect, though he has ruled the most controversial part of the bill, the “individual mandate,” unconstitutional, the massive government regulation, interference, and taxation also imposed by the Affordable Care Act remain in effect.

There is still plenty of work to be done, though the Virginia ruling is encouraging, to be sure. As one caller on Rush Limbaugh’s radio show said today, “salvation will come from the South.” As a native of Virginia, I am proud to hear that that appears to have been the case today. But the incompleteness of the Hudson ruling reminds us that this is a battle not yet won, and the fight for limited government and increased liberty will be long and tenacious. Thankfully, such signs of progress as these will sustain us until we achieve victory.

Interesting story on Kansas Watchdog regarding current laws in Kansas and what voters think of charter school restrictions.

The report cited in the article mentioned three states which earned strong A’s (the District of Columbia, Minnesota and California) share these five characteristics:

1. Set charter schools aside in creation and oversight from the conventional system.
2. Ensure that the same amount of money allotted for one child’s education in a state follows that child to the school of choice — entirely.
3. Permit distinct, independent entities to open schools and hold them accountable for both growing charter schools that are great and closing those that are not.
4. Educate children well and add value every year to the learning they receive.
5. Do not require adherence to the same failed layers of oversight and bureaucracy that have hindered progress in our conventional public schools.

Also interesting in the article was a survey conducted asking Kansas voters how much they thought government is spending per pupil on education- only 10 percent of respondents were correct.

While Arkansas bureaucrats like to proclaim our state has a “balanced budget,” our check book seems to tell a different story.  According to US Government Spending.com our state has an estimated $15.8 Billion in state and local debt. (see website for details)

The most exasperating part of this debt is that it has been accrued with the consent of the people, and most don’t even realize it. I have, over the last several months, conducted a survey of Arkansans, young and old. Blue collar, white collar and no collar; rich and poor; seemingly informed and completely disengaged; people who have run for state and national offices, folks who own multi-million dollars companies in our state and not one realizes the true “state of our state.”

I have been trying to wrap my head around this issue for months and I think I finally have a way to explain it ~ Let’s say you have “fixed” costs i.e. house payment, utilities, insurance, taxes which you can easily meet with your income. But then you decide you need a new car so you get a loan and you make the minimum payment. Then you decide you need some new furniture; another new loan, new minimum payment; and then a new flat screen, new loan, new minimum payment. Some months later you buy a boat, a motorcycle and a hunting lodge all with new loans and more minimum payments. Well now your income barely covers your outgo so you open a Visa account and start making payments with that and pay the minimum payment to visa, well things get tighter so you open a MasterCard, then Discover, then you take out a second on your house and now all of the-sudden (not really) you are 100’s of thousands of dollars in debt but still barely able to make your minimum payment. That’s pretty much what Arkansas has done except our state KEEPS doing it. And now we are $15.8 billion in debt and the voters keep giving them more and more ability to open up even more lines of credit, stop the madness.

Please make sure you are doing your due diligence BEFORE you vote.

My colleague told me about this interesting turn of events in Benton County regarding one of the election commissioners chartering a flight to pick up an election machine part.  Sure, it was necessary, but couldn’t folks in charge planned a little better?  You be the judge. 

http://www.nwaonline.com/news/2010/oct/15/charter-flight-raises-questions/

Last Friday I was honored to speak at the University of Arkansas Constitution Day Celebration 2010 at the campus open air Greek Theater.

It proved to be a wonderful experience. Literally hundreds of students roamed amongst the tables, wolfed down free hot dogs, sipped lemonade, registered for a free Ipad and listened to a half-dozen speakers (well, hopefully they did).

My assigned subject was to discuss the 18th Amendment, which most might find uneventful and even obsolete since it was repealed just 13 years after its passage by the 21st Amendment. The ratification of this amendment is paramount to understanding what is transpiring today and is a vital reason new voters, ages 18 to 21 should be most interested in voting this year.

The 18th Amendment was National Prohibition, when the United States banned the transportation, sale and production of liquor. This was approved on January 16, 1919 but actual Prohibition didn’t start until 1920, still many Americans ignored the warning signs of what they had created. One of America’s greatest private industries was completely wiped out overnight, at least legally. But not really.

