Preface Americanism means the virtues of courage, honor, justice, truth, sincerity, and hardihood— the virtues that made America. The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living and the get-rich-quick theory of life. — Theodore Roosevelt If she [America] forgets where she came from, if the people lose sight of what brought them along, if she listens to the deniers and mockers, then will begin the rot and dissolution. I see America, not in the setting sun of a black night of despair ahead of us, I see America in the crimson light of a rising sun fresh from the burning, creative hand of God. I see great days ahead, great days possible to men and women of will and vision … — Carl Sandburg Our country is still young and its potential is still enormous. We should remember, as we look toward the future, that the more fully we believe in and achieve freedom and equal opportunity—not simply for ourselves but for others—the greater our accomplishments as a nation will be. — Henry Ford II It is not difficult to postulate that man is at the crossroads as the second millennium approaches. Not because the year 2000 carries any magic or necessarily signifies the approaching end of the world but because advances in the physical sciences have reached a point where any of the arsenals of many nations can destroy all of mankind many times over in a few short moments. This is not a revelation which will surprise anyone. We accept it with comparative complacency possibly because it has no parallel in history and thus the threat is difficult to imagine and possibly because we the people can not imagine the political leadership permitting catastrophic events to take place. After all, even the politicians still have to live on this planet. The 21st century will be the century of unprecedented changes in all areas of human life. The most critical changes will be in the area of politics and government. Changes during this time frame will be even more dramatic and important towards the survival of civilization and to the maintenance and bettering of the quality of life than the technological miracles of the twentieth century. To better control and utilize our technological advances and direct them for greater benefits for mankind calls for leaders, statesmen, men with visions, not merely charismatic, popular politicians. Mankind will require more of the former and fewer of the latter if it is to survive the challenges awaiting us in the twenty-first century. As a result, we are going to require a more vigilant, perceptive and aggressive selection of national leaders. Everyone knows the government is inefficient; no shortage exists of either media or academic attention to what is wrong and the impacts. What is truly needed are specific suggestions for bold and imaginative actions, feasible and realistic, that can significantly move the world and the United States in the right direction to prepare our country and its citizenry for the 21st century. These ideas need include more than just the political leadership, needing also to address the people’s role in decision-making and evaluating potential solutions. This is true both national and internationally. The United States, as the recognized leader of the free world, must provide better solutions than has been in the past for avoiding and resolving both national and international conflicts that cause lost of life and hardship to the populace. Each one of us is born with the dignity of a human being and a seed of some greatness. Civilization should be measured by the degree we are given the opportunity to maintain this dignity and to demonstrate and fulfill our potential; if not for greatness than as a service to our fellow-mankind. By providing this climate civilization fulfills its meaning and advances for the benefit of all. It is the goal of this book to address ideas that may advance this ideology. First in the United States and subsequently as a catalyst and an example to the rest of the world. This book is holistic in scope and addresses (1) National objectives and long term planning; (2) The people and how to make them more vigilant; (3) How to improve the quality of government and its ability to govern; and (4) The structures and the laws and how to make both better meet there ideals of a benevolent democracy. The purpose of this book is the awareness that in today’s environment with an increasing population and a limited set of resources to distribute,we need two things: 1) Better leadership and 2) A more vigilant and more aware citizenry. We need a citizenry that is more integrated and not divisive, one that is more supportive, not more demanding of its government. Thus a society prepared to lead the world into the 21st century and beyond. The ultimate objective of this book is to improve our ability to manage ourselves and our country and by doing so resolve to the extent we can, specific problems facing the world today and into the 21st century. The views presented in this book, for the most part, are neither new nor original. They are the product of many sources, including many contributions of individuals in the Letters-to-the-Editor section of major dailies and national magazines. The ideas are a compilation of countless written and spoken thoughts of others, modified to meet the criteria of logic and relevance by the author. The solutions that are offered are not necessarily new and many of those ‘old’ ideas have not previously been adequately presented to the public. Specific programs for improvement are sought. Criticisms will be used only as they apply to improvements, to help us move forward into the future. It is our hope that this book will facilitate thoughtful, thorough discussion and debate and, at the very least, prove thought provoking to its readers. This book’s main mission Is to get