Pull up, America! A constitutional amendment is long overdue

by David Alvord

We've all seen a movie like this: The hero rushes towards a cockpit only to find that the airplane's pilots have parachuted-out minutes ago. The plane is plummeting towards the ground as the altimeter is spinning like a fan. The protagonist looks stunned as he decides what to do next. He puts his hands on the wheel while the camera zooms in on his face as beads of sweat form. "PULL UP ON THE CONTROLS" we all scream, (at least in our minds).

America is facing a similar fiscal crisis. But too few are demanding that we "pull up"... and make the needed correction.

This year, Americans will pay 2.1 trillion dollars in taxes. Yet, in spite of this gargantuan income, the federal government will spend 3.6 trillion taxpayer dollars causing the deficit to reach 1.4 trillion dollars! This is money that is going to be spent by the government in excess of the taxes collected.

Put another way, the government is spending 170% of what it is able to bring in. That is like an individual making 50K and spending 80K that same year. Obamacare has yet to be paid for, and retiring baby boomers start their entry into social security and medicare next year. We can expect federal expenses will only increase as an aging population begins to collect their entitlements.

The CBO's latest report said:

Unless policymakers restrain the growth of spending, increase revenues significantly as a share of GDP, or adopt some combination of those two approaches, growing budget deficits will cause debt to rise to unsupportable levels.

(Pull up! Pull up! Is anyone listening?)

"...a growing level of federal debt would also increase the probability of a sudden fiscal crisis, during which investors would lose confidence in the government’s ability to manage its budget..." (CBO 7/27/2010)

The Democrats argue that taxes must be raised, but offer little by way of spending decreases. Worse, their party seems drunk on spending at the time. And so, it begs the question: Can any amount of taxing satisfy the spending habits of Washington? Could the economy afford this added burden? Will businesses continue to hire if they are so heavily taxed? The answer is obvious: No! And there is no amount of taxing could ever cover the spend-lust of those currently in power. Besides, many economists will argue (correctly, I believe) that an increased tax burden would actually hurt the overall economy and that the IRS would, in fact, collect less money. The increase in taxation without a decrease in spending can only result in an increased deficit.

Where is the cap? Where is the limit? When do we say enough is enough?

An unknown author once noted:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result: the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy."

Can our democracy exist as a permanent form of government? Will we watch from afar as the fiscal solvency of the country plummets towards the ground? Are we naive enough to think that a collapse wouldn't effect us individually. Can the republic be saved?

I believe it can, if we make the necessary changes NOW. Unlike a pure democracy, we are a Constitutionally-based democratic Republic. Our constitution has the power to keep us together and to keep us fiscally sane if we will use the tool the founders left for us: the power to amend the constitution.

The solution to our fiscal problems isn't complicated. Simply put, the federal government needs to live within its means. Like any family or individual that has to prioritize its expenditures and abide by a budget, so must our government prioritize its expenditures and stay within a budget. But there must be force. The budget must have teeth.

Therefore, I propose a Fixed Budget Constitutional Amendment. This Amendment would go beyond that of a "balanced-budget amendment". The problem with a balanced-budget amendment is that if congress wants to spend more, all they have to do is raise taxes...just as long as the budget is balanced. No. We can do better than that. And frankly, we must do better than that.

The Fixed Budget Constitutional Amendment (hereafter FBCA) would mandate that congress shall not spend more than the National Fixed Budget for the year. This NFB would be figured by taking the national GDP of the previous year and then multiplying that by the percent we Americans feel should go towards federal government expenditures. I think 10% of the GDP should be more than adequate to cover what we really need our government to do for us. Maybe the actual percent could be debated and voted on. But once agreed upon, it would be the law of the land.

The FBCA could be worded as follows:

"Congress shall not authorize spending beyond that of the National Fixed Budget. The National Fixed Budget shall be no more than ten percent of the previous year's national Gross Domestic Product as certified by independent auditors. Taxes shall not be collected in excess of the National Fixed Budget."

