canfield letters

Kicking the can down the road in Carefree

After reviewing the town of Carefree's fiscal 2011-12 budget and current local sales tax revenues, an obvious question arises: How long can the mayor's profligate spending continue?

Let's begin by examining sales tax revenues. According to John Traynor's definitive data (see, “On a Calendar Year basis (6 months through June) Carefree had a loss of 0.15% from 2010.” The actual amount for the six months ended June 2011 was $1,435,844. Later this year Cave Creek's Walmart is scheduled to open and is likely to negatively impact some Carefree businesses such as CVS (drug and pharmacy items), Bashas (groceries), and Lowe's (low-cost general merchandise). However, the official Carefree budget projects a 3.0 percent increase in local sales taxes for the 12 months ended June 2012, even as the estimated “state sales tax” contribution drops almost 8 percent!

But the town's almost certainly declining funds from sales tax sources is not the heart of the town's financial crisis. The fundamental problem is that the mayor continues reckless spending as if there is not a real problem. Because residents overwhelmingly passed Prop. 422 (63 percent) and Prop 423 (72 percent), the mayor would find it hard to open the door for a local property tax.

Yet town spending is unchecked. Politically protected staff budgets are up with the town clerk's salaries and benefits budget increasing 3 percent, and planning and development salaries and benefits 4.2 percent higher. The contract with Rural/Metro totals a mind-numbing $1,367,916, of which $528,213 comes from general fund reserves. Overall, the general fund contributes $832,000 (almost 20 percent) of the town's fiscal 2012 budget.
As the town's financial condition swirls down the spending drain and reserves dwindle, the narrowly-elected mayor's primary political objective is to avoid pointing the finger of blame at his cronies who created the mess and who have made him their puppet. Never mind that the town's roadways continue to deteriorate, residents pay exorbitant water rates, and the politically connected benefit at the expense of the town's welfare. Much like Washington, DC politicians, the mayor will keep kicking the can down the road as long as he can get away with it.

Jim Peirce | Carefree

What we have here!

As the Strother Martin quote, from Cool Hand Luke goes, "What we have a failure to communicate!"

Are the people of Phoenix completely comatose? Is the Chamber of Commerce that arrogant? Has KPHO CH5, completely lost their credibility?

The Monday, August 15 televised C of C Mayoral debate was a farce! One third of the candidates were denied participation, purely on a monetary requirement. This shows pure bias, total control, election manipulation, and another example of those who think they are the "elite," deciding what is good for you and me. It doesn't matter what we want; they know best and we should be happy they are watching out for our interests. If that doesn't offend you, as it does me – and you ARE one of the comatose.

In a nutshell, what we saw in the debate was:

Claude Mattox- Proclaimed his long record of failure on the City Council and his plan to continue on the present path.

Peggy Neely- Bragged about her accomplishments, but forgot to mention the unlicensed, illegal alien day labor center at 25th St. and Bell Rd. that cost us taxpayers $120,000.
Wes Gullett- Who has learned well from his mentor, Sen. John (McLame) McCain, how to talk a lot and say absolutely nothing of any substance. But hey, it makes them sound smarter than they think you are.

Greg Stanton- The Phil "Fail" Gordon clone, who appears to be looking down his nose at the audience, while doing what can only be described as the "Stanton Dance," as he spouts the same inane rhetoric we hear over and over, from career politicians.

What we didn't see in the debate was: 
Anna Brennan- A newcomer to politics, but no stranger to spending. Her huge Mercedes Van and her own Mayoral Radio Show, don't come cheap! She seems to have a strong stance on illegal immigration, but talk is cheap.

Jennifer Wright- Another newcomer to politics, and although she is a lawyer, she comes across as the only "common sense" candidate on the ballot.

It's unfortunate the C of C decided the citizens of Phoenix, don't deserve to see and hear all the candidates. They want their tax and spend message to resonate as the only remedy to our economic problems. I knew after being a member of the Chamber, back in the 80s, that their mutual masturbation society was not the place for me and my business, and let my membership lapse.

If you don't stand up for what is right, then sit there silently, as your city and country are flushed down the tubes of Liberalism.

Or, write, call, fax, email or send a letter to the Chamber of Commerce, all your elected representatives and all your friends, and get out and vote for a NEW Phoenix Mayor. 

Then get out and vote for a new President!


Transparency measure is ripe for abuse

The lowest qualified bid by the most competent contestant traditionally wins the government contract. Unfortunately, the "Change" gang now wants to fiddle with this decades-old, generally reliable formula.