the people of America involved, to make the public think, ask “Why,” to suggest ways of doing things better, and then motivate and demand from our leaders to experiment with implementing those suggestions. The emphasis is on these new ideas and an explanation as to why if they should be implemented and nurtured. We are not going to concentrate on what we are doing wrong but rather the question of why can’t we do it in the manner presented, the impact, the risk and possible gain. We don’t expect this book to be popular with everybody. Obviously when you make ideas and suggestions, someone exists who will disagree. We are prepared for objections and to discuss it with them. We realize that we might make errors, and that some of the ideas might not be feasible and have disadvantages but we are prepared again for constructive suggestions from our critiquers, suggestions that help not only the book but the country as well. We openly accept and welcome positive suggestions, changes to our ideas. We have no pride of ownership. We intend to address only those specific programs that the United States can implement that would better prepare it to retain its leadership of the free world into the 21st century. A large part of this theme is the recognition of man’s responsibility to protect and respect not only his fellow human beings but the natural balance of the planet itself. It is our purpose to present ideas, make readers think, tap minds of those millions, get sufficiently constructive ideas that our leaders could use. It is our interest to reinvent, to reengineer government. Reengineering is a process where one uses technology not merely to do what we have always done better but to analyze the entire process from scratch and to propose an entirely new way of doing things, one much more efficient and effective than the older ways. This book examines how the United States public can reengineer government to tame the beast and make it work for us again. Towards this goal, we will continuously ask why are we doing it this way now, how one could reengineer government, and present why the way proposed would be better. Our thoughts towards reengineering the government consists of our 4 P’s: Planning, Piloting (Leadership), Participating (People participation and awareness in government and its processes), and Policy-making (Laws). We will examine each of these in detail and provide our thoughts and propositions on how to reengineer government to be more responsive and less intrusive. The criteria behind our propositions are six fold: 1) Is it reasonable? Is the proposal more logical? Can it provide more benefits, more quickly to the targeted recipients? Is it seemingly more effective and efficient than the current method? Does it better protect the interest of the majority of the people without infringing upon the rights of the minority? Should the government even be involved in this activity; if so, to what extent, how, at what level, to what degree should governmental involvement be? What are the long term impacts of this proposal compared to the current method? 2) Is it relevant? Is it timely and appropriate in resolving the particular problem or situation described? Can the environment under the proposal more easily change as conditions change than the current method? Are the parties being benefited those who should be or is it too broad? What is its relevancy in context with the current political climate? 3) Is it feasible? Would the cost in manpower, resources, time, etc. be worth it? Would a cost-benefit analysis show a gain for the public at large? Can this be done with the limited resources available? Can it be done with current knowledge? What is the impact now and in the future of this proposal? What is the predicted time to implement the changes required under the proposal? What authority is needed or what elements must be changed (laws, constitution,etc.) to implement the proposal? Is it an idea the public would accept now or should it be held for a more appropriate time (is it appropriate with the current political climate)? Is there enforcement required? Who would control the enforcement activities necessary to implement the proposal? How would it (if it does) adversely affect other programs? 4) Does it protect the rights of all the people (though necessarily some may benefit more than others)? Does the proposal provide for the reasonable protection of individual rights (not entitlements)? 5)Does it serve the interest of the nation as a whole now and in the future and can it advance civilization and progress of mankind? 6) Is it a long term crisis? Some crises are the kind that by the time this book is written they will be over. We are not going to examine these transitory crises. It is our intent to review long-standing crises which exist today and which will still be around five years from now if no action is taken. Not withstanding all the above, we must differentiate between the condition and the problem. A condition is like death you can’t do anything about it, a state of being. A problem, by way of contrast, is something that can resolved. The condition is not a problem because there is no solution. It is our intent to address only problems, those situations for which we think we have solutions. First, we have to identify the problem, carefully detail exactly what the problem is. When the problem is fully understood, you are often halfway to the solution. The problem itself has to be clearly defined so as not to go off on a tangent working on the wrong problem. Secondly, in determining a problem, you have to limit its scope; you can’t have a problem that has a range that is unmanageable. In establishing the scope you must indicate which areas you are going to address, those you are not going to cover, and limit the discussion to those areas you