E-Newsletter No. 116              August 2023

Last month, we discussed the slight difference between Socialism and Communism, which primarily relates to the process of distributing the outputs of a country’s economy to its citizens.  This month, we will discuss the difference between Socialism/Communism and Free Market Capitalism. 

Karl Marx and Fredrich Engels published The Communist Manifesto in 1848, decades after the end of the French Revolution.  In their view, the French Revolution merely replaced the medieval class struggle between the peasant serfs and the nobility with a new struggle between the working class (the “proletariat”) and the bourgeois owners of capital. Marxists wanted their own revolution to fundamentally transform society, and so they pitted the proletariat against the bourgeois.  However, when that class warfare didn’t ultimately pan out as planned (because of the success of capitalism) they have now had to change tactics.  

Modern-day Marxists (BLM, etc.) have now switched to the issue of racism to stoke the fires of divisiveness.  We also have transgenderism and the LGBTQ+ movement as another means to divide our country’s citizens.  And Marxists will continue to wage war on religious liberty, because according to Karl Marx, “Religion is the opium of the masses.”

Adam Smith published The Wealth of Nations in 1776, having concluded that individual self-interest within an economy (the invisible hand of the marketplace) led to a tremendous societal benefit, facilitated by a mutual interdependence between the producers of economic outputs and the consumers of those outputs.  He advocated that nations would prosper if individual citizens were free to pursue their own self-interests in a free market without government regulations.  This was one of our country’s founding principles under the US Constitution.  The Tenth Amendment specifically restricted the scope of the federal government, leaving the issues pertaining to daily life to We-the-People.

So, why has Socialism / Communism failed so miserably in every single instance where it has been tried?  Human nature.  It is true that people desire “security” – the promise of being taken care of is very appealing (i.e., “to each according to his needs”).  However, each person is an individual with unique talents and needs and wants.  A centrally planned economy is doomed to failure, because elites (bureaucrats) will never be able to know what each individual’s abilities or wants might be.

Unfortunately, that doesn’t stop Marxists / elitists / bureaucrats from trying to control every aspect of people’s lives.  The new class struggle has now become We-the-People versus “them”.  More on that next month.    

US Debt Clock – – July 1^st – $96,500 per citizen / August 1st – $97,500

E-Newsletter No. 115              July 2023

“A Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch” (Author unknown). 

Steven Crowder explained Democratic Socialism in this YouTube video –

In our opinion, the best snippets are the first 30 seconds, and then [1:05-1:34], [6:08-7:17] and [16:44-17:58].

So, if Democratic Socialism is simply Socialism with a deceptive adjective inserted in front of the noun, then how does Socialism differ from Communism?

Under the theory of both Communism and Socialism, the “people” (collectively) own all of the elements of economic production, which are (in theory) shared equally by all citizens.  There is a slight difference between Socialism and Communism in how the output of that economic production is distributed to the people.

Under Socialism, the economic output is (in theory) distributed to individuals according to each individual’s abilities and level of contribution.  However, the “theory” does not address who makes the assessment of the value of each individual’s abilities or the value of their level of contribution.  (That is a topic for next month’s newsletter).

Many of the early Communists derided the above approach and referred to it as Utopian Socialism.  Karl Marx coined the phrase “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”  Again, the issue of who would determine what each individual “needed” was not specifically addressed.  The “easy answer” became that under Communism, the government (or more specifically, the elitists in the government) would make the determination of how the outputs of the economic system would be distributed.  Therefore, under Communism, the government elitists effectively “own” the means of production AND determine how those outputs are to be distributed.

Next month we will discuss Adam Smith and free market capitalism versus Socialism/Communism.  As you can probably deduce already, Free Market Capitalism (individualism) and Socialism/Communism (collectivism) are polar opposites.

US Debt Clock – – June 1^st – $95,025 per citizen / July 1st – $96,500

Here is a side note:  The federal government’s “on book” debt increased from $31.8 trillion as of June 1^st to $32.3 trillion as of July 1^st.  This $500 billion increase in just one month is the single largest monthly increase since May, June and July of 2020 when the federal government was disbursing massive amounts of “COVID cash” and the government shut down the economy, cratering tax revenues. With the suspension of the debt ceiling until 2025, if the federal government were to add $500 billion (nearly $1,500 per citizen) each month for the next 18 months, the debt amount would grow to well over $40 trillion.  Socialists do not have any qualms about stealing that amount of money from future generations.  In fact, they are still angry that minor cuts were made to their grandiose spending plans.

