An Ethical Tug-Of-War

There are times in the history of a nation when cultural ideals and national identity eclipse the particulars of politics. Now are such times in America. The debt ceiling, Obama-Care, high-profile government bailouts, the individual mandate: These issues, and the contentious dialogue that they spawn, represent an underlying friction that has always existed in America - a tug-of-war for who controls the balance of power in our nation. What differentiates America’s present battle from those of past generations is the sheer enormity of the stakes. The nation is at a tipping point, the balance of power is the prize. Either the people or the government will ultimately prevail; one must be beholden to the other.

In many ways, this climactic battle has been in the making since the framing of our Constitution. While all facts point to the Founders’ vision of a government beholden to the people, they were also aware that the powers granted to the federal government, though necessary, limited and enumerated, were susceptible to abuse and usurpation. Note James Madison in Federalist 41: “In every political institution, a power to advance the public happiness involves a discretion which may be misapplied and abused.” Madison explains that the Founders’ efforts to counter such threats with a system of checks and balances would serve the people as a permanent shield “to guard as effectually as possible against a perversion of the power to the public detriment.”

To further ensure that the people held the balance of power in American government, the Founders amended the original Constitution with a Bill of Rights. The 9th and 10th amendments of this bill serve to reaffirm the limited role of the federal government with relation to the states. It is important to note that in late 18th Century vernacular, to refer to the “states” was virtually synonymous with referring to the people as a whole. The “or to the people” that concludes the 10th Amendment was added as an afterthought by the “style-committee” of the U.S. Senate because they feared that future generations of Americans might not share the existing correlation between these entities, rendering the amendment incomplete. Fortunately for posterity, the final draft reads as follows: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

In the early 20th Century, however, two amendments to the Constitution served to permanently alter the balance of power in America, broadening the scope of the federal government and spawning modern Progressivism. The 16th Amendment granted Congress the power to tax discriminately, while the 17th Amendment stripped the states of national representation. From this point forward, the battle between public and private America would slowly rise to the surface, gaining relevance and picking up steam in ascension.

The hundred year battle between modern Progressivism and Constitutional Conservatism is approaching an inevitable climax. As the labels imply, one seeks to tip the scales of power in favor of the nation’s government, while the other aims to conserve and protect the original intent of the Founders, empowering the people and the states. In his first three years as President, Barrack Obama has championed the Progressive cause more effectually than any other president in history. Obama-Care, the Wall Street “reform” act, and the tremendous increase in the national debt, all have served to vastly broaden the scope of the federal government, pulling America ever-closer to a government-run entitlement state. However, modern conservative leaders such as Rick Perry, Paul Ryan and Marco Rubio, are diligently pulling back.

The elections of 2012, more than any elections in modern history, will determine who will hold the balance of power for many generations to come. Either the federal government will cement its control through intrusive regulations and increasingly higher taxes on an exceedingly narrow tax-base, or the American people will stand up and fight to preserve the intent of their forefathers. Irrespective of which side one is pulling for, there is no denying that the nation’s future lies in the balance of this ethical tug-of-war.

Rick Perry & The Earthquake That Rocked DC

Texas Governor Rick Perry has clearly caused significant rumblings amongst the Washington elite. Both the Democrat and Republican establishments are flummoxed by the Governor’s ascendency. Neither party fully grasps the popular appeal of this anti-establishment candidate.


Mr. Perry’s attacks on the loose-money policies of the Federal Reserve are cracking the fault lines of Wall Street. His hostility toward the federal government’s accumulation of power is a threat to DC officialdom. The Governor’s convictions concerning tort-reform, the 10th Amendment, federal deregulation and the dominance of the U.S. dollar are the bedrock of establishment nightmares; the ground is shaking beneath them, the clouds are looming overhead.

So is Rick Perry to blame for the earthquake that recently rocked DC? Did his staunch conservatism, Texas swagger and pride of country roil the Potomac River and rattle the eastern seaboard?

Political parties are, by nature, disciplined and coordinated entities. They choose candidates based on fundraising capabilities, electability and, most importantly, the candidate’s willingness to tow the party line. These establishments are disinclined to favor strong individualists; they fear what they can’t control. Rick Perry is such a figure, unpredictable from the viewpoint of his own party, a “Cowboy” in the eyes of his enemies. He represents the real America, the fierce individualism, self-sufficiency and thirst for competition that’s buried beneath the entitlement-state.

