The Second Coming Of Progressivism

Nearly a century ago, in what is known as the Age of Progressivism, the United States Government underwent a seismic political shift via a series of constitutional amendments. Alas, big-government was born.

A systemic extension of governmental power with the aim of eliminating the evils brought about by the industrial revolution was, and is, the preeminent theme of the American Progressive movement. In the early 20th Century, leaders of the Progressive movement were vocal in their calls for state interference in the social and economic dealings of the nation, laying the groundwork for the eventual rise of an American “welfare-state”, a term they used freely and openly. In 1913, two amendments to the U.S. Constitution, ratified by a Progressive Congress, would deal a near fatal blow to the maxims of American government.

The 16th Amendment arguably represents the most profound departure in American history from the vision of the Founding Fathers, as it grants the federal government the power to tax its citizenry “without apportionment among the several States and without regard to any census or enumeration.” It is the 17th Amendment, however, and its subsequent effects, that bear the most relevance to the controversies and tensions of today.

The 17th Amendment, ratified on April 8th, 1913, established the direct election of United States Senators through statewide popular vote. The original premise of the Constitution, and of the republican form of government it encompassed, was based upon a complex system of layered checks and balances. Most people are familiar with this “separation of powers” philosophy as it pertains to the inner-workings of America’s federal government, i.e., the executive, the legislative and the judicial branches. What many forget, however, and what the Founding Fathers considered vital to the success of the new government, was that the individual states were to hold the majority of discretion and influence in the governing of their respective citizenry. As stated in the 10th and final article of America’s Bill of Rights: “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.” To ensure the general sovereignty of the states, and to safeguard state-governments from federal usurpation, the Founders established in article 1, section 3 of the Constitution, that the “Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the legislature thereof,” therefore ensuring a voice for the states in the affairs of the federal government. States would be represented in the Senate via legislative election, the people of those states would be directly represented, via popular mandate, in the House of Representatives, and the federal government would find its voice in a “President”, whose mode of election would be left to the respective discretion of the individual states. This would ensure a balance of power within and between the state and federal governments, a factor the Founders considered absolutely essential to the perpetuity of the union of the states.

The 1913 ratification of the 16th and 17th Amendments marked the apex of American Progressivism. The former established federal hegemony with regard to the American economy, the latter severely limited the ability of the states to defend against attacks upon their sovereignty.

So here we are, two years shy of one hundred years hence, having recently witnessed the second coming of Progressivism in the guise of healthcare reform. Whether or not the Obama Administration will prove as successful as its Progressive forefathers is a question yet to be answered. The states, stripped of their power by the 17th Amendment, are presently fighting back with their final means of recourse – that of the U.S. judiciary.

Because Obama-Care exceeds its constitutional mandate by forcing states into spending billions of dollars rearranging their current healthcare systems, irrespective of their ability to afford it, twenty of these states have opted to challenge the law in court. Had the 17th Amendment never been passed, one is tempted to wonder whether or not a Senate beholden to the interests of its states rather than performing, as it now does, as an arm of the federal government, would ever have passed Obama-Care. The same can be pondered of the Dodd reform bill and the multiple “stimulus” packages, all of which will ultimately prove detrimental to the interests of the states.

Of course, history is replete with “what ifs?” and while a repeal of the 17th Amendment is certainly not unthinkable and would surely represent a welcome revival of the system of checks and balance, such a repeal would also represent, at least for the time being, a highly unlikely scenario. One thing, however, is certain. The slow erosion of the federalist system began in 1913. Nearly a century later, in 2010, the chickens have come home to roost. The second coming of Progressivism is upon us. How the states react in the upcoming years will ultimately decide their respective relevance, or lack thereof, in the future of American government.

Socially Responsible Security

Socially Responsible Security


At its inception, Social Security was intended to act as a “safety-net” program for the elderly and disabled of America. In the 75 years hence, this program has helped to protect millions of American workers from poverty in their senior years and has provided countless others with a comfortable transition into retirement. If left on its present course, however, Social Security will no longer remain a self-sustained enterprise and will prove to be a burden rather than a blessing on society. Social Security currently represents over one-fifth of all government spending, the largest component of the federal budget. Because the program paid out more money in 2010 than it collected in taxes, and because the system will be running permanent deficits by fiscal year 2017, a pragmatic reform of Social Security is imperative if we wish for our children and our grandchildren to enjoy the same peace-of-mind in retirement as that of our parents and our grandparents. The impending insolvency of Social Security, if not soon addressed, will prove itself irreparable. The system is at a crossroads: Inaction will destroy it by default, while intelligent reform may usher it into the 21st Century, increasing its efficiency in the process.

Due to several factors including demographics, life expectancy and endemic government greed, Social Security, as it now exists, is unlikely to survive the present decade. What was originally intended to be an insurance program for American retirees, without adequate reformation, will inexorably morph into a debt-laden entitlement program costing American tax-payers $100 billion per year beginning in 2017, soon to be followed by $200 billion and then $300 billion annual deficits. By the year 2070, when the toddlers of today will be retiring, Social Security will have accumulated a staggering $27 trillion in debt. Of course, to consider these numbers is futile as the system will have ceased to exist long before reaching that point.

It is an incontrovertible truth that the baby-boomer generation, presently transitioning into the receiving end of the Social Security program, far exceeds in numbers what the contributing generation can afford. Once upon a time, the federal government had set up a trust-fund for such situations, subsidized by the surplus of preceding years. This trust-fund, however, was bankrupted long ago, replaced with government “IOU’s” issued by wily politicians who chose to “borrow” from these funds in order to pay for arbitrarily determined pet-projects and to aid in concealing politically damaging budget deficits. It is important to note that workers who are paying Social Security taxes today are not contributing to their own retirements; rather they are paying for the retirees who are presently collecting benefits. Simple math therefore reveals that the system is fundamentally broken. The quick, albeit temporary fix preferred by many demagogues encompasses an increase in payroll taxes and cuts in beneficiary services. These measures, however, will merely postpone the day of reckoning, offering what amounts to a band aid as a remedy for a mortal wound. The baby-boomers deserve to reap the benefits of what they have fairly invested into the Social Security program throughout their working lives, and future generations of Americans should endeavor to ensure the perpetuity of this worthy social program. But neither of these goals can be realized in a morally responsible manner without a pragmatic reform of the system. As Social Security now stands, it is inevitable that some future generation, be it our children, our grandchildren or our great-grandchildren, will bear the burden of our excesses. This scenario runs contrary to the tenets of Americanism and may be avoided by a three step reformation process.

First and foremost, all individuals 55 and older will remain in the present system. These people will be better served by the current program as the limited time they have left as contributors will negate the benefits of transition. All individuals 54 and younger will have their taxes transferred into private sector accounts which will be managed and guaranteed by Social Security. A worker earning the average wage and yielding the average dividends between the years 1965 and 2010 would have reaped a 75% increase in benefits had he or she invested their payroll taxes into a low-risk mutual fund account rather than simply transferring it into the hands of Washington bureaucrats. It is worth noting that these significant gains represent a worst case scenario, as the year 2010 is marked by an anemic economy. Under the plan I am proposing, all future beneficiaries of Social Security will be guaranteed the benefits that exist in the present system until such a time – approximately 25 years – when the money they have invested begins to yield greater returns than that of the benefits now offered. At this point, retirees will be entitled to 85% of all earnings above and beyond their guaranteed benefits. The remaining 15% will be transferred into a new “trust-fund” account that, by law, will be protected from government borrowing. The approximate 25 year transition period will be utilized to convert the Social-Security system into a veritable insurance program in which American workers will ultimately be investing into their own retirement accounts as opposed to merely paying taxes to compensate the benefits of others. During this transition period, an additional source of revenue will be required to meet the obligations of the baby-boomers. It is imperative that this money be raised without further indebting the system. This can be achieved through a gradual increase in the benefit eligibility age. Just as the benefits guaranteed by Social Security are adjusted according to inflation, so too would prudence dictate that retirement age be adjusted according to increases in life expectancy. A one month per year extension of the present eligibility age, over the course of 24 years, would result in a 2 year increase by 2035, at which point the average life expectancy of Americans will be nearly 15 years higher than that of 1935, when Social Security was born. The increased revenue created by this extension will enable the children of the baby-boomers to pay for their elders’ retirement while simultaneously contributing to their own independence in retirement. In addition, during this transition period wealthy Americans will receive a lower percentage of benefits than that of their peers in need, further expediting the program’s ability to fulfill its prior obligations.

This reformation of Social Security will result in a truly permanent safety-net that will reap more benefits for future generations and strengthen the American economy. United States citizens are loath to benefit themselves at the expense of their children and their grandchildren; this system will allow all Americans to invest in their own security and to do so in a manner that will benefit the economy as a whole. It will exclude the federal government from manipulating and “borrowing” from what is rightfully the property of individuals, reestablishing the proper relationship between the American people and their government. The alternative is increased taxes and depleted benefits, followed by the inevitable collapse of the system. There is a truth in Social Security that applies to most aspects of life: Government is not the solution - it’s the problem. The choice is clear: Endeavor to reform a broken system now, or transfer the burden to our children.

