Happy New Year Everyone!

The year 2009 has certainly been a year. A very wise man once told me "the opposite of joy isn't sorrow; the opposite of joy is fear". I have never been more fearful for my liberty, and my children's liberty, than I have in 2009. I thought the same thing in 2008, and in 2007. So here's hoping we have some real Hope and Change in 2010.

My resolution for this year is to rage against the kakistocracy, and attempt to convince everyone that I can, not to vote as stupidly as they did in 2006, and especially not as stupidly as they did in 2008, and to kick some Republican keister for giving us such horrible choices in those elections.

We have a lot of work ahead of us. Even if we were to replace every statist with a constitutionalist, we still have much damage to repair, dating all the way back to the early 1900s. It is unfeasible and inhumane just to repeal everything and start over. Please consider my Limited Government Amendment as one possible solution.

Rage against the kakistocracy in 2010!

Sincerely,
Karl Uppiano

The RNC Called Today... Wanted Money

I told them no. I told them that I would send my hard-earned post-tax dollars to the first major political party that would agressively recruit and support candidates who would swear to uphold the Constitution, and then do it!

• Candidates who will remember that the Constitution is the specification for the US Government.
• Candidates who will remember that the Constitution is a binding contract between We the People and the US Government.
• Candidates who will remember that, if it isn't in the enumerated powers, it isn't authorized.
• Candidates who will remember that the founders never intended the "general welfare" clause as some sort of blank check to buy votes.
• Candidates who understand that not every "good idea" needs to be a law.
• Candidates who believe in the Bill of Rights -- all ten of them, including the second and the tenth -- and the enduring reasons why each one is still vitally important.
• Candidates who will remember that any regime that distorts or disregards the Constitution is untrustworthy and dangerous.
• Candidates who can't be bought with bribes from the party bosses to send my tax dollars to their state or district to advance the party agenda.
• Candidates who will remember that my money -- my property -- represents hours from my life that it took to earn it, and they had better spend my life sparingly and wisely, because it isn't theirs to take, and it isn't theirs to waste!

That party will get my donation for the mid-term elections. Those are my terms. Now, let's make this checklist go viral on the Internet.

I Missed a Huge Opportunity Yesterday

Yesterday evening, I received a call from the Republican National Committee, asking for money to win in 2010. I hemmed and hawed about not having enough money left for donations, what with all of my other donations, and finally weasled out of it.

What I should have said: I will donate to the Republican party when you have purged the politicians from the party, and replaced them all with statesmen who want to reverse government spending and the concentration of power in central government. When the party represents liberty and the founding principles as embodied in the Constitution. When you replace social justice with liberty and justice for all. Please call me when you can assure me you have accomplished that. In the meantime, my hard earned dollars are going to the Heritage Foundation and the National Rifle Association.

I would say the same thing to a fundraiser for the Democrats too. Support for the fundamental principles of the Constitution should be the same for both parties.

Do You Still Have All of the Liberty You Were Born With?

Think back to when you were growing up. What things could you do then that you can no longer do now? What things did you have the liberty to decide for yourself that is now a mandate? How many federal, state and local laws were passed since you were born? How many new bureaucracies and agencies have been created since you were born? How many new regulations have they imposed? How many tax increases have you seen in your lifetime? How many new government programs have replaced your ability to do it yourself?

Every single one of those things increases the government’s power over you and reduces your liberty by a corresponding amount. Every dollar that you pay in taxes is a dollar that you do not have the liberty to spend as you see fit (including donating to charity or just helping a neighbor). Every dollar you pay in taxes represents minutes taken from your life -- the time you worked to earn it. The government is literally taking your life, dollar by dollar, minute by minute. The truths that our founders once felt were self-evident -- life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness -- statists today are taking incrementally in ever-increasing quantities.

Every bill passed by congress imposes a mandate or restricts your activity in one way or another. Legislators legislate. It is what they do. It is in their job description; they cannot help themselves. Every time someone says “There ought to be a law”, they express another wish to impose their will on the rest of us. When are we going to say, “Enough is enough?”

Statists took some of my liberty before I was born. Social Security was supposed to be a retirement insurance trust fund. Participation is mandatory. I have been paying into it for my entire working life. It has not been compounding interest. If it were, I would be rich by now, and I could retire today. As it is, I probably can never retire. The government has been stealing my retirement savings in a legalized Ponzi scheme for the past 35 years. At least in private Ponzi schemes, participation is voluntary. It was sustainable during the post war years, because the baby boomers were a huge workforce, each paying into their Social Security retirement account for a comparatively small number of retirees. The number of deposits far exceeded the number of withdrawals. Well, now the baby boomers are coming of retirement age, and the next generation is not remotely large enough to support us. The government squandered my liberty to retire and enslaved my unborn children while I was still growing up.

