That's called getting Putin your place.

"To prove we're all friends, here's some gifts for Israel! Hooray Obama, hooray!"

"What's a trip or two in the grand scheme of things? The new health plan makes this look like pocket change."

In spite of the burdensome and complex regulations that preside over financial markets, criminals like Bernie Madoff can pull off schemes that destroy the lives of many innocent people. One is left to wonder how a person can manipulate the system with such ease. Perhaps criminals like Madoff devise their schemes from the “legal” ones resembling Social Security. Is that a bit of a stretch? Probably. However, the parallels are quite interesting and close enough to make the assertion with the stark difference being intention, of course. The government does not intend to rip people off – it just doesn’t foresee the economically catastrophic consequences of programs designed to help people.

The definition of a Ponzi scheme is “a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to investors from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors rather than from any actual profit earned; or an investment swindle in which high profits are promised, and early investors are paid off from funds raised from later ones.” A Ponzi scheme is essentially a pyramid scam since it relies on future investors to pay returns to the initial investors.

An examination of the Social Security system reveals some similarities to illegal pyramid schemes. Social Security is a “pay as you go” system. A payroll tax exists in which funds are taken from a worker’s paycheck and distributed to those who currently qualify for benefits. The government does not have individual bank accounts set up in which the money you contribute can grow until you reach retirement age. Therefore, the Social Security system relies on “new investors” to pay returns to the people who are eligible.

The Social Security tax burden is equally shared by the employer and employee. However, just because the employer pays half, does NOT mean that it doesn’t come at the employee’s expense. Businesses designate a certain amount of dollars that they deem an employee is worth. The government takes their cut from payroll taxes, and the employee is left with the difference, which translates into lower gross pay. If a company affords a $50,000 salary for an associate, the 12.4 percent employer/employee Social Security burden reduces gross pay to $43,800. (1) This does not include other payroll taxes such as Medicare tax and income tax.

Social Security has built the “pyramid” over the years, and a pyramid scheme is an unsustainable business model. Eventually, there are too many people requiring a return and not enough people buying into the scheme. Before life expectancy increased and differences in population growth (“baby boomers” vs. “generation X”) took hold, Social Security was able to thrive since there were more people paying into the system than drawing on benefits. For example, in 1950, the ratio of people aged 20-64 was about 7.25 to 1 to people aged 65 and over. (2) This means that there were 7 people paying into the Social Security system for every one person collecting. This number does not include those under the age of 20 who were also working and paying into the system. In 2007, the ratio has fallen to about 4.7 percent. Due to the falling ratio, the government has raised tax rates and delayed benefits to younger generations to adjust for longer life expectancies.

Bernie Madoff’s investors probably didn’t know how their money was being invested. They were simply promised a very high return. Social Security was sold to people under the guise of financial security in later years. How many individuals know what the government does with Social Security dollars? How many know that the government spends Social Security funds on other programs? These “loans” are called “intergovernmental holdings.” The Treasury department issues bonds to the Social Security Administration; and those bonds are held in a “trust fund.” Bonds are simply a promise of future tax increases, which means that taxpayers are funding other government programs via Social Security. Would you mind if Vanguard or ING Direct borrowed from your 401k contributions to pay other investors? Only the government can make loans to itself with other peoples’ money, require a loftier investment from people in the future to pay off the loan, and no one winds up in jail.

What would happen if workers’ were given a 12.2 percent increase in pay today with a stipulation in place that a certain percentage of one’s salary had to be placed in a retirement fund? Imagine if workers actually had a say in how their money is invested, and they were given quarterly statements that show an account balance to assess their progress. Imagine retirees being able to pass on their savings to their children and grandchildren instead of receiving a $255 death benefit.

Isn’t it time that people take control over their financial future instead of contributing to a government slush fund? How secure is Social “Security” when a worker pays into the system all of their life, but dies at age 66? The surviving spouse has a choice between taking their benefit or their deceased spouses’ – whichever is greater. They do NOT get both, and children are not entitled to benefits unless they are disabled or under the age of 16. The rules are complex and have some exceptions; however, the key point is that people should be able to designate freely who their beneficiaries are and be able to KEEP all that they invested.

The Social Security pyramid is going to collapse. The ratio of those paying into the system versus those receiving benefits will continue to drop. It is estimated by 2016, a deficit will exist, and the deficits will be made up by redeeming trust fund assets. (3) America’s economic performance will determine how long it will take the government to deplete the trust fund.