Consider the threat that Perry poses to the powerful DC lobbies. It should come as no surprise that the politically connected and highly influential trial-lawyers’ lobby is attacking Mr. Perry. After all, in his decade as Governor of Texas, Perry has championed numerous laws reforming the state’s legal system, limiting erroneous lawsuits and taming the litigating beast. Consequently, these reforms have spawned an influx of business startups and drastically lowered the cost of living in Texas; the power of the plaintiff has been minimized and the lobby is plotting revenge.

Wall Street speculators, among the largest donors of the Democrat Party, are likewise thirsty for blood. Governor Perry has created controversy by challenging the motives of the Federal Reserve and its loose-money/weak dollar policies. Though a strong U.S. currency would surely serve to boost the nation’s economy, it would likewise have a negative effect on the speculators. Free market capitalism, when not manipulated, cannot grant favors to politically connected industries. Hence, the broad-based attacks on the Governor’s focused message.

The old-establishment is feeling the pre-shock of Perry’s federalist convictions. In the Governor’s own words: “I’ll work hard to try to make DC as inconsequential in your life as I can.” From Karl Rove to Howard Dean, these words signal an existential threat to politics-as-usual in Washington, a crack in the fault-lines of the establishment.

Fortunately, the earthquake that rocked DC on August 23rd resulted in minimal damage, yet November, 2012 may very well produce some real and devastating aftershocks. The American people should significantly benefit relative to the intensity of the shock.

New York & Texas - Policies & Results

Although the policies of the Obama Administration have served to hinder the growth and to minimize the efficiency of each of the fifty states, America’s government, at least in theory, remains a constitutional republic. As such, the government policies of each of the several states, and their respective impact on the citizenry, offers Americans an invaluable lesson on how to proceed in the future. No two states may better highlight the opposing views of government in America than those of New York and Texas. New York, a firmly regulated and highly taxed northeastern union stronghold, represents the epitome of modern liberalism. Texas, with a culture rooted in individual drive and a penchant for limited government, is a model of contemporary conservatism. It is not surprising that the opposing policies of New York and Texas, and their diverging views of government, have likewise produced entirely dissimilar results.

Taxes - New York claims the mantle of having the highest top marginal individual and corporate tax rates in the nation. Texas, in contrast, levies no state income tax at all. The population of Texas has increased exponentially over the course of the past decade, while New York has lost 1.75 million people to emigration. Due to the nature of its “defined-benefit” pension system and its unhealthy reliance on federal government “matching funds”, New York’s unfunded liabilities have continually increased, even as its population has diminished. This has led to a vicious cycle of repeated tax increases on an exceedingly narrow tax-base. Since 2009, Texas has added 265,300 new, net jobs to its workforce - New York, 98,200, a remarkable and illuminating comparison.

Healthcare - Texas Governor Rick Perry has been most successful in initiating tort-reform in his state, minimizing frivolous lawsuits and excessive settlement demands, thus providing cheaper services and more accessible healthcare for Texans. In contrast, New York, notorious for a legal system that fosters gratuitous settlements, claims a healthcare system that is among the highest priced and least accessible in the nation.

Energy - Texas is leading the shale oil boom that presently grips our nation. Governor Perry’s efforts to promote energy independence for Texans, via hydraulic fracturing, has led to strong economic growth and reduced energy prices in his state, as well as an increased capacity for American commodity production, e.g. steel and petrochemicals. In New York, on June 6th, the assembly passed a bill that bans all forms of hydraulic fracturing through mid-2012. The legislature cites environmental concerns as the impetus of its moratorium, notwithstanding evidence to the contrary, and with little regard for the millions of dollars and thousands of jobs the industry would bring to the state.

The stark contrast between the respective governments of New York and Texas is indicative of a broader conflict that presently pervades America. Through low taxes, minimal regulations and free trade initiatives, Texas has categorically rejected the economic model of government that currently prevails in Washington. Conversely, New York has warmly embraced the big-government, loose spending policies of the Obama Administration. Through an honest assessment of the pros and cons of New York and Texas policies, fair-minded Americans may clearly discern which role of government, liberal or conservative, will best promote their interests. Herein lays the veritable genius of America’s form of government.

Jeremy Pitcoff

To Secure These Rights

In the course of human events, no political document has proven more influential than that of America’s Declaration of Independence. While it has become commonplace for contemporary historians to mark the “inalienable rights” section of the declaration as the primary source of its strength and longevity, this interpretation tends to oversimplify the breadth of the document’s genius. In truth, mankind’s rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness were not unique to American philosophy; to the contrary, these were the guiding principles of the European enlightenment, best espoused by such social commentators as John Locke and Voltaire.