are going to cover. Thirdly, what is the criteria? In establishing a problem you have to have some way to test it at the end to ensure that you have really resolved the problem. So you establish criteria to determine and test against your final conclusions and recommendations. Have you really tried all this recommendations and conclusions really solving that particular problem. Fourth, is the analysis of the problem itself followed by the conclusions and recommendations. Now these elements should be present to provide a boundary. We also need to have a standard that we should meet. It is very important to have some method of determining whether your conclusions are valid based again on the early criteria so you can test against the conclusions and recommendations. We honestly believe that we in this country can do better. Certainly many good features exist in America. People are more affluent and we have many advantages today that we didn’t have just a few years ago both in technology and social benefits and justice. In many ways a much more cohesive and strong nation exists today. At the same time, divisiveness and other potential dangers exist we need to address. We would not write this book if we didn’t believe in the basic goodness of man and man’s ability to ultimately find a solution of living more peacefully with each other. Certainly we can develop a society that can do better to take care of the people that need help, improve our education, improve our physical security. Our idea for writing this book has been to publish a nonfiction politically oriented book offering specifically ideas that would make our government better managed and thus better able to compete and respond to citizen and world needs in the 21st century. Too many current books of this type concentrate on what’s wrong and its impact, occasionally offering parochial solutions. We know of no current book whose theme is the consolidation of specific solutions across a wide spectrum of political activities. We do not postulate that the United States will collapse or that everything is wrong with the United States. We merely say we can and should do better. In fact we must do better as we approach the 21st century and the unpredictable challenges, changes and threats which exist therein. We must prepared to lead into the 21st century and beyond. We am motived by the hope that this project may play a modest part in energizing the populace towards the goal. We are writing this book for our children more so than for ourselves. We might have to do a lot of the work but hopefully our children will benefit from whatever we manage to accomplish. Paul Herbig San Antonio Texas 1997 INTRODUCTION Democracy never lasts long; it soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. -––John Adams The American wage earner and the American housewife are a lot better economists than most economists care to admit. They know that a government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have. — Gerald R. Ford Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves, and, under a just God, cannot long retain it. — Abraham Lincoln ‘A Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can exist only until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a Democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a Dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependency; from dependency back to bondage.” Most would agree this is an accurate quote for our times. It was, however, written by Professor Alexander Tyler over 200 hundred years ago while the original thirteen colonies were still part of the British colonial empire. He was, at the time, writing of the fall of the Athenian Republic, more than 2,000 years earlier. History (Roman, British, American) confirms that when the voting base has been expanded, the economy and society began to decline. When a society bases its political power on a majority vote, it is inevitable that those wishing to have power will seek to satisfy the needs of those who will provide it (vote) by transferring wealth. This leads to ever increasing public spending fueled by the self-interest of producers. With each increment in the common realm, more people are brought into the class of those receiving benefits . . . these people will take their benefits into account, desire to maintain or increase their level of benefits, vote for those who will support them, and thus, the level of spending will ever increase. The needs of the voters will eventually exceed the treasury’s ability, so fiscally unsound policies will be undertaken. Using Professor Tyler’s transition guidelines, the authors have surmised the following reference points for the United States: Bondage: 1770 Spiritual Faith: 1770-1783 Great Courage: 1783-1850 Liberty: 1850-1870 Abundance: 1870-1929 Selfishness: 1929-1945 Complacency: 1945-1965 Apathy: 1965-1980 Dependency: 1980-1995 Bondage: 1999 ?? British statesman Edmund Burke, over two centuries ago, warned of the dangers to any society that promotes the idea that some of its citizens are the natural prey of others. No society has ever thrived because it had a large and growing class of parasites living off those who produce. The grow of a large parasitic class (including bureaucracies) marked the decline and fall of the Roman and Spanish empires. Over the centuries, the Byzantine and Ottoman empires developed so suffocating and corrupting bureaucracies as to destroy incrementally their own empires. Spain used the incredible wealth of the new world to support growing numbers of Spaniards in idleness. Disappearance of empires due to catastrophes have been extremely rare in history. Rather, they slowly but steadily corrode and crumble from within. A growing amount of wealth is pumped by the State from the economy and transferred to a growing