Social Security will have disastrous economic consequences if the move to abolish the program is not made soon. It all boils down to individual as opposed to statist control over your golden years.

(1) http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/taxRates.html
(2) http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/TR08/V_demographic.html#167717
(3) http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html

Small art lesson: Pollock was actually influenced greatly by artists like Picasso, Miró, and the Surrealists, as well as Mexican muralists David Alfaro Siquieros and José Clemente Orozco. However, probably the biggest influence on his method came from observing Navajo sand painting.

By: Jordan and Michelle

Part I: The Structure of American Government

America has always looked to Europe for guidance. During the Revolutionary Era, faction vied for power by claiming to look to Revolutionary France or Great Britain for ideas. In the early 1900s, various Old Progressives were influenced or directly taught by German Idealists and British Historicists. In fact, before he became President, Woodrow Wilson wrote volumes on the superiority of the British parliamentary system while lamenting the flaws of the American Constitution. Today, the New Progressives look to Europe's growing unity (and growing government) and feel envy. The European Union (EU) has passed sweeping environmental laws, has a large welfare system, and in most nations, state-run universal health care. To a leftist, Europe is the future. To most Americans, however, transplanting the EU's system to the U.S. would be a nightmare beyond words. To understand why, we must understand the history of the American structure of government.

The Confederation

The United States of America began under a much smaller and much weaker Constitution. The Second Continental Congress took the role of a provisional national government during the Revolutionary War and presented the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union to the states in 1777. After years of haggling and dealing, Maryland, the final state, ratified the Constitution, and the first permanent structured government of the United States was established.

Thirteen articles made up the first Constitution, and recognized the following:

• The name of the United States of America
• The equality between the thirteen states
• The assurance that the United States of America is a free and independent nation
• The union between the states is perpetual
• The freedom of movement between the states except for criminals
• The establishment of a Congress with each state having one delegation and one vote per delegation
• The central government can conduct foreign relations and war, and that no individual state can declare war nor have a state navy
• When an army is raised, all officers ranked Colonel and below are named by state legislatures
• The United States expenditures will be paid by funds raised by the states
• The job of the central government encompassed war, weights and measures, and mediation
• A Committee of the States was to be established to act as the government for when Congress is not in session
• Nine states are needed to ratify new states
• The war debt incurred by the previous Congress is now owned by the Confederacy
• The declaration that the Articles are perpetual and can only be altered by Congress with the approval of all state legislatures

While this document is quite the read, one can see the emphasis on decentralization. Each state had vast amounts of power over its own destiny. The central government was essentially a mediator and a very weak commerce regulator, as the states each had their own trade policy. There was no executive branch, no judiciary and no bureaucratic regulatory commissions. In fact, the Congress had no way to force the states to submit troops or supplies which made it difficult to prosecute the war. Many people such as John Adams, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton saw the weakness of the Articles during and after the war. Congress had no power to tax; and, therefore, it had no power to pay debts, fund roads or any other kind of basic national infrastructure. Congress had to ask the individual states for money. Unsurprisingly, the states, without having any mandatory reason to give money, were reluctant to work outside their own self-interest. A slightly similar, but more centralized version of this structure can be seen in Canada where the provinces are forced to give money to the federal government who then distributes that money back to the provinces. The rich provinces receive very little of what they gave, and the poorer provinces receive far more than their contribution. This system creates a lot of ire between the individual provinces as well as between the provinces and the federal government.

The Union

Due to the compounding problems of the Confederation, a call was made to amend the Articles to create a stronger central government that could levy taxes, create domestic and international trade policy, conduct foreign policy and war with more coordination. This process began with Charles Pinckney of South Carolina (the Virginia Legislature at the time). Following a recommendation by James Madison, the states were invited to Maryland to talk about how to simmer inter-state conflict. That convention endorsed a motion that called for the states to meet in Philadelphia to discuss ways to amend the Articles of Confederation, which became the historic Constitutional Convention of 1787. On its face, the “Grand Convention” was about amending, not replacing, the Articles; however, the delegates in Philadelphia began closed-door meetings and hashed out a new constitution.