Fairytale Logic & Weapons Of Mass Deflation

My father, the wisest man I have ever known, has always told me that “two wrongs don’t make a right”. These insightful words instilled in me, at an early age, a sense of personal responsibility and a general antipathy toward blaming others for the consequences of actions that I control. These are attributes that have served me well throughout my life, as individual accountability is imperative to the building of human character, a prerequisite of, and a steppingstone to, the fulfillment of the American Dream.

That China has made a practice of tying its currency to that of the American dollar is no secret to the world. That the Obama Administration blames this deflation of the Chinese Yuan for America’s economic weakness is slightly more surprising. That the President’s reaction to what he perceives as a snub is to weaken his nation’s dollar is remarkable in its lack of judgment and speaks volumes of the man who initiated it. This “eye for an eye” approach toward global economic diplomacy indicates a lack of principled leadership and an ignorance of the laws of capitalism.

The practice known as “quantitative easing”, in which the Federal Reserve has begun to inject $600 billion of newly printed money into the American economy, is justified by fairytale logic, i.e., that stealing demand from the rest of the world can mask the effects of domestic policy failures. The inevitable result of this type of loose fiscal planning, however, is a lessening of American buying power which, in turn, will necessitate a rise in commodity prices, an increase in unemployment and negative economic growth.

At the recent G-20 meeting in Seoul, South Korea, President Obama, by answering a wrong with a wrong, brought about the most complete and thorough rebuff of a sitting American President at a global economic summit to date. Mr. Obama and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner insisted throughout this summit that they were not to blame for America’s domestic woes, painting the United States as a victim of international bullying, mercilessly perpetrated by economic browbeaters such as China, Germany and Brazil, all of whom are using highhanded export and exchange rate policies as weapons of mass deflation. In an attempt to explain his lack of success concerning his primary goals of cutting trade-surpluses and pressuring China into increasing the value of its Yuan, President Obama stated the following: “Part of the reason the United States is attracting dissent is we’re initiating the ideas.” This predilection for blaming its failings on the passions and the prejudices of others has become a trademark reaction of the Obama Administration when faced with scrutiny or dissent. America’s traditional allies, however, appear to be losing patience with the President’s “blame-game” approach. To wit, French President Nicolas Sarkozy - “Clearly the approach of throwing blame at each other doesn’t work.” and German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble - “It doesn’t add up when the Americans accuse the Chinese of currency manipulation and then, with the help of their central bank’s printing presses, artificially lower the value of the dollar.” In other words, two wrongs don’t make a right.

In order for America to effectively maintain its traditional role as leader of the world’s economy, President Obama must rise to the task at hand. Shirking responsibility and blaming others, as the President is predisposed to do, is not the mark of a leader; passing the buck is a luxury reserved solely for those who follow. In lieu of stooping to the level of China, now is the time for America to rise above and strengthen the value of its currency. This can be accomplished through responsible spending and growth, reforming what is broken in our current system, and fostering the innate ingenuity and individual drive that, traditionally, are the hallmarks of America. These are the actions of a veritable leader, confident in his moral standing and proud of the nation he represents. Clearly, the American people have come to expect this brand of leadership from their presidents. Alas, just as my father has taught me that two wrongs cannot make a right, as the midterm elections have recently shown, nor can they make a left.

Governor Huckabee & The Second Kick Of A Mule

At the November 5th meeting of the RJC (Republican Jewish Coalition), in New York City, I had the privilege of speaking with former presidential candidate and television talk-show host, Governor Mike Huckabee. Although a supporter of the Governor prior to this event, my respect and admiration for the man increased exponentially as I sat at a table and conversed with him. What I immediately realized as our discussion progressed was that Governor Huckabee possesses a quality that has become exceedingly rare amongst America’s national leadership - that of character. Character is the most elusive and the least expendable attribute of an effective American leader. Character symbolizes all that is great in our nation and represents the defining aspect of the politicians we most revere, e.g., George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan. It was an impalpable sense of character emanating from these leaders that gave the American people a veritable sense of hope and security amid perilous and trying times, believing as they did, that their national leadership understood their hardships and sufferings and was dedicated to their safety and happiness, irrespective of party factions. It is this high sense of character that is presently missing from America’s national leadership.

While I do not adhere to the theory that the Obama Administration has purposefully weakened America’s global standing and hindered its economic growth, this supposition represents a growing fear among the American electorate. This pervasive distrust of the President is not the result of Tea Party ignorance or endemic simplicity as many on the far-left have claimed; rather it is the natural byproduct of a growing impression that the leader of our nation has reneged on a sacred oath, that his steadfast idealism at times supersedes his erratic dedication to the Constitution, and that he is willing to sacrifice the public-good if its interests run contrary to his agenda.

Perhaps Governor Huckabee summed it up best when he explained to the RJC what he believed to be the essential dilemma concerning our present leadership – a fundamental disconnect between the American people and the leaders they have elected to govern them. President Obama has chosen a path of detachment, cloaking himself in the theories of academia, evading the harsh realities of everyday Americans struggling to pay their bills, forfeiting their earnings to the government and surrendering their independence to the state. This would explain why the grand majority of the President’s inner-circle hails from the public sector, never having managed so much as a lemonade stand, let alone a business or enterprise. A cold aloofness to the public fray allows the Administration to shelter itself from the extraordinary times that we live in and the ordinary people they affect.

Governor Huckabee viewed the results of the midterm elections as a sign of American resilience. A multitude of people with roots in the private sector will soon be entering office. These are people who have proven their character and their ability to lead prior to their lives in politics. Their election represents a shift in the electorate, indicative of a newfound respect for individual drive and a reverence for the American dream.

The isolated world of academia, while providing a service to society, has not and cannot produce the leadership necessary to perpetuate American exceptionalism. By nature, theoretical utopianism and societal idealism do not represent reality. Shrouding oneself in political romanticism and denying oneself the truth is not the mark of a leader. While these theories may find a home in classroom debates, they do not belong in, and in fact prove caustic to, the workings of practical government.

I believe, as does Mr. Huckabee, that President Obama means no harm to America, that his heart is in the right place. It is merely his character, or lack thereof, that precludes the nation’s advancement. For the sake of the country, it is my fervent hope that the Obama Administration takes heed of the message that was recently sent by an increasingly frustrated electorate and musters the fortitude to reinvent itself, face reality and connect with the American people. This course of action would prove beneficial to the interests of the President, as well. Alas, there is an old southern saying that still finds voice in Mike Huckabee’s home state of Arkansas: There is no education in the second kick of a mule.

People, Providence & Congress

With remarkable consistency, the Obama Administration has stayed true to its economic agenda, producing federal deficits in excess of $1 trillion for the second consecutive year. The $1.29 trillion shortfall of fiscal year 2010 fell just shy of the record-breaking $1.42 trillion budget gap of 2009. Over 30% of this year’s deficit - $414 billion - is attributable to interest paid on foreign and domestic debt, while increased government losses on Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare account for the bulk of the remainder. The massive national deficits of fiscal years 2009 and 2010 have merely served to exacerbate the sheer enormity and unsustainable drift of America’s national debt – presently approaching $14 trillion.

There are times in the history of a nation when the accumulation of debt can be justified. The United State’s Constitution charges the federal government with protecting the nation’s borders and with defending the Union from foreign invasion, from domestic insurrection, and from threats to its national honor, thereby holding Congress responsible for providing for the general welfare of its citizenry through an active military and a stable national infrastructure of communication, transportation and defense. Irrespective of budgetary prudence, if world events or domestic neglect create a situation in which these institutions become imperiled, Congress should and must provide the funding necessary to effectively reverse that threat. However, even in instances where the creation of debt is necessary and justifiable, it should not be blithely accumulated and it should always be accompanied with a comprehensive plan for its expedient elimination.

The $2.71 trillion in deficit spending that has defined the Obama Presidency, however, cannot be justified as supporting the general welfare of the nation, nor can it be rationalized as money spent in defense of America’s sovereignty, its borders or its honor. While the percentage of defense spending, as a share of the budget, has remained consistent with America’s historical average at 20%, entitlement spending, by the same measure, has increased exponentially. Safety net programs – unemployment benefits, food stamps, low-income housing assistance – have understandably increased, given the state of the economy. So too, has government spending swelled under a plethora of less justifiable and considerably more dubious government funded initiatives such as “cash for clunkers”, two misbegotten “stimulus” bills, and a litany of corporate bailouts. In addition to these wasteful measures, the Obama Administration has seemingly offered a blank and open checkbook to many of the federal government’s most crooked and moribund agencies, e.g., the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The professed goals of the Administration in initiating these programs and subsidies – green job creation, correcting the laws of capitalism, raising aggregate demand – can, at best, be justified as issues pertaining to the specific welfare of the people, therefore falling under the proper jurisdiction of state and local government. While creating and funding government programs is not extra-constitutional, per say, it is questionable behavior given the fact that this superfluous agenda has led to such onerous federal deficits and has proven detrimental to the nation.

Social Security, long praised by Democrats as eternally self-sustainable, has joined the ranks of deficit producing programs in fiscal year 2010. Because of the interrelationship between Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare, all of these institutions will be running permanent deficits by fiscal year 2017. The shortfalls that these programs produce will naturally be subsidized by America’s general fund which, in turn, will require additional taxpayer revenue. Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare are all worthy programs that must be sustained, but unless restructured, both in form and in function, their continued existence is uncertain. The American people, by nature, are disinclined to benefit themselves at the cost of their children and their grandchildren. These three programs currently represent a standing-structural-deficit that, if left unchecked, will snowball out of control by the end of the present decade.

