Can We Expect “A New Breed”?

Victor Davis Hanson, in one of his recent laments over his beloved State of California, described the “three California’s” by listing them as the “dependent class” (composed of those who pass through the criminal-justice system, those who are residing in the state illegally, and those who are poor and/or on public assistance), the “big-government coalition” ( which includes affluent journalists, politicians, academics, lawyers, jurists, and state employees – all of whom can be counted on to lobby for more entitlements and more public services) and the “non-public productive class” (consisting of business owners, farmers,the self-employed and workers in private industry).

He goes on commiserate with this third group, stating that, “Not only are they asked to pay for the state’s growing costs, they are the most likely to suffer economically from greater regulation, poorer schools, more crime, and endemic illegal immigration, (but) when budget crises hit, those who pay the highest income taxes are blamed for not paying even more”.

Although Mr. Hansons’ criticisms are directed toward a specific state government, I find that the has described most of the same problems that Maine faces (perhaps with less of an immigration issue – although residents of Portland and Lewiston, two cities with considerable recent foreign nationals being added to their population and public support rolls, might disagree).  Indeed, these three divisions and the conflict generated therein, seem to present an accurate picture of the problems facing America as a whole.

Such are the fruits of neo-Liberal economic and social policies, which the Obama government is so eager to encourage and support and which the Democratic party in general appears to have adopted as its mantra.

Once again, the tactic of dividing the electorate to maintain power is the primary goal, rather than acting in the best interests of the public and seeking common ground in order to formulate workable solutions to solve America’s current problems.  Induced chaos would provide the impetus for exercising the option of total government control in order to impose order.

And as long as the voters are willing to continue to elect this brand of politician, our country will continue on the downward path that will culminate in the United State’s reaching the revolutionaries’ goal of reducing our nation’s prominence in world affairs (and establishment of their control over our wealth and resources to support their “new order”).

Perhaps, if we are lucky, Republican Bob McDonnell’s victory in Virginia may signal the emergence of a new breed of politician; someone who will operate a campaign that requires clear explanations of what benefits every voter can expect from their leadership, rather than aiming their appeals at conglomerates of special interests.

Crucial, of course, will be the newly-elected Governor’s success in living up to his promises.

We already have enough disappointments (and dangers) to deal with.

A Rush to Destruction?

In the November issue of The American Spectator Burton Folsom, Jr., author and professor of history at Hillsdale College, has produced a wonderfully informative essay titled, “Obama’s Vision, Through History”, from which I have freely borrowed in constructing this post and suggest that anyone who is concerned about our future take the time to read in its entirety.

Prof. Folsom makes his argument by using as examples the policies of such  “constitutionalists” as Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge, and Ronald Reagan and comparing their effectiveness against the “interventionist” policies of the likes of Herbert Hoover, FDR, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, George Bush and now Barack Obama.

The “constitutionalists” advance the concept of limited government that allows entrepreneurs and the freemarkets to create and spur growth, whereas the opposite side of the coin, the “interventionists” embraces Government planning, massive federal spending, wealth redistribution, the creation of government jobs, and a Keynesian fine-tuning of the economy.

A key component of the “constitutionalist” approach is the reduction of income tax rates and slashing federal spending thereby unleashing the entrepreneurs, reducing the federal debt, and expanding the release of the human energy so necessary for economic recovery.

Andrew Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury under both Harding and Coolidge,  and a banking genius who had helped launch Alcoa and Gulf Oil (along with other successful corporations) was the first to make the then astonishing claim that cutting tax rates might actually increase revenue.  He insisted that, “it seems difficult to understand that high rates of taxation do not necessarily mean large revenue to the Government and that more revenue may be obtained by lower rates”.

He was supported by President Coolidge, who stated, “I agree perfectly with those who wish to relieve the small taxpayer by getting the largest possible contribution from people with large incomes.  But if the rates on large incomes are so high that they disappear, the small taxpayers will be left to bear the entire burden”.

With the help of a Republican Congress, income tax rates were chopped across the board, leaving the wealthiest Americans paying at a 25% marginal rate.  This resulted in the 1920’s budgets showing surpluses every year, unemployment plummeting to 2.4 percent by 1923 and from 1921 to 1929 the GNP rose 48 percent, one-third of the national debt was erased and the “average annual earnings of employees” rose 34 percent.  Equally important, “Entrepreneurs enjoyed one of their most creative periods in U.S. history: from radios to sliced bread to Scotch tape, inventors marketed new products” while “older inventions secured the capital required to emerge”.