What made America’s founding generation so unique and what was preserved for posterity in the nation’s “Declaration”, was the relationship between these God-given rights and their practical application in government. European governments, including those that embraced the theories of the Enlightenment, were ruled by Kings who played the part of “demi-gods” on Earth. It was these Kings who were expected to act as the middlemen between God and the masses, essentially assuming the powers of Heaven while redistributing “rights” to the people. Herein lies the true revolution that was born in American Independence: That all mankind has an equal right to compete for a station in life, to pursue happiness, to bear the fruits of his labor; that these rights cannot be assigned nor revoked by any mere king or tyrant, that they are, in fact, inalienable. Governments may be instituted among men to “secure these rights” but only by the consent of the governed. In other words, no government has the moral authority to distribute the rights of others.

The Declaration of Independence is both a moral and political document. Thomas Jefferson, after making the moral case for American Independence and the natural rights of mankind, proceeded to enumerate the political acts of King George III that served to violate these rights, eventually leading to America’s separation from the motherland.



As the past two decades of American history have been marked by a frenetic expansion, both in size and in scope, of our nation’s federal government, it is little wonder that popular uprisings such as the Tea Party Movement have proven so influential. In fact, when reading the list of grievances put forth by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, one cannot help but notice the stark similarities between the actions of King George III and the Obama Administration and their shared conception of their respective roles as magistrates.

To wit:

“He [King George III] has forbidden his Governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance,” claiming his authority and ability do deal with such matters “he has utterly neglected to attend to them.” Note the Department of Justice’s stubborn interference in border- state immigration laws and President Obama’s subsequent dithering on the issue.

“He has erected a multitude of new offices,” serving to consolidate his power with appointed officials. Note the expansion and appointments of nonelected government “czars” from 2009 to the present, unparalleled in our nation’s post-revolution history.

Jefferson goes on to enumerate the King’s malfeasance “for cutting off our trade with all parts of the world,” (President Obama has consistently evaded signing free-trade agreements with Colombia, Panama and South Korea irrespective of their economic benefits.) “for imposing taxes on us without our consent,” (note the nationwide disapproval of Obama-Care) and for “altering fundamentally the forms of our governments”. (The Patient and Affordable Care Act, if not disavowed by the Supreme Court, will render America’s federal government limitless in power and scope.)

While President Obama has certainly not emulated King George’s proclivity for suppressing discord with violence, he has, in fact, committed many acts that are offensive to American sensibilities. By positioning himself as a middleman between Americans and the natural rights of mankind, he has violated our founding tenets. What was true in 1776 remains true today: The American people do not require, nor do they want, a demi-god to provide for their sustenance by distributing their collective wealth. Rather, we are a people culturally rooted in fierce individualism and a strong desire to earn our own station in life. Our Founding Fathers understood this and were keenly aware that these uniquely American strengths would allow this nation, conceived in liberty, to lead the way in a global revolution.

Now, two hundred and thirty-five years later, the defining principles of the American Revolution are, once again, in jeopardy. Fortunately, the nation’s Founders went on to write a Constitution that would allow future generations of Americans to revolt by a different means; the ballot has replaced the bullet. Yet, as was the case with King George III, so it is with President Obama. The American people have had enough. A new revolution is underway.

Jeremy Pitcoff

2012: Year Of The Dark Horse Candidate

2012: Year Of The Dark Horse Candidate


For good or otherwise, the presidential election of 2012 will determine the fate of America. At the present time, there are three foreseeable outcomes for what is certain to be a heated contest between modern progressivism on the one hand and constitutional conservatism on the other. Option one is the reelection of incumbent President, Barack Obama, a Progressive victory that would seal America’s fate as a nation dominated, both economically and socially, by the dictates of the federal government. Option two, in contrast, would entail the election of a yet to be named Reagan conservative who, with steadfast conviction, could work with Congress to methodically reverse the expansive powers of the federal government that have steadily increased over the course of the past two decades. Option three presents a “moderate” Republican capturing the presidential prize, rendering our nation’s future less predictable.

America has arrived at the point where its national debt ($14.4 trillion) cannot be sustained by the taxes raised through its gross domestic product. Accordingly, with each passing year, the debt will increase at levels exceedingly higher than that of the preceding year. The only option for reversing this trend would be a thorough overhaul of the driving forces of the debt, followed by a series of tax-cut initiatives aimed at spurring and maintaining strong economic growth.

As two-thirds of all public spending in America is allocated to entitlement and safety net programs, and as President Obama has refused to recognize the impending collapse of these systems in their current form and has actively participated in adding to the unsustainable nature of these programs via Obama-Care, there is little chance that a second Obama Administration would help to curb America’s economic descent. Tax-cuts are certainly out of the question from the likes of a President who has spent most of his time in office pontificating on the redistribution of wealth and the inherent greed of capitalism.