Bars kept operating during prohibition. This now-illegal industry achieved profits not possible until the banning. Organized crime grew rapidly by trafficking alcohol. Thugs like Al Capone (perhaps the most famous
gangster of all time) emerged during prohibition. Soon, mass killings
and gang wars were being fought over the trickling supply of liquor.

Police forces and court system across America were overwhelmed. In 1923 the U.S. District Attorney spent an astounding 44 percent of their time just on prohibition cases. Not to mention the financial burden to the taxpayer spent on this “noble experiment.” Some accounts estimate about $1,000,000,000 in excise taxes went to the national government, as well as several state and county governments each year just to fund prohibition enforcement.

So after 13 years of national torment and a lot of shame the federal government realized the error of its ways and repealed what had become an epic failure. But that didn’t happen without a deep and permanent scar being carved into the history of our nation.

So, why should you care, especially if you are 18 to 21? After all, you can’t drink anyway. Well, many of you in this age group are out in the world on your own for the very first time. You’re finally out from under those oppressive parents, eating what you want, staying out as late as you want and all the other various perks that come along with supposedly being independent.

But what if I told you that now, instead of mom and dad telling you what to
do, the federal (and likely state) government want to step in like controlling parents and begin “overseeing” your lives? Do you like cheeseburgers or pizza? Do you drive a car bigger than a smart car? Do want the freedom to choose your medical care, education, banking and your jobs? Or do you want a nanny following you and your children around for the rest of your lives? It is happening right now.

An article published in a 1922 Cosmopolitan magazine spoke about with what ease the 18th Amendment was passed. Americans wanted an answer to the problems caused by alcohol consumption and they were not willing to think deeply about restricting individual freedoms, or doing their due diligence.

“[I] read in the papers that the Legislature of Pennsylvania had
ratified the [18th]Amendment. I knew then that we were off on the wrong
foot, that we were going too fast. We had not done much educational
work in Pennsylvania, and yet Pennsylvania had voted dry. On the
morning that I read that the New York legislature had voted for the
amendment I felt sick about the news. I knew that the action hadn’t
come advisedly and with forethought and deliberation. It was a snap
action, it seemed to me. From that time on, I knew there would be
trouble in enforcing the amendment. Politics had entered into the
game, and we could see that it would make trouble for us. And it has;
unspeakable trouble.”

Today the federal government has nationalized, or is in the process of nationalizing healthcare, all student loans, residential real estate, automobile manufacturing, insurance and energy, our utilities all without any consideration if it is constitutional to even do so.

It seems clear that Washington is constitutionally inept and only a return of educated, informed and engaged citizens will restore the principles of individual liberties and prosperity that made America that “City on a hill” that the Rev. John Winthrop praised in his 1630 sermon: “A Model of Christian Charity.”
Will you get informed and engaged? It’s high time. And if not you, who? If not now, when?

While city officials in Fayetteville, Arkansas are constantly striving to
“Keep Fayetteville Funky”, I believe they are keeping it more flunky than funky.
In recent months our officials have revamped Block Street, the connector street between the historic square and the entertainment district along Dickson Street with back-in, angled parking spots (no, seriously), odd, jutting concrete islands and a maze of other fun and sundry driving obstacles only to discover mid-project that there might be a serious issue with the clearance of some emergency vehicles.

So now they go back to the drawing board to “re-revamp” the street project.
Even with remarkable Googling skills I have yet to locate a finite
number of what this has – and will – cost we the taxpayers.
Then we turn to the dreaded paid parking issue in the entertainment district. The powers that be decided in their wisdom to install parking kiosks downtown to increase city revenues. Or, in the words of Alderman Matthew Petty who represents Ward 2, “We need to do this; it’s the only way to keep Dickson Street growing.” Oh really?? Take an already tax laden community and further tax the down time where folks go to relax.

