Networking

Friends,

When you are looking for a job there are a couple of ways to do it. Probably the most common way it to work up a resume and start sending it to every possible vacant position posting you can find. This is called the shotgun method. I don’t know what the success rate is for the shotgun method; you would have to check with professional employment agencies and human relations folks for that.

Another method for looking for work is called networking. This seems to be a more successful method. This is where you meet folks of like mind and profession in various venues, strike up a conversation. Pretty soon you find that you have mutual interests and talents. There may or may not be a resume involved but a professional relationship is established, phone numbers, and email addresses are exchanged.

An extension of the networking method is what I call “Super Networking.” That is where you take a job as a government regulator, investigator, or presidential advisor and start making contacts or renewing contacts in the professional world. That seems to be the method that the OWH’s appointees employ. There has been a fairly steady turnover of personnel in the Executive Branch; and no, these folks are not leaving to spend more time with their families.

The Washington Post published an article this morning about numerous Executive Branch officials who have departed their $200k jobs for $400k+ jobs in the private sector. These folks include several Justice Department lawyers who have left to go to work at prestigious New York and Washington law firms and SEC and banking regulators who have gone to work at such financial institutions as Goldman Sachs and Citibank.

Technically, if a banking regulator is working on a case involving, say, Citibank they cannot go to work for Citibank for one to two years. However, that seems to be a matter of guidelines instead of a hard and fast rule, especially as you climb the government ladder.

These folks seem to have one trait in common, aggressiveness. When you look at the take-over of much of our culture by Executive Branch dictates it is only reasonable that the people the OWH hires to effect these “changes” have to be aggressive. This is what top corporate managers want in their penthouse offices.

However, the obvious question here is what kind of oversight is being conducted by these government employees before they leave government service? Where is the oversight of these overseers? Can we really depend on the OWH’s hirelings to do the job they were hired to do, or did they just come into government service for a couple of years to bolster their resume and conduct a little “Super Networking?”

I do not think this situation calls for congressional hearings. That seems to be the usual course of action. When someone does something questionable let’s hold a hearing. It seems to me that there are flagrant violations going on and criminal investigations should be conducted by the FBI. Of course, I’m just an American citizen and of little consequence to the OWH.

As always, I welcome your comments and discussion.

Dan

Religious Inequity

Friends,

A couple of weeks ago, 14 Mormon members of Congress sent a letter to the Swiss ambassador protesting the Swiss government’s planned expulsion of Mormon missionaries from Switzerland. I am not a Mormon and do not have a dog in this particular fight. The fight I have a dog in involves religious freedom around the world; specifically in Islamic countries.

I have a cousin who, after his retirement from the Air Force, spent some time in Saudi Arabia working for a contractor. He and his wife are Christians and regularly attend services. He tells of having to sneak over to another Christian’s home to conduct secret services. The penalties for conducting non-Muslim services in Saudi Arabia are severe if you are not Saudi. If you are Saudi and are caught engaging in Christian activities, the penalties go beyond severe.

We here in the United States have a long tradition of religious freedom even though there is an active movement to restrict those freedoms. My concern is that 14 Mormon members of Congress are concerned about missionaries in Switzerland but what have they done in support of Christians in Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries? Just two months ago several dozen Christian worshipers were murdered in a church in Baghdad by Muslim “extremists.” This is in a country where hundreds of our military have been killed in the fight to rid them of an oppressive and murderous regime. After these worshipers were murdered numerous bombings occurred outside Christian homes in the Baghdad area.

In another Christmas bombing, 11 were wounded on the island of Jolo, Philippines. A bomb was hidden in a ventilation window of a Christian church. Jolo is a stronghold for the Abu Sayyaf group, an al Qaida affiliate.

Where is the outrage from our elected officials? Is their outrage reserved for a few missionaries to a friendly ally? These missionaries are not being murdered or persecuted. The concern about them being in Switzerland has to do with the presence of foreign workers. What about the foreign workers coming to the United States to train terrorists to take down our way of life?

Where is the outrage over Muslim “extremist” terror training camps operating freely here in the United States, the country they are planning to bring down? Where is the outrage from these and other members of Congress? Why are we still welcoming Muslims to build their shrine just blocks from the World Trade Center bombing where Muslim “extremists” killed nearly 3000 Americans, Indonesians, British, French, German, Swiss, and numerous other nationalities?