Although pragmatic reforms and spending cuts are urgent steps that must be taken in order to achieve a semblance of economic stability, their effect will prove negligible unless coupled with lasting pro-growth initiatives. Perhaps the most damaging aspect of the Obama Administration, thus far, is its blatant anti-business philosophy. At a time when U.S corporations are in desperate need of a boost to compete in the world market, they are facing the prospect of the largest tax increase in American history on domestic business and industry, due to take effect in January. As the dollar continues to devaluate due to the size of the national debt and the Federal Reserve’s ceaseless insistence on printing and reprinting new currency, a devastating 35% tax on all new corporate investments is further discouraging venture capitalism. With regard to China – a nation infamous for human rights violations and its recent attempts at military and navigational hegemony in the South China Sea - the United States Treasury Department is presently instigating a questionable trade-war concerning the value of the nation’s Yuan. If the Chinese were to increase the value of its currency, as the Obama Administration desires, it would result in Chinese products being sold in America at considerably increased prices, thus placing an enormous burden on American buyers and sellers respectively. All the while, President Obama appears omnipresent, with near daily attacks and virulent exhortations on the job and wealth creators of the nation, e.g., the United States Chamber of Commerce and Wall Street. Without economic growth – a function of the private sector – the American economy will be doomed, at best, to a fate of perpetual mediocrity. Across the board tax-cuts, trade agreements with allied nations such as Panama, Colombia and South Korea, and an easing of regulatory measures are required steps for a nation to achieve substantial economic growth – an indispensable prerequisite of recovery.

Given the Obama Administration’s track record concerning the three most vital components of a lasting economic recovery, the Congress of 2011 will face the daunting task of rehabilitating America’s unstable market while simultaneously battling an organized resistance from the executive branch of government. There are good men and women in both political parties who want what is best for the nation. These are the people who must now stand up, unite and endeavor to push back against the President’s failed agenda. Substantial cuts in spending, pragmatic reform of broken government programs and pro-growth initiatives represent the only path to redemption. It is imperative that Congress acts swiftly and stoically in order to achieve these goals; the bleak alternative is that our children and grandchildren will come of age in an America devoid of exceptionalism – a far different nation than we and our ancestors had the incredible privilege to experience.

Although the day of reckoning is fast approaching, it is not too late for America; its best days may still be ahead. Our nation’s fate now lies with the unlikely trio of the People, Providence and Congress.

Jeremy Pitcoff

American Spirit & Soul

Competition is the soul of America. It is the source of the nation’s exceptionalism and the impetus of its power and wealth. The Declaration of Independence does not guarantee a universal right to happiness. Rather, it confirms mankind’s right to pursue such happiness through individual drive and enterprise. The promise of America is the promise of humanity – to wit, that each human being, irrespective of religion, race or gender, has a god-given right to fairly compete for a better station in life.

American history is replete with examples of valiant individual struggles and remarkable national movements, all of which are aimed at realizing a dream of equal protection under the law, e.g., abolitionism, women’s suffrage and civil rights. The heroic leaders of these respective movements, Frederick Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, Susan B. Anthony, Alice Stone Blackwell, Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert Kennedy, each shared a common goal – that of securing a merit based system in American society, whereby each individual could fairly compete, and succeed or fail, based solely upon his or her respective skills, ambition, prudence and luck.

Having fought so hard, and having sacrificed so much to establish a government that trusts the people to trust themselves, Americans now feel betrayed. Over the course of the past four years, the United States’ Congress has systematically reversed what took centuries for Americans to establish. In a depressed domestic market with minimal economic growth, American businesses are currently being taxed at 35% on all new corporate investments. Prospective American job-creators – small business owners, high income earners and investors – presently forfeit over half of their earned income to state and federal taxes. Worse yet, these excessive burdens, and a litany of others, are due to increase in January. The American people are being excluded from competing in the global market and their government is the source of their problems. This week’s election was not only a referendum on President Obama and the Democrats in control of Congress; it was a broad condemnation of the theories that encompass big-government. Hopefully, President Obama will take heed of the warnings of America’s frustrated electorate and dedicate the remainder of his term in office to downsizing the government he has spawned. However, if he chooses to ignore the will of the people and refuses to budge on taxes, regulation and trade, he will have sealed his political fate.

It is the logic of the progressive-left that many Americans, I among them, find difficult to comprehend. For instance: How can a group of people who believe that Americans are incapable of governing themselves, declare themselves capable of governing? How can these people manipulate the edicts of capitalism in a more efficient manner than the laws of supply-and-demand? How can the President and the liberal-elite dare to compete with the innate ingenuity and natural industry that is the spirit and soul of America? Of course, these questions cannot be logically answered. The American People are aware of this, and have cast their votes accordingly.

Resisting A Rebirth Of Freedom

President Obama recently told a group of supporters that Republicans should expect “hand to hand combat” on Capitol Hill if they take back the House in November. This bellicose reference represents a brief flash of honesty from an administration otherwise cloaked in deceptive calls for magnanimity. The Obama White House has proven reckless and obstinate in implementing its progressive agenda. Irrespective of popular opinion and public consternation, the President has relentlessly advanced his long sought-after goals of universal healthcare, cap-and-trade, stimulus spending, public sector takeovers and a litany of less publicized, social-restructuring initiatives. Notable, however, is that this brazen fortitude is only discernable in the President’s domestic agenda.

President Obama’s antipathy for compromise on domestic issues seems to evaporate with issues of foreign affairs. With regard to international diplomacy, the White House has conceded much, yet accomplished little for America. Note the Russo-American arms treaty in which Vladimir Putin’s Russia achieved remarkable success in convincing the White House to curb its missile-defense technology while granting minimal concessions in return. Although Russia and China each brokered deals with President Obama to support U.N. sanctions against Iran, neither Moscow nor Beijing has upheld its end of the bargain. Remarkably, President Obama does not appear bothered by this blatant affront to America. Take into account the fact that Iran has rapidly advanced its nuclear programs during the past two years, with little admonishment from the White House, and it becomes quite clear that the Obama Administration lacks the conviction in foreign affairs that it mulishly demonstrates at home. Mr. Obama is quick to insult his political rivals, his predecessor in office, the U.S. Supreme Court, dissident members of his own party, domestic media outlets, and particular American States, yet he softens his language when speaking about perfidious tyrants who are openly disdainful of America, e.g., Hugo Chavez, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Fidel Castro.

The question then becomes: What can a Congress achieve with a President in office, armed with the veto, declaring open-warfare on his rivals? The answer is simple in nature, yet poignant in effect. A Republican Congress, Tea Party and all, can stop the national bleeding. It can do so by ensuring that no new taxes are implemented, that no new spending is approved, that Obama-Care loses its funding, and that the size and the scope of the federal government begins to reverse its expansion. These measures, in and of themselves, will bring stability to the U.S. market and will strengthen the value of the dollar. Notwithstanding the likelihood that President Obama would veto any bill that is aimed at repealing his entitlement programs or reducing the public’s tax burden, Republicans should continue to pursue such measures. At a minimum, passing these laws in Congress would send a message to Americans of better days to come, and would serve to lay the groundwork for initiating these programs in January of 2013.

The President’s fondness of domestic “combat” is futile and misdirected. Perhaps by applying his considerable pride and steely resolve to matters of foreign affairs, the nation could be better served. The American people are overwhelmingly opposed to the policies of the Obama White House. Their voices will be heard on Election Day as they begin to reclaim their constitutional rights and liberties. A rebirth of freedom is imminent. How quickly it is instituted will depend upon how fiercely the President resists it.

Jeremy Pitcoff

Bearing The Brunt Of The Burden

Government exists to secure the rights and to protect the liberties that are innate to the spirit of mankind. In so doing, it fosters the human propensity for healthy competition and enterprise. Business exists to secure the profits and to foster the growth that is innate to the spirit of capitalism. In so doing, it enables society to flourish by creating wealth and affluence. Government and business are vital components of a burgeoning society that must coexist by necessity. Government requires a source of revenue in order to maintain a stable infrastructure of communication, transportation and defense. Business and commerce provide the impetus for wealth that a thriving nation requires. A portion of this wealth is transferred to government in the form of taxation and levies. In return, the government provides a platform for commerce by ensuring peace and stability. Business and government, when fairly balanced, lead to national prosperity.

Experience has shown, however, that when government taxes reach inequitable levels, society suffers proportionately. Companies and corporations, no longer capable of creating profits, are compelled to downsize their workforce, to pass on their costs to the public, or to move their operations elsewhere. America’s current tax-rate for new corporate investment is 35% - nearly double that of the world’s average. This excessive burden merely serves to drive American investors into more competitive markets or to refrain from investing altogether.

Incumbent Democrats from New York, California and Ohio have recently adopted a protectionist bent, attacking opponents from the private sector for participating in global trade. New York Congressman Timothy Bishop has relentlessly assailed his Republican challenger, businessman Randy Altschuler, for “outsourcing” jobs overseas. Ironically, Mr. Bishop, whose record in Congress is replete with examples of excessive taxation and reckless spending, is now crying foul at the entrepreneurs who have suffered the consequences of his policies.