number of small but influential (interest) groups.If this sounds familiar, it should be as it also foretells the possible future decline of the United States. In the 1970s the United States was the world’s largest creditor, the world’s most important lender to other countries. Within the course of a few years, less than a decade between 1980 and 1990, the United States went from being the world’s largest creditor nation to its largest debtor nation. America’s net foreign debt is over $600 billion (the amount borrowed from overseas sources less what it is owed), half the amount of the entire developing world. The eventual consequence of being a creditor is one’s loss of independence due to ever-increasing reliance on foreign creditors. Interest payments on the government debt alone amounts to over $300 billion a year and 15% of total government spending, exceeding the combined amounts the government spends on health, science, space, agriculture, housing, environment, and justice. Unless changes are made, every cent raised by the Federal Government by the turn of the century will go to pay entitlements and interest on the debt. What makes this rising amount so worrisome is most of it is going to foreign owners. Between massive budget deficits and constant trade deficits, the United States has become ever dependent upon foreign goods and capital, especially the latter. America imports over half its oil, over $50 billion per year, well over half of its entire trade deficit. Foreign Direct Investment in the United States exceeds that of American investment overseas. America’s classical landmarks such as Rockefeller Center, Pebble Beach, Waikiki and the motion picture industry have been purchased by foreign corporations. Dependency brings both good and evil; it allows one to spend more than one has but eventually, like children dependent upon their parents, the rules set forth will not our own or much to our own liking (Remember the golden rule: those who have the gold makes the rules.) Our day of reckoning will soon be upon us and our credit will no longer be good (In September 1994, the dollar is collapsing, investment is rapidly flowing out of, not into, the United States, and international credibility is at record lows. In June 1997, the opposite has occurred. We fully expect the good times not to last and the cycle to continue by decade’s end) For the last twenty years, the fastest growing segment of the American economy has been government, be it local, state or federal. Government impact on economics has traditionally been minimal. As late as 1910, federal, state and local expenditures constituted barely 10 percent of GNP, leaving 90 percent for the private sector--i.e, the ratio of tax generators to tax receivers was 9 to 1. Today government expenditures approach 40 percent of GNP, leaving barely 60 percent to the private sector; the ratio is 1.5 to 1. In other words, the government sector has grown nearly fourfold and is two-thirds the size of the private sector. The same federal government that took less than ten percent of an average family’s income in 1950, forty years later takes over 25 percent. Government expenditures have doubled every decade since the sixties. Government employs more workers than does the entire manufacturing sector of the American economy. During September 1993, the economy generated nearly 400,000 new jobs, almost all coming in the government sector. Certainly this indicates more and more people are becoming directly dependent upon the government as their primary source of employment and income and the government is becoming dependent upon maximizing its revenue from those few crazy folks who still insist upon working hard and prospering. In addition, entitlements have risen exponentially over the same time frame. Medicare and Medicaid, which started out in the sixties, were projected to have expenditures in the nineties of less than $10 billion; in reality expenditures were over twenty times greater. Two-thirds of the federal budget is allocated to entitlements. In addition to the two medical entitlements, social security, Aid to Dependents, and other welfare transfer payments, have skyrocketed. A bipartisan group has estimated that by the year 2013, Social Security benefit payments alone will surpass tax receipts. The Clinton health care plan as originally proposed in September 1993 would in effect transfer another one-seventh of the United States economy to governmental control and regulation. The underlying agenda for the plan is to entice the middle-class with entitlements of their own and hence create another group dependent upon government largesse (and therefore bringing this newly dependent class of Americans into the Democratic fold). Clinton during the campaign and in the first year of his presidency spoke of the American people as his ‘children’ for which he is responsible, for which he (as parent) knows what is best, and for which they should be dependent upon him, the presidency, the government. Clinton’s mainline support is coming from those who support him because he ‘cares’ about them; he’ll protect them, watch over them, baby them. It is the liberal philosophy that people can’t make decisions for themselves; they have no self-control, no self-respect, so ‘we’ (the government) has to make the decisions (in effect, control them) for their own safety and own good. The ‘Cradle-to-Grave’ security blanket which began with FDR would have been complete with Clinton’s health care package, if it had succeeded. Clinton believes that government can solve all problems, take care of all the people, its children, if only it had enough money, our money, all our hard-earned money. The people have learned to depend on professionals to solve problems, not families or communities; to depend on the police, the teachers, the