Wednesday, September 28, 2012 - Shifting Strategic Perspectives Abroad

Foreign Policy: My parents, who have now passed away, were both born around the start of World War I. They were of the "greatest generation" that came to adulthood during the depression and World War II. They grew up in a world where it was us and other democracies against the fascists and imperialists across the oceans. We had the white hats. They wore the black hats. The white hats won. It was all pretty clear.

I was born in 1955, square in the middle of the "baby boom" generation. We came of age during the Cold War and the Vietnam War. It was still pretty clear. There were 3 worlds: us with the white hats, the communists with the black hats, and the "third world" that we and the communists fought over. The Vietnam War was America's first experience with a conflict that arguably did not result in the defeat of the opposition, which spoiled our air of invincibility. But, our objective for the Cold War, as Ronald Reagan famously described, was, "We win. They lose". And, that is what happened. Also pretty clear.

After the Cold War came the "peace dividend" and a hope, if not an expectation, that there were no more black hats left. We could enter a time of harmony in which the weapons and armies of the past would become unnecessary. But, it was only 9 months after the Berlin Wall fell that we were at war in the Persian Gulf. The attacks of 9/11 would come a decade after that.

There are very few things that are less "black and white" then diplomacy and foreign relations. But, my generation and the generations before us became accustomed to such clarity during the conflicts to defeat fascism and communism. And, since there is no single great military power out there wearing a similar black hat, many Americans think that the threats in the world are minor or distant and of little concern. That complacency is misplaced.

There is a tremendous amount of instability in the world. The potentials for conflicts, especially of an irregular and unconventional nature, are great. And, it is not always clear who is wearing a white hat, a black hat or perhaps a grey or blue one.

Obviously, there is massive unrest in the Middle East rooted in a complex web of causes. But, the Obama administration, falling back on the black and white hat foreign policy, has determined that the existing tyrants were bad and that whatever government replaced them would be good. This is clearly wrong. The execution of our Ambassador and 3 others in the country that our military helped "liberate" from Gaddafi shows that conditions there may now be worse rather than better as a consequence of our intervention. Syria is even more complex. Here again, the mainstream press and the Obama folks would have you believe that all ills can be cured by the elimination of Assad, which will supposedly bring flowers and happiness to this country. This is flawed thinking. Al-Qaeda appears to be running the "rebel" operation now. The Russians have a lot of national pride and security interest in their deep water port there. The Turks have a keen interest in the stability of their neighbors and the Syrian unrest is causing them a myriad of problems. Is the "Arab Spring" becoming a situation where one dictator gets replaced by another who is every bit as brutal but rules under the guise of “democracy”? Despite the Administration and the mainstream press' attempt to attribute the murder of Ambassador Stevens to a 6-month old, little known YouTube video, it is now pretty clear that this was a well-planned and orchestrated attack that used the video as an excuse to incite public support in the Islamic world for their already planned actions. The Middle East is becoming more unstable and more hostile since the "Arab Spring", not less. Of late, the US has exhibited weakness and indecision around the globe. And, as a result, we have created more rifts with the Russians, Turks and Israelis. As I have made abundantly clear, this is difficult stuff to deal with at the strategic level. But, it is equally clear that this Administration's foreign policy has failed miserably in this part of the world. And, I haven't even talked about Iran or the disaster in Afghanistan.

However, that is not the world's only hot spot. People in China are calling for death to all Japanese as a result of conflicts of the ownership of islands in the China Sea. China is having economic problems. That is well known. But, they have political ones, as well. We in the west tend to assume that communist countries have no political issues because they are....well....communist. But, communists have been killing each other for the last century in order to capture the reins of power from other communists. (Remember Stalin's purge in 1938?) In much the same way, China has succession issues which could result in serious violence and instability there. And, of course, there are the long-standing conflicts between China and Taiwan, North and South Korea, and we should not assume that age-old issues between China and Russia are all warm and fuzzy now.

India and Pakistan have been on the verge of war for decades and both have nuclear weapons. Indonesia has its own Islamic Extremist elements that threaten stability there. It seems we pay little attention in this country to the multiple conflicts and tyrants in sub-Saharan Africa, but they are there and many, many people are dying.

Even Europe is not quiet these days. The Euro and the EU were part economic union and part an attempt for countries that had been at war with one another for centuries to bind themselves so close together that they would never want to fight again. But, as the Euro strains, nationalist tendencies are rising again in Europe.  If the Euro breaks up, the flames nationalism could be fed again. If it stays together, there could be social unrest if the populace of one part of the continent rebels against another part that they believe is causing their economic depression. Is conflict or unrest in Europe imminent? No. Is it possible? Yes.