In the words of Adam Smith, the father of modern economics, “Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice: all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things.” Business exists to turn profits. Government exists to secure rights. A harmonious balance between these forces is the key to American exceptionalism. However, in times such as these when the size and the scope of the federal government has exceeded its natural purpose, liberty and commerce must suffer. It is the American people who will ultimately bear the brunt of the public burden through rising taxes, increasing debt and capriciously regulated trade. This is the price of big-government.

Actions Have Consequences

There is an old saying attributed to Benjamin Franklin: “In this world, nothing is certain but death and taxes.” Fiscal conservatives, I among them, seek to limit the severity of the latter as to enhance the legacy of the former. Lower individual and corporate tax-rates, long the bête noire of the American left, would provide the populace with an engine for growth and a tool for economic recovery. The Obama policies of massive spending and excessive regulation have merely served to inflate the national debt, to weaken the U.S. dollar, and to considerably increase unemployment. If we seek a rebirth of prosperity, tax-cuts, free-trade and spending cuts would be the logical measures to implement. President Obama and Congressional Democrats, however, are incapable of conceding this point. Having created the laws that have led to this mayhem, they now blame others for its consequences.

“Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases. If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” Ronald Reagan’s pithy analysis is as true today as ever, the difference now being that America’s present leadership has effectively implemented this agenda. The goal of President Reagan, and of Reagan-Republicans today, encompasses limiting the role of government in American private enterprise. To this end, the U.S. Constitution grants the federal Congress limited and enumerated powers, thereby ensuring that government tendencies to consolidate power are perpetually checked by lawful rights to property.

Presidents Reagan and Obama, both entering office during times of economic hardship, enacted fiscal policies that were consistent with their respective views as to the proper role of government. Whereas Reagan cut taxes, decreased regulations, encouraged open markets and reduced non-military spending, Obama has increased taxes and regulations, initiated trade-wars with Mexico and China, neglected trade-agreements with Colombia, Panama and South Korea and administered over the greatest expansion of government debt in the history of the United States. Whereas Reagan’s policies served to transfer power from the government to the people, Obama’s policies can fairly be judged as Reagan’s in reverse. President Reagan’s policies resulted in a thirty year period of economic stability and growth, while stagnant markets and increased unemployment have defined the present administration.

Defenders of the Obama Administration have rationalized these results by claiming extraordinary circumstances and by transferring blame to a litany of conservative ‘villains’, including George W. Bush, Fox News, the Tea Party movement and syndicated talk-radio. In the end, however, these tactics are self-defeating. Perhaps this defense can best be summarized by another Benjamin Franklin quote: “I didn’t fail the test; I just found 100 ways to get it wrong.”

The American people are not as easily manipulated as the progressive-left may think. Actions have consequences, and in the case of politics, they can make or break a party.

If Men Were Angels

In this hotly contested 2010 election season, the issues at hand can be readily broken down into two, apparently irreconcilable philosophies. These sparring theories are those of constitutional conservatism on the one hand, and social progressivism on the other. These precepts have been in conflict with one another, in varying degrees of intensity, throughout American history and perhaps at no time more virulently than at present. As a conservative Republican, as a journalist, and as a politically active resident of Smithtown, I feel an obligation to offer my neighbors an historical backdrop to the modern conservative movement.

There is little doubt that while drafting our Constitution, the intent of America’s Founding Fathers, was that of creating a national government capable of maintaining a cohesive union of the states, while simultaneously guaranteeing the general sovereignty of those states, and the individual liberties of the people. While James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, the architects of the U.S. Constitution, agreed that a strong central government was necessary in order to collect the taxes and support the military that a prosperous America would require, they did so with many reservations. Through a series of newspaper opinion pieces that were written during the 1780’s, we are able to ascertain a fair representation of Hamilton’s and Madison’s respective intents in crafting the Constitution.

Throughout the constitutional debate, Alexander Hamilton’s paramount concern was that of creating a centralized government capable of collecting taxes, which, in turn, could be utilized to fund an American military, capable of defending our nation and providing for the general welfare of the people. This should not be misconstrued, however, as an attempt by Hamilton to advocate for a government based economy. In fact, Hamilton was the first American known to advance the ideas of what is presently referred to as supply-side economics. In his “Continentalist” essays of 1782, Hamilton had the following to say of the self regulating nature of the American economy that he envisioned: “The motive of revenue will check its own extremes. Experience has shown that moderate duties are more productive than high ones.” These views were preludes to the economic policies of the Kennedy and Reagan administrations of the 20th century. Hamilton believed that the first clause of article 1, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, gave sufficient protection to the American taxpayers by guaranteeing that “all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.” This “uniformity” clause was created to ensure that all citizens were equally affected by tax increases, therefore guaranteeing that special interest factions would be unable to consolidate undue power at the expense of the majority of Americans. This is why the modern, progressive income tax system was twice ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme court, before the 16th Amendment was ratified in the 1913 wave of progressivism that truncated Hamilton’s dream.

James Madison, though in accord with Hamilton in regard to the necessity of a centralized government, was even more emphatic than his colleague in regard to the dangers posed by an overreaching national government. In “Federalist” number 10, Madison voices his concern for the tendency of governments to consolidate their own powers, “and particularly for that prevailing and increasing distrust of public engagements, and alarm for private rights which are echoed from one end of the continent to the other. These must be chiefly, if not wholly, effects of the unsteadiness and injustice with which a factious spirit has tainted our public administrations.”This distrust of big-government is what led Madison to initiate a system of checks and balances within the federal government, and between the national and state governments as well. This would provide for four walls of defense against a usurpation of the people’s will.

“Ambition must be made to counteract ambition,” Madison writes in “Federalist” number 51, referring to the necessity of independent branches of government. Madison goes on to explain that it is within man’s nature to continually strive to wrest power from others, that the Constitution was drafted with the express purpose of insuring a continuity of rival ambitions so that no one faction could completely subdue the opinions and interests of another. Madison then bluntly declares, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.”

After the Constitution was ratified, Madison became the chief proponent of the 10th Amendment. This final amendment to the Bill of Rights grants that “all 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.”

There is no question that the Obama Administration, and our present congressional majority, tends to favor progressivism. Over the past 20 months, these two branches of government have effectively functioned in unison. Their actions reveal their apparent view of the Constitution as an obstacle to be overcome. Conservatives seek to preserve the functions of American government in accordance with our Founder’s intents, while adapting to modern realities. Progressives seek to move beyond the Constitution, while acknowledging that some of its tenets hold validity. I do not seek to pontificate as to which view of government is the correct path to follow for all; I merely speak for myself and for others of my political ilk. A strong national defense, fair and equally apportioned taxes, and the maximum individual liberties that are consistent with law and order, are the tenets of my brand of conservatism. These were the visions of our Founding Fathers, of Abraham Lincoln, of John F. Kennedy and of Ronald Regan. They remain the dreams of many today.

Bishop, Altschuler & The Virtues Of A Representative Republic

New York’s 1st congressional district, which includes the majority of Smithtown, has become a topic of national debate with respect to the upcoming elections. This large swath of land, encompassing Eastern Long Island, is presently being recognized as a bellwether district with regard to suburban America. Incumbent Democrat Timothy Bishop of Southampton will be running against successful businessman Randy Altschuler of St. James in what will surely be a hotly contested election. For Suffolk County’s electorate to properly discern the candidate who will best represent its interests, three primary questions must be answered. 1) What is the role of a United States Congressman? 2) What kind of character and what general intention is representative of each candidate? 3) What political ideology do the respective candidates adhere to and what is their philosophical bent? These questions, once answered, should provide the public with a clear distinction between the candidates and supply the knowledge that is necessary to make an informed decision.

The House of Representatives, as established by the United States Constitution, was considered to be the nucleus of the nascent federal government. This body of lawmakers was intended to act as the American people’s direct link to their government. It is this branch of Congress that was to separate America from the failed democracies of antiquity, thus creating a new form of government, commonly referred to as a “representative republic”. Congressional representatives, elected by the people, were to vote on federal legislation on behalf of the region from which they came. Following the Civil War (1860 – 1865) and the subsequent cohesion of the federal union, the interests of the nation as a whole often proved equal to the sum of its parts. Notwithstanding this interrelation, a Congressman’s primary job was, and still remains, that of voting for the interests of his region.

With regard to the issue of character, Congressman Bishop recently wrote the following in an open letter to his supporters: “I ran for Congress because I care about this community.” I am prone to believe the Congressman due to the recognition that Mr. Bishop is a good and honorable man who casts his votes in Congress according to the dictates of his conscience. Randy Altschuler, who I have met and conversed with on several occasions, is also a good and honorable man who would likewise vote on federal legislation based on his principles and his conscience. I believe that Messrs. Altschuler and Bishop, both well liked and respected men, are equally sincere in their patriotism.

Thus having determined the role of an American Congressman, and having established the sincerity and well-intentioned motives of the candidates, the final stage of scrutiny, with regard to choosing a representative, involves a careful inspection of the candidates’ respective ideologies. In the case of Congressman Bishop, we shall examine his voting record; with respect to Randy Altschuler, as he is new to the political arena, we shall compare his campaign platform to that of Mr. Bishop’s and contrast their principles accordingly.