President Obama hopes to throw another item onto the scale as bureaucrats weigh bids: political donations. He could sign an executive order any day now that would instruct federal officials to consider the political contributions of prospective government contractors. While this move is being portrayed as a matter of increased transparency, it will actually fuel unintended consequences and indirectly overturn an important Supreme Court decision on free speech.

Forcing companies to disclose political gifts supposedly will expose covert "pay-to-play" schemes and ensure that private industry does not unduly influence Washington's decisions when awarding lucrative contracts. Rather than depoliticize procurement, this practice would empower public officials to scrutinize a particular company's political philanthropy. The Obama administration's supporters could score government deals while opponents leave with empty pockets and a simple message: "If you want our checks, show us yours."

The executive order could transport such old-fashioned, Chicago-style wheeling and dealing from Lake Michigan to the Potomac.

This executive order - drafted in April - requires contractors to disclose annual donations of more than $5,000 that were made in the past two years and paid to political candidates, parties or independent political groups. Directors, officers and other top managers would have to declare their personal political contributions from the past two years - even if they were made without their employers' knowledge or consent.

This order is in part designed to thwart last year's Citizen's United Supreme Court decision, which lifted certain restrictions on the donations corporations and labor unions can make to campaigns and independent organizations.

Congressional Democrats quickly tried to counteract that ruling by re-limiting the third-party donations. But a House- approved bill sputtered in the Senate.

Since the legislation will not be passed, Obama is trying to accomplish that same goal through the executive order. A clothing company would have to reveal its donations to a conservative advocacy nonprofit before bidding to manufacture military uniforms. A landscaping firm would have to list its checks to a liberal third- party group before applying to maintain a national park.

Clearly, such rules could foster political discrimination. Obama would enable his administration to deliver literally billions of dollars in government contracts to pro-Democrat businesses while denying billions to pro-Republican firms.

And when the GOP takes the White House again, that administration could turn around and practice the exact same kind of discrimination against Democrat-friendly contractors.

And the favoritism would not necessarily be confined to contracting work. The entire federal government would be made aware of private firms' political affiliations. Other agencies could use that information to determine where and how to award billions of dollars.
Even the appearance of political favoritism would be a problem.

The Agriculture Department, for example, might hire a company to upgrade 30 regional offices. That firm may have backed Obama's campaign and other Democratic causes. It also could finish its work on time, under budget, and with elegant results. Nonetheless, a losing, pro-Republican bidder might cry foul - even though it lost to a truly superior bidder, picked by honest public servants with no partisan axes to grind.

When awarding contracts, federal decision-makers should consider only one issue: the bidders' merits. Officials should evaluate the price and quality of the products and services on offer, the supplier's performance under previous contracts and how closely each bid follows federal contract rules.

This proposal is generating bipartisan opposition. Connecticut's independent Sen. Joe Lieberman, who caucuses with Democrats, and Missouri's Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill, who chairs the Government Contracting Subcommittee, have both publicly opposed the executive order. Twenty-seven Republicans senators signed a letter urging the president to scrap this plan.

Imposing campaign- disclosure requirements on government contractors sets the table for a feast of patronage based not on the content of each contractor's character, but on the color of his PAC money.

Thomas A. Schatz
President of Citizens Against Government Waste.


Civil disobedience the only option now!

Coming on the heels of a fraudulent deficit-reduction bill by Democratic and Republican "leaders," we predictably saw financial markets worldwide plummet, following the announcement by Standard & Poor's that our nation's AAA credit rating had been downgraded. Coupled with increasingly dire economic straits in Europe and the resulting mob violence in the United Kingdom, the stock market's slide took on greater momentum and steam.

Activists, political commentators and other informed observers had been predicting this for months, if not most of the last year. If we ever needed concrete proof that the United States of America and most of its Western allies were in steep decline, this provided it.

With a rudderless, if not malevolent, ship of state run by the likes of President Barack Hussein Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi on the Democratic side and John Boehner, Eric Cantor and Mitch McConnell on the Republican side, the "Great Titanic" has capsized and finally begun to sink fatally into David Jones' locker.

And, notwithstanding the domestic effect this "sinking" will have on our general populace, it now becomes increasingly clear that emerging foreign communist and Islamic powerhouses like China and perhaps soon even Iran – which is on the verge of being able to launch and deliver an atom bomb – will soon assume the role as the leaders of the world.