History does not repeat itself. But, there are historical echoes. Prior to World War I, there were not black or white hats per se. There were a couple of democracies and a lot of monarchies, many of whom had family ties. The British Empire, upon which the sun never set, had kept a hand on things in the 19th century since the defeat of Napoleon. But, British influence and control weakened. And, in 1914, the assassination of a single Archduke led to a war that would claim the lives of over 15 million people. The alliances of the past were all jumbled up. The British, who had been at war constantly with the French since 1066, became their allies. The US, which had been enemies of the British but friends of the French and the Germans, ended up siding with British and French.

This is not 1914 or anything close to that. But, I bring up this example to show how alliances and black hats and white hats can and do change over time. The world, in my opinion, is heading into a very turbulent and uncertain period. We cannot apply the simple “us vs. them” foreign policy strategy of the cold war. We cannot police the world. But, an unquestionably strong United States, respected by many and feared by the rest, is the best insurance policy we can have. How, where, when and why we use that power is not simple and is a matter for debate. But, we need to have that debate!

What is clear is that this President has failed in this arena, and the media will not cover it. Do you remember how the media was all over how we were hated and disrespected around the world as a result of President Bush's foreign policy errors? Well, we are more hated and more disrespected now. Is that somehow Bush's fault, too? Maybe it’s Nixon's fault?

I don't have all the answers. But, what we are doing is not working and we need to change it. We should be looking at all of this through a different prism than used in the recent past. We need to stand with our rock solid allies, such as the British and Israelis, and defend against radical Islam wherever it may rise. But, from this point there are many complicated cross-currents which we need to carefully navigate.

World War I was declared "the war to end all wars" by the generation that fought it. They were wrong. Let's not make a similar mistake.

Monday, September 17, 2012 - Tax Reform Survey Results

Survey Results: You haven't heard from me in a while. No need to check the obits, I'm still here. What with 2 national conventions, a busy month home in the district, and some vacation on my part, I thought I'd give us both a little break. Not that either of us could avoid the non-stop national campaigning.

When I last wrote you, I included a survey with various proposals on what to include and not include in a potential income tax reform bill next year. The results are detailed below. But, here is my "executive summary and analysis":

•    A majority of you agreed with all of my proposals.

•    The most popular proposal with you all (76.9%) was to eliminate all deductions and credits except charitable contributions, home mortgage interest and non-elective medical expenses.

•    The least popular proposal, albeit still over 50% at 56.3%, was to go to only 2 tax rates, one for incomes below $100,000 and one for incomes above that amount. 27.2% of you believe that we will need more rates than that, and 15.2% of you want  only one rate.

•    You may recall that I had a joke answer for each question. In spite of my admonitions not to vote for the jokes, some of you did. None of you want me to be able to deduct my bar tab or to send money to Greece. But, 1.3% believe that anyone who votes for Obama should be taxed at 90%, and 0.3% of you believe that Elvis is still alive and extra-terrestrials live amongst us - and that both should pay a minimum income tax. I don't agree with that. Elvis paid plenty of taxes in the 60's at a 70% rate and deserves a break now.

Here are the results:

John Campbell Tax Code of 2013 Survey

1. Eliminate all deductions except: charitable contributions, home mortgage interest and non-elective medical expenses.

(a) I agree with you, John: 76.9%

(b) Drop all deductions: 8.6%

(c) Keep charitable and medical, but drop home mortgage: 7.6%

(d) Keep home mortgage and medical, but drop charitable: 3.0%

(e) Keep charitable and home mortgage, but drop medical: 3.8%

(f) Get rid of all deductions except my bar tab, just in case Obama is re-elected. (OK, you can't vote for this! It's a joke): 0%

2. Go to 2 tax rates: one for incomes below $100,000 (maybe 20% under this scenario) and a second for incomes above that (something like 28%).

(a) I agree with you, John: 56.3%

(b) Go to one flat tax rate and one rate only: 15.2%

(c) You will need more than 2 rates in the end: 27.2%

(d) Tax everyone who voted for Obama 90% and everyone who didn't 10% - No, you can't vote for this one either!: 1.3%

3. Allow corporations to deduct dividends from their income, but make dividend income taxable as ordinary income with no preferences to individuals.