doctors, the social workers, not one’s families or neighborhoods. The government has taken control for one’s life out of the hands of families and communities and put it into the hands of third-party professionals. Many governmental programs are designed to create clients rather than empower citizens. This undermines confidence and competence of our citizens and communities and creates dependency. As a result, it is not surprising that among the most severe problems the United States has is welfare dependency, alcohol dependency, and drug dependency. Rather than the traditional American traits of self-reliant, self-controlled, hard-working and patriotic, the new “politically correct” American culture in the process of forming (and is being encouraged by government, the media, and special interests) seems to be dependency, hedonistic, narcissistic, and whininess. Social Security is another entitlement. Before social security existed, families saved for their retirement or their children took care of them in their old age. But for over 60 years, the increasing payments and burdens of social security have led to many elders becoming totally dependent upon the government largesse (and the tolerance of their children who in reality are supporting their parents through the direct transfer payments system that social security really is, for many wage earners pay more in social security taxes than they pay in federal income taxes). The political influence of the American Association of Retired People (AARP) (whose requirement for membership is now just fifty years of age or older) and the high voting habits of the elderly breathe fear into politicians. The United States federal government spends ten times or more on the elderly as it does on the children. By creating a dependent class of seniors, in return, the elders have sold their souls for bigger and bigger (not necessarily better) government. The elders are getting more but at the expense of their children and grandchildren. The same argument could be made for the poor and the blacks. By creating a welfare class dependent upon government goodies (food stamps, aid payments, subsidized housing, Medicaid), the people are actually encouraged to stay on the dole and in return vote for more government and more goodies (usually along the democratic liberal party line). Medicare will spend some $140 billion in 1994 to protect the nonindigent elderly against routine medical problems, to pay for those who could pay for something they could expect anyway. Another entitlement in process is that of sexual conduct-- the right to have sex, with whomever, whenever, under whatever conditions. By the government’s determination to become the prime source for sexual knowledge (sexual education at primary and even kindergarten levels), sexual modes (‘proper’--politically correct codes of behavior), for sexual protection (i.e. distribution of condoms at schools) and for sexual ‘accidents’ (abortion upon demand, aid to dependent children, Headstart programs), a child’s sexual education is trending towards dependency upon the government instead of the traditional family responsibility, thus further weakening familial bonds in favor of big brotherism. The sexual revolution of the sixties liberated women; the Gay and Lesbian agenda for the nineties is to legitimatize homosexuality as an acceptable and alternate lifestyle; some believe the next stage of the the sexual revolution is making pedophilia acceptable. Fredric Hayek in his classic book, The Road to Serfdom (1944), described how socialism (dependence) even with all its good intentions can lead directly to totalitarianism (bondage). Socialism is on its strongest ground as an ideal; as a reality it is in serious trouble. At the heart of the socialist vision is the notion that a compassionate society can create more humane living conditions for all through government ‘planning’ and control of the economy. Keynes, for example, seemed to imagine that public policy would be worked out by an intellectual aristocracy using the methods of persuasion, not by ordinary men and women with political aspirations who are willing to bend policy recommendations to suit their own political objects. Modern governments have usurped the power to increasingly control our daily lives, with good intent, thinking they are the proper authority to determine and then implement the ideals of society. Government have sacrificed individual freedoms for a collective system of rules that serve to impose their view of what is best for each of us, this behavior being merely what governments believed the people wanted. Both the moral and the efficiency arguments for socialism depend on what Hayek called ‘intellectual hubris’ the assumption that one has such comprehensive knowledge that the only things lacking are such factors as compassion and will. Socialists are dangerous idealists whose sincerity and disinterestedness are above suspicion and individuals of considerable intellectual distinction. Socialists overestimate what is possible and underestimate the dangers created in pursuit of their ideas. They prepare the way for totalitarianism, although they are themselves morally incapable of such; they leave the field to those whose ruthlessness is equal to the task. As the government exercises more and more influence in the economy, its control of the personal decisions of its citizenry increases proportionally. History shows that when economic freedom disappears, personal and political freedoms follow. As Edward Gibbon observed about ancient Greece: They wanted freedom, they wanted security, they wanted a comfortable life. When the Athenians wanted not to give to society, but for society to give to them, when the freedom they wished for most was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free and they