In a rapid 235 years, the United States of America will have had its rise and fall – almost 10 times faster than other great civilizations, such as ancient Rome.

"We the People" must accept our responsibility for this. "We" have been complacent, allowing corrupt political hacks to infest not only the executive and legislative branches of government, but also the judiciary. "We" have pompously deluded ourselves, as drunken fools, that these so-called leaders and judges were doing the peoples' business, when by and large they were busy amassing their own power, enriching themselves at the public trough and implementing schemes to further their own interests and, in the case of federal judges, the interests of their "overlords" – the politicians who put them in power.

"We" have seen a malignant cancer grow to the point that it has now more than metastasized. "We" are on our death bed, with no will and testament to bequeath our heritage to the next generation – who spend most of their time anyway, as the progeny of their drunken deluded parents, text messaging and emailing on cell phones, flirting with their "friends" on Facebook and not generally having a clue in any event what is going on if it does not involve their "social network."

Now is the time for those few of us who are awake and not asleep at the switch to take the lead and cut out the cancer that is destroying our body politic and our nation. It is no longer sufficient to wait, as we have for decades, for the next election to "elect" political messiahs who will lead us all to the promised land. These politicians have failed us time in and time again, and the latest deficit-reduction outrage is just the latest example. Even many new tea-party representatives voted with the establishment hacks. In the words of Popeye, "Enough is enough and enough is too much!"

So it came to pass, in a last-ditch effort to mobilize a peaceful uprising, that I called for a gathering next month in Washington. As I have in earlier columns, I called for the removal of our so-called leaders, but this time immediately before the nation goes fatally down for the final count. Not wanting there to be widespread violence, as is now occurring in Europe, with the prospect that this violence will soon spread to our shores, I called for Gandhi-style civil disobedience to be used in a massive display in Washington, D.C., and major cities across the country. And, with no time to lose, I called for this to occur during the week of Sept. 17, which is not coincidentally "Constitution Week."

With only weeks to organize this peaceful action, I call on all of you to get the word out, and join me and other activists in this quest. We must organize and plan to be most effective. And, those who join us must come from all political persuasions. It has not been just conservatives, libertarians and tea partiers who have seen their interests sold out by the political and judicial establishment, but all Americans. We all have a stake in saving our nation before it is too late.

Please contact me through my website and notify your compatriots that strong peaceful action is now necessary. Whether we succeed at removing some or all of the "leaders" who have destroyed the nation is not the only objective. We the People must make it clear to these corrupt establishment hacks that there is a price to be paid for their destructive acts and that now is the time to shape up or ship out. Civil disobedience is not the only means short of violence, the latter of which I do not advocate. We must be prepared, though, to ratchet up the pressure!

Lets keep our beloved country afloat and instead figuratively send the "traitors" to the bottom of the ocean. Now is the time that tries all men's souls. And, in the words of another Founding Father, Patrick Henry, "Give me liberty or give me death." If our Founding Fathers would risk their lives, then we can certainly take strong action, too. The establishment has repeatedly ignored our grievances, just as the British crown did in the years leading up to 1776. And, with each new crop of "elected" so-called conservative and libertarian representatives in the current world of Washington, D.C., most of these "Tories" are co-opted by the likes of John Boehner, a phony conservative if there ever was one. This has left us with no other option. The market collapse of this week, our downgrading as a credit-worthy nation – the first time in American history – and the spreading violence in Europe more than underscores this reality.

We simply cannot sit back and wait for the end of the United States of America. We can accomplish our mission peacefully if we all unite and act decisively now!
I look forward to your thoughts and strong participation and prayers. God bless us all as "One nation under God."

Larry Klayman
Founder of Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch


Ninth Circuit considers constitutionality of occult-based public schools

SAN FRANCISCO, California – Pacific Justice Institute has filed its opening brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, located in San Francisco, in a case that challenges the constitutionality of taxpayer-funded charter schools that are based on occult teachings.

“This case is truly stranger than fiction,” noted Brad Dacus, president of Pacific Justice Institute. “It is incredible that we as taxpayers are still supporting schools founded on a belief system that incorporates elements of Hinduism, European occultism, and a heretical form of Christianity. We cannot have a constitutional double standard where mainstream Judeo-Christian beliefs are excluded from public schools while unorthodox beliefs have access to funding.”

PJI represents People for Legal and Nonsectarian Schools (Plans, Inc.), which has been battling public funding of Waldorf-method schools in the Sacramento area for more than a dozen years. Waldorf schools are located throughout the United States. Some Waldorf schools are private, but many are operated by local school districts, including Sacramento City Unified, the lead defendant in the suit.