(a) I agree with you, John: 72.8%

(b) Keep it like it is - 15% for dividends and corporations can't deduct them: 15.3%

(c) Tax dividends as ordinary income and don't allow corporations to deduct them - like it was pre-2001: 11.7%

(d) What's a dividend? No, you can't vote for this. If you wanted to, please open up a new page and look up the definition of dividends: 0%

(e) Send all dividends to Greece, they need the money - Joke again!: 0%

4. Eliminate any preferences for capital gains, except for non-depreciable assets held over 5 years.

(a) I agree with you, John: 62.2%

(b) John, you have gone totally bean-counter wacko on me and I have no idea what you are talking about. I feel badly for the Captivating Mrs. Campbell if you can be "romanced" by a tax rate: 5.1%

(c) Keep capital gains as they are: 23.1%

(d) Tax all capital gains the same as any other income: 9.6%

5.  Implement a minimum tax so that anyone with any income at all pays 2% of their gross income or a minimum of $100.

(a) I agree with you, John: 61.3%

(b) I agree in principle, but I would make the numbers a little different: 35.7%

(c)  That is the nuttiest idea you have ever come up with and you have had some doozies in the past!: 2.0%

(d)  I want a minimum tax of 100% of income on my evil ex-spouse. No, you can't choose this one either: 0.7%

(e) I'm good with this as long as extraterrestrials and Elvis Presley, who both live amongst us, have to pay it too. (OK, now you're not allowed to vote at all.): 0.3%

Looking Ahead: Congress was back in session last week and will be again this week. But, other than a few deadline things, such as funding the government for the fiscal year that begins October 1st, it is unlikely that any significant legislation will pass the Senate (which has passed or even considered almost nothing for 2 years). Next week begins the 5 week countdown to the election. I will use those 5 weeks, in which there will be no legislative activity, to communicate some bigger thoughts to you. Some of those bigger thoughts (in no particular order) will include treatises on a world loaded with debt; the creation of false wealth - money without growth; an unstable world, the quiet before the storm, but what storm?; don't hate on electric cars; and will we have a country with more growth, security, opportunity and freedom....or less?

Wednesday, July 18, 2012 - A New Tax System?

*NOTE: SPECIAL SURVEY EDITION. This week's edition includes an interactive survey. After you finish reading, please make sure to assess my plan and tell me what you think!

Taxes: Taxes are always a big issue in politics and public policy. However, right now there is a crescendo of agreement building in Washington that it’s time to make some fundamental change to our tax system.

The debate in Washington of late has been confined to the so-called Bush tax cuts, all of which are scheduled to expire at the end of this year. Essentially, should we extend all of them, none of them, or some of them? The erudite readers of these missives (that's you) have heard all of this before and know the arguments for and against the extension and all about taxing the "rich" and such. So, I won't repeat them here. Economists are unified in their predictions of recession if we are allowed to go over the “fiscal cliff” on December 31 and allow all of the tax cuts to expire and the sequestered spending cuts take effect. Those cries are not falling on deaf ears in Washington. I think that eventually all of the Bush tax cuts will be extended for somewhere between 6 months and one year. I don't know whether that vote will happen before or after the election, but I think the fragility of the economy necessitates this action and reasonable minds will prevail at some point.

But, no one is happy with the current tax system. And, no one is happy with the idea that there is no permanency to the tax code today and that so many elements of it expire every year. This adds a totally unnecessary uncertainty into the economy that hampers decision making and is one of the many factors restricting our growth. And frankly, lawmakers hate the fact that every year or so we are faced with the Hobson's choice of either raising taxes or allowing the deficit to rise. That is not a vote that any Republican or Democrat relishes taking. So, the 1 year or 6 month extension this year should be about giving us time to try to completely remake the tax code in 2013.

Many of you know that I am the only member of Congress with a Master’s Degree in Business Taxation (MBT). I received that degree from USC (Fight on!) in 1977. I am a CPA and once prepared tax returns for a living. At that time, I learned the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. We now have the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. I believe we may soon see the Internal Revenue Code of 2013.

But, what will that code look like? We ought to "reach for the stars" here. Let's not just tinker with the tax code and change it a little bit. Let's see if we can get 218 votes in the House, 60 votes in the Senate and the signature of whoever is president on a complete restructuring of the Code that would make it flatter and simpler.

It's actually pretty clear what to do on the corporate tax side. Eliminate a bunch of deductions and credits and get the rate down from the current 35% to hopefully 25%. Of course, the trick is getting that done. Every corporation will favor a lower rate, but most will fight to keep their deductions in favor of cutting the others. In my opinion, deductions should follow accounting principles. If they are greater than what we allow on a financial statement, then it’s some form of tax benefit. We may want to keep a few tax benefits for some industries (like manufacturing) to remain competitive in the world market, but most of them should go. And, we should allow US corporations to repatriate their overseas earnings without penalty.

