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 
	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


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