There were several proposals on the structure of the new government. The Virginia Plan, drafted by James Madison, proposed a bicameral (two chamber) legislature (seats distributed by population or taxes) with the lower branch being elected by the people and the upper branch elected by nominations from the thirteen state legislatures. The upper house would be able to veto laws of the states if it conflicted with the national union. The executive branch would be elected by the national legislature. Both branches would be limited to one term. A national judiciary was also proposed. With the Virginia Plan and a similar plan proposed by Charles Pinckney, the smaller states were under threat of losing influence in the national government. The New Jersey Plan, or the Small State Plan, proposed a single legislature with each state having one vote. Similar to the Virginia Plan, there was a judicial branch and the single house electing the executive branch. A fourth plan, called Hamilton's Plan after Alexander Hamilton, proposed the abolishment of the states in a government based on the British government. It wasn't seriously considered.

On July 16, 1787, a compromise was proposed by Connecticut that combined the Virginia and New Jersey Plans. There would be a bicameral legislature in which the lower house (House of Representatives) would be elected by the people, and the seats would be distributed by population. The upper house of the legislature (the Senate) would be elected by state legislatures. Instead of the Congress electing the executive branch, the President would be elected by electors who in turn would be elected by the people of each state. Out of all these plans, the only consistent branch was the independent judiciary appointed to life terms. There had been a call for a bill of rights before the Constitutional Convention as a protection against government tyranny. During the ratification of the Constitution, many states added recommendations to amend the Constitution. When the First Congress met, it wrote and proposed the Bill of Rights, which was ratified on December 15, 1791.

Why It Works

The key to understanding why the United States government is shaped the way it is in its current manner is to understand why the Revolution happened in the first place. It wasn't simply about taxes, but about representation and rights of citizens of the British Empire. During the Revolutionary Era, colonists were treated as second-class citizens with their natural and legal rights under the British Bill of Rights being violated. After the victory over Great Britain, the founders had it in their mind to prevent an overbearing, centralized government from forming. The way they came to do this was to pit the government against itself while leaving room for it to progress and function.

Unlike a number of other nations who have a parliamentary model based on that of Great Britain (my second home of Canada being one); the lawmakers and the law executers are not of the same cloth. The powers of the executive branch and the legislative branch are specifically appointed to the former or the latter. This allows each branch to try to outmaneuver each other in their mutual attempts to gain more power. However, it was written not only with checks on both the legislative and executive branches, but with an originally established check on both houses of Congress. Before the Progressive push and victory for the popular election of Senators, those of the upper house were elected by state legislatures. This kept a check on the populism of the lower house with the interest of the state governments. The removal of this check has had drastic consequences, as seen with the alliance of both Senators and Representatives on many, many questionable bills that took more power away from the individual states. This would never happen if the state government had its own representation in Congress. In spite of the loss of that check, the short but dramatic history of the United States has shown that the system still works - both before and after the removal of certain checks. During the Civil War, civil rights were suspended, but reestablished quickly after its end. During the First World War, a proto-fascist state was established. However, the President that created it was voted out of office; and the government's powers were reigned in by a rightly fearful judiciary, Congress and public. The policies of the New Deal and Second World War had a similar fate with the slow dismantling of many of Franklin D. Roosevelt's giant government programs and the repeal of questionable war-time laws.

The philosophy behind our entire system, at least at the time it was created, was the idea that human nature will not change. Politicians will grasp for power, national leaders will attempt glory and have grand ambition, and the citizen mob will be moody and prone to frenzy. The founders knew of the history of republics and saw the abuses of a powerful, unchecked government in their own cities and towns. There are millions of Americans today who think we have progressed beyond what the founders deemed an eternal constant. They believe humanity is progressing towards an endgame, a final state of bliss, utopia or some kind of better world. This leads these Americans to promote or defend structural changes that do not fit into the original design and purpose of the American government (popular election of Senators being one example - judicial “first among equal branches” being another). The Declaration of Independence says "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends [life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness], it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." It does not talk about progressing or advancing. It doesn't talk about modifying our views for a new age. The first document of principles by the United States talked about taking back rights from those who did not believe they existed.

Part II: An Analysis of the European Constitution

Contrasts to the U.S. Constitution

First of all, one must ask if it is possible to unite nations as opposed to individual states. Nations have different cultures, different economic structures and different ideologies. When the founders built the United States government, the nation had just been born. The attempts made by the EU to devise a constitution to bind nations that have long histories of standing on their own is a far more difficult and dangerous task. The caveat here is to question the intentions of such a document. Will such a document preserve individual freedom, or will it be used as a mechanism for regulatory control over multiple nations?