The next big infringement on my liberty came when I was in grade school, with the Great Society – primarily Medicare, Medicaid and the beginning of the federal takeover of public schools. Every one of those initiatives reduced my liberty – the first two by costing me ever-increasing taxes, and by government intrusion into the formerly private medical industry. Prices have increased, and choices diminished. Now, they're getting ready to finish the job. The federal takeover of public schools introduced a completely new uniformity (uniformity is the opposite of diversity) and reduction of local choices in school curriculum.

Richard Nixon spawned the Environmental Protection Agency while I was in high school. This bureaucracy is empowered to make regulations having the force of law, without any responsibility to We the People: We do not elect EPA bureaucrats. The EPA has infringed on private property, private enterprise and plain old everyday liberty, all in the name of the environment. I understand that we need to preserve the environment. That is what the first amendment is for: If you have concerns about the environment, you get on radio, television, on the Internet and in print, and bring your fellow citizens around to your point of view. We are then at liberty to fall in line, or to ignore you. That is what liberty is all about. You don’t always get what you want. You do not get to use the force of government to coerce your fellow citizens to follow your agenda against their will. That is the very definition of tyranny.

While growing up, I watched gun control legislation at all levels of government erode the second amendment. What part of “infringe” do they not understand? Infringement does not just mean taking my guns; it means, eating away at the fringes of my liberty. I am a responsible, law-abiding citizen, who happens to like firearms and marksmanship. I used to enjoy going off into the fields after school and plinking, or target practice. Today, guns and ammo are so expensive that shooting is nearly unaffordable, assuming I can find a place to go shooting anymore. Infringement comes in many forms: direct restrictions on the right to carry, registration requirements, banning of certain types of “bad” weapons, the high cost of guns and ammo caused by government actions deliberately designed to limit availability. It should be self-evident that regulations do not apply to the bad guys, but it has a tremendously bad effect on the citizen who has both the responsibility and the explicit right to bear arms against tyranny, for self defense, and the defense of his community, should the need arise.

The Occupational Health and Safety Act began reducing my liberty while I was in high school. Again, I understand that unsafe working conditions are a bad thing. Nevertheless, top-down, collectivist rules and regulations, mandates and standards do not make society better if the hidden costs make society worse. That is one big problem with government regulations: They pick a priority and drive it all the way to the top of the list, while they completely ignore conflicting needs and unintended consequences. Sometimes another government regulation or agency takes up the cause of the problems caused by the first. If government were less intrusive, politics would be less divisive.

Not one year ago, our government saw fit to bail out the automakers at great expense to taxpayers and future generations (remember, taxation erodes life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness). Why did the auto manufacturing industry fail? We can trace most of the reasons to intrusive government. For one thing, the economy collapsed because of mismanagement of government run financial institutions, which the Constitution does not authorize it to run. Government has been hobbling the car companies for years with safety and environmental regulations. Who can oppose safety and the environment? Well, I can, for one, when the regulations are imposed by government, and not by consumers demanding product features in the free market. You might argue that consumers do demand it by electing politicians who pass those regulations, and create the regulatory agencies, but no. The feedback loop is far too long and slow for there to be any real responsibility. Once the bills are passed and the agencies created, it is nearly impossible to remove them, regardless of how well or how poorly they work, or how many unintended consequences they create. The free market is much faster, more adaptable and nearly immune to political pressure. Everybody votes with their dollars every day of the year. Moreover, special interests do not control the election, which is maddening for the special interests.

Seat belt laws and helmet laws came along after I graduated from college. Seat belts and helmets are good ideas. I have used them religiously all my life. But not every good idea needs to be a law. I am an adult. I can reason. I can prioritize. As an individual, there might be good reasons why I would not want to use my seatbelts. On the other hand, maybe there aren’t. Why is it anyone else’s business? The argument I hear most frequently is that when I am killed or injured (not a given, with or without seatbelts), it costs society money. Well, it wouldn’t, if society wasn’t so all-fired busy taking care of me. If I could be responsible for myself, it would not be anyone’s business but mine. Again, if you think I should be wearing my seatbelts, you can use the first amendment to convince me. Don’t take my liberty; it’s mine, you can’t have it!