E-Newsletter No. 114               June 2023

Last month’s newsletter was about Individualism versus Collectivism.  So, the question has become – Do our country’s citizens want to continue to place a higher value on personal responsibility and “rugged individualism”, or do we want to succumb to the false promises of Socialism?  There is no doubt that there has been a steady, ongoing effort by dedicated Leftists and their allies in academia and the media to “re-package” and market the “free” benefits of Socialism.  But what exactly are they selling?

Socialism is a political philosophy that is characterized by the collective ownership of the means of production, along with the distribution of those goods and services.  In other words, it is the government (the politicians, the ancillary political “elites” and the bureaucracy) that controls the country’s economy.   

Let’s first address the production of goods and services.  If you simply look at historical outcomes, this has always been the downfall of a Socialist economy.  “Central planning” has never worked very well.  Resource allocation has never been the government’s strong suit.  (Free market capitalism has always been a more effective method of providing the goods and services that consumers want).  A government generally needs to rely on its primary power (which is to coerce) and oftentimes consumers disagree with those decisions.  Unless our current government’s stated objectives change, in a matter of only a few years, we will no longer be able to purchase gasoline powered cars or natural gas stoves. 

On the other hand, Socialists have been much more successful in selling the “benefits” of the way they want to redistribute goods and services.  One of Marxism’s primary tactics is to divide a country’s citizens into “subgroups” and then pit those groups against each other.  Students of history know that the use of this tactic goes back to the mid- to late-1800s – – the proletariat versus the bourgeoisie; workers / unions versus business owners; rich versus poor.  And now the Socialists are pushing for reparations for slavery that ended with the conclusion of the Civil War in 1865.  And the Socialists also believe other citizens should pay off the student loan debt of the people who took out those loans, etc., etc.

Many of these initiatives are simply Socialist politicians buying votes with other people’s money.  As Alexander Tytler Fraser once noted “the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury.”   Unfortunately, many of our citizens have not yet made the connection that the funds being used to buy those votes are being “borrowed” from our children and grandchildren. 

This past month, the federal government’s debt ceiling crisis was resolved by making the ceiling irrelevant until after the November 2024 elections. We put the word “borrowed” in quotes above, because the more appropriate term would be “stolen.”  A lender in a regular business transaction consciously agrees to make the loan.  That opportunity has never been given to our children / grandchildren who aren’t old enough to vote.

US Debt Clock – – May 1^st – $94,765 per citizen / June 1st – $95,025

E-Newsletter No. 113                May 2023

In decades past, Americans were known for their rugged individualism.  The term had its origins in the American frontier experience.  It meant that an individual was self-reliant and independent from state or government assistance.  Ray Lyman Wilbur, a former Secretary of the Interior, once wrote, “It is common talk that every individual is entitled to economic security. The only animals and birds I know that have economic security are those that have been domesticated—and the economic security they have is controlled by the barbed-wire fence, the butcher’s knife, and the desire of others. They are milked, skinned, egged, or eaten up by their protectors.”

Collectivists (socialists) seem to have a similar goal.  You may recall a few years back (when men were under attack by “woke” Leftists) a new term came into being – toxic masculinity.  A new similar term “toxic individualism” is now in play as well.  A rugged individualist is more than likely a fervent anti-Communist.  Therefore, in order to advance the Socialist agenda, such an individual must now be labeled as being toxic. Socialism demands that a person sacrifice their individualism for the greater good of the collective.  This is the fundamental transformation that the Socialists are trying to achieve.

News update:  It appears that our federal government is merely weeks away from running out of money yet again.  President Biden’s original desire was for a “clean” debt limit increase, with no restrictions on future government spending.  Fortunately, it appears that conservatives in the US House of Representatives are not going to let that happen.  Yes, the debt limit will be increased, as no one wants the federal government to default on its payment obligations.  But hopefully, our federal government will begin to make some fundamental changes to curb future spending. 