Herbert Hoover succeeded Coolidge and immediately put into practice his previously-rejected (while serving as Secretary of Commerce in Coolidge’s cabinet) beliefs that targeted intervention could improve the economy without affecting the gains achieved from free markets.  He also imposed the highest tariff in U. S. history and began federal subsidizing of farmers, bankers, industrialists and the unemployed.  The Federal Reserve then joined in, lowering  interest rates and shrinking the money supply.  These actions all contributed to the Great Depression.  Hoover reacted by raising income taxes to a top rate of 63 percent, insuring that jobs would increasingly disappear to the extent that when FDR arrived on the scene in 1932 as the Democratic nominee for President umemployment stood at 25%.

Prof. Folsom  characterizes these developments by postulating that, “You can’t create jobs by taxing one group and giving to another – you can only redistribute existing wealth.  To create wealth, you have to cut tax rates, not raise them.  That was the chief premise of the constitutionalists”.

This concept was further re-enforced by the actions of FDR who after  campaigning against Hoover’s deficits which he described as, ” so great that it makes us catch our breath”, once being elected proceeded to practice the art of “full-scale interventionism” by indulging in projects such as the AAA which paid farmers not to produce (resulting in crop shortages necessitating in importation of cotton, corn and wheat in massive amounts).  He continued to inflate the government sector through the WPA, shifting what could have been private jobs into the public sector, limiting the creation new jobs and doing little to jump-start the economy.  In 1939, the unemployment rate has reached was almost 21 percent, prompting Henry Morgenthau, FDR’s good friend and his Secretary of the Treasury to confess, “We have tried spending money.  We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work…..I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much enemployment as when we started….And an enormous debt to boot!”.

With the exception of our last “constitutionalist” President, Ronald Reagan, all of the other men sitting in the White House have been influenced to varying degrees by the lure of  “interventionist” philosophy.  It is no coincidence that during his years as President the U.S. GNP grew by one-third while inflation and unemployment plummeted.

Bill Clinton, goaded by a Republican-dominated Congress, did cut capital gains taxes and sign welfare-reform legislation and the country enjoyed prosperity, a low misery index and, in the last years of his administration, even budget surpluses.

Barack Obama fancies himself a history buff, but insists on ignoring the results that history provides  when he subjects our country to the same failed economic and leadership policies that he so fervently now espouses.  Has he learned nothing from the abandonment of these failed policies by the Soviet Union, Ireland, New Zeland, Sweden and Germany, who revised their tax policies after watching the economic growth of the United States become the model for the rest of the world?

Obama Hood and his merry band of tax cheats, assorted shysters and grifters, would-be communists, revolutionaries and other assorted ideologues continue their headlong rush to rob the poor (and most everyone else) to give to the rich and well-connected, leading America deeper into the swamp of overwhelming debt and insistent government intervention.

 

 

Time for a New Populist Movement?

Next year’s gubernatorial race here in Maine currently boasts 21 (and counting) would-be candidates for the office.  It confounds me that so many aspirants are eager to take over the helm of a badly-damaged and listing ship.

One of the most-recently announced runners in the race was John Richardson, former Speaker of the Maine House and currently heading the Economic Development office of Maine State Government.  He is indeed a perfect poster child for the arrogant, clueless, tone-deaf political elites that seem to have taken over  government at all levels; to wit, his statement that he is best-qualified to be Governor because, with the massive economic problems facing Maine, “This is no time for amateurs”.  This coming from an individual who, for at least a decade, has been an integral part of the “leadership” that has steered Maine into financial disaster and is now furiously trying to repair the damage by implementing long-needed budgetary cuts to counteract a four-million looming deficit over the next two years!

All of this brings me to my subject, an article appearing in the November 16th edition of The Weekly Standard, crafted by Matthew Continetti, extolling the populist commitments of Andrew Jackson, William Jennings Bryan, Ronald Reagan and (wait for it) yes ….. Sarah Palin.

No matter what your feelings for – or about – Gov. Palin, there is little doubt in my mind that it is well past time for a populist revival of dramatic proportions.  Barack Obama and his merry band of tax cheats, ideologues, thieves and revolutionaries personify the overbearing elitism that in the past has led America into deep economic, financial, moral and ethical swamps from which recovery has been slow, painful and costly.