Ever since I was born, I have seen the alphabet soup of government initiatives, agencies and regulations come and not go. Each one adds to my tax burden, adds mandates and reduces degrees of freedom. How great it would be if, for every new law that congress passes, they had to remove three.

Perhaps I'm a Regressive

I have been thinking about whether I'm a conservative, a classical liberal, or something else. For a while, I kept saying "I'm not a conservative; I'm a preservative". Meaning that I want to preserve our founding principles against the onslaught of socialist liberal thinking. Since liberals have rebranded themselves as progressives, and since progressives occur in both the Democrat and Republican parties, I am considering calling myself a regressive. I reject the progressive agenda.

Progressives are statists, that is, they believe the state usually has the most effective solution to society's ills. As such, progressive government would be government that just keeps progressing: expanding without bound, devouring our liberty as it goes -- rather like what we have now.

There is no formal definition for a regressive thinker. According Webster, the word means

1 : tending to regress or produce regression
2 : being, characterized by, or developing in the course of an evolutionary process involving increasing simplification of bodily structure
3 : decreasing in rate as the base increases <a regressive tax>

Definition 1. is a tautology, and is therefore useless. However, definition 2. expresses my belief that we need to simplify, and revert to the founding principles of the US Government. Definition 3. suggests that I might support a regressive tax. No, I would stop with a flat tax. If we did 2., then 3. would be a very minor distinction anyway, since taxation would not be much of a burden for anyone.

Forget Health Care Reform, Cap & Trade

We must reverse deficit spending and the concentration of power in central government, in order to preserve states’ rights and individual liberty for future generations.

Do it for your children. Everything else is just details.

My New Catch Phrase

Setting aside for the moment that the Constitution does not authorize the federal government do most of this stuff anyway is my new catch phrase. I will use it to preface anything that seems to dig down into the details of something that the government is doing, that is fundamentally wrong in the first place. We're about to be enslaved, and we're discussing the nature of the chains.

(edit -- was: We're about to be enslaved, and we're discussing the color of the chains. Color is only one superficial attribute; nature is more about the internal composition, which is my intent.)

Updated Limited Government Amendment

I added the the following paragraph to the Limited Government Amendment proposal:

Therefore, in the beginning, congress will be required to delete the number of laws, taxes, programs, bureaucracies or regulations for each new one that it creates, that allows us to reach the target 1930 size and scope in 78 years. When we reach the target, then the number shall equal one, to maintain the steady state.

This should simplify the size reduction process. It should be easy to calculate the number of laws taxes, programs, bureaucracies or regulations to delete to stay on the target trajectory.

Proposal: A Limited Government Amendment

The Constitution of the United States, along with the Bill of Rights, is the contract between the US Government and We the People. Today, the US Government is in serious breach of contract. It has assumed powers, rights and responsibilities not granted by The Constitution, thus eroding the liberty of We the People. Given enough time, no law goes un-passed, no program goes un-created, no bureaucracy goes un-commissioned and no regulation goes un-imposed, and our liberty goes to zero.

Although this country's founders created one of the most brilliant governments in the history of mankind, they did not take steps to prevent the inexorable, monotonic expansion of our government that we experienced in the 20th century, and which continues to this day. Indeed, in the beginning, the US Government probably seemed a bit underpowered for the task at hand. It probably needed some healthy growth back then. I believe that growth has eclipsed their wildest dreams. We have reached a situation where we now need to put an upper limit on the size and scope of government while we still can. We need a Limited Government Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

The basic concept of the Limited Government Amendment is quite simple, really:

• Congress shall pass no new law without repealing an existing one.
• Congress shall create no new tax without deleting an existing one.
• Congress shall create no new government program without deleting an existing one.
• Congress shall commission no new bureaucracy without de-commissioning an existing one.
• A bureaucracy shall create no new regulation without deleting an existing one (Congress shall delete from existing bureaucracies, the number of new regulations as required by any new bureaucracy).
• All new laws, taxes, programs, bureaucracies and regulations shall have a sunset provision of seven years. If not renewed within that time, the law, tax, program, bureaucracy or regulation shall lapse. This sunset provision will force a periodic review and a national dialogue to determine if it is having the desired effect, or if it is obsolete.

That's it! Government growth should stop on the day that the Limited Government Amendment takes effect. Note that this amendment makes no prescription as to which law, tax, program, bureaucracy, or regulation to delete. Congress or bureaucrats get to decide that. Given the number of stupid, frivolous and obsolete laws, taxes, programs, bureaucracies and regulations we now have, finding things to cut should be extremely painless, especially in the early going. Eventually though, most of the low-hanging fruit will be gone, and then government officials will find themselves having to prioritize. They will have to decide what is more important -- the new thing or the existing thing. I believe this is a good thing.