People are very concerned about who and what is coming across in the flood from Mexico and they should be. But in the name of religious freedom we are allowing some really bad people to live and actively train to bring down our way of life here inside our country. We are allowing these same bad people to erect their monuments for the purpose of thumbing their noses at us.

Whether the OWH, Congress, or the Judiciary want to accept it or not, the United States was established as a Christian nation, based on Christian principles, and a strong foundation of freedom of religion. When are our elected officials and the Judiciary going to demand a level playing field? Of course that is a rhetorical question. We all know the answer. It is past time we stop kowtowing to the Muslim “extremist” and lay down the law to them. I would propose that we tell the Saudis and other Muslim countries that their treatment of Christians is not welcome. Also not welcome is their funding of terror training camps in the US. It is long past time to hold them accountable.

As always, your comments and discussions are welcome.

Dan

Criticizing the Government

Friends,

I was going to take a couple of days off to celebrate the birth of our Lord with my family but a news item crossed my desk yesterday and then again this morning that just got me spooled up. An airline pilot in California made several YouTube videos criticizing the security measures at our country’s airports. The headline reads “Agents Search Home of Pilot Critical of TSA.” An expanded version of the story is linked here.

Because of his criticism his government issued handgun was confiscated, his California issued concealed carry permit was confiscated and US federal air marshals are searching his home. This brings to mind the young man who started the catch phrase “Don’t touch my junk.” That young man faces a $3000 fine and there is no telling what punishment this unnamed pilot faces because he has a conscience and is not bashful about expressing it.

The case of the pilot goes beyond a case of whistle blowing. It points up a government that cannot stand criticism. The Department of Homeland Security under the OWH is taking on dictatorial authority while making our country less safe. Consider the excessive screenings at airports but vast areas of our own territory are unsafe for Americans to travel.

On 27 March of this year Robert Krentz, an Arizona rancher was gunned down on his own land tending his ranch. The murderers crossed back over into Mexico. This happened directly because the OWH and his Secretary of Homeland Defense let it happen. They failed in the primary responsibility of the federal government, to protect the citizens of the United States.

Well, if Americans can get in trouble for criticizing our government, they are welcome to come and talk to me. I am highly critical of the massive power grab of Secretary Napolitano and her private army called the Department of Homeland Defense. Just the name of the department is an oxymoron. But who are they protecting us from? The jihadists can utter a few words and the OWH and Secretary Napolitano spend billions at airports while leaving our borders leaking like a sieve. Their total incompetence is placing us all in danger. How long will it be before the border violence migrates to our homes? The OWH wants to treat it as a criminal matter. I want to treat it as a matter of national security. When our country is invaded from the outside the OWH has the constitutional responsibility to respond in kind. Am I critical? YOU BET I AM.

I would call upon the OWH personally to address this issue but I am not from Chicago so he is unlikely to listen to me.

As always, I welcome your comments and discussion.

Dan

Freedom of Religion

Friends,

Over the past 60 years or so it has become popular to quote a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut that had the phrase “separation of church and state” as though it is a direct quote from the Constitution. During this time when we celebrate the birth of our Lord, I think it is appropriate to discuss this misconception and how it relates to the First Amendment.

One of the primary reasons for immigration to North America by Europeans was for the opportunity to worship as they pleased. At that time in world history, most countries dictated what religion was practiced and there was little, if any, room for deviation from that religion.

When the founders wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, they understood that some religions could be “highly encouraging” in their proselytizing and wanted to prevent that from happening. Therefore, the First Amendment was written in such a way to tell not only the currently sitting Congress but all successive Congresses that they could not establish a national religion. The first section reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….” There is no mention of separating religion and the state.

Over the years Jefferson’s unfortunate comment has taken on a life of its own. At first, public prayer was banned at all public events. From there the prohibitions expanded. When verbal school prayer was prohibited administrators were allowed to have a silent prayer. Today even that has gone away. Every year we hear about more nativity scenes being disallowed from public parks and buildings. Yesterday, even a bank examiner told a bank they had to remove a cross from public viewing.