Unfortunately, that objective is going to be extremely difficult to achieve, unless the various Socialist programs (Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid) are fundamentally transformed.  These “mandatory” programs are not separately budgeted. They are on automatic pilot, and they represent over 65% of federal government spending.  With the aging of our country’s population, something must change, but career politicians refuse to address the problem.  It is so much easier for them to steal from future generations.  Margaret Thatcher once said, “The problem with Socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.”  Yep.  That happened a long time ago and is the reason why the federal government’s debt limit is north of $31 Trillion and is about to rise yet again.

US Debt Clock – – April 1^st – $94,600 per citizen / May 1st – $94,765

E-Newsletter No. 112                 April 2023          

In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote, “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

Conservatives champion the fundamental principle that every individual has “Equality” and equal protections under the law.  It doesn’t matter if you are a man or a woman, or what your ethnic heritage or race might be.  And we appreciate the Rule of Law (even though we oftentimes think there are way too many meaningless laws and that some laws are counter-productive and need to be changed through the legislative process).

The acronym DEI stands for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, and this is a major agenda item for the Left.  Conservatives reject the Marxist concept of “Equity.”

Conservatives embrace Diversity.  We are a nation founded by immigrants, with innumerable ethnic backgrounds, which add to the fabric of American life.  America has always been a land of opportunity that draws immigrants from around the world. We believe in the motto at the base of the Statue of Liberty – “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”  However, we are a nation of laws, and we expect immigrants to come here legally.  Unfortunately, the actions of illegal immigrants, which are being tolerated (encouraged?) by the Left, show a total disregard for the Rule of Law.

Conservatives also embrace the concept of Inclusion.  Again, we do not care about a person’s ethnic heritage or race.  Our fundamental guiding principle should always continue to be “e pluribus unum” (out of many, one). 

The reason Conservatives reject the Marxist concept of “Equity” is that we recognize the reality that each individual has their own particular skills and aspirations, and this reality inevitably results in “unequal outcomes.”  And of course, that reality is entirely contrary to the agenda and goals of Marxists.  Their solution is to obtain absolute control of the government, so they can use the power of the government to redistribute wealth from some citizens and then transfer it to their supporters. 

Fortunately, there continues to be some level of resistance to that particular tactic.  However, unfortunately, there is another tactic used by the Left to achieve their goal of “Equity” and that tactic is to steal that wealth from future generations. 

US Debt Clock – – March 1^st – $94,440 per citizen / April 1st – $94,600

E-Newsletter No. 111                 March 2023          

Our country continues to be in the middle of the ongoing war against Socialism.  It is a well-known Marxist tactic that one of the best ways to advance Socialism is to divide the people, and then pit those groups against each other.  While there are innumerable ways in which the Left continues to try to divide our country’s citizens, we will focus on just two in this newsletter – class warfare and racism.

Saul Alinsky wrote a book “Rules for Radicals”.  One of the divisive steps that is oftentimes attributed to Alinsky is the use of Class Warfare – – Divide the people into the wealthy and the poor.  This will cause more discontent and it will be easier to tax the wealthy with the support of the poor. 

Part of the Socialist ideology is the rejection of the concepts of private enterprise, earned income and profits, which are the basic features of capitalism.  Unfortunately, under Socialist ideology, profits and “inequality” are evils that must be eliminated.  Instead, their ideology is “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.”  Unfortunately, under Socialism, people are not free to pursue the maximum use of their own individual abilities, and it has been proven time and time again that the government can never know what each individual needs (or wants).

We will talk more about “Equity” (the “E” in “DEI”) in a future newsletter.  For now, let’s just say the idea of “Equity” might sound good on paper, but to accomplish it creates a massive amount of divisiveness, especially when it’s the government that will be used to enforce “Equity.”

Critical Race Theory is a classic Marxist divide-and-conquer tactic.  Identity politics is used as a tool to sow hatred among people.  The Democrat party is fixated on race.  They have a long history of racism with the KKK and Jim Crow laws.  Conservatives, on the other hand, couldn’t care less about someone’s ethnic heritage.  We embrace the philosophy of the words of Martin Luther King Jr – “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” 

If we can hold on to that fundamental value, we will be able to retain one of our country’s founding principles – E Pluribus Unum.