Because of Timothy Bishop’s voting record, and because we have fairly established that the Congressman votes according to his conscience, we may rightfully infer that Mr. Bishop’s political principles and ideological bent are in direct accord with those of President Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Over the course of the past two years, Congressman Bishop has voted in favor of Obama-Care, of cap-and-trade, of all of the President’s spending and “stimulus” initiatives, of the financial “reform” act and of raising the ceiling on America’s national debt. If people are happy with President Obama and with the quality of our present Congress, they will naturally vote to re-elect Timothy Bishop. However, for those malcontent with the social, political and economic shift that America is currently experiencing, a further examination of Mr. Altschuler’s proposed agenda is highly recommended.

Whereas Congressman Bishop apparently believes that government spending and social programs are the necessary tools for fixing our economy, Mr. Altschuler, in contrast, is inclined to consider less federal spending and across the board tax cuts as the path to fiscal redemption. Whereas Mr. Bishop’s inclinations are those of increased government regulation, effectively restructuring our society, Mr. Altschuler believes that less government control and more individual liberty are the roots of American exceptionalism.

On a personal note, I will readily admit that, during his tenure, Congressman Bishop has proven adept at securing federal funds for Suffolk County. That being said, I do not believe that lobbying for money is the proper role of a Congressman. This money, once acquired, must be taken from somewhere else, be it via tax increases, borrowing from foreign nations or passing the buck to future generations. The federal government presently owns what was once a thriving private economy. Our nation’s hope for returning to those former days of prosperity lies in fostering the ingenuity of the people and in giving back the power to the industrious American populace. Tax increases, further debt and more government interference are likely to produce the opposite result. It is this view of government that offers the most striking contrast between these two congressional candidates.

If one is happy with the direction of the country and with the performance of the current Congress, then Tim Bishop is the person to vote for on Election Day. However, if one believes, as I do, that it is up to the people to take back control and to restore the proper balance between government and individual liberty, Randy Altschuler should be the choice for Congress. What is most imperative in this crucial election season is that each and every voting American carefully scrutinizes the candidates who are running for office. For in a representative republic, the innate power of a well informed electorate, and the impact it can have on our nation, should never be underestimated.

Storm On The Horizon

“People of the region should be alert and ready so when the time comes, we can fight our final, decisive battle.” These are the words of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in a typical reference to fulfilling his publicly stated goal of annihilating the nation of Israel. On Friday, September 3rd, in a speech attacking America with regard to its recent efforts to mediate a peace between Israel and the Palestinians, Ahmadinejad called on all Muslims to prepare for a final battle to free Jerusalem.

Iran, with the assistance of Russia, China and North Korea, is inching closer to achieving its long sought after goal of weapons-grade nuclear technology. With each step forward in Iran’s nuclear program, Ahmadinejad grows more militant in his public denunciations of what he refers to as “the little devil” (Israel) and “the big devil” (America). These threats and the calls for the destruction of the Jewish State, running parallel to Iran’s nuclear advancement, do not bode well for Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, who administers a nation that was born of another holocaust when the dire threats of another madman similarly went unanswered.

As an optimist, I believe that good will always prevail over evil. However, the question is, how many lives must be sacrificed and how much blood must be spilled before a nation, a leader or a people prove ready to confront that evil. Thomas Jefferson astutely wrote in the Declaration of Independence that “all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.” It is this innate human deficiency that has led to the immense suffering of the Jewish people at the hands of such infamous miscreants as the Pharaohs of Egypt, the Russian Cossacks, Hitler’s Third Reich and the modern day Iranian backed terrorist groups, Hamas and Hezbollah. American support for the Jewish people has helped stave off cataclysmic results from the likes of Hamas and Hezbollah. In the case of Nazi Germany, six million Jews were senselessly murdered before a belated alliance between Great Britain and America defeated a movement that never should have transpired. One hundred thousand Jews were exterminated by the Cossacks in the Chmielnicki Massacre of 1649, and the atrocities that followed, before the Jewish people simply ceased to exist as a functioning minority in the Ukraine. With regard to Ancient Egypt, the children of Israel required a higher form of foreign intervention in order to achieve liberation.

President Obama has rightfully pursued and effectively implemented tougher U.N. sanctions against the Iranian government in response to its nuclear development. I applaud the President for these efforts but, to expect that these sanctions, alone, will result in curbing Iran’s appetite for weapons of mass destruction defies logic, ignores precedent, and disregards the lessons of history. Irrespective of the sanctions and the economic pressure they place on Iran, Ahmadinejad’s paramount goal is that of military superiority over Israel, the nation which the Iranian leader has professed his desire to see “wiped off the face of the map.” At best, a nuclear Iran would lead to Iranian hegemony in the Middle East, leaving America insignificant and weak in the region and forcing Israel into submission. At worst, and equally likely, is the prospect of a nuclear apocalypse, the consequences of which are unthinkable.

I believe that the only hope for a non-military solution to curbing Iranian ambitions is through a relentless campaign aimed at convincing Iran and its allies that America will do whatever is necessary to ensure the safety of Israel, up to and including a military assault on the nation’s nuclear facilities. President Obama’s greatest weakness, in regard to international diplomacy, is his timidity in the face of confrontation. For all the talents the President possesses in the realm of oratory and persuasion, his proven gift for intraparty influence does not appear to translate internationally. I do not believe that Mr. Obama wants to see Iran go nuclear. I merely believe that the President is, by nature, adverse to foreign confrontation. His penchant for submission and apologetic bent has, unfortunately, led many foreign nations to conclude that America is a paper tiger. This irresolute perception of our nation does not bode well for Israel.

There is a storm on the horizon. America and its allies must do all within their power to stop it before it becomes too late. America and Israel will ultimately prevail in a standoff with their shared enemy, but the cost of that victory may be devastating. It is our right and our duty to stand tough now, as to avoid a greater catastrophe in the future.

Jeremy Pitcoff

The Emergence Of Suffolk Republicans

The New York primaries are over and the candidates have been chosen. For Republicans, it is time to unite around the victors. As September 14th approached, much ado had been made regarding a supposed “split” within the Republican ranks. This assertion, in this writer’s opinion, was much ado about nothing. In the first congressional district, and in the seats for the U.S. Senate, Suffolk County Republicans differed in their preferences for candidates based on issues of style, electability and history, but not in regard to principles. What makes this year unique for the Republican Party of Eastern Long Island is that all of the candidates share the same core values and adhere to the same basic tenets that have resulted in Suffolk County becoming the political force that it is. Suffolk County Republican Chairman John J. LaValle artfully placed the people he represents in the enviable position of a no-lose situation. While granting Republicans a choice in their candidates, he insured that good conservative-Republicans would prevail irrespective of the primary outcomes. One needs to look no further than Smithtown to see what a party united on principles can achieve for its constituency and how these results may supersede rival party factions.

2010 is proving to be the most crucial election season that I can recall. Throughout this nation, the American private sector is under attack and nowhere is this assault more virulent than in the state of New York. New York State’s top marginal individual and corporate tax rates are the highest in the nation. Its entitlement spending is literally out of control. This year, New York is projected to spend $49.2 billion on Medicaid alone, far more than any other state in the union. These policies, initiated by the Democrats in control of the State Legislature, have resulted in minimal economic growth, lackluster job creation, and diminishing capital investment.

During the course of the past two years, New Yorkers have borne witness to an all-out attack on small businesses. Throughout this assault, Smithtown’s state representatives, Assemblyman Mike Fitzpatrick and Senator John Flanagan, have stayed true to the free market principles that will ultimately prove the only path to redemption. Messieurs Fitzpatrick and Flanagan have consistently fought for the people of Smithtown by voting in opposition to tax increases, by introducing legislation intended to reform New York’s broken pension system, and by ceaselessly promoting a more business friendly infrastructure. It is these principles of tax cuts, free trade and pragmatic reform, along with a strong national defense, that have become the hallmarks of the Suffolk County Republican Party and of all the candidates it puts forth.

New York’s Democrat incumbents, Steve Israel, Tim Bishop, Kirsten Gillibrand and Chuck Schumer, will run on the premise that they have “brought home the bacon” for the people of Suffolk County. This is the new phrase de jour for Democrats seizing our federal tax dollars and redistributing them as they see fit. What these incumbents don’t understand, however, is that the people of Suffolk County no longer trust their government to tend to their daily affairs. They want to make their decisions, spend their money, and invest in their workforce in ways befitting their populace. Their faith is entrusted in the people who make their region great, not in the government that attempts to exploit them.

The Suffolk County Republican Party has advocated the benefits of provincial autonomy and limited government intervention, thus electing men and women into local and state government who adhere to these core principles. Now is the time to transfer these standards to the federal level and to join in the fight, nationwide, to place the power back where it belongs – in the hands of the American people.

Jeremy Pitcoff

Getting Back To Basics: An Interview With Bruce Blakeman

In the September 14th primary election, Bruce Blakeman is one of three Republican candidates vying for the seat of New York’s junior Senator, Kirsten Gillibrand. Mr. Blakeman, an attorney and former Presiding Officer of the Nassau County Legislature, will face-off against David Malpass and Joe DioGuardi.