Waldorf education is rooted in Anthroposophy, which was founded in the early 20th Century by an Austrian, Rudolf Steiner. His lectures and writings, including a book called How to Know Higher Worlds, cobble together a range of beliefs from Hindu reincarnation to Norse mythology. Steiner’s writings also reflect the racial superiority that gave rise to the Nazi regime. In spite of Steiner’s blatantly racist views, teachers in Waldorf schools—including public schools—must attend training at Anthroposophical institutions such as Rudolf Steiner College in Sacramento.

At trial, U.S. District Judge Frank Damrell ruled that Anthroposophy was not a distinct religion, and therefore Waldorf schools cannot violate separation of church and state. Judge Damrell reached this conclusion after excluding most of the evidence presented by Plans, Inc. from Steiner’s teachings. The Ninth Circuit has already ruled three times in favor of Plans, Inc. on procedural issues, reversing the District Court each time. In other cases originating on the East Coast, Anthroposophists have claimed to be religious in order to obtain religious worker visas.

For a behind-the-scenes look at Anthroposophy and Waldorf education, visit

The Pacific Justice Institute is a non-profit 501(c) (3) legal defense organization specializing in the defense of religious freedom, parental rights, and other civil liberties.
P.O. Box 276600 Sacramento, CA 95827-6600 Phone: (916) 857-6900 Fax (916) 857-6902


Free businesses from excessive regulation

Capitol Hill is inching closer to passing landmark regulatory reform that will help encourage investment and create jobs.

The REINS Act would require that Congress review and approve any new regulation expected to cost more than $100 million. In 2010 alone, despite the weak economy, the Obama administration issued 3,752 new rules - and 224 of them cost more than $100 million. The REINS Act would go a long way toward stemming the tide of costly and regressive regulatory policies coming from Washington.

Economic recovery has been anemic this year. The most recent jobs figures from the Department of Labor put the national unemployment rate at 9.2 percent, with 14 million Americans still out of work. A big reason for lagging job creation is the mounting regulatory burden on private enterprise.

Right now, there are roughly 170,000 federal business regulations currently on the books. Written in fine print, single-spaced and double-columned, they fill about 150,000 pages of text. In 2008 alone, regulations cost the U.S. economy $1.75 trillion, according to a report from the Small Business Administration. That's equal to a whopping 14 percent of the nation's gross domestic product.

Add that to the nation's tax burden, and it's easy to see how the federal government is stifling businesses, undermining employment growth and handicapping America's global competitiveness.

Surely, not all of Washington's regulations can be said to improve workplace safety or public health. Unaccountable bureaucrats continue to establish new hurdles for business owners to jump through without regard for the costs imposed. Managers get buried under paperwork that often provides little to no value to their workforces or the public.

Small businesses suffer the most. The average firm with fewer than 20 employees faces regulatory costs 42 percent higher than businesses with up to 500 employees. The average regulatory compliance costs for each employee of a small business now exceed $10,000 per year, according to the SBA report.

Small companies tend to run on very thin profit margins. So even small upticks in operating costs can force them to take drastic measures, like reducing new hires, imposing layoffs or even declaring bankruptcy.

In my experience as the principal of a technology consulting firm, compliance with the standard battery of employment and tax rules at all levels of government easily consumes 20 percent of my time in any given year.

Many of our clients are small to midsize business in heavily regulated industries like health care and finance. In these industries, regulatory challenges are among the most often-cited factors in investment and procurement decisions.

The global marketplace is already turbulent and hyper-competitive. Business owners shouldn't have to worry about their decisions running afoul of needless regulations.
Without congressional action, these regulations show no sign of letting up.

The president's health care law contains roughly 100 new regulatory provisions. The 2010 financial reform law imposes nearly 500 new rules and more than 120 reports and studies. And the Environmental Protection Agency is pursuing 31 new rules that will each cost industry at least $100 million.

This out-of-control rulemaking has to stop. Federal officials are severely hampering the private-sector dynamism proven to generate prosperity and economic opportunity. That's why, even if the REINS Act passes, lawmakers must launch a broader effort to scale back unnecessary rules on industry.

To start, officials need to establish nonpartisan, independent review processes to examine new and existing regulations and determine their actual costs and benefits. Currently, agencies can often impose new rules on industry without ever having to justify them or examine their economic consequences.

