An Ethical Tug-Of-War

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rick Perry & The Earthquake That Rocked DC

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New York & Texas - Policies & Results

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

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

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

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

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

Jeremy Pitcoff

To Secure These Rights

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


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

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



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

To wit:

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

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

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

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

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

Jeremy Pitcoff

2012: Year Of The Dark Horse Candidate

2012: Year Of The Dark Horse Candidate


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An Open Letter To Governor Andrew Cuomo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Jeremy Pitcoff

American History Of Words

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Jeremy Pitcoff

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