More and more retail establishments are removing Christmas from their stores. Store clerks are afraid to say “Merry Christmas” either at the direction of store managers or because they do not want to offend someone. Some atheists view anything Christian as a vile insult. I take deep offense to this abrogation of my right to worship as I please. However, George Washington said it best; “The liberty enjoyed by the people of these states of worshiping Almighty God agreeably to their conscience, is not only among the choicest of their blessings, but also of their rights.”

Contrary to the view of “Progressive” pundits, our country was established on Christian principles. Almost all of our founding fathers were deeply religious men and many were ordained ministers. The First Amendment guarantees our right to worship as we please, or not worship. It is not my right to force someone to worship in any way, and it is not someone else’s right to keep me from worshiping. Having a nativity scene in a public park is not the establishment of religion; it is the conscious acknowledgement of the founding principles of our wonderful country.  

I will end this Discourse by saying that I hope all my readers have a very blessed Christmas for the reason we celebrate is truly a blessing to mankind.

Dan

Holiday Threats

Friends,

Well, it’s that time of year again. Millions of shoppers out trying to get their last minute Christmas presents purchased in time to get them wrapped and under the tree or shipped in time for Christmas delivery. What better time to create chaos and uncertainty than to let a terror threat drop on the unsuspecting American public?

Yesterday the Department of Homeland Security issued a terror threat warning that it had credible intelligence of a plot to poison food at hotels, restaurants, etc. What is the primary goal of terrorism? First is to create fear in the enemy. Everything after that is only methodology. With the current threat, what do the Islamic Cowards have to do? The answer is simple. At most, create or find one situation for which they can take credit. After that they don’t even have to raise a finger. Their goal will have been achieved.

Let’s take a look as some examples of where this tactic has worked. This is a short list but the ramifications are huge. The “shoe bomber,” the “underwear bomber,” and the “copier toner bomb” are just a few examples of plots over the past few years. When you look at it from a cost-benefit analysis the bad guys have won in spades.

What have we done to counter these threats? The US government has given unprecedented power to the Department of Homeland Security. Where we used to be able to get to the airport just in time to get through baggage check in and run to the gate. Now we have to plan to get there at least two hours prior to flight time. Most of that time is spent waiting in one line or another. Once we get to the Transportation Security Administration personnel we have to almost strip down to our BVDs to get through. We have to go through a magnetometer and then still be eligible to go through an X-ray machine or be groped by someone who would be arrested for assault if he/she did this deed anywhere else

Please don’t misunderstand me; this is a dangerous world and there are a lot of people out there that want to hurt us. But as Benjamin Franklin said, “They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

I don’t know what the answer to the long lines at the airports is but there has to be something better. I just hate the idea that he bad guys are winning. They have brought us to our knees in many aspects of our lives.

Numerous courts, including the Supreme Court has determined that the police are not charged with protecting us. This is just not possible given the number of Americans and the number of police. It is therefore incumbent on each of us to take responsibility for being observant. We have to take responsibility for our own safety. I am in the business of teaching personal safety and as I observe my surroundings I am amazed at how unaware the average person is as they go about their daily routines. How much mischief would we be spared if we were just aware of our surroundings? How much safer would we be if Americans had the reputation for individually confronting bad guys instead of saying “let the police handle it?”

I have not addressed the issue of bad guys coming across our borders for that is a topic of another day.

As this is the season when we celebrate the birth of our Lord who came to take on our sins for our salvation, I leave you with another quote from Benjamin Franklin’s “Poor Richards’ Almanack” (sic), 1743; “How many observe Christ’s birth-day! How few, his precepts! O! ’tis easier to keep Holidays than Commandments.”

As always, I welcome your comments and discussion.

Dan

Our Responsibility to the Federal Government

Friends,

A couple of days ago a friend sent a blog link to me from the Biblical Christianity blog. This article was written by a gentleman named Dan Phillips. He is making a number of points concerning our responsibility to the government as it relates to Biblical principles. Mr. Phillips’ point #4 is the one my friend wanted to address.

In Paul’s letter to the Romans, 13:1-7 he tells us that all authority comes from God and we should submit to those God has put before us in authority. This brings up the question of conservatives paying allegiance to the current administration led by the OWH.

Mr. Phillips makes an outstanding point; unlike the kings of old who were the government and therefore due their subjects’ allegiance as being ordained by God our government is supposed to follow the Constitution as set down by the founders. In our form of government, the executive, legislative and judicial branches are the caretakers of the Constitution. We have all seen good caretakers and bad caretakers. Unfortunately, we have been duped by a bad caretaker and his minions.