The health of our country, unique in the world as a successful representative republic, depends upon a level playing field so that individuals of all stations can compete and thrive in a commercial society.  This necessitates leadership that can accept the idea that Americans, “left to their own devices, will create a free, just and prosperous society”.  In the worlds of Gerald Ford, “Here, the people rule”.

When a government is in the hands of a group dedicated to playing favorites and manipulating society by acting upon “intellectual fashions”, then initiative, enthusiasm and free enterprise are all restricted and economic advancement falls prey to corruption, regulatory excess and bureaucratic ineptitude.

The elites of our current political class are now arrogantly exhibiting their contempt for those who responded to Obama’s empty promises of “open government”, ending the influence of special interests and the conferring special privileges, and “reaching across the aisle” to adopt his opponents’ best ideas.  Instead, the public now faces rule structured by the “expert” input of appointed elite technocrats, the same greedy bankers that candidate Obama exhaustively castigated, thuggish union leaders, and now-unrestrained radical Liberal Democrats.

Mr. Continetti postulates that whenever  elite behavior becomes overtly self-interested and opaque, a popular reaction ensues.  Obama’s job approval rating just dipped below fifty per cent for the the first time, according to the latest Rasmussen poll  and Congress, at a 21 percent approval rating has only used-car salesmen to look down on.  We have witnessed millions of Americans expressing their discontent through “tea parties” and other forms of demonstration.  Still there is no concerted populist movement on the immediate horizon.

“Elites regard challenges to their authority with condescension and contempt” says Mr. Contenitti.  This behavior masks the fear and anxiety that someone creates who does not “play the game” and buy in to the universe that the elites reserve for themselves – therefore the vicious and distorted attempts to diminish Gov. Palin’s appeal to middle America during the past elections.

I hope that her book is  a best-seller and an ongoing success.

I would more dearly hope that from some source a leader will emerge who will display imagination, who will, “separate the good populism from the bad …. who will give voice to the millions who don’t want government aggrandizing the powerful; who don’t want government risking dangerous fiscal imbalances, who do want public policies that create the conditions for a general prosperity”.

Someone who will recognize that the American people’s ability to function with a minimum of regulation and interference (rather than under the tyrannical supervision of those who recognize no vision but their own) is the best chance for restoring our country to happiness and prosperity.

A World Apart

I had forgotten how much good it does my soul to spend a week or so away from the routine that seems to consume so much of my time on a daily basis.  My visit to the mountains of western Maine was a wakeup call,  reminding me that some of the most important things in life cannot be obtained through our compulsive structuring of our environment.

The folks who helped two old geezers navigate the wilderness deserve a ton of credit for their patience, excellent facilities, great meals  and all-around support.  Stony Brook Outfitters, headquartered in East Wilton, Maine, is a dream turned into a small business.  Both Bob and Jaye Parker grew up in families that were devoted to hunting and fishing and they began their business in 1980 after deciding to share  their knowledge and experience with others who can appreciate Maine’s vast wilderness and wildlife.

Bob organizes and oversees the outdoor activities and Jaye cooks hearty meals as well as managing the administrative details.  Our guide, Ed, was absolutely tireless and devoted to doing everything that he could to insure that we would be in a position to see game.  He was also a fountain of knowledge regarding the areas that we traveled and the wildlife inhabiting them.  When any group of outdoors enthusiasts gather together the stories begin to flow and Ed has some truly impressive experiences to relate.

There were no trips that I recall taking place during the second week of November in Maine that did not include a rainy day or two, but this year we were blessed with sunshine for the entire week.  Mornings could produce temperatures in the high teens, but by noontime we were shedding clothes in an effort to deal with temperatures nearing fifty degrees.

I try to keep in shape throughout the year with walking and various other exercises including martial arts training;  however, none of those activities  prepared me for the experience of climbing mountainsides every day.  I am convinced that any animals living in that area have legs on one side considerably shorter than the other side just to deal with the steep slopes.

It is difficult to describe the clarity of the air in the mountains, sharp enough to sting the nostrils and enabling one to see vast distances down the valleys.  The silence is remarkable, with no intrusive noises other than the ones caused by wildlife …… excepting the occasional high-flying jet.  It is a place for reflection, introspection, and for marveling at the beauty that cannot be found in “civilized” areas.