However, many residents of the majestic town have said “Good bye DicksonStreet” because they don’t feel it is worth the extra money and hassle to deal with these new parking restrictions, especially when there are so many other choices with free parking.
In an effort to raise revenues, the City Fathers have actually helped curb potential commerce for local business owners, in effect lowering tax revenues. They have spent taxpayer money implementing a plan to take more of that money from said taxpayers. Then, as a kicker, a few days ago we learn Fayettevillians will be hit yet again with an additional $15,000 in repair bills to the parking machines from vandalism in the initial weeks. Arggggg!

It is important to note before we proceed that Fayetteville is
running in a budget deficit situation of an estimated $1.2 million in
the General Fund. In light of that Mayor Jordan and his crew developed
a plan “to reduce target expenditures, freeze wages, forego the
replacement of certain open positions, and extend the replacement plan
for General Fund vehicles,” all of which I applaud. But to re-revamp a road
that actually did not need revamping in the first place then further tax
citizens with the hassle of parking fees so that potential customers may head elsewhere with free parking and easy access doesn’t seem
like good city planning to me.

Now the Coup de grace; the $93 million high school I continue to
shudder over. That’s NINTY THREE MILLION DOLLARS! The rapidly growing Springdale School District is seeking less than $70 million to build a new junior high and a middle school holding 2,000 students, new athletic fields and stadium for Har-ber High School and refurbish the existing Springdale High School stadium. The interesting fact of this matter is not only has Fayetteville school not grown, but according to a former school board member, the population at FHS continues to dwindle.

Now I understand the city management does not make decisions for the
school district, which might even play more into one of my points, that the
right hand and the left hand of the public’s business never know what the other is doing.
Beware friends. Government on every level is spending and taxing to the
point of non-recognition, in my opinion, to get all they can before
the heavy hand of the federal government comes down and lands a mighty and crippling final blow to families across the nation.

Has anyone else noticed how many unemployed there are in our corner of the state? How many foreclosures are published in the paper each day? How many empty storefronts have appeared?
So one little town (less than 70 thousand residents) in one little state is
spending millions of dollars on superfluous stuff and we just keep
going along living our clearly unsustainable “Life of Riley.”

I like to think that I’m a pretty dynamic individual, but I’ll be honest, there comes a point in every single training I conduct where I bore my attendees.  They start looking around the room, staring at the ceiling, mouths dropping open, drool pooling at the corners of their lips.

Ok, maybe it’s not that bad.  But when I start talking about the importance of focusing locally (holding your own city council, school district and county commission accountable for their actions), most people do zone off.  I get it.  It’s not sexy.  On the federal level, even in state government, there is glitz, glamour, power, intrigue, sometimes even scandal.  On the local level, not so much, right?  Wrong.  To prove my point, here are the top 10 reasons why Bell, CA matters:

10. What happened?  Bell residents recently discovered that their city manager earns $787,637 per year.  By contrast, President Obama earns $400,000 per year.

9. According to the LATimes Blog city manager Robert Rizzo said of his salary figure, “If that’s a number people choke on, maybe I’m in the wrong business. ”  You think?

8. And it doesn’t stop there.  The city council members, who get together for a meeting twice a month, make about $100,000 per year, while the police chief makes $457,000.

7. Bloomberg reports that the tax burden in Bell is heavy, which isn’t a surprise considering the weight of the administrative salaries.  Los Angeles County’s auditor-controller says that residents in Bell pay 1.55% of their home’s value in taxes, while in Beverly Hills (where the per-capita income is almost four times higher than in Bell), residents pay only 1.19% of their home’s value in taxes.

6. The city riots.  Hundreds turn out in protest, pouring into the city council meeting demanding resignations and recall elections.  My favorite quote comes from nine year old Ephraim Martinez, who told officials, “You should be ashamed.”

5. On July 23, the city manager, assistant city manager and police chief resigned from their jobs.  Good news, right?  But the story doesn’t end there.

4. The Los Angeles Times reports that city manager Rizzo will receive a pension of $650,000 per year for the rest of his life- making him the highest paid retiree in the state pension program.  Police chief Randy Adams will receive over $411,000 per year, while assistant city manager Angela Spaccia will become eligible for $250,000 per year once she reaches the age of 55.