In the two long years of this administration the OWH has taken it upon himself to redefine laws from those required by the Constitution and legislative action to executive orders and mandates from his various departments. For instance in the last three or four weeks the Federal Communications Commission has decided that they have the authority to confiscate websites they suspect of violating copyright laws. What happened to prosecuting scofflaws instead of summarily taking over their websites? What about the site that is violated by someone not associated with the administration of the site who posts an article that may violate a copyright?

I also have to question the extreme use of “czars” who were appointed with no approval process. These czars have regulatory authority over various segments of our country but no basis in Constitutional law. Cabinet secretaries also exceed their constitutional authority. For instance Interior Secretary Salazar stopped all drilling in the Gulf of Mexico after the BP drill platform collapse. This action was taken irrespective of the success or safety of other operations in the Gulf. I find this interference in the commercial sector to be unconscionable.

One of the duties of the president is to represent the citizens and enterprises of the United States. The OWH did this by investing heavily, with our taxpayer dollars, in the oil industry of Brazil while banning drilling off the coast of the US. I view this as a complete abrogation of his responsibility.

These are only a few examples of the way the current administration has proven itself to be a bad caretaker of our Constitution. I believe it is required of all loyal citizens to work as diligently as possible to return our country to the original intent of the Constitution. I also believe that it should be our duty to regularly read the Declaration of Independence as well as the Constitution.

These are just my thoughts. As always, I welcome your comments and discussion.

Dan

The Occupier of the White House (OWH)

Friends,

I think it is time to look at the character of the person who occupies the White House (the OWH). I am not going to compare him to any other specific individual, but rather to that “ideal” individual who, I think, should be occupying that seat.

It is odd that since the OWH first came on the scene he is only confident speaking to people with the aid of a teleprompter. This has become a subject of jokes and mirth over the past three years. Even Vice President Biden got into the act at the Air Force Academy graduation when his teleprompter blew over in the wind and he quipped “How am I going to tell the president that I have broken his teleprompter?” Who could forget The One speaking to elementary school children with the aid of the ever-present all-telling eye?

Within the first couple of months of taking the mantel of the free world the OWH was on the road bowing to foreign potentates and apologizing to the world for everything from Americas’ arrogance to our successes. Why would the person in that vaulted position offer any kind of apology for what we have accomplished in our short 234 year history? Why would he apologize for being the beacon of freedom and justice around the world? On numerous occasions our valiant allies have struggled to shake off tyrants’ shackles and are only able to get the job done with the aid of American forces. I don’t know how many millions of now-free people have tasted the freedom of not being under the Communist thumb because of the combined efforts of President Reagan and Prime Minister Thatcher. Why should any US president apologize for these things? In the same light, arrogance does not become us but apology, NO!

When he took office, the OWH promised to have the most open and transparent administration in history. The only thing open about this administration is his penchant to remove our rights and freedoms. He makes no bones about this goal. When you look at the inner workings of this administration you see only closed doors and back-room deals. Just one example is the bailout of the financial industry. What a sweetheart deal Goldman Sachs got thanks to the OWH’s treasury secretary, Tim Geithner. Secretary Geithner and former Goldman Sachs CEO, Henry Paulson (also a former treasury secretary), teamed up to ensure AIG was bailed out but let Lehman Brothers die. This is where I have to question the legitimacy of a government official becoming involved in who lives and dies in the commercial world. But back to the issue at hand; when AIG was bailed out, they were allowed to use our taxpayers’ money to repay derivatives at face value rather than at actual market value. This garnered billions for banks that would not have otherwise been received, one of which was Goldman Sachs. But let’s not forget the $35,000 in self-employment taxes that Secretary Geithner “forgot” to pay until he was nominated for treasury secretary. Does this smack of honesty and openness in the OWH’s administration? (Cue rhetorical question)

This morning the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch announced that the OWH has once again made the list of the “Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians.” They list such shenanigans as lying about knowing of former Illinois Governor Blagojevich’s plan to sell the OWH’s senate seat and his broken pledge to televise healthcare negotiations. They also talk about the bribes paid to Senators Nelson of Nebraska and Landrieu of Louisiana just to get the unconstitutional health care bill passed.