US Debt Clock – – February 1^st – $94,290 per citizen / March 1st – $94,440

E-Newsletter No. 110                 February 2023  

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” – Benjamin Franklin

Last month, we began a series of newsletters that discuss various values, and how those values affect a person’s vote in an election.  Based on exit polling data for the 2022 midterm elections, it appears that a significant majority of younger voters age 18-30 voted in support of President Biden’s desire to buy votes and unilaterally (and unconstitutionally) forgive student loan indebtedness, along with the Democrats’ push for unrestricted government-funded abortion rights, including up until the moment of a baby’s birth.

Our Editorial Board agrees that nearly every person has a desire for both Liberty and Safety.  Some of the growing divide in our country stems from the question of which value represents a person’s higher priority.  “Collectivists” continue to place a higher value on Safety, even if there is a detrimental effect on (individual) Liberty.  One example of this conflict in recent years has been the proliferation of Free Speech Zones and Safe Spaces on college campuses.  Should someone’s right to Free Speech be canceled because some college student needs to feel safe from someone else’s viewpoints they do not share?  Ben Franklin expressed a fairly “conservative” value in his defense of Liberty in the 1700s.

The Social Security program was instituted in 1935 to provide an economic safety net for people who did not save enough of their own money for their own retirement.  This socialist program is now an albatross hanging around the necks of our children and grandchildren.  Over the intervening years since 1935, both the demographics and the economics have changed significantly.  There are now fewer than 3 workers for every retiree receiving benefits.  Life expectancy is now much longer than it was in 1935.  Retirees are now receiving increasingly higher multiples of benefits, when compared to their payroll tax withholdings paid into the “system” (scheme) prior to their retirement.  Career politicians will not address this problem (aka “the third rail of politics”) because our citizens were lied to about the Social Security “Trust” (which holds no cash) and have become increasingly dependent upon this “safety net.”  It is much easier for career politicians to continue to push this burden onto our non-voting children and grandchildren, rather than put forward a solution.  (See our foundation’s solution on our website in a Conversation Piece entitled The 2020 Initiative).

Which leads us to this latest bit of updated news.  On January 19, 2023, the federal government ran out of cash (again), when it hit the statutory debt limit of $31.385 trillion.  Interestingly, the US Debt Clock currently shows debt of $31.575 trillion, but in the grand scheme of things, that’s just a rounding difference.  The Treasury department is now (again) using “extraordinary measures” to avoid a technical event of default.  (How many times over the past several years have we seen this same “crisis” reoccur?)  It is anticipated that the extraordinary measures will run out in the next few months.  Stay tuned.

US Debt Clock – – January 1^st – $94,130 per citizen / February 1st – $94,290

E-Newsletter No. 109               January 2023    

Last month, we asked the question “Did the Growing Divide Shrink?”  (Probably not).  Did people vote their values?  (Probably).  In future newsletters we will continue our discussion on many of these differences in voters’ values. 

Much of the analysis of the November elections focused on the significantly higher turnout of voters in the 18-30 age group.  Election analysts have determined that this was the highest turnout by this age group in the last thirty years.  Was this due to the ease of voting via Mail In Ballots?  (Maybe).  Even though polling is not a precise science, exit polls indicated that the voters in this age group cast their vote for a Democrat candidate by a wide margin.  Some analysts claim the gap might have been as high as 32 percentage points.  The exit polls also indicated that their vote was cast for the Democrat candidate, primarily because of student loan debt forgiveness and / or abortion.

In order address the competing values underlying these two issues, as well as to provide some background and facts, we have prepared two new Conversation Pieces –

The November 2022 Midterm Elections – Student Loan Forgiveness

The November 2022 Midterm Elections – Abortion

In both cases, there is a stark contrast between the values of the Left and Conservatives.  You will also note that the mainstream media played a critical role in pushing the Left’s narratives.

In other news, another piece of legislation was passed last month that demonstrates the growing divide between the Left and Conservatives.  On December 13th, President Biden signed into law the euphemistically entitled “Respect for Marriage Act.”  Unfortunately, this legislation effectively nullifies the “Defense of Marriage Act” signed by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996, which defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman.  This “Dis”-Respect for Marriage Act tramples on the beliefs of Conservatives and violates their religious liberties.  The Democrat majority has re-defined yet another key cultural concept (vital to our society) in their ongoing quest to fundamentally transform our country.