I was fortunate enough to encounter several moose (nature’s homeliest creature, other than the camel) and a couple of them were truly impressive.  Due to coyote predation small animals and grouse were not abundant, but I still managed to catch glimpses of ravens, red squirrels, Canada Jays (wild birds who are so inquisitive that they will eat from your hand), Chickadees and Nuthatches.

Days were full, rising at four and traveling nearly forty miles to our hunting area, then returning to the lodge well after dark for supper and a little tall-tale swapping before retiring early enough to help recuperate from a long day of walking.

Even though deer sightings were few and non-productive, my hunting partner and I agreed that this had been a great experience and resolved to return sometime in the future.  For us, it is the overall hunting and outdoors experience that provides the enjoyment and that is not based on acquiring “trophies”.  Of course, we do not pass up the appropriate opportunity to stock the freezer with venison.

The mountains, for me, seem to provide more ready access to the latent energies that compound the universe.  Our daily lives in the times that we live in all too frequently override and filter out the source of wonder and excitement that our long-ago ancestors were so much more in tune with.

At least I got my batteries recharged.

Maine’s Election Results

Election results here in the Pine Tree State were a mixed bag.

Efforts by the Maine Legislature and the special interest groups to impose homosexual marriage upon the public by fiat met with rejection, with only four (Liberal inclaves all) of the state’s 16 counties voting to retain the recently passed law “equalizing” marriage.  No doubt the issue will resurface.

Another  citizen’s initiative to pass a version of TABOR (Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights) in an effort to restrain feckless spending by state government was  defeated by a substantial margin, following massive spending by the opposition in the form of endless, fear-mongering television advertisements , shamelessly  trotting out the usual heart-rending scenarios involving public safety, education, children, the sick, and seniors, promising dire consequences if the omniscient, generous, loving  government was to be limited by caps imposed by cold, selfish, and uncaring citizens.  So Maine proceeds merrily on the way to eventual bankruptcy, urged on by those who live on the funds provided by the taxpayer.

As usual, a massive bond issue of well in excess of one hundred million dollars to fund desperately needed repairs to a wide variety of infrastructure projects was blithely approved despite the trumpeting of numerous such improvements already made through the “stimulus bill” – so many Maine voters never seem to be able to comprehend that bond issues are simply a way of borrowing more money that the state has no real means of paying back without additional revenue increases of some sort and in the meantime incrementally lowering Maine’s bond rating.

Pretty much business as normal, except for the general electorate putting their foot down against the concept of homosexual marriage.  My beloved state has become a welfare haven, a social experimentation laboratory and a utopia for special interest groups.   Quite different from the self-reliant, sensible, realistic environment that I grew up in.

I am slightly cheered by the rejection of faulty leadership in Both New Jersey and Virginia.  Perhaps conservatism is beginning to exert more of an appeal to the electorate now that the dewy-eyed optimism following the last National election has run headlong into the problems associated with allowing one-party rule without the designed system of checks and balances acting to provide a safeguard for liberty.

Luckily, some things do not change.  My long-time hunting partner, an old and treasured friend from Pennsylvania arrives this Saturday and we head into the western Maine mountains for a week of ranging the woods and relaxing.  Any group of hunters has a  large collection of stories and ours goes back over 35 years.  Still, we manage to add one or two during each excursion.  I am greatly looking forward to the exploration of a new area that we have selected, since there is always so much to see and enjoy.  Venison in the freezer is a plus, but scarcely a necessity.

So for the next week or ten days I get a break – and so do my readers.  I sincerely thank all of you who elect to join me on these pages and I will be looking forward to rejoining you soon.

 

Can a National Conservative Party Work?

Events transpiring over the weekend lent hope to conservatives everywhere as an upstate New York “Republican” (read, “RINO”) dropped out of the race for a House seat.  Polls had indicated that Ms. Dede Scozzafava was trailing Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman by a significant margin – probably due to her open expression of support for such bedrock values such as abortion, “Card-Check” union-based attacks on voting rights, endorsement by that pillar of righteous behavior ACORN (oops, those sound like something the Democrats espouse, right?).

Tellingly, it took Ms. Scozzafava and her union-lackey husband less than 24 hours to express their open support for the Democratic candidate for the District 23 House Seat, giving a whole new meaning to the term, “coming out”.

What interests me most is that Mr. Hoffman (wish that I could vote for him) appears to be a staunch conservative who is simply fed up with the mealy-mouthed “support” of the Republican party for the values that he believes in and has decided to do something about it.  God bless him and I hope he wins in a landslide.