Now, I’m a big boy and have been around the barn a couple of times. I understand that there are always negotiations and “deals” made in politics. This is just the nature of the game. So, what do I think the “ideal” president would look like? This ideal person would have a set of ethics and personal standards that he would live by. One of the first would be to keep his word. If there is an overriding reason to break it, there would be a very logical and very public explanation as to why he had to break it. Another attribute would be to gather around himself people of like exemplary character. Tax cheats should not be running the Treasury. The president should be an unabashed patriot. He should be proud of our country and have an unwavering optimism in our future. He should have an unwavering optimism in the ability of every American to strive for their best. Not every American can be a great leader, or a great orator, or a philanthropist. But every American can work to achieve their goals and should be given the freedom to do so. This ideal president would work with all Americans to help them achieve; not force programs on us because he thinks he knows what is best for us. This ideal president would be a leader, not a dictator; someone who enables innovation, not someone who thwarts the efforts of entrepreneurs.

Over the years I have been both proud and disappointed in our presidents but this is the first time in my life that I am ashamed of the person occupying the position of leader of the free world.

As always, I welcome your comments and discussions.

Dan

The Intrastate Commerce Act

Friends,

I have just finished sending the following email to a number of our Colorado State Legislators.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I am sure you are tired of me proposing legislation to you but if I did not think it was important I would not do so. 

The link below takes you to a proposed “Intrastate Commerce Act” that is being proposed by the Tenth Amendment Center. 

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/legislation/intrastate-commerce-act/

In a nutshell it states that whatever is grown or manufactured in Colorado and is destined to stay in Colorado falls outside the control of the federal government. 

As you know, the federal government has been riding rough-shod over the states for over 150 years. For many years it has been at a jogger’s pace but now it is at the pace of a NASCAR race. It is past time for the states to stand up and say “enough is enough.” 

I have no illusions that the incoming Democrat senate and Governor will allow this to take place but it is time we as Conservative Americans stand up and tell Washington that they serve at our will, not the other way around. 

I urge you to carefully consider this legislation, submit it, and work tirelessly for its enactment.

Respectfully,

Dan

Every time we turn around the federal government and the OWH is instituting another program or law that takes away our right to think and act as we feel is in our best interest. The term “nanny state” has been used for a number of years but now it is becoming more than just a catch phrase, it is quickly becoming reality.

Unfortunately, much of the nanny statist attitude is coming from the east and west coasts but it is still infecting us here in Middle America. A couple of postings ago I asked you to join me in taking back our country. It is past time that we reestablish our sovereignty under the Constitution.

As always, I welcome your comments and discussion.

Dan

The United States; 1941 vs 2010

Friends,

Today is the 69th anniversary of the bombing of Pearl Harbor, the final straw that drew the United States into World War II. I have been reflecting on the differences between the United States of 1941 and the United States of 2010.

Not surprisingly, there are a lot of differences but there are some stark similarities. The main differences that I can think of just off the top of my head are the international alliances we now have as opposed to those of 1941. Today we get along with most of the nations around the world and, with few exceptions, do not have any disagreements that will lead to war with a nation state. Of course this does not include the normal saber-rattling of the North Koreans or Iranians. This was not the case of international relations in 1941. The most of the world was afraid of what Germany or Japan, or both, would do next. By December 1941, both Germany and Japan had ridden roughshod over much of the Northern Hemisphere except for the Americas.

Today, the North Koreans and the Iranians are pretty predictable. The North Koreans are going to try to provoke the South Koreans and the United States and they will blame it all on us. The Chinese will say “tut-tut” and try to play down the whole thing and kind of side with North Korea. However, as an aside, I believe that the Chinese would be perfectly happy if the lunatic North Korean leadership just went away.

The Iranians are looking for the 12th imam to come and want to hurry things along to make him appear a little sooner. From what little I understand about the situation, “his appearance will be preceded by a number of prophetic events during 3 years of horrendous world chaos, tyranny and oppression.” The way the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is kicking up his heels, he thinks that he is going to herald the imam’s coming.