By the way, 10% of the GDP would be 1.4 Trillion dollars. This is more than adequate to protect our nation from foreign invaders, as well as pay for infrastructure and welfare. But that is the point. Congress will have to argue and get the consent of the people about how to spend the 1.4 trillion. Maybe the people want NASA. Maybe the people want military. Maybe they want free pop vending machines. But whatever congress allocates money towards, it must keep in mind that it can spend no more than the fixed amount. As the population grows, and as the economy grows, the amount of dollars government can spend will increase, but not the percent, that remains fixed, unless another amendment comes along. If a threat to our security arises, other programs must be curtailed to pay for it. 1.4 trillion could buy a lot of bombs and F22s, even if we can't build new roads or pay for NPR for a couple of years. If we stay out of debt, we'll have the economy to support another war should our enemies dare threaten our freedom!

It is imperative that we, the people, take bold action to insure that our form of government remains. Our freedom has been a bright light and unique gift in all the history of the world. Our children deserve to receive an inheritance of freedom, not an inheritance of debt and oppression. Now is the time to "pull up on the wheel" by employing fiscal restraint and wise leadership. I believe that God has given us the Constitution for this very reason and that only a constitutional amendment has the power to enforce the fiscal sanity that Washington so dreadfully lacks.

Romneycare vs. Obamacare

by David Alvord

Let's face it. Healthcare is a problem that needed to be dealt with...and still does need to be dealt with. The costs of healthcare are increasing way beyond that of inflation. Not only is Medicare going bankrupt, but there are abuses and waste that are spiraling out of control.

Romney is just the kind of guy who could take all of the data for such an important and complicated problem and make the necessary changes. That's what he did in the private sector. He and his team would look at large businesses and analyze the data to see where there was waste or duplication. He would in essence, turn them around and make them profitable. That's also what Romney did in Massachusetts, he balanced the State's budget in a time of crisis. I believe that he can do the same for America.

The irony is that Obamacare looks a lot like Romneycare.

Or does it? One of my favorite sites, Evangelicals for Mitt, names just four of the important distinctions between the two plans:

see link here

In summary the major distinctions they cite are:

1. RomneyCare was uniquely designed for Massachusetts; ObamaCare is a one-size-fits-all imposition on all states, regardless of their economic condition.

2. RomneyCare was enacted only after Mitt balanced the state budget.

3. Mitt created bipartisan consensus while Obama rammed his reform down our throats and against the majority opinion of the American people.

4. RomneyCare is constitutional; ObamaCare may very well prove to be an unconstitutional abuse of federal power.

These are important distinctions, but I feel there are two more major differences between the two plans:

5. The democrats plan is designed, in the long run, to destroy private health insurance altogether. When Romney was in office, he brought insurance companies to the table and wrote a bill that they agreed to. Romney never had designs to bring to pass Universal and government run healthcare. This is a guy who is passionate about the private sector and understands the simple truth that the private sector will always outperform the government-run. It is only years later, and in a weakened economy, that the State of Massachusetts has placed price controls and regulated the premiums that now threaten private healthcare insurance in Massachusetts. The democrats have taken over and now so-called Romneycare is morphing into Obamacare. This is a very, very important distinction.

6. Romney was not in a position to fix the major problems that exist in healthcare. If you want to understand why Romneycare and Obamacare do share some similarities, is due to the fact that as Governor, Romney had to deal with the federal mandates that already existed. Romney couldn't address Medicare or Medicaid. Those were Federally run. Romney couldn't address lawsuits against doctors and hospitals. When it came to controlling the rising costs of healthcare, Romney's hands were tied.

The President, on the other hand, had the opportunity to address rising costs by allowing competition between state lines. Obama could have included Tort reform. Obama could have reformed Medicare. Obama could have looked at Medicaid. Instead, Obama has created a trillion dollar program that does nothing to keep the prices down. If the federal government were a business, they'd be bankrupt. But the feds have the ultimate business plan: Pay up or go to jail!

I am convinced that if Romney had the mandate to make Federal Healthcare reform, the result would have been very different from the so-called Romneycare that exists in Massachusetts today.

It is disingenuous to peg the problems in Massachusetts on Mitt Romney. Each of have filed our 2009 taxes. We each have to budget within those parameters. Does that mean we are responsible for the US tax code? Does that mean we are each responsible for the deficits and national debt? Likewise, Romney had to operate in the environment imposed by the Feds. His was a State where 90% already had healthcare. There was a small percentage that were slipping through the cracks that he helped to get coverage, that's all. He wasn't "reforming healthcare". He didn't have the power. You really can't honestly compare the two.