3. Now maybe you’re wondering- rightly- if the duties of the job fit the compensation level.  I wondered the same thing.  Bell is a city of about 36,000 people.  Estimated median income is $39,000 per year.  Contrast this to the median income in the state of California, coming in at nearly double: $61,000 per year.  Unemployment in Bell registered at 15.7% in April of this year.  So let’s get our background information clear to start with: we’re talking a small town in a poor area with high unemployment.  Not a highly-populated metropolitan city with citizens living the lifestyles of the rich and famous.

2. By contrast, my hometown of Salina, KS- a town of 48,000 people with a median annual income of $42,400- pays its city  council members $3,600 per year.

1. The number one reason why this matters?  Don’t you wonder… if this is happening in a city of 38,000, what is happening in our larger cities?  If this type of corruption and greed is taking place from within, what other policies or regulations are city council members across the nation taking advantage of?

When I was three years old, I sat on my dad’s lap and asked him if he would vote for me if I ran for president when I grew up.  He said no.  Shocked, I asked why not.  His words still ring true today- “because power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

I know it’s boring when I say that we need to focus local.  But I’m pretty sure if we asked the residents of Bell, CA, they would say the same thing.  Allowing elected officials to get by without being watched, allowing them to make poor decisions without facing consequences, grants them that corrupting power.  Go to city council meetings.  Monitor the actions of your local school board.  Run for county commission.  The only way to clean up the bad in government is to put good people into the system.

An Op-Ed from an American Majority Facebook Fan.

We are in quite the financial straits, both here in America and around the world.  The one piece of advice I keep hearing from advocates, however, is that we must spend our way to a recovery.  There is just one fatal flaw in this assumption.  Where does that money come from?  You will hear that we have the lowest tax rate in the world, so raising taxes isn’t much of an issue.  What you will not hear is that the tax cuts put in place by Bush (2003) are due to expire at the end of the fiscal year.  When all the “dust” settled, total savings enacted back then was around $350 million in cuts. So, what they are really proposing is a tax increase on a tax increase.

According to the US Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, savings rates have plummeted into negative territory.  Yes, the numbers there are staggering to digest, but I suppose the bottom line is that if you spend more than you make, you must dip into savings to cover the difference.  Do this enough times and you not only have no savings left, but you begin to run a deficit budget, or begin to borrow.  How long would it be possible to do this before lenders say no?

Excerpts from the Wikipedia entries for Keynesian economics and Socialist economics

Keynesian economics advocates a mixed economy—predominantly private sector, but with a large role of government and public sector—and served as the economic model during the latter part of the Great Depression, World War II, and the post-war economic expansion (1945–1973), though it lost some influence following the stagflation of the 1970s. The advent of the global financial crisis in 2007 has caused a resurgence in Keynesian thought. The former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, President of the United States Barack Obama, and other world leaders have used Keynesian economics to justify government stimulus programs for their economies.^[2]

Non-revolutionary socialists took inspiration from the work of John Stuart Mill, and later Keynes and the Keynesians, who provided theoretical justification for (potentially very extensive) state involvement in an existing market economy. According to the Keynesians, if the business cycle could be solved by national ownership of key industries and state direction of their investment, class antagonism would be effectively tamed; a compact would be formed between labour and the capitalists. There would be no need for revolution; instead Keynes looked to the eventual “euthenasia of the rentier” sometime in the far future. Joan Robinson and Michael Kalecki employed Keynesian insights to form the basis of a critical post-Keynesian economics that at times went well beyond liberal reformism. Many original socialist economic ideas would also emerge out of the trade union movement (see Guild Socialism).

Is spending the answer to climb out of an economic hole? Is spending a way to stimulate an economy?  In my opinion, the answer is no to both questions. As a nation, we need to take back control and place some “common sense” into the programs we put forward.  Electing the proper people to reach these goals are paramount.

Cutting these huge expenditures needs to start with changing the WAY in which government functions.  Remove the greed and selfishness that dominates our current government and replace it with the self-interest that was a cornerstone of “Wealth of Nations.” When this is done, the people can take back control of government, something the founding fathers envisioned with the creation of the document known as The Constitution of the United States.