Let’s look at some of the similarities between the United States of 1941 and the United States of 2010. In 1941 our economy was in shambles. The disastrous economic policies of the Roosevelt administration had significantly prolonged the Great Depression. They thought that the only way to get the economy moving was to grow the government and make the government the employer of choice. In other words Americans were becoming more and more dependent on the government. Does that sound familiar? The OWH is currently working to destroy the very fabric of our society and, by extension, the American economy. In only two years he has increased our national debt by trillions of dollars; the exact figure varies depending on who is doing the figuring. Part of this debt has been used to bail out failed businesses because they are “too big to fail.” I’m not sure who the brain-trust was that came up with that one.

The growth of the federal government over the last two years has been explosive. Going along with this growth is the control that is now being exercised and will be exercised with the new health care law. This control of our lives is unprecedented, even in the time of Roosevelt. The OWH even has an accomplice in this effort. It is the combined body of non-state terrorists. With the pretence of protecting us from terrorism Congress and the Bush 43 enacted the Patriot Act which made great inroads in taking our freedoms from us. This was merely the first stepping stone is the current round of freedom-taking by Washington.

In the name of wealth redistribution, which the OWH freely admits to as an advocate, taxes are surely going to go up, especially on those Americans earning over $250,000 (at least that is the latest figure). As of this writing those taxes have been forestalled for the moment, but you may rest assured that the OWH and his cronies will figure out some way to increase taxes on “the wealthy.” Of course, it makes no difference that this income level includes two groups of people who are extremely important to our economy; the small business owner and the people who write pay checks. For additional discussion on this topic I would refer you to my previous posting “New Unemployment Figures.”

The bottom line of this discussion boils down to the disastrous policies of the current administration. I don’t believe that even Roosevelt with his arrogant manhandling of the economy would ever have considered taking the ruinous steps that are currently in work. The only way I can see to solve this problem is for the states to take action and start declaring that they will no longer submit to the heavy-handed abuse of their citizens by the federal government. This is clearly a 10th Amendment issue and it should be dusted off and asserted by all the states.

As usual, I welcome your comments and discussion.

Dan

New Unemployment Figures

Friends,

The news yesterday was disturbing but not unexpected. The unemployment rate is up from 9.6% to 9.8%. Let’s look at some possibilities for the cause of this increase.

When the new tax rules/rates are published next year there is a strong possibility that there will be significant increases in many areas. With Congress’ lack of action on renewing or extending the Bush tax cuts we are all looking at immediate tax increases. Even if the increases are held to those earning over $250,000 that includes most of the small business owners. In a report from the Tax Foundation, over one third of the additional taxes collected with the expiration of the Bush tax cuts will come from businesses. With this uncertainty small business owners are reluctant to hire. When they don’t hire their businesses can’t grow. Another reason it can’t grow is that the workers who would have been hired and become customers at other businesses will not have the money to become customers.

What about the businesses which are able to continue in operation? With fewer people able to purchase from them they will have to resort to innovative ways to successfully compete for those customers. This is where the hard decisions about price and service come in. In order to attract customers extraordinary “deals” are made available. These deals may be lower prices, free shipping, or bonus merchandise included with the purchase. Whatever it is, it costs the business. With increased costs profits go down. With less profit there is less money to hire new employees that help grow the business.

Now let’s look at that 9.8% unemployment figure. That only represents those unemployed persons who are looking for work. There are an estimated 1.3 million workers who have become discouraged with the job hunt and have quit looking. There is also that category of those who just don’t want to work and let the government (read you and me) support them. When you take those figures into account the unemployment figure could easily be closer to 15%.

This is a massive drain on the overall productivity of our country. There are a number of ways to turn this trend back to the positive. The first and most obvious is to cut taxes, especially on those who pay the wages. If you tax those who pay the workers there will be fewer workers hired. According to the Tax Foundation, as of March 2008, the latest figures I was able to find, the combined US corporate tax rate was 39.3%, second in the world only to Japan which had a corporate tax rate of 39.5%. Is there any wonder that US companies are having a hard time competing on the world market?  

Closely associated with reducing taxes on the wage payers is to drastically reduce government regulation on businesses. Just paying for the infrastructure and administrative costs involved with regulation compliance is a huge drain on the profit structure of all businesses. This amounts to additional taxes on business but does not result in additional revenue to the government.

Presidents Kennedy and Reagan found out that reducing taxes increases revenue to the government as a result of increased economic activity. With this current administration’s proclivity for controlling all aspects of our lives, it is past time to tell them to get out of our pocket books and bank accounts.

As always, I welcome your comments and discussion.

Dan