Confident in regard to his prospects for the Republican nomination, Mr. Blakeman commenced our August 30th phone interview with a list of national grievances: “I am running against Kirsten Gillibrand because, like most New Yorkers, I am angry, frustrated and worried about the direction that the country has taken in the past two years.” Mr. Blakeman noted that unemployment, the national deficit and mortgage foreclosures have continued to rise, and that “The very survival of our nation depends on going back to the principles that made America a great economic power.” Blakeman further excoriated Senator Gillibrand for voting “in favor of every spending bill,” for supporting the controversial “Ground- Zero Mosque,” and for “not being opposed to the trial of a terrorist, in a civilian court, in New York City.”

In relation to his hometown of Long Island, Mr. Blakeman believes that in addition to cutting taxes to allow for businesses to reinvest in “technology, equipment and people,” a prosperous Long Island will require “getting back to our manufacturing base.” Blakeman believes that the key to Long Island’s future is in the “high-tech” fields of production.

Blakeman appeared especially proud of his work as a consultant for Cannon U.S.A. Inc. He was influential in Cannon’s purchase of 52 acres of property in Melville, where the digital imaging giant will soon be building its new corporate headquarters. Mr. Blakeman believes that this purchase of property may eventually produce as many as 2,000 new jobs for the people of Huntington.

Candidate Blakeman touted his conservative credentials as he compared himself to his opponents in the upcoming Republican primary. “I am the only true conservative in this race. In the four years that I was in government in Nassau County, I cut over $150 million from the County Executive’s budget.”

Blakeman’s opponents in the September 14th primary will be David Malpass, a former Reagan Administration treasury official, and Joe DioGuardi, a former New York Congressman. Both of these candidates are claiming the conservative mantle as well. Irrespective of the viewpoints of his opponents, Blakeman’s platform does appear to pass the modern conservative litmus test. In what Mr. Blakeman refers to as his “C.P.R” approach, he enumerates his platform as follows: 1) Cut taxes and spending in order to create new jobs. 2) Protect our homeland and our borders. 3) Repeal Obama-Care.

“This country is failing,” said Mr. Blakeman in a tone reminiscent of Ronald Reagan. “It’s time to get back to basics.” New York’s September 14th primary election will determine whether or not Bruce Blakeman will be afforded the opportunity to act on his conservative ideals.

Reagan, Kennedy & Supply-Side Economics

Proponents call it “supply-side economics”, detractors, the “trickle-down effect”. Semantics aside, this economic philosophy is the theory most consistent with America’s founding tenets of freedom of commerce, individual autonomy and noninvasive government. Supply-side economics has been effectively utilized in the past, under the stewardship of esteemed leaders such as Alexander Hamilton, John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan, in order to rescue the American economy from the brink of fiscal collapse. It is a theory rooted more in broad national values than in economic intricacies, allowing the American people, not the American government, to set commercial policy.

Free trade, low taxes and minimal commercial regulation are the foundations of the supply-side theory. By allowing Americans, both rich and poor, to keep a fair share of what they earn, we invite capital investment which, in turn, results in economic growth. With regard to individual income taxes, the lower the rate of taxation, the more money that is available for the buyer. This excess money will naturally be utilized to purchase a product or service, to invest in an upstart company or to be saved, with interest, in a bank account. With regard to business and corporate taxes, common sense dictates that a company’s profit margin serves as its driving incentive for investment, expansion and hiring. The more money the government takes, the less profit a business makes, the less profit a business makes, the less people it chooses to employ, the less people employed within a community, the less revenue that is raised through taxes. The government’s typical reaction to this diminishing revenue is yet another increase in taxes, causing more businesses to contract and raise prices, therefore perpetuating a vicious cycle.

Free trade and minimal commercial regulation, each serve the purpose of creating national wealth and increasing the real GDP. The greater the number of American products allowed to be sold abroad, the more money that will circulate within our economy at home, resulting in more domestic jobs and higher national wages. The same, too, can be said with regard to allowing foreign companies to operate within our borders. These companies will naturally employ additional American workers to tend to their business affairs, encouraging competition and demand.

The less operational control the U.S. government has over the affairs of American capitalism, the better off the economy will be. Big government is inefficient and clumsy by nature, private enterprise the engine of Americanism. New York State, with the highest top marginal personal and corporate tax rates in the nation, is in dire economic straits. However, even the states with less burdensome tax policies are no longer able to thrive. This is due to nearly four years of continuous congressional attacks on the American private sector, culminating in the passage of Obama-Care and the ill-conceived financial reform bill.

America’s current national debt dwarfs that of any other period in our history. We are in the midst of a trade war with Mexico as a result of union manipulations. The majority of the free world has negotiated trade agreements with Colombia and South Korea, yet America’s attempts at negotiations with these nations are languishing on Capitol Hill. January will usher in the largest business tax increases in American history via the expiration of the Bush-Era tax cuts and the newest round of Obama-Care levies. These policies, in a withering economy, are akin to those of the Nixon and Hoover Administrations, and will likely share their fate – that of making a bad economy worse.

The supply-side policies of the Kennedy and Reagan Administrations are the models that Americans should be attempting to emulate. In both instances, the leadership of the Presidents and the efforts of Congress resulted in rescuing the American economy from dismal conditions, leading to historically significant periods of economic growth. This growth, in both instances, resulted in increased government revenue, irrespective of lower tax rates. Presidents Kennedy and Reagan both held strong reverence for the ingenuity of the American people, each voluntarily transferring economic power from the government to the people, subsequently concentrating their respective resources on national defense, human rights and space exploration. These were issues that Presidents Kennedy and Reagan considered to be more in line with their constitutionally granted authority.

Supply-side economics is a proven theory that has resulted in the most fiscal prosperity for the maximum number of Americans. It is based on a quintessentially American premise. When a people are in control of their own destiny, they will, by nature, endeavor to improve it. Americans are prone to utilize that freedom in order to secure prosperity for subsequent generations; it is within our nature to do so. If a government controls its economy, it necessarily controls its people. Freedom of commerce is a liberty that Americans often take for granted; supply-side economics insures this liberty by keeping the government at arm’s length. If we allow our Congress to further impede upon our traditional commercial autonomy, sooner or later, supply-side economics will cease to be a viable option. Across the board tax cuts, free trade and commercial deregulation will merely be policies of the past. Countless generations of Americans will never have the opportunity to experience the prosperity that we once knew, and the American dream

A Matter Of Right & Wrong

Notwithstanding the likelihood that the majority of people living in Japan in 1941 were good and god-fearing people, the flag of that country would never be flown atop a monument at Pearl Harbor. The Americans who perished in the name of that flag, would not have been disrespected as such. Not all southerners in 1863 were dedicated to the despicable practice of chattel slavery, yet it would be inconceivable to dedicate a portion of Gettysburg to that misbegotten Confederacy. Although a Confederate shrine or a monument dedicated to Imperial Japan would be protected under the first amendment, they would, nonetheless, be considered morally repugnant by the majority of American citizens.

Two blocks away from Ground Zero, at 51 Park Place, lies a plot of land that will likely house a 13 story, $100 million, Islamic mosque and cultural center. In the name of “tolerance”, President Obama, New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg and New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo have publically endorsed this project. The latest polls show that nearly 70% of Americans are opposed to the idea of a “super-mosque” standing at the edge of Ground Zero. This national distaste for the Islamic center is not a product of institutional bigotry, nor does it imply an American loathing for all things related to Islam. Rather, it is a matter of national pride, a sincere desire that this hallowed ground remains free from intrigue and controversy.

It is in the name of patriotism that Americans are presently requesting that this mosque be built elsewhere in the city. Governor David Patterson has generously offered state owned land to foster this relocation. However, the planners of the Ground Zero mosque have declined to accept the Governor’s offering. The American people understand that there is nothing illegal about building a mosque in such close proximity to Ground Zero. Yet, we can’t help but view this endeavor as an affront to our national pride, an insult to the memories of our dead. Although Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf claims that he is erecting this mosque in the hope of “bridging the gap” between the Muslim and non-Muslim communities, the opposite result appears more likely. Inflaming the passions and challenging the sensibilities of American citizens will result in a bridge to nowhere. It would serve to trivialize a gruesome attack on American soil in which thousands of our brethren perished.

Imam Feisal, President Obama, Mike Bloomberg and Andrew Cuomo claim that American opposition to the building of this mosque is a symptom of mass intolerance. I respectively disagree. The perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks, and their terrorist cohorts at large, have hijacked the Islamic religion. This is an unfortunate fact that I believe most Americans are aware of. However, these attacks and countless others were, in fact, committed in the name of that religion and, in some respects, the two cannot be arbitrarily separated. Whether or not to build a mosque so near to the site of such a raw American tragedy is not a question of legality. It is a matter of right and wrong. In my opinion, proponents of this plan are revealing an extraordinary irreverence for the feelings of the American public. In Mr. Obama’s defense, it is not within his presidential powers to effectively resolve this issue. This same pardon, however, cannot be granted to Mayor Bloomberg and Attorney General Cuomo. Each of these officials have a duty to insure that the money being raised for this “cultural center” is devoid of connections to terrorism. We Americans take great pride in our country; we are a tolerant and forgiving people but, some things are simply improper. Legal proprieties aside, building a mosque so near to Ground Zero is a morally offensive act.