Some economic sectors are now suffocating under layers of redundant regulation, as separate rulemaking authorities have each imposed the same restrictions without checking first to see if similar statutes already existed. This confusion and regulatory overlap contributes to the uncertainty dampening investment and employment.

The American economy is an intensely complicated place. A cursory understanding of a given industry often isn't enough to effectively regulate it. Worse still, when regulatory actions are driven by political concerns, there tend to be significant economic costs.

Finally, officials need to reform the permitting process to allow new businesses to quickly get through the paperwork and start growing. Too often, valuable new business ideas die off while stuck in the approval process.

Today, government micromanagement is smothering private business and slowing recovery. Unless Congress steps in to cut down on the regulatory thicket, the economy will continue to stagnate and could fall back into recession. Policymakers need to reform the nation's regulatory system – fast.

Kmele Foster | Chairman of America's Future Foundation


Bar money monkey business

In a recent Scottsdale Republic column (August 5, 2011) David Smith, the Scottsdale City Treasurer, stated to Laurie Roberts the sales tax due to the City of Scottsdale from the downtown bars was approximately $300,00 to $400,000 per year. This number seemed low, especially considering declarations of success coming from bar owners and “PR King: Jason Rose, who is also a fund raiser for Mayor Jim Lane’s campaign. How intere$ting? The chorus of proclamations stating the unprecedented raging success of the downtown bars has been drowning out the cries for help from neighbors who have learned that some bar owners don’t seem to have a conscience.

Is someone not telling the truth? What happens when a reasonable person does the math backwards? If the numbers stated by Mr. Smith are correct, would the bars even be able to pay their rent and expenses? There are two kinds of people in the world: People of conscience and those who do not have a conscience. Are the same operators who tell offended neighbors to pound sand on noise, crime and parking issues to be trusted on honesty in accountability when they deal in tons of cash? These upstanding citizens who have demonstrated honor and respect are now being questioned about the accuracy of their financial statements. Is this a surprise? Welcome to the Scottsdale Bar District. How far does this go? Is there any possibility the financial influence of unreported cash from the bar business could have made its way into the pockets of elected officials, city staff and even law enforcement? How much cash is at stake? More than you might think.

When was the last time you heard of someone paying a cover charge with a credit card? If there are 4,000 patrons inside the "cover charge" bars twice a week, and the average cover charge is $15.00, that's $120,000.00 per week. Annually, there is a combined potential of approximately $6,240,000.00 in cash “at the door” fees. No wonder the bar guys don't mind paying a few laborers $8 per hour to pick up trash on Saturday and Sunday mornings. How much do you think they pay when they really want something? Does the average Scottsdale citizen have any idea how much cash is flowing in the streets of downtown Scottsdale on any given weekend? Follow the money.

Is there money missing from the Bar District's financial statements? Subsequently, is there money missing to those who are financially dependent on the stated earnings from the bars? Run the numbers. Can you figure out who may be taking a financial hit? Is the City of Scottsdale getting their share? Is the IRS getting what they are owed? Is it time for an audit? Scottsdale has a history of bar operators getting into hot water because of unreported income. Has anything changed? There are approximately 46 bars in downtown Scottsdale. Based on the square footage and occupancy and a factor of only two nights per week, the following statistical information extrapolated is interesting:

Based on the total square footage of downtown Scottsdale bars, occupancy and other information available to a qualified planner and statistical analyst, the following observations have been made available: The numbers have been run based on bar patrons in the bar district on a weekend night, in accordance with generally acceptable statistical behavior, purchasing 1 1/2 drinks per hour, four hours per night, two nights per week (Friday and Saturday) 52 weeks per year. With an estimated drink cost of $7.50 per drink, sales tax rate to the city of .017%; the gross sales tax receipts due the City of Scottsdale would be $365,976.

With the base being 156 bars (a published number), and bar patrons purchasing 1 1/2 drinks per hour, four hours per night, two nights per week, 52 weeks per year. With an estimated drink cost of $7.50 per drink, sales tax rate to the city of .017 percent; the gross sales tax receipts due the City of Scottsdale would be $1,241,136.

These numbers do not include any food sales. These numbers do not include any drink sales the other 5 days per week not factored into the equation. These numbers do not include any drink sales for the balance of open time (other than 4 hours) for the two days per week in the first mathematical equation, because the study only included 4 hours for each of the 2 days per week.  Let's say it would be safe to double the drink sales amount for the balance of open time and add 20 percent for food sales. With these adjustments; 46 bars would produce approximately $800,000.00, due to the City of Scottsdale in sales tax per year. Using a number of 156 bars, the sales tax due to the City of Scottsdale would be approximately $3,000,000 per year.