I said at the beginning of this article that the US Government is already in serious breach of contract. I think we need to make the Limited Government Amendment retroactive to some earlier time in our history. The question is, when would most people agree that we had the "right" amount of government? We've had two major inflection points during the 20th century: FDR's New Deal, and LBJs Great Society. There was considerable growth during the 1800s, but we were still settling the West. Therefore, I propose that we cap government at the level it was in 1930.

The Limited Government Amendment does not prescribe that we cut any particular part of the New Deal or the Great Society. It simply mandates that the size of government be limited to the number of laws, taxes, programs, bureaucracies and regulations that we had in 1930. It took 78 years for the US Government to reach its present size and scope, so I propose that this amendment should allow 78 years to return to the 1930s size and scope.

Therefore, in the beginning, congress will be required to delete the number of laws, taxes, programs, bureaucracies or regulations for each new one that it creates, that allows us to reach the target 1930 size and scope in 78 years. When we reach the target, then the number shall equal one, to maintain the steady state.

An attempt to pass a Balanced Budget Amendment failed in the 1980s. If passed, it might have slowed government growth slightly, but it did not address the real problem. The Limited Government Amendment would limit the size and scope of government. This should naturally reduce the cost of government. It might even create a surplus in the long run, which, under the terms of this amendment, Congress would have to return to We the People in the form of lower taxes.

The language of the Limited Government Amendment must be phrased in such a way as to circumvent the inevitable attempts by politicians to find loopholes and new ways to grow government. Finally, to prevent misinterpretation by any future activist Supreme Court, we must include in the Limited Government Amendment, a specification that the articles of the amendment say what they mean, and mean what they say, and that they are specifically written in Standard English. They are to be taken literally. They are not to be deconstructed, and there is no hidden agenda or penumbra.

Help Wanted -- Publicizing the LGA

Readers, I need help publicizing the Limited Government Amendment idea. So far it has been a complete non-starter.

After reading and studying how the federal government has grown and become more oppressive over the last 100 years, I am convinced that a constitutional amendment is the only mechanism that has the slightest chance of restoring our eroded liberty. Very few politicians or bureaucrats (or even citizens) have the willpower to resist creeping socialism, because each issue, taken separately, seems like a "good idea". Most government programs are implemented with the idea of helping people in some way or another, and people don't think of it in terms of forfeited liberty until the program is entrenched and it is too late. "There ought to be a law" are probably the six most dangerous words in the English language. Not every good idea needs to be a law.

A constitutional amendment like the LGA would force politicians to prioritize. But I can't seem to get anybody's attention. I have emailed Rush Limbaugh, both at his public email as well as his 24x7 web form (I'm a member). I have tried to email Glenn Beck and Mark Levin, but I can't even find email addresses or a web form. I have snail-mailed every Republican senator and congressman (at significant cost in postage). I heard back from exactly zero (count them, zero).

I need suggestions: People to contact, and ways to contact them. Tactics for getting their attention, ways to start a grass roots movement -- anything. I am willing to go on the talk show circuit if necessary. I really don't care if I get credit for this idea; I just want it to succeed. For the sake of my country, and for the sake of my kids. If you have any ideas, please post them in the comments section.

Defining and Avoiding Tyranny

One definition of tyranny is special interests using government to force their agenda down your throat. It doesn't matter if it is the religious right or the loony left. Environmentalists, Wall Street, feminists, oil companies, gays, labor unions, auto manufacturers -- all do it. When we have an activist federal government that regulates our lives and doles out favors and free stuff, you will have special interests lined up around the block, all trying to get their agenda enacted into law, or make the government their benefactor in perpetuity.

After the Tea Parties, one leftist that I correspond with asked me why nobody was this stressed out when the Bush administration was spending like there was no tomorrow, and shredding the Constitution. Many of us were stressed out, but both sides -- all sides -- are guilty of this. Under the circumstances, it is a matter of political survival. It doesn't seem so bad as long as our side is the "in group". But when the "other side" gets in, we get mad as hell. The acrimony will not subside until the federal government returns to the Enumerated Powers specified in the Constitution.

The federal government was originally designed to be a lightweight framework to tie together the various member states, providing basic common services, such as a monetary currency, and diplomatic and military protection. As far as I can tell, the individual states can do pretty much whatever they want, as long as they don't get crosswise with the Bill of Rights. This diversity provides We the People the liberty to move to a state where the weather and the politics suits our clothes.