The bigger issue, however, is what we do with individual taxes. Obviously, these are the taxes we all pay on our wages and investment income and such. But, the vast majority of businesses pay taxes under individual tax rates if they are formed as a "pass-through entity", like a partnership, LLC, subchapter S corporation or sole proprietorship. I have seen estimates that show roughly 1/3 of individual income taxes are actually paid on income from a business in one of those entities. So, that being said, the individual tax system is the one that will have the most impact upon economic growth simply because it affects absolutely everyone in one way or another.

Now, you have already read that I have a background in this area. Accordingly, this is not my first rodeo. For the last 6 years, Paul Ryan (R-WI), Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) and I have been the authors of a bill called the Optional Simplified Tax. It created a new, optional tax code with 2 tax rates and absolutely no deductions. It was optional (you could elect to continue to pay on the "old" system and rates) because we were unsure when we wrote it 6 years ago that the public was ready for this radical a change. I now think that the public has shifted some and is ready for radical reform. But, I have shifted some too.

Over the last 6 years, my thoughts on what a new, reformed tax system should be have changed. In fact, my thinking has changed in the last 6 weeks. The point in telling you this is to highlight that there is no obvious solution here, regardless of your particular political or economic philosophy. There are good arguments for and against different alternatives.

So, I'm going to present to you what, at this point in time, I would do with the individual tax system if I were king. And, I'm giving you the opportunity to vote right here on the major elements of it and tell me if you agree with me or not. I'll be interested to see what you all think. And, I'll also tell you in a future laptop how you all responded. Feel free to disagree with me. I may disagree with me after I think about it a little more.

So, here's my description of the JC Tax Code of 2013, Version 2.0:

• Eliminate all deductions except: charitable contributions, home mortgage interest and non-elective medical expenses. This will mean that we cannot get to a 25% income tax rate. It will have to be higher than that. I used to think that we should eliminate all deductions and take the lower rate and the added simplicity. But, I now have persuaded myself that it is important that individuals fund as many societal needs as possible through charitable activities rather than leaving them to inefficient and biased government allocation. Eliminating the charitable deduction would make that much more difficult. Medical expenses (other than cosmetic surgery and such) are a burden none of us want to spend money on. But if we have to, I think we should do it with pre-tax dollars - particularly when we return the control of medical care to the individual and take it away from the government by repealing Obamacare and replacing it with a system where we each have the freedom to make our own medical decisions. Finally, the home mortgage deduction has long been a staple of "The American Dream" of homeownership, and an integral part of our economy. If we eliminate it, homeownership will drop further, causing jobs and the economy to suffer mightily.
  
  
• Go to 2 tax rates: one for incomes below $100,000 (maybe 20% under this scenario) and a second for incomes above that (something like 28%). I know that the single "flat tax" rate has a guttural appeal to many of you. But, there is no way to implement a truly flat tax (and keep the total revenue collected about the same) without raising taxes on the middle class and cutting them for higher incomes. I do not share Obama's desire to punish the "rich". But, neither do I think that raising middle class taxes in order to achieve a top rate below 25% is a good trade-off.
  
  
• Allow corporations to deduct dividends from their income, but make dividend income taxable as ordinary income with no preferences to individuals. This is complicated stuff. Dividends are currently taxed at a maximum of 15%, but the dividend payment is not deductible to the corporation that pays it out.  I propose that we tax dividends like any other type of income at whatever the full rate winds up being, but allow corporations to deduct the dividend the same way they deduct interest payments on bonds. This will put debt and equity on an equal footing in corporate boardrooms as a method of raising cash. Which will mean more equity issuance and less debt. This is a good thing. And, we also eliminate the complexity of another "class" of income at the individual level.
  
  
• Eliminate any preferences for capital gains, except for non-depreciable assets held over 5 years. We have always defined capital gains as any gain from the sale of a "capital" asset. I propose that we change that. I propose that all gains on sales of anything held for less than 5 years are taxed at the same rate as any other income. I don't know why "trading" or other short-term income should get a lower rate than a salary or interest income. But, we do need a lower rate (maybe 10%) for sales of non-depreciable assets that have been held for 5 years or longer. There is a simple elegance to having all income, regardless of its character, taxed at the same rate - that would mean no preference for capital gains or anything else. I am romanced by such a prospect. But, the economic reality is that a high tax rate on the sale of long-term assets will discourage people from selling them and moving that asset to someone who will make better use of it, thereby creating jobs. So, I think a 10% rate on gains