Even more intriguing is the fact that New York State actually has a Conservative Party designation under which Mr. Hoffman can run and campaign, and that brings to mind the simple question, “Why does a Conservative Party not exist at the national level?”.

After all, polls consistently indicate that nearly twice as many Americans consider themselves to be Conservative as opposed to those who prefer the Liberal label.

Think about it for a moment: the “big tent”, “umbrella” concepts so carelessly bandied about by the two major parties are actually insistent upon the division of the electorate into minor, warring, factions and only under their tutelege and patronage can these lost souls be formed into a cohesive bloc that will triumph in the race for national leadership (actually, control) and policy.

I  submit that there are sufficient conserative-minded voters in America to deserve a party of their own that would be built around concepts such as adherence to the Constitution and its amendments, a color-blind society, rewarding hard work and dedication, free trade of goods and services, fiscal responsibility, limiting taxes, controlling entitlements, and reducing the size and influence of government in our daily lives – just for starters.

A national Conservative Party would provide a voice and a platform for such “mavericks” as Doug Hoffman and Sara Palin and provide freedom from the stifling dogma that has become the mainstay of the two-party system.  Surely, Libertarians and other freedom-minded individuals might find something to like about such a platform.

I would be happy to support such a party …… hopefully there is a way to get it up and going.

Anyone else out there interested?

How to Change Washington

This was sent to me by a friend and is just too good not pass along.  Let’s face it, we can’t make things any worse by following this strategy and it may get the message across to politicians that they are first of all responsible to the entire electorate, not just to big money and special interests.

“If this doesn’t get your dander up nothing will:

HERE IS ONE TO TWIST YOUR TWINKIE – if you don’t know how to curse yet,  ” I am certain you will after you read this one ” !
According to the Trustees for the Social Security Administration,

” THERE WILL NOT BE A COST OF LIVING INCREASE FOR THE NEXT
TWO YEARS IN SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS. ADDITIONALLY THEY
WILL RAISE YOUR CO-PAY FOR YOUR RX MEDICARE BENEFITS ” !

They, the Congress ( BOTH ” REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATS TOGETHER “) say no increase is warranted because of the losses in gross national product and other cute things.

NOW HERE SPORTS FANS THIS IS THE ONE THAT WILL FLIP YOU OUT!! –

THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION IS FUNDING TWENTY FOUR
MILLION DOLLARS– LET ME REPEAT THAT AMOUNT… SO YOU
UNDERSTAND IT $ 24,000,000.00 DOLLARS FOR NEW ELECTRONIC
MEDICAL RECORDS PROCESSING FOR OUR CONGRESSMEN AND SENATORS !!

THEY ARE OBTAINING THESE FUNDS and  I QUOTE DIRECTLY FROM THE SOCIAL SECURITY WEBSITE……………

” THIS MONEY WILL BE COME FROM THE SAVINGS TO BE
GENERATED FROM WITHHOLDING  ” COST OF LIVING INCREASES FOR
2010 & 2011 in SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS FOR THE ELDERLY
AND A $2.00 INCREASE ON ALL MEDICARE RX BENEFIT CO-PAY”

Please excuse my FRENCH, But do the words ” BULL CRAP” ring a bell ?

Please pass this to ALL your friends and have them “PROTEST TO THE IDIOTS WE ELECTED TO CONGRESS “ who by the way, have just voted themselves ANOTHER 3% SALARY INCREASE!!!

We must put a stop to this outright thievery!  It is THE CONGRESS AND THE SENATE, BOTH REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATS, WE CAN’T FIRE THEM, BUT WE SURE AS HELL CAN NOT RE-ELECT THEM, and WE CAN IMPEACH THEM or DEMAND RECALL ELECTIONS !!! HOW ABOUT WE ALL GET TOGETHER AND DUMP THESE CLOWNS.

Just watch. They will spend this money and find the software doesn’t work, dump the whole thing and go back to the old steam driven system just like they did with air traffic control several years ago.  Don’t worry though, they’ve got health care all worked out.