And lastly, two days before Christmas, Congress passed a $1.7 trillion Omnibus spending bill.   We do not have enough space to list all of the truly appalling items that were included in this spending bill.  The real tragedy is that the federal government’s fiscal management process remains in shambles.  This was just one more year in an annually recurring nightmare right before Christmas.  The “good news” is that 20 brave conservatives recently stood their ground and forced 15 votes during the process of electing a new Speaker of the House.  They were able to force significant changes to the House’s rules, and they obtained key concessions from the entrenched “leadership” that will go a long way towards beginning to minimize and then ultimately end the theft from future generations.  Some of those changes will now come into play next month as Congress grapples with its annual self-induced debt ceiling crisis.  Stay tuned.    

US Debt Clock – – December 1^st – $93,910 per citizen / January 1st – $94,130

E-Newsletter No. 108               December 2022

Last month, we asked the question “Can the Growing Divide Be Resolved?”  We were hopeful that the answer would be a resounding “Yes” and that our country’s citizens would vote to re-embrace conservative values and reject the growing divide caused by the “progressive” movement’s desire to fundamentally transform our country.  But it appears that in many ways the 2022 midterm elections show that the philosophical divide continues to grow.  The good news is that in the aggregate for the 435 elections for the US House of Representatives, Republican candidates received 50.1 million votes and Democrat candidates received 44.3 million votes.

Our Editorial Board believes the fundamental question that confronts a voter on election day is “Am I going to cast my vote in a way that best represents my values?”  

We have pulled together a partial list of some of the key issues that cause the growing divide between conservatives and those on the Left –

Limited Government vs Bureaucracy

The Tenth Amendment vs an all-powerful federal government

Personal Responsibility vs Socialism

Individualism vs Collectivism

Freedom of Speech vs the proposed Ministry of Truth

The supremacy of family values vs government “woke-ness”

Freedom vs Government-directed mandates

E Pluribus Unum vs divisive “special interests”

Free Markets and Choice vs Government Ownership and Control

Secure national borders vs Open borders

Fiscal responsibility vs Unsustainable growing debt

We readily admit that sorting this out is extremely difficult, because each individual voter must assess each issue and how each issue aligns with their values.

Unfortunately, with the Left’s control of the media narrative and the education system(s), along with their ongoing collusion with the DC Swamp, their attempts to fundamentally transform our country will not end, and it appears that the growing divide will continue to grow.

US Debt Clock – – November 1^st – $93,750 per citizen / December 1st – $93,910

E-Newsletter No. 107               November 2022          

Our Editorial Board believes the answer to this question is a hopeful (but qualified) “Yes.”  Former President Barack Obama’s stated goal was to use the power of the federal government to fundamentally transform our country.  Conservatives never bought in to that idea, as it conveyed a message that America was fundamentally flawed and needed to be fixed by the federal government (instead of by families, churches, charities, and other civil society groups).  In the years since, the “progressive” Left has continued to pursue its ambitious agenda to fundamentally transform our country. 

Here are some of the Left’s ideas that are still being pursued:  H.R. 1, which calls for the federalization of our elections, Puerto Rico and /or Washington DC statehood, expanding and then packing the Supreme Court, eliminating the Electoral College, eliminating the Senate filibuster, Medicare for All, paying a “Universal Basic Income,” etc. 

John F. Kennedy once said, “Ask not what your country can do for you.  Ask what you can do for your country.”  It seems like the Democrats’ new ideology is “What can we give you for free?”

As we discussed last month, the growing divide is being driven by the progressive Left who prefer Big Government, collectivism and socialism versus Conservatives who want to conserve the best of the past and who prefer individualism, personal responsibility, Liberty and Freedom.

Our Editorial Board is hopeful that in this month’s elections, our country’s citizens will return to our roots and re-embrace the founding principles that are listed on our currency and coins:  E Pluribus Unum (out of many, one), Liberty, and In God We Trust.  If we resoundingly reject the Marxist tactic of creating divisiveness and then pitting the resulting “special interest groups” against each other, then E Pluribus Unum may yet again prevail, and the growing divide will diminish.

US Debt Clock – – October 1^st – $92,800 per citizen / November 1st – $93,750