The American Gospel & Obama-Care

Call me a jingoist, but I believe that America is the greatest nation ever to inhabit the earth. The United States has created more wealth, spread more freedom and improved the human condition more than any other country in history. Notwithstanding the fact that these accomplishments are of near biblical proportion, they are not the result of divine intervention. They are the natural byproduct of a national faith that is rooted in individual liberty. American exceptionalism is directly attributable to the ideals of our nation’s founding documents. The Declaration of Independence is the American Gospel, the definitive moral blueprint of our nation. Man’s natural rights to freedom and liberty, to a government beholden to its people, and to the pursuit of commercial success, represent the founding tenets of our faith. The U.S. Constitution is the ultimate book of laws, created to guarantee these rights to our people.

In the summer of 1787, America’s Founding Fathers took great care to insure the ideals of the American Gospel in the U.S. Constitution. Their greatest concern was an inherent distrust of man’s tyrannical nature. Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution, was created to allay these fears. This crucial section clearly defines the limited powers of Congress. For 220 years, this central theme of the U.S Constitution has served the American people by confirming their rights as citizens.

Obama-Care, with regard to the Constitution, is a complete and abject failure. The individual mandate provision of this massive entitlement program clearly exceeds the limits of congressional authority. This mandate grants the federal government the power to coerce American citizens into purchasing a product (health insurance) or to impose a fine on those who do not. The Obama White House claims that this mandate is a necessary provision because it funds a greater good – that of national healthcare. It further claims that this act is justified under the commerce clause of article 1, section 8 of the Constitution.

The commerce clause reads as follows: “The Congress shall have power to… regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes.” Hitherto, the interstate commerce clause has mainly been utilized to justify federal regulations on shipping and on trade, but never to force an individual into a commercial transaction. Commerce, by definition, is a transaction (sale or purchase) that has the objective of supplying a commodity (good or service). It is a wild stretch to interpret this clause as a justification of Congressional power to compel Americans into purchasing an arbitrary good or service. In fact, this interpretation of the commerce clause would effectively give the federal government limitless power under the Constitution. Freedom of commerce, the nucleus of American prosperity, would cease to be a precept of our faith. The Supreme Court will ultimately judge whether or not this misbegotten mandate is permissible under Constitutional law.

Human nature dictates that those who control the money, by default, control the people. Commercial activity, in the hands of the people, has enabled America to prosper. The people’s rights to commerce, religion and speech are inherent in the American Gospel. The limited power of our federal government is a core component of our faith. By implementing Obama-Care and its individual mandate, President Obama and Congress are attempting to violate the basic tenets of Americanism. If we allow our government unlimited power in the guise of national healthcare, America will lose it soul. We will need to abandon our national faith, and pray for divine intervention. Because a Supreme Court decision on this macabre issue will likely be several years in the making, the American people must fight for their faith, and elect representatives who will act to repeal this blasphemy. To borrow the words of another great faith, “Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.” Election Day is coming. All that is necessary for tyranny to thrive is for people of good conscience to remain silent.

Our Indiscretions Sometimes Serve Us Well

New York Republican gubernatorial hopeful Rick Lazio may not possess the oratorical skills of Ronald Reagan, nor may he demonstrate the chutzpa of Chris Christie but, when this man spoke at the July 27th meeting of the Nesconset Chamber Of Commerce, held at The Watermill in Smithtown, his message was indiscernible from either of these gentlemen. Irrespective of his soft spoken approach, Mr. Lazio’s campaign themes of tax cuts, pragmatic reform and smaller government were well received by the approximately 150 people in attendance.

Lazio’s opponent for New York’s highest seat is the current Attorney General, Andrew Cuomo. Because of Cuomo’s name recognition and theatrical flair, his campaign has been quick to claim a premature November victory. Lazio, however, has consistently maintained a sharp and unwavering focus on the issues at hand: the dysfunction in Albany and his plans to effect a remedy.

Prior to this event, I believed that Mr. Lazio’s lack of rhetorical fire was an insurmountable obstacle to his election. However, as I listened to and reflected upon this candidate’s low key style, I began to take a different point of view. It occurred to me that New Yorkers were initially impressed with the gravitas of Elliot Spitzer; Mario Cuomo, father of Andrew Cuomo, was known for his mastery of words. Irrespective of their aptitude for charm, these former governors left New York in a state of abject disrepair. Gone may be the days of the flashy New York Governor whose gift for catchy sound bites are equaled by his bent for reckless spending. Perhaps New Yorkers have lost their taste for demagoguery, gaining wisdom as a result of past mistakes.

As the election season commences in earnest, voters will immediately discern a sharp distinction in the personalities of the candidates running for governor. Andrew Cuomo, son of an icon, is prone to vitriol and tends to be most emphatic in his speech. Rick Lazio, of middle class roots, is unassuming by nature, yet articulate and proven in ability. Will New Yorkers finally come to realize that words alone, cannot make a governor; that ideas and actions are much more potent tools? The tax reforms and spending cuts espoused by Mr. Lazio are the types of measures that New Yorkers desperately require. After years of our subjection to melodrama and countless indiscretions, the concise and understated style of Republican Rick Lazio, in conjunction with his conservative ideals, offers New Yorkers an extraordinary opportunity to effect a reformation of their state. In recent years, New York voters have fallen prey to the charms of sophism. Hopefully, they have come to realize that ideas and substance, not rhetoric and pomp, mark the true measure of a governor. The upcoming elections will reveal whether or not the New York electorate is capable of self improvement. In the words of Hamlet, upon his own reformation, “our indiscretions sometimes serve us well”. New York voters will soon be put to the test as they choose to heed or defy Shakespeare’s wisdom.



Jeremy Pitcoff

A World Full Of Maladies

An injured child instinctively seeks the nurturing hand of his mother. The mother knows that in order to help, she must first identify the source of the problem. If the child is bleeding, she tends to the wound. If she proves unsuccessful, she seeks the advice and expertise of a doctor. This course of action is innate to the mother and requires no forethought to implement.

When a nation suffers an injury, the people instinctively know that in order to effect a recovery, they must first identify the source of the problem. Hence, the beginning and rapid development of the American Tea Party movement. At the core of this movement is a maternal instinct to protect the integrity of the Constitution. The Tea Party movement was founded upon a collective realization that something was gravely amiss in Washington; that the national debt, now at $13 trillion, was dangerous and unsustainable. By endlessly increasing our nation’s debt through massive entitlement spending, President Obama has managed to compromise the future prosperity of America. Thomas Paine once poignantly wrote that “even brutes do not eat their young”, yet the White House policies, now in play, will effectively result in the same. Ceaseless government spending, private sector invasion and dangerous consolidations of federal power will inevitably result in diminished freedoms and mounting burdens for many generations to come.

The defining goal of the Tea Party movement is to reclaim the autonomy of the people. Liberty, as a principle, we have ceased to revere and the Tea Party aims to reverse that. Its objectives of limited government and individual rights are best expressed by, though not exclusive to, the modern Republican Party. Emerging leaders such as Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor, Newt Gingrich and Mike Huckabee have developed a loose knit coalition of conservative thinkers within the Republican ranks. They seek to promote such policies as tax cuts, free trade and entitlement reformation, all of which share one common goal – that of reducing our dependence on government. These are the policies that must be implemented if we want our nation to heal; they can all be achieved with relative ease by a conservative majority in Congress. Permanent tax cuts however, and the repeal of Obama-Care will likely require more time. Because taxpayer funded entitlement programs are at the core of the President’s policies, Mr. Obama would likely veto any measure that threatens their continuity. Thus, the necessity for Tea Party activism in effecting a cure to our malady. At this juncture, the movement has served to awaken the people as to the source of our nation’s injury. Its continued vigilance is now required to eliminate the catalysts of the wound.

America is currently bleeding. Its Constitution is under attack. Its Congress is complicit in committing this crime and it is now up to the people to strike back. The Tea Party has indentified the problem. A new Congress can tend to the wound. However, complete rehabilitation is unlikely before the elections of 2012. The policies of the Obama Administration have only served to make a bad economy worse. A drastic cut in the size and the scope of our federal government is our only path to redemption. What America presently needs is a veritable conservative in office; a leader who will practice fiscal constraint and stay true to free market principles. This course of action is innate to conservatism and requires no forethought to implement. The injuries our nation has suffered thus far, can only be blamed on the reckless spending and the arbitrary laws that are the symptoms of big government.