Pink Slips for Capitol Hill!

Don't Blow it Again in 2010!

I know that correlation does not imply causation, but the current economic problems started very shortly after Democrats took control of both houses of congress in 2006. Obviously, there were many contributing factors, but it was no coincidence, either. It was at that time that public policy changed dramatically, because the opposition to government activity was significantly reduced, and new activity was introduced. Also not coincidentally, principled Republicans tend to resist government activism, and many of them were swept from power along with the unprincipled ones.

Many people decry "gridlock" in Washington D.C., but gridlock is a good thing. The founders specifically designed the US Government to foster gridlock. The formal name is the system of checks and balances. Checks and balances were reduced significantly in 2006, and reduced dramatically in 2008. Regardless of their party affiliation, you can depend on politicians grabbing power if there is nothing stopping them, and there is nothing stopping the politicians in Washington D.C. from riding roughshod over our liberty at this time.

Even the Judicial branch is precariously balanced, and President Obama (based on his past associations, actions and philosophy) is sure to appoint radical leftist, activist judges at the first opportunity. There is no one currently in congress who will seriously oppose any Obama nomination.

In 2010, we must elect candidates that will restore checks and balances to the federal government. Elections have consequences. Don't blow it again in 2010!

Uncle Sam 2009 More Oppressive than King George 1776

In just about every way imaginable, the US Government is more oppressive than King George was in 1776. Federal taxation amounts to more than 20% of the earnings of those who pay taxes, and that does not include things like social security and inflation, local and state taxes and fees. In his book Free to Choose, Milton Friedman estimated the actual number to be around 40% circa 1978. Some estimates give our tax rate as 1% in 1776 under King George, and it was somewhere in the range of 1 to 7% in the USA circa 1914.

We have far more rules and regulations than we had 50 years ago, 100 years ago, and certainly more than at the time of the founding of this nation. Rules and regulations translate directly into less individual liberty.

Every program the government implements, every "problem" the government attempts to solve, is a program or problem that We the People are not at liberty to address in a more imaginative (and potentially more profitable) way. Instead, we are obliged to pay for ever-increasing bureaucracy with ever-increasing taxation.

The American Revolution occurred because the founders wanted the liberty to solve their own problems and lead their own lives with all the inherent risks and benefits that entails. Politicians keep taking more and more power in small enough increments that We the People keep letting them. Well, it is time to take our liberty back. Power to the people!

I Don't Care Who You Are

We have to stop arguing whether Republican statism is better than Democrat statism, and start insisting that government follow the Constitution. Any regime that disregards the Constitution is untrustworthy and dangerous.

We're Too Focused on the Bill of Rights

Don't get me wrong, the Bill of Rights is important. It is the last line of defense against oppressive government, and it is being eroded rapidly, which is why we should be so concerned about the following:

The US Constitution as originally written, did not contain a Bill of Rights, because the primary authors, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, believed that the Enumerated Powers effectively limited the powers of the US Government.

The Enumerated Powers specifically lists the only things that the US Government can do. Logically, there are an infinite number of things the Government cannot do, because they are not on the list. Jefferson and Madison, being well-educated students of the Enlightenment, understood this.

The Bill of Rights, on the other hand, is an incomplete list of things that the Government cannot do -- examples, if you will. In fact, the ninth amendment in the Bill of Rights says "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." In other words, just because something isn't in the Bill of Rights, doesn't grant the US Government the authority to do it. It reinforces Madison's conviction that the Enumerated Powers are the real limiting factor against oppressive government. That is why you see politicians and special interests continually trying to downplay the importance, and re-interpret the concept, of the Enumerated Powers in the Constitution. This is the reason we need a Limited Government Amendment.

OK, Here's the Deal

The US Government is severely and grossly out of spec with the Enumerated Powers listed in the US Constitution. Any government that refuses to honor the contract between itself and We the People is untrustworthy and dangerous. Things have been getting gradually worse for a long time, with major inflection points during FDR's presidency, again during LBJ's presidency, and now the rampage that Barack Obama and this congress are inflicting on our individual liberty.

We are 100 years late for a constitutional uprising. I am not talking about a violent uprising (unless the kakistocrats do not back down peaceably). But we have to take back 100 years of government encroachment on the liberty guaranteed in the Constitution. If you look at the size and scope and oppressiveness of the US Government today, you can see that bringing it back into compliance with the Constitution is a daunting job, both politically and socially. People have become dependent on big government, and they have to be weaned off of it. Please see my proposal for a Limited Government Amendment to the US Constitution, permanently posted at the bottom of this page.