The idea of the constitution has been sold under the guise of unity and that is necessary for better trade between nations, a stronger international market presence and job growth. The Founders of the United States created the Constitution not to strengthen international presence, but to PRESERVE individual liberty and freedom from an overbearing government. Over the past century, the United States has seen power become more centralized in spite of the efforts of the framers of the Constitution to keep power decentralized. An EU constitution does not seek preserve the identity of nations, but to blend nations into one and establish a centralized law-making bureaucracy. Centralized power does not preserve freedom, and for this reason, Europeans should fear an EU Constitution.

In addition to the original intent for a constitution being dissimilar, another stark difference is voting power. The EU constitution seeks population based voting power (Article I-25), which means that nations with the largest populations would have the most control over policy making. A population-based law would violate the classical principle of local control and state equality. The founders in America realized the importance of state and local power – hence the New Jersey Plan. If a population-based policy were implemented in the U.S., then populous states such as New York and California would be making Federal policy while less populous states would have no influence. In addition, as long as there is collusion between the populous states, laws would be passed with ease and little debate.

The Dangers of Centralized Economic and Monetary Policy

Article I-13 of the Constitution gives the EU exclusive legal power to decide policy in regards to trade tariffs, quotas, monetary policy, competition rules for the international market and trade agreements to name but a few. The issue of the Federal Reserve being “constitutional” in United States is a widely debated topic. The idea of a centralized body having total control over monetary policy obviously conflicts with the idea of decentralized power. The powers of the Federal Reserve can essentially make or break the economic stability of the United States. The reasoning behind the establishment of the Federal Reserve was to reduce systemic risk; however, many have argued that such authority and the history of monetary policy have actually increased systemic risk. The Federal Reserve shares the blame for the creation and bursting of the housing market bubble.

If the EU wishes to implement their own “Federal Reserve,” it can be far more dangerous in the sense where the ultimate goal could be to abolish the currencies of individual nations. Such a move would place one institution in charge of the economic fate of several nations.

The corporatist traditions of countries such as Germany and France, whose population size would give them disproportionate influence on monetary policy under the voting system, could make “crony capitalism” the norm for all of Europe in spite of countries that wish to pursue a more classical liberal approach. Article I-4 states that Laissez-faire and economic competition based on the unobstructed movement of goods, capital and labor throughout the EU countries are constitutionally mandatory, however, this motive serves no purpose in a constitution that would bind nations together. Decentralized power seeks to preserve the principles of a free market. A binding document that would determine “fair” economic and social policy for multiple nations would have the opposite outcome.

The Power of the Lobby

The process of European integration has stemmed from socialist parties, trade unions and big business. These tenants remove freedom and give large bodies the power to impose policy with little resistance. Socialists who have not been able to transform society to their liking through the ballot box, can now have socialist policies imposed through an EU Constitution. In addition, multi-national corporate conglomerates have only one legislative body in which to lobby and negotiate. Compromise and voice from the opposition have only been possible because groups had to deal with the elected democratic governments of each nation. The difference between American framers and their European counterparts is the former sought to protect America from those who have no faith in the democratic process while the latter holds such beliefs.

Summary

If a constitution is not devised as a mechanism to preserve individual freedom and reign in the powers of government, then the creation of such a document serves no purpose. Constitutions should not be devised to band nations together to create a super-power rival to other powerful nations with the “power-elite” in control. Constitutions written with such motives lead to oppression and tyranny. If the EU wishes to follow the footsteps of America’s Founding Fathers, then the framers of the EU Constitution must recognize the importance of localized power, and adhere to the rights of the individual nations’ liberty.

How do you justify racism?

How do you justify hate?

How do you justify theft?

Easy. Don't call it that.

With the communist, racist and radical Mr. Van Jones now out of President Obama's administration the Left, including many mainstream publications and talking heads, are trying to justify the words, actions and writings of a man that is indefensible. It's one thing to be an avowed communist. It's another thing to say that environmental waste is purposely being dumped into black neighborhoods. It's entirely out of one's mind to sign a petition that accuses the President of the United States of allowing/masterminding the 9/11 attacks. And yet, the Huffington Post, The New Republic and even mainstream journalists like David Gergen are all jumping to the defense of this man. What gives? Do they suddenly hold to trutherism? Do they believe that the white majority wants to destroy just the black minority by all conspiratorial means? Really?