The “math test” doesn’t pass the “sniff test.” Is this a classic example of “fuzzy math” as Ross Perot would say? Who in the City of Scottsdale is charged with verifying the financial statements made by the bars? Are we letting the bars "self-police" as Scottsdale Councilperson Lisa Borowsky (her brother owns two bars in Scottsdale) has suggested for other bar related issues like noise. What happens if the numbers have been misstated? The sum total possibly owed to the City of Scottsdale could potentially put us in the black.

Should the City Council immediately move to place a tax on bar door fees?

Should the City Council instruct the City Manager and the City Treasurer to proceed with an audit?

Bill Crawford | Scottsdale


Beware of push-pull opinion polls!

Last night, my "do not call"-registered phone rang. On the other end, a Hispanic immigrant or ghetto resident engaged me in a "survey" on political events. As the interview progressed, it became apparent that this was a La Raza or MEChA-funded push-pull poll, designed to benefit the invader (the so-called "undocumented worker") through questions designed to benefit a specific political cause. Apparently, these people have access to voters' lists, and try to elicit favorable responses. I took wicked delight in blowing the poll clear out of the water, especially when I refused to be listed as "Hispanic." I told the barely articulate poll interrogator that there is such a place as Spain, which is in Europe (duh!) and that its residents are predominantly white, with only a linguistic, not ethnic or cultural, tie to residents of the New World. I asked him if he thought that Bermudians, Bahamians and West Indian blacks are "Anglic" and white, inasmuch as they speak English. Again - duh!

"Hispanicity" is a term coined by social engineers on the Left, to catalog and cater to the Hispanophonic community, which is most likely to vote Socialist-Democrat, once registered (legally or otherwise) as voters.

Man – it feels GOOD to throw a turd into the invaders' punchbowl!

J-P. A. Maldonado | Phoenix


Federal Budget 101

The U.S. Congress sets a federal budget every year in the trillions of dollars. Few people know how much money that is so we created a breakdown of federal spending in simple terms. Let's put the 2011 federal budget into perspective:

U.S. income: $2,170,000,000,000
Federal budget: $3,820,000,000,000
New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000
National debt: $14,271,000,000,000
Recent budget cut: $ 38,500,000,000 (about 1 percent of the budget)

It helps to think about these numbers in terms that we can relate to. Let's remove eight zeros from these numbers and pretend this is the household budget for the fictitious Jones family.

Total annual income for the Jones family: $21,700
Amount of money the Jones family spent: $38,200
Amount of new debt added to the credit card: $16,500
Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710
Amount cut from the budget: $385

So in effect last month Congress, or in this example the Jones family, sat down at the kitchen table and agreed to cut $385 from its annual budget. What family would cut $385 of spending in order to solve $16,500 in deficit spending?

It is a start, although hardly a solution.

Now after years of this, the Jones family has $142,710 of debt on its credit card (which is the equivalent of the national debt).

You would think the Jones family would recognize and address this situation, but it does not. Neither does Congress.

The root of the debt problem is that the voters typically do not send people to Congress to save money. They are sent there to bring home the bacon to their own home state.

To effect budget change, we need to change the job description and give Congress new marching orders.

It is awfully hard (but not impossible) to reverse course and tell the government to stop borrowing money from our children and spending it now.

In effect, what we have is a reverse mortgage on the country. The problem is that the voters have become addicted to the money. Moreover, the American voters are still in the denial stage, and do not want to face the possibility of going into rehab.

Representative Jordan Ulery | Republican, New Hampshire

No Government=Full Employment

In any economic condition there are always people who have work that needs to be done and there are always people who want to work. Therefore, why don’t we always have full employment? One reason—government. Some bureaucrat has decided that you can’t work for someone unless you demand a wage that the bureaucrat thinks you should have, even if you are willing to work for less. Furthermore, the bureaucrat also dictates what paperwork your potential employer must fill out, what taxes he must pay on your wages, how many hours you can work in a week or a day (even if you are willing to work more), and a million other restrictions. The government is essentially “helping” you against your will. That's why the phrase “I am from the government and I am here to help you” is a joke. If we get the government out of the way we can have instant full employment.

Professor Galbraith needs an I.V. of common sense (blank email)

Roy Miller | Phoenix