So here is what we CAN do…. All I ask is that you consider the suggestion here. The entire Congress of the United States is corrupt. And I mean both Houses and I mean both major parties. I realize that a few Members of each House are trustworthy, but, as a group they are absolutely the most corrupt bunch  to ever disgrace our Nation. In November of 2010 the entire House of Representatives will stand for re-election; all 435 of them.  One third of the Senate, a total of 33 of them, will also stand for re-election.  Vote every incumbent out. And I mean every one of them.  No matter their Party affiliation.  Let’s start all over in the House of Representatives with 435 people who have absolutely no experience in running that body, with no political favors owed to anyone but their own constituents.  Let’s make them understand that  they work for us. They are answerable to us and they simply have to run that body with some common sense. Two years later, in 2012, vote the next third of the incumbents in the Senate out. We can do the same thing in 2014 and, by that time we will have put all new people in that body as well. We, the People, have got to take this Country back and we HAVE to do it peacefully. That’s what the Framers of our Constitution envisioned. I am also suggesting term limits on the  NEW BUNCH –8 YEARS FOR REPRESENTATIVES AND 12 YEARS OF SENATORS.  NO EXCEPTIONS.  THE LONGER THEY STAY IN OFFICE THE MORE POWER THEY GET AND THEY LOVE IT AND WILL DO ANYTHING TO GET RE-ELECTED. WE HAVE TERM LIMITED THE PRESIDENT — NOW LET’S TERM  LIMIT THE LEGISLATORS. Please, if you love this Country, send this (as I have done) to  absolutely everyone whose email address appears in your address book. This thing can permeate this Country in no time.  Let’s make it happen.** VOTE THE POWER ABUSERS OUT……..LET’S TAKE AMERICA BACK !!!!!!!!! IF YOU LIKE THE WAY THINGS ARE GOING IN OUR COUNTRY, THEN DO NOTHING………”

What Constitutes a Prosperous Country?

Jonathan Aitken, in an article in the October issue of The American Spectator, reviews an annual report compiled and published by American-led think tank, the Legatum Institute.

Within this document, titled “The Legatum Prosperity Index”, can be found a global-scale review of who scores what when the statistics of 21^st century wealth combined with well-being are collected and interpreted.  Such a review can, of course, be highly subjective, and Legatum pays Gallup very significant sums to conduct polls in 104 nations.

Mr. Aitken claims that “no other international organization has ever tried to make such a diverse and wide-ranging study into the causes of national contentment”.  He goes on to state that “in Legatum’s view, there are two halves of the prosperity equation, economic competitiveness and ‘comparative liveability’”.

Concerning the second half of the equation, “life satisfaction” plays a major role, although countries falling into the category of the world’s poorest societies (average annual incomes falling under $10,000) where income levels trump all other predictors of personal happiness, are sensibly excluded.  The concept of “liveability” embraces such issues as freedom of choice, ethical values, good health, equality of opportunity, civil liberties, spiritual faith, low unemployment rates, strong family life and a temperate climate.

Obviously, there are few places on earth that would include all of these positive elements.  But if one considers both sides of the equation and is willing to accept that Legatum has invested serious money and time to amass a mountain of data that may indicate that versions of positive materialism do exist and can be identified and measured, then the results of this report can be enlightening.

Legatum’s findings highlight economic values such as growth, entrepreneurship, good returns on capital invested, honest democracy and freedom from government interference and are paired with “well-being” issues such as choice, health, equality of opportunity and strong religious faith to provide overall ratings for the Prosperity Index.

The results reveal that in 2008 Australia topped the list, followed by Austria and Finland (a tie for 2d), with the United States finishing fourth.  Among the lowest-rated were Zimbabwe, Zambia and Yemen.

Mr. Aitken points out that the value of this research is not in awarding any prizes for topping the list, but rather in establishing benchmarks.

Sociologists would likely have a field day with a study of this type, but for the average citizen it might better serve to instigate some soul-searching and introspection.

Even though America may have a high “liveability” rating, do we really pay enough attention to core values or to freedom from government interference and manipulation?  Has our level of spiritual faith declined enough to weaken our national moral fiber?  Is a rising unemployment rate a precursor to national despondency?  Is our overall national health at a point so low that we should consider it a true crisis?

Benchmarks are never designed to provide solutions, but if properly evaluated they can frequently identify issues that require attention.  After considering the information contained in “The Legatum Prosperity Index”, should we view our glass as “half-empty” or “half-full”?

A Taste of Oppression

Recently a truly disturbing side of the current administration was on display.