The answer is no. I don't think any of the mainstream liberal publications and personalities actually subscribe to the views of Van Jones, or do not have a strong enough belief in them to consider them the truth. Defending Van Jones isn't about what he said; it's about what he represents to the New Progressives. Van Jones, as far as I can tell, is a true believer. A man who gave up personal ambition for political service. A man who stood fast in the face of adversity. A man who was, to many of these people, a good friend and an overall good guy. An icon of the New Progressive movement. In the words of Ms. Huffington, one of Van's closest friends: “He's a remarkable man. One of those things I've always found so impressive about him – and something completely lost in the partisan mudslinging – is his ability to build coalitions and create unlikely alliances.”

I'm sorry, Arianna, but when he's recorded telling people how white folks hate black folks or when he blames America for 9/11, his ability to organize is kind of secondary compared to that kind of radicalism. The KKK organized pretty damn well during the Civil Rights era. They built coalitions between labor and management, between the haves and have nots, but I don't think you'd be congratulating them on an organization well done. Because this isn't about a man's ability to organize, is it? It's about your side losing.

The Right is going through that as well. With the resounding defeat of the Republicans in 2006 and in 2008 by President Obama's well-planned campaign, the conservative movement turned on its own, and rightly so, identifying the ideas and the people who blurred the line between conservative and moderate, between statism and federalism. As far as I can tell, the civil war has passed for now, but we have a new problem to deal with: hysteria.

I'm not talking about the exposing of Van Jones, even if some more passive conservative think that was a bad idea. That was a great job that Glenn Beck started and the blogroots finished (major kudos to GatewayPundit for finding the truthful petition). I'm talking about the row over the President's speech to American students. I'm talking about the overblown rhetoric about the amount of czars Obama has. I'm talking about, and unfortunately pointing the finger at, the Glenn Becks of our movement who are more concerned about the metaphorical decoration on Rockefeller Center than with the ideological and philosophical battles being waged across the country. These wars will have much more impact on the way this country goes. (As I have said, I am not a fan of Glenn Beck, but I am not a frenzied detractor either. I simply have an aversion to the populist and conspiratorial style of his show.)

In light of the Left's vulnerability over their dear communist truther, we must be disciplined in our voices and in our words. The loose confederation of conflicting and overlapping beliefs we call the conservative movement is always under a vast larger microscope than the flamboyant and childish New Progressives. While screecher Paul Krugman and alarmist Al Gore are considered intellectuals by the Left, we have people like Yural Levin and Jay Nordinger who bring down the hammer on such shallow thinkers. While the Left can tiptoe around the Animal Liberation Front, the Weatherman, Code Pink and the bigoted Prop 8 protestors, the Right must be held accountable to the deranged murderer of Mr. Tiller, to the uber-radical paranoia of a few violent people and even the antisemitism of a old Nazi sympathizer. While the Left can dismiss John Murtha's billion dollar corruption, California's Democratic Party's gerrymandering, Nancy Pelosi's abuse the Speaker's office by action and word and Henry Waxman's overbearing and probably unconstitutional investigations, but the Right must explain Larry Craig's indecent behavior, Gov. Sanford's indiscretions and Michelle Bachmann's less than tactful words about the President.

The world isn't fair, most of all when it comes to politics. When you talk about good morals, you shouldn't be accused of brining a theocracy. When you talk about patriotism, you shouldn't be called a fascist. When you talk about race quota, you shouldn't be called a racist. When you talk about the freedom of commerce, you shouldn't be accused of hating poor people. But we all get this. We all get the wrath of the ignorant, the radical and the just plain insane. And because of this, especially since the last eight years have been filled to the rim with leftist sewage, we feel its proper to throw some of it back.

The thing is, though, is that we can't throw any back, not if we want our ideas to be taken seriously and our opposition to be seen more than just a mishmash of anger. The townhalls were a good start. The Van Jones investigation was brilliant. Now, with this opening, we need to invade with all the forces we have at our disposal.

We need to explain how expropriating the labor of private doctors for state use without consent is tyrannical.

We need to expose other radicals in the President's circle, like Mr. Lloyd, the FCC's Diversity czar.

We need to put leashes on Congress with term limits and the returning the election of Senators to state legislatures.

We need to individualize Social Security , minimize and streamline welfare, Medicare and Medicaid, so not to put even more of a burden on the post-Boomer generations.

There is a lot conservatives need to do. There are many people we need to find, support and elect to office. There are a lot of people we need to kick out of office. There is a lot of the country that needs to be educated on what it means to support federalism, free markets, and a strong minimal federal government.

But, people, we can't really do that if we're considered just the other side of the same partisan coin.