Party backed Republican moderate, Mitt Romney and inside-the-beltway conservative of yesteryear, Newt Gingrich, offer America a future that would appear only slightly more prosperous than that of its present condition. While both presidential contenders deserve credit for their advocacy of corporate and individual tax-reform, both gentlemen seem to possess philosophical convictions that run contrary to the will of the people. Mr. Romney, while governor of Massachusetts, created a health care system that is widely recognized as the precursor to Obama-Care. While Romney-Care does not violate the U.S. Constitution, as does its federal twin, due to the broad constitutional powers granted to the states, it is nonetheless indicative of Mr. Romney’s overall view of the role of government in America. Newt Gingrich, once a brave steward of constitutional conservatism, now adamantly supports government subsidies for ethanol and federal usurpation of individual freedoms of commerce.

While the Republican Party has managed to produce effective conservative leadership in the federal legislature vis-à-vis Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan and Florida Senator Marco Rubio, it has yet to unite around a viable conservative for president. And while it is quite possible that a Romney or Gingrich presidency might serve America well, if only because neither of these leaders would likely veto the reformative initiatives of a conservative Congress, it is a scenario ensconced with risk and should be avoided, if possible, by Republicans.

So where are the conservative candidates? Reagan Republicans and Tea Party Activists need not fret just yet. American history provides several instances of late entry, “dark horse” candidates. These are candidates who, historically speaking, have surfaced amid exceptionally divisive times, and who have proven to be remarkably effective leaders; note Abraham Lincoln and James K. Polk. Because “dark horse” candidates are more a product of the people than of the party, they tend to answer to the people’s will more than to the will of the establishment.

Two names to look for, both newly elected governors, both effective leaders with strong conservative credentials and proclivities for pragmatic reform: John Kasich of Ohio and Chris Christie of New Jersey. Neither of these governors is currently on the presidential radar, primarily because neither has expressed an interest in becoming president. Public duty, however, has a funny way of impacting on a person’s mind. Have faith conservatives – we just may find our dark horse candidate yet.

An Open Letter To Governor Andrew Cuomo

Dear Sir,
While I readily commend your efforts to work with the Republicans of New York’s State Legislature with regard to spending cuts and caps on property tax increases, these measures, though prudent, do not sufficiently address the primary causes of New York’s mounting public debt. It is my intention, as well as those of the cosigners of this letter, to offer you an overview of what we, of the Eastern Smithtown Republican Club believe to be the surest path to our state’s economic redemption. An active display of government leadership is essential to the achievement of this goal and you sir, as leader of the Empire State, must assume this role.

First and foremost, no state can produce significant revenue without an expansive and flourishing tax-base. New York State’s loss of revenue as a result of migration over the course of the past decade is astonishing to say the least, and is largely responsible for the growing debt that presently riddles our state.

It is up to you, Governor Cuomo, to offer an honest assessment and a sober contemplation of the roots of our citizens’ discontent. After all, New York is surely one of the greatest states within our union, so why are droves of people leaving? Manhattan and its suburbs of Long Island, with robust traditions of commerce and stellar reputations for ingenuity, have long been the envy of other states, yet vast numbers of businesses have continually been fleeing these locations. Why have states such as North Carolina, Georgia, Florida and Texas suddenly become so attractive to countless numbers of former New York residents? The overwhelming majority of problems presently facing New York may all be attributed to one simple, yet pervasive word - Taxes.

With the highest top marginal individual and corporate tax-rates in the nation, New York’s citizenry can no longer afford to live in the state which they love for its rich traditions of commerce and trade, yet despise for its debilitating and convoluted government policies. With state payroll taxes, gas and energy taxes, capital gains taxes, property taxes and sales taxes among the highest in America, New York’s corporations and small business owners have given up faith in the state that once represented, and in fact contributed to, the making of the American Dream.

In short Governor, in reaction to the extraordinary burdens placed upon the populace through excessive taxation and regulation, New Yorkers and the businesses they own are presently seeking refuge elsewhere. And with them go their property taxes, their sales taxes, their income taxes and their payroll taxes. With them go the jobs they once created, their capital for reinvestment and their proclivity for commerce and trade.

Governor Cuomo, we implore you to take a leap of faith in the American system of free enterprise and competitive economics, and to cut the chains now binding New Yorkers to what has essentially become a state-sponsored economy. The implementation of across the board tax-cuts at roughly 15% of current levels is all that is necessary for you to regain a thriving population, to keep your constituents within the state and to promote their prosperity and wealth. This, in turn, will produce for the state far greater revenue than it has managed to collect in decades. Lower tax rates inevitably lead to growing populations, to more robust economies and to greater business success. This, in turn, will lead to an influx of money within the state and, if coupled with responsible spending, will surely result in a balanced budget and the eventual solution to our state’s vexing problems regarding unfunded liabilities.