The Obama Whitehouse nudged one of its main “advisors”  to center stage, ostensibly to discuss the reasons why private industry salaries should be under the control of the sages building our new society, and while presenting a scripted performance worthy of the finest kabuki theater, they also made a bald attempt at instigating complete control of the media.

“Pay Czar” Kenneth Feinberg was trotted out to explain to the White House Media Pool how we all would benefit from government control over salaries and bonuses paid out to officers and employees of the corporations who had received TARP funds.  Before the meeting took place, administration spokespersons explained that only “legitimate news organizations” would be allowed to attend the briefing and therefore FOX News was to be excluded from the gathering.

I was delighted when the other media sources involved dug in their heels and firmly stated that unless FOX was included then none of them would be in attendance.  Even more pleasing was the rapid retreat of the administration when confronted with this open rebellion.  Kudos to all media personnel involved in this refusal to be so crassly manipulated.

And yet this is still another example of a growing inclination of the Obama administration to ignore Constitutional rights and to seek to impose intense restrictions on the rights of Americans that are plainly allotted – a clear violation of the First Amendment, in this particular instance, and an arrogant departure from the promises of “transparency” and “open government” promised by candidate Obama and his Democratic colleagues.

Also, our current government is openly eager to advertise the fact that it is industriously building a list of its prominent “enemies”.

How long might it take before they expand this list to all of the individual citizens across America they identify as opponents to its policies?

“The Right Stuff”?

In a number of my postings I have extolled (“harped on “, some might say)  the need for principled, competent, successful candidates to run for offices at local, state and federal levels in order to change the climate of corruption, incompetence, deception and immorality that all too frequently seems to characterize our current crop of politicians.

I recently had the opportunity to meet and listen to a man whom I believe offers a true measure of “hope and change” for the citizens of Maine and if we could manage to clone him might be able to do the same for politics at all levels.

Paul LePage is the Mayor of Waterville, ME, a community numbering some 25,000 residents – which for Maine constitutes a significant population center.  Waterville has seen its share of setbacks in recent years including large losses of manufacturing jobs and the accompanying property devaluation which has of course produced a negative impact on tax revenues.

Mr. LePage ran for office with a stated goal of reducing municipal taxes and he has succeeded in accomplishing this feat every year that he has held the title as Mayor.  This is no small feat, considering that Mr. LePage is a steadfast conservative Republican and the Town Council (with the exception of one stated “Independent”) consists of Democrats as does the majority of the residents of the municipality.

How does one faced with such unfavorable odds manage to succeed?

The Mayor’s early years reflected, at best, an inauspicious beginning.  At age eleven he had left a “dysfunctional” family life and was scraping out a meager existence shining shoes on the rough streets of Lewiston, ME.  With the help of some real-life “Good Samaritans” and overcoming the hurdle of French as his primary language in an English-speaking environment, Mr. LePage acquired both a B.S. in Finance and Accounting from Husson College and an MBA from the University of Maine.

Besides his political accomplishments, he has built a private consulting firm, specializing in “growing private business in unique markets” as well as providing services as CEO, CFO, and Chief Operating Officer to a variety of businesses and professional firms.

When asked what motivated him to run for Governor of Maine his reply was simple: “I want Maine to produce jobs that will bring young people back to the State”.  His list of priorities also includes fiscal responsibility, tax reform, limited government and “traditional values” and he feels that since his business and career have evolved around workouts and turnarounds he can be particularly effective in working to reduce waste and inefficiency.

This would appear to be an etrue example of the achievement of the “American Dream”, where an individual who, through hard work and determination, has managed to overcome daunting obstacles and gain success.  I present his story in an attempt to describe what I feel should be the basic characteristics needed to effectively hold political office.  This is a candidate with a record that can be verified.

At present there are nearly a score of aspirants to the position of Maine’s Governor and there are some individuals who also can present impressive resumes.  Even though the elections are more than a year away, I would suspect that the cabal of “good old boys” and Liberals who have ruled the state for several decades are already gearing up to defeat Paul LePage.  He is a true threat to their power and the last race for Governor featured a hysterical and virulent campaign against the Republican nominee.

I foresee the same strategies  being employed for the coming race for Maine’s Governor , and the same conditions will undoubtedly surface for any candidate at any level whose qualifications threaten the status quo of the political elite that compose the majority of our elected “ruling class”.

And yet, I believe that the success of these challengers and their voting blocs is the best hope to slow or divert the decline of our nation’s greatness.