Jeremy Pitcoff

Smithtown Republican Committeeman

Drawing A Line In New York

The present state of dysfunction that prevails in New York government is not the cause of our fiscal crisis. Rather, it is a reaction to the cumulative effect of years of reckless spending and ill conceived policies, born of self serving motives. These policies of big government spending and high business taxes have become synonymous with Albany politics. The precipice on which New York now finds itself, with deficits rising and revenue in decline, is a recipe for economic disaster. It has led to a legislative stalemate in which Republicans and Democrats have dug in their heels, refusing to budge on their principles. Republicans are unwilling to raise taxes while Democrats are loath to cut spending. These differing points of view represent long held convictions of both political parties and at present, are clearly and refreshingly visible. Seldom in Albany have philosophical lines been so clearly drawn and seldom have voters been able to discern so vividly the differing ideologies of their representatives. In November, the New York electorate will have the opportunity to determine which route they prefer to follow and they will cast their votes accordingly. An overview of the policies that have led to this legislative malaise may prove far more instructive in identifying New York’s economic deficiencies than merely focusing on governmental paralysis. The predicament in which New York presently finds itself is attributable to years of mismanaged government and fiscally unsound policies. It is these policies that must be addressed and understood if we are to achieve an economic recovery.
The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) has rated New York as having the worst economic forecast of any state in the nation. The recent report titled “Rich States, Poor States” has its findings based on New York’s chronically high taxes, its excessive government spending and the size of its public sector workforce. New York’s taxpayer funded expenditures on Medicaid, pensions and education are among the highest in the nation, yet these programs consistently underperform. This is due mainly to inefficient management, widespread corruption and a system of promotion based on seniority rather than on merits.
With regard to the New York City school system, taxpayers supply $8.60 for every dollar that employees contribute to their pensions. This drastic disproportion between contributor and benefactor is typical of New York’s policies. The state is projected to spend $49.2 billion on Medicaid in 2010 alone, far more than any other state in the union. By law, the federal government matches all Medicaid funds provided for by a state. These federal funds act as incentives for states to expand their healthcare initiatives. New York politicians use a Keynesian logic to justify these funds as ‘free money’ and have expanded the program accordingly. Up to 30% of our next state budget will consist of Medicaid expenses.
The burden of funding these massive public programs has inevitably fallen upon the taxpayers. The Empire State’s 12.62% top marginal personal income tax rate and 15.95% top marginal corporate tax rate are the highest in the nation. These excessive tax rates have resulted in limited economic growth, lackluster job creation and diminishing capital investment. They have served as a catalyst for New York’s economic demise, resulting in the mass migration of its citizenry.
Throughout the course of 2000 to 2008, New York has experienced the largest loss of residents of any American state. We have witnessed a net migration outflow of 1.5 million people or 8% of our population since the onset of this decade. The migration of New Yorkers to more reasonably taxed locations has yielded a loss of revenue for the state and a loss of capital for investment. Our government inevitably makes up for this revenue shortfall by continually raising taxes.
These policies of excessive government spending coupled with chronically high taxation have resulted in a vicious and counterproductive cycle. The answer to fixing our current fiscal crisis lies not in passing a budget that will merely postpone the inevitable, but in the complete reformation of New York’s fiscal policy. As high taxes and excessive spending have resulted in the near economic collapse of our state, it is reasonable to assume that lower taxes and limited expenditures are the surest path to recovery. The initiation of such policies will not be an easy task. A drastic change in state strategy and leadership will be required to achieve such results.
The budgetary gridlock in the New York State Legislature may in fact be a blessing in disguise. By drawing a distinction among our representatives, based on core beliefs rather than on politics, voters are becoming better informed. A clear distinction of where the candidates stand is a rare New York commodity. This opportunity may prove to be the beginning of true reformation. Seldom have New Yorkers been granted the chance to genuinely affect state policy. Heretofore, the inmates have been running the asylum. It falls on the people to set the course of government by electing true representatives of the state. It is time for New Yorkers to draw a line in the sand and insist on a voice in their fate. We know where our representatives stand. We know what needs to be done. What is now required to effect real change is to remain alert, to keep well informed and to respectfully acknowledge and wisely utilize the enormous power of our vote.

Jeremy Pitcoff

The Second Law Of Thermodynamics

When something is broken in the natural world, action is required to fix it. Sometimes the remedy is as simple as tightening a screw, while some things are simply irreparable. In physics, the second law of thermodynamics dictates that the world becomes more disorderly with each passing second of time; that the universe is inexorably headed toward a permanent state of chaos. Physical objects, once broken, cannot regain their original integrity; they can only be reformed. This reformation, though leaving something to be desired in the world of physical properties, takes on a positive role in the theoretical world of government. The State of New York is broken and there is no screw presently utilized that is capable of securing its repair. The economy of the Empire State is headed toward a permanent state of chaos; a reformation of its current laws and regulations is the only hope for recovery.
New York’s state and local tax burden is rated as the 2nd highest in America. Our residents now pay $6,419 per capita in state and local taxes, equating to 11.7% of the average New York income. Our State has the 5th highest ranking in property taxes and has been deemed the 2nd least business friendly State with regard to corporate, sales, payroll, unemployment and commercial property taxes. Clearly these policies are directly related to New York’s current fiscal crisis and they must be addressed if our goal is to redeem the economy.
If the political leaders of New York would simply pass laws that would reduce the cost of doing business, job growth and investment would follow. The revenue lost by the diminished tax rates would be counteracted and expanded upon by an influx of company startups and the jobs they would necessarily create. All New Yorkers would benefit from business tax reductions. Additionally, a cap on property tax increases would prove most beneficial. Not only would this measure help to curb the disturbing trend of mortgage foreclosures that have become so prevalent on Long Island, but it would help to sustain New York’s population growth which, for decades, has been on the decline. These tax reductions, in conjunction with responsible spending, are the time tested reforms that New York desperately needs.
Obviously New York is broken and now is the time to fix it. Action is required to achieve this end but our current leadership has remained inanimate. Natural law dictates that a reformed physical object is chaotic in comparison to its original state of existence. However, the laws of Mother Nature can prove contrary to the laws of Government. Virtually every seat in our State’s government is up for grabs this November. Our representatives in Congress and the Senate will be subject to election as well. Voters must carefully scrutinize all candidates in order to ascertain who is responsible for New York’s current state of disorder and who will possess the courage and the fortitude to fight the status quo. While the second law of thermodynamics may be unavoidable in the world of physical properties, the chaos it implies and the disorder it necessitates need not apply to New York.
Jeremy Pitcoff
Smithtown Republican Committeeman

Changing Of The Guard

Most fair-minded Americans would now agree that the policies of the Obama Administration and, to a lesser extent, those of the second half of the Bush Administration, have been detrimental to the U.S. economy. The Keynesian theory that vast amounts of public spending can cure a faltering economy has been proven false and must be abandoned in order to resuscitate an asphyxiated U.S. dollar. A weak national currency, coupled with antipathy toward free-trade and an apparent malice toward the American private sector, has emerged as the cornerstone of American fiscal policy. The effects of these polices thus far: A 10% rate of unemployment, economic growth that is feeble at best, an unprecedented national debt and a general lack of public confidence in the competence of big government. With each passing day, the negative effects of these policies serve to further entrench the U.S. economy into a state of mediocrity. Recent statements made by President Obama and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner indicate a willingness to accept this mediocrity and to abandon the 235 year tradition of American exceptionalism. I, for one, refuse to accept this abandonment and I fervently pray that the upcoming Congress of 2011 will fill the void of American leadership that we are presently experiencing.

Three things must happen to reignite the American economy. It will take courage, conviction and strong leadership from both political parties to achieve this, but it is certainly within our grasp. The strength of the U.S. dollar must be reasserted, free and open trade must be initiated and the federal government must ease its grip on the American private sector. Though the methods of implementing these goals are open to debate, surely some common ground can be found. As we seek to develop new plans of reform that will permanently strengthen our nation, these three initiatives should be our legislature’s paramount goal in the aftermath of this year’s midterm elections.

1. Cut Spending: A 10% cut on all government spending, with the exception of defense and national emergencies, would instantly increase the strength of the U.S. dollar. Fiscal discipline, though a tough pill to swallow, is one that the American people are now willing to accept. In addition to adding value to the dollar, these spending cuts would help diminish our massive national debt and curb the increasing scope and power of our federal government.

2. Secure Free And Open Trade: American allies such as Colombia and South Korea have been trying for years to procure lasting trade agreements with the United States. Opening American markets to these emerging economic nations is a win/win situation for our country. Not only would this greatly benefit the American economy with an influx of new commercial opportunities, but it would also serve to further strengthen our military ties with these strategically significant nations.

3. Private Sector Growth: It is imperative that Congress pass new laws to release the American private sector from the chains of big government. Permanent corporate, investment and individual tax-cuts are surely the best incentives for American businesses to reestablish their ties to the U.S. market. Although a government run economy may serve to temporarily reduce the pressure on a small contingent of the population, it cannot create new wealth. Wealth and job creation are precisely what America presently needs. This can only be achieved, in a lasting and meaningful way, by the efforts of the private sector.

Just as it took two administrations and two political parties to place the American economy on its current path toward destruction, so now will it take new and virtuous leadership from both sides of the political aisle to reverse it. The greatest strength of America’s national character is in its ability to abruptly change course when necessary. We are a resilient people who recognize bad policies when we see them. Rival party factions and personal loyalties may sometimes cloud our judgment but, in the end, we all seek the same goal for our nation. Each generation of Americans feels an obligation to secure prosperity for its successors. This is a continuous cycle, uniquely American in character, and a testament to our exceptionalism. Though there are some in high office who disagree with this concept of inherent national exceptionalism, their views do not represent the majority of Americans. Most of us know that it is not too late for our country; that our best days are still ahead of us; that we remain the greatest and most benevolent nation ever to inhabit the Earth. To continue this greatness and to further improve the condition of humankind, a change in our present course will be required.

This November, a changing of the guard is necessary to implement the economic policies that will put us back on the track toward prosperity. New leaders must be elected who will place the needs of our nation above party loyalties and political high jinks. America needs to change the current course that is leading us toward a permanent state of mediocrity. The implementation of free-trade, deficit reduction and economic growth is the perfect place to start.


Jeremy Pitcoff
Smithtown Republican Committeeman