Your cautionary measures, Governor, regarding new tax levies and spending have been admirable, if not remarkable. However, now is the time to take positive action and to create a climate for economic growth via free and competitive commerce. Lessen the tax-burden on our citizenry, and allow your constituents a chance to prove the innate ingenuity and exceptional resource of New York’s populace when unencumbered by the excesses of the state.

Sincerely,

Jeremy Pitcoff

American History Of Words

In honor of Presidents Day, it is only fitting that we take a moment to pay tribute to the defining qualities of our nation’s history that have led to its unprecedented brand of exceptionalism. The history of America is, above all else, a history of words and vision. Throughout the ages, our leaders, heroes and political thinkers have possessed the unique ability, via writing and oratory, to define their respective generations.

Virtually every political conviction that I now embrace was inspired by the majestic words of America’s Declaration of Independence. The history of mankind was literally transformed with the opening paragraphs of this timeless, literary masterpiece. A new nation, born of human rights, boldly pronounced that these rights were not theirs alone, but the self evident truths of all mankind, endowed by their creator. Thus, from the onset of the nation, American words were bigger than America itself. This infant nation was to lead the world into an era of freedom and liberty by the sheer force and eloquence of its rhetoric.


Having won the revolution and having established a constitution unique to the annals of history, these newly united states were drawn into a period of introspection. The war of words that ensued would influence American policy for the better part of a century. The letters submitted by Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton to President George Washington concerning the establishment of a Bank of the United States represent the most complete and intriguing arguments for and against government expansion in American history to date. While the luxury of hindsight allows for my preference of the Jeffersonian, small government model, Hamilton’s arguments are incredibly persuasive and explain the virtues of centralized government better than any politician of the modern era.

When Jefferson became President, his pride in the nation that he helped to form rendered him morally incapable of participating in the age old practice of paying tribute to North Africa’s Barbary Pirates. In what became America’s first war on terror, Jefferson refused to offer blackmail money to the Muslim states of Morocco and Tripoli for allowing American merchants the “freedom” of passing their coasts without risk of molestation or attack. Stephen Decatur, the hero of what became known as the Barbary Wars, and later a champion of the War of 1812, epitomized the newfound sense of American nationalism with his famous banquet toast: “Our Country! In her intercourse with foreign nations, may she always be in the right, but our country, right or wrong.”

This sense of unity, however, proved ephemeral as the tensions between the American North and South began an inevitable drift toward war. John C. Calhoun of South Carolina, Andrew Jackson’s former Vice President, made clear the fragility of American nationalism with his movement to nullify federal tariff laws by any means deemed necessary, up to and including secession. President Andrew Jackson used the power of words in the no-nonsense style of the American West, to bury the flames of rebellion: “Our Federal Union! It must be preserved.” President Jackson’s commanding language served to diffuse the immediate crisis and delay civil war for another quarter of a century.

By the year 1860, these North-South tensions would come to a head, sparking a war that would result in more American fatalities than the sum total of Americans killed in all other conflicts from 1776 to the present. Abraham Lincoln, the Northern leader of that civil war, reestablished the meaning of America, with words as timeless as the principles he was attempting to preserve. In his brief address at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, Lincoln spoke of a nation “conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men were created equal.” He brought new meaning for some, and solidified the meaning for many, of the war they were gallantly fighting. That the soldiers who had perished in that war had given their “last full measure of devotion,” not in vain, but in the promotion of human liberty, was a quintessentially American theme. Lincoln ensured, through his literary genius, that the meaning of this tragic conflict would not be diluted through time.

From Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s “Day of Infamy” speech – “We will gain the inevitable triumph, so help us God,” to John F. Kennedy’s acceptance of full responsibility in the Bay of Pigs debacle – “Victory has a thousand fathers, but defeat is an orphan,” to Ronald Reagan’s final assault on Soviet Communism – “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall,” America’s past can best be viewed through the prism of its orators and writers. These words offer us the wisdom of the past and hold the key to our nation’s future.

In the late 20th and early 21st centuries, America has witnessed an educational shift toward international studies. Our public schools, at the behest of the federal Department of Education, have placed less emphasis on the history of American words, concentrating instead on our nation’s global impact. This neglect of American history is shortchanging our nation’s youth, for it is depriving them of the lessons of the past, thus leaving them less prepared to meet the challenges and crises of the future. An overhaul of our priorities is in order.

Jeremy Pitcoff