The Republicans now need to tackle healthcare. We need to do more than to simply repeal the law. We need a better law of our own. We need to address the major sources of price inflation, namely, tort reform, entitlement spending, waste, and competition. We need to get a bill that will address Medicare and control the costs. Our country is going to go bankrupt and this new law only speeds that process along. We can't blame Obama solely for the problems in our budget, but the recently passed law has done nothing but fan the flames and add fuel to the fire. Government needs to be regulated and cut. Not the other way around. Romney understands this and I believe that it is a mistake for him to be judged unfairly.

I invite each of you to obtain a copy of Romney's book "No Apology". I have read the book, and frankly, couldn't put it down. In it, you will discover the real Mitt Romney and will, like me, eagerly anticipate his presidency.

Brown wins and healthcare fails; this is why conservatives must stay united.

by David Alvord

His campaign promises were pretty simple. He said he would vote against the Democrat's healthcare bill. He said that he was upset by giving terrorists rights normally reserved for citizens of the U.S. He reminded the voters that it wasn't "Ted Kennedy's seat", but rather, the "people's seat". He ran as "one of the people" and had the slogan: "I'm Scott Brown, and I drive a truck." This infuriated the left, and so they sent the "anointed one" to turn things around. Obama poked fun at his truck, but was not able to turn the tide. So, Brown wins by a significant margin, especially significant in liberal Massachusetts.

The rest is now history. Healthcare dies, and within days, Nancy Pelosi announced that she did not have the votes to pass the Senate's bill.

Those of us who are in favor of freedom and liberty all gave a collective sigh of relief. It was a victory for the American people who wish to limit the size of government. Because of Brown, a Bill that was unpopular with the American people, did not pass.

Were Ron Paul supporters happy? Scott Brown did not mention the elimination of the Fed. Brown did not demand a return to the gold standard. He didn't run on a promise to legalize drugs, or get us out of Afghanistan and Iraq. Brown didn't promise to legalize prostitution. There was no mention of "empire building" or the devaluation of currency. In so many ways, according to Paul supporters, Brown simply did not "get it". Yet, his election did accomplish the defeat of a bill that would have accelerated the growth of government power and the devaluation of our currency. I would think that in spite of his weaknesses, Paul's supporters should have been very happy about his election. I am not sure that they were, but if so, I would love to read your comments.

So, what if Ron Paul had been on the ballot? What if he was there as a third-party candidate? Who would Paul supporters vote for? Keep in mind, this is liberal Massachusetts. I think Paul could have gotten no more than five to seven percent of the vote, if that. But that is a dangerous five percent because it could have meant a Coakley victory.

There are so many opinions out there. I am sure that those that voted for Brown did not agree with 100% of what he stood for. Yet, they voted for the candidate that best represented their values. They also wanted to vote "no" to the advancement of big government. The truth is, there were many Republicans who voted for him who did not agree with everything he stood for. He is a "socially liberal" Republican, after all.

I understand that Americans get tired of party politics. I wish we had a better system. I would be happy to get rid of party politics. I just ask one thing: Democrats, you go first! The left would love for us to splinter into groups and form a third or a fourth party. Then they with their big one party, swoop in and win every election.

They have managed to unite unions, educators, Hollywood, welfare recipients, pro-choicers, anti-military, socialists, communists, and so on. The democratic party has enough to get 40% of the vote, or more, in almost every State. The conservatives have no choice but to unite under one tent: the Republican party. Ronald Reagan understood this point very well.

I don't disagree with much of what Ron Paul and his supporters espouse. I welcome them to the debate in forming public opinion and educating the people. There can be debate within the party. I welcome that. It makes us better, but when it is time to vote, we need to be united. We need to remember that the left is united against us. The main problem I see is that the Ron Paul people don't vote with their party in the end. They "write in" Mr. Paul. And where is Ron Paul when the primary is over? Is his supporting the Republican nominee? No, he is silent.

This next time around, I encourage Ron Paul supporters, and all conservatives, to do all they can to give their candidate voice in the primaries. Do all you can to let his or her message be heard. But if he is not nominated to represent the party, please support the person who best represents your values and ideas of good governance. Thankfully, the people of Massachusetts did just that.