lost it all--security, comfort, and freedom. Once equality before the law is extinguished (same rules applying to all), since real equality does not exist among the various classes and groups subjected to law, the path is paved for subordinating law itself to results (‘outcomes’). In pursuing this line of thought and policy, the socialists have very different results in mind from those later imposed by the totalitarianists. People who are free to do as they wish will not do as the economic planners wish. These differences must be ironed out by propaganda or power. Indoctrination must be part of the program to insure its success. The inherent requirements of a socialist system which make indoctrination necessary also make the increased imposition of political power necessary. People will not go where they are told and do what they are told to do or perform all the work that is essential to society after capitalist incentives have been removed, unless government power is exerted against them. At this point, those socialists which may balk at further use of government force tend to be replaced by those who will not, leading to the totalitarian state. This second group of socialists will call for stronger measures, tougher policy, even going as far as to resort to terror: “Since people won’t cooperate, won’t act for the public interest voluntarily, we’ve got to force them to.” And eventually come death penalties for civilian crimes, critics, dissenters, followed by the totalitarian state. Totalitarianism differs from all past tyrannies in that it aims at total control of society rather than at control of government alone; in a society where every social task is discharged in and through a large organization, total control seems both attractive to many and terrifyingly possible. Very few could argue with the statement that if the United States has not already entered a period of dependency, it is not long to do so. According to the trend, after dependency comes bondage. But what form is this bondage to take? Not necessarily one of a Hitler-like dictator. No, the form of bondage, the dictatorship predicted by Professor Tyler will be more like 1984’s suffocatingly all knowing ‘Big Brother,’ perhaps fifteen to twenty years later than Orwell prophesied. This in its final stage will result in a government who knows best, which dictates policy for all its people, and which regulates its people to the nth degree in the ‘proper’ manner. As many citizens have been trained by our institutes to see the government as economically omniscient and omnipotent and to blame all economic ills on business, the end result could lead to a popular demand for a takeover of the major means of production by the state. People are attracted by the good that a stronger government could achieve, if only government power were in the ‘right’ hands. The power to do good is also the power to do harm; those who control the power today may do good; they may not have control or power tomorrow; those who will have control tomorrow may not do good; what one man regards as good, another may regard as harm. The use of force to achieve equality will destroy freedom and the force, introduced for good purposes, will end up in the hands of people who use it to promote their own interests. The demagogue is a specialist in sincerity. This government is likely to be one so obsessed for revenue, needing fifty if not sixty percent or more of GDP (Gross Domestic Product) to pay for all the entitlements demanded by its dependent populace, that the taxman becomes omnipresent and every transaction comes under close scrutiny. Already, taxes represent 50 percent of the cost of the average American consumer product while regulatory costs account for more than 30 percent of production costs. What will result is what has resulted in Sweden as a direct result of higher revenue needs by the government: as the tax levels get excessively high, new, more drastic measures are then needed to enforce collection, which often leads directly to the presumption of guilt, climate of suspicion, and approximation of a police state. The business of collecting taxes grows increasingly complex and bureaucratic-corrupt, costly, and inefficient-- so the tax-collecting machinery eats up more of the less money it is collecting (This is already happening in the United States: While Federal Tax receipts in 1995 will be 21 times greater than in 1955, the IRS budget is up 34 fold; hence its efficiency has halved during that same time frame). At some point, individuals will become ‘tax exiles,’ immigrating to other, more benevolent countries where they will be allowed to retain their earnings. These individuals tend to be dynamic, talented, and energetic, those precisely the state must have to make its programs work. Companies too can leave or move their place of business if the burdens get too cumbersome (as California is finding out). This is a nightmare that is quickly approaching: The IRS has indicated that it desires its technological detective skills to progress so much this decade that by the year 2000, all transactions will be computer logged by the IRS and on tax day the IRS will send the taxpayer a notice indicating tax liability or a refund check and automatically confiscate the funds from the taxpayer’s bank account if a tax liability results. The IRS already works under the presumption of taxpayer guilt until he proves his innocence. Is this the future we want? Do we trust the government that much? Most of us would say emphatically no!! A 1994 study sponsored by Merrill Lynch indicated that based upon existing government programs and promises in the not so far future, American taxpayers could be giving up 82 percent of what they earn to income, sales and other taxes with the top federal marginal rate exceeding 100 percent. These numbers measure total net taxes future generations must pay if nothing in government changes and all obligations for things like Social Security and retiree health care are met. In this tax and spend dependency-bondage world, Americans have lost their freedom of thought, freedom of individuality, being tied to the welfare demands of the state. Given one could dispute the exact dates of these reference points, the trend is alarmingly obvious: America has had her two hundred years of democracy and is headed for bondage. Is the United States inevitably bound to follow the pathways of all democracies and fall into bondage? Is this as certain as night following day? Michael Porter, the distinguished Harvard Business School Professor, theorizes that nations move through four stages (The Competitive Advantage of Nations, 1990): First, they are driven by the natural advantages of their people, geography, and resources (the United States began the upgrading process from a position of international success in resource-based industries such as iron and steel, lumber, and agriculture); second, as they advance, they are driven to invest aggressively in facilities, capital investments, and infrastructure (the railroads, steel mills, great manufacturing plants at the turn of the century); the third stage is where nations become driven by innovation, pushing the frontiers of technology, not merely improving technology but creating them (Atomic Energy, the transistor, biotechnology); finally, during the fourth stage they are driven by keeping their wealth, the wealth that has already been achieved, driven to maintain that wealth, not generate new wealth, to redistribute the pie not grow it further. This creates ‘a backward-looking, rear guard action to protect what they’ve got.’ Goals become social not economic in nature. Symptoms of this fourth stage include falling educational standards, widespread interests in mergers and acquisitions, investing more in financial assets not real assets or new ventures, decreasing productivity, sluggish wage and job growth, rising unemployment, and as a result, declining national competitiveness. The wealth-driven stage is a stage of drift and ultimate decline in economic prosperity. Mr. Porter is not alone in his view that the United States may be in that last stage, the looking-over-the-shoulder stage. Paul Kennedy in his Rise and Fall of Great Powers (1987) says that a Great Power cannot maintain its status indefinitely if its economy is in relative decline. England’s productivity lagged 1 percent behind other countries over the last century, turning it from the industrial leader to one with a mediocre economy. The United States’ rise to greatness was through its economic achievements. To maintain its global position after the Second World War, the United States then began devoting increasingly large proportions of wealth to its military as its predecessor great powers had all done. The United States as its economy matured, became engaged in ‘imperial overstretch.’ When economic power declines, a decline in military and political power soon follows. All signs point to the United States being in a similar decline. Kennedy goes further and says the dividing line between nations on the rise and those in decline is in a society’s desire to build for the future, and thus to progress, or instead to enjoy and present and thus to decline. Savings and investment are near all time lows. Rome, Madrid, The Hague and now Washington declined due to imperial pretensions. The reasons for the declines include increasing polarization of society into rich and poor, the decline of manufacturing, the rise of finance as a base for the economy, an increasing alienation between governing elites living in the capital and ordinary people living outside, excessive taxation, and currency debasement. All imperial capitals went through a phase in which financialization became the dominant economic activity just before reaching their nadirs. Takeovers, leveraged buyouts, derivatives,etc. seem to indicate that it is Washington’s turn. Greece, Babylon, Egypt, Rome all fell due to similar causes. Edward Gibbons in his epic work, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, gave five basic reasons for Rome’s fall: (1) Rapid increase in divorce, the undermining of the dignity and sanctity of the home, which is the basis of any successful society; (2) Higher and higher taxes and the spending of public money for welfare programs; (3) the desire for more sports and more violent sports; (4) The building of a military establishment to protect the empire which took moneys away from other more important items; (5) the decay of religion, faith fading into mere form, being impotent, leading to moral decadence. As with the four nations mentioned above, a fifth, the United States has all of these characteristics of decay. As Arnold Toynbee predicted, “When moral decay sets in, a society will not endure for long.” Has the United States peaked? (The baby boomers are the first generation in the history of this country to have a standard of living lower than their parents; four in five of the 79 million baby boomers born between 1946 and 1964 face a lower standard in living than their parents; their own children face more uncertainties.) Eighty-six percent of Americans believe that the government isn’t helping them to achieve the American dream. Is the United States now free-falling towards a wealth-stagnating bondage of its own making? The American Dream that each succeeding generation should be better off than its predecessors, does not exist for many–– real weekly incomes have fallen steadily since 1973. Even worst, more than the dream has been lost; many people feel they’ve lost the ability to support themselves and their families, to own their own home and to provide a college education for their children. The signs of decay seemingly are everywhere: voter turnout in American election is the lowest of all Western democracies. Non-voters outnumber voters two to one regardless of the issues, the candidates or the scope of the election being held. Society seems to be so disenfranchised, inhibited, alienated. Voter apathy is saying it does not matter I have no influence, nothing is going to change, my vote does not make a difference. Scientific knowledge of American students is the lowest of all industrialized countries. In geography, American students finished last in a comparative study of eight countries. Infant mortality in the United States is twice that of Japan and ranks 22nd in the world. In number of children vaccinated, the United States is 40 percent lower than rest of the industrialized world and lower than many developed countries. Its number of teenage pregnancies is 10 percent, 10 times higher than Japan, higher than most of the industrialized world. America to the rest of the world looks like a fragmented, uncaring society with dysfunctional families and inherited poverty Can we yet stop the trend before the inevitable bondage does occur? It is not too late. The future may not be as bleak as the trend suggests. The theme of this book is to provide pathways and policy suggestions to reverse this trend. The governing factor is whether the American people can wake up and take responsibility for their actions or will they allow dependency to erode their ability to think for themselves and to conduct their own lives as individuals as they wish and not as others desire. Should the United States have a more responsive system where the government is led by the will of the people or one in which the government directs the people as it seems fit and not as the people deem necessary? How do we regulate the regulators? How do we protect consumers from the protectors? As the Romans so wisely put it, Who will Guard the Guards? Most of us would answer Lincoln’s response: ‘A Government by the people, for the people, and of the people.’ If challenged, few of us can name a single governmental program that has solved more problems than it created. Government is notoriously (and, unfortunately, accurately in most cases) inefficient, corrupt, unproductive, overly bureaucratic, and politicized. Only 17% of a Gallup Poll’s respondents trust Washington to ‘do the right thing’ all or most of the time. Do we really want a government that can’t put its own house in order telling us how to run ours? No, again, most of us would cry out defensively. Then what can the public do about it, this behemoth growing out of control, interested only in more power, over our monies and our lives. We must change and tame the beast, immediately, yesterday, before the beast gets so large it passes the point of no return. Civilization, some may feel, has more urgent and immediate concerns. The world is faced with extinction by nuclear holocaust or an ecological catastrophe. We acknowledge these awesome threats and address them in the realm of personal responsibility. These are not to diminish the freedom of the individual but they most certainly add to his responsibility for not only less own indirectly but also that of his leaders. Since World War II, the American image and substance have been and still are floundering. No one can predict with any degree of certainty the quality of life that our children and their children will have in the 21st century. The American systems seems to have peaked and are having peaked seems to lack the unified will of the purpose and leadership to forge ahead. America is at a crossroads between continued greatness and rapid decline, perhaps the next victim of Great Powerism, following in the footsteps of Rome and Britain. As William Bennett writes in his book,The Index of Leading Cultural Indicators, we can e-mail across the planet but are afraid to cross the street. These trends if not reverse, “will lead to the decline and perhaps even to the fall of the American republic.” We wholeheartedly agree with him. To fight and reverse the fall or to sit back and hasten its occurrence, this is our choice. Are we prepared for the upcoming struggle? Do we have the courage to fight those forces of the status quo? How committed are we to the principles that created this great country? These are the questions each one of us must answer to himself in the coming years. Every one of us has a point of comfort, a position with which we can live with ourselves for the rest of our lives. We present our views in the hope that many of your will reconsider your comfort point and decide to join with us in our fight; that those of you who already agree with our views will take up the fight more vigorously than before. For what value do you place on freedom; on liberty; on God and Christian values? At what point before they are lost will you join the fight to maintain them? Many might deem this a quixotic quest? We would, rather, term it a modern day crusade? Why shouldn’t it be? We have titled this book “An American Manifesto” because like the original manifesto, its message is a message of radical change with an impact that hopefully will rival the original manifesto. However ours is “An American Manifesto,” to signify that this manifesto preaches a change not from right to left but from left to right, a return to the values that once made America great and which will again do so. Home Page Chapter 1: Responsibility Chapter 2: Leadership Chapter 3: Government Chapter 4: Congress Chapter 5: Regulations and Bureaucracy Chapter 6: Defense Chapter 7: International Affairs Chapter 8: Crime and Justice Chapter 9: Civil rights Chapter 10: Economic Chapter 11: Education Chapter 12: Health Chapter 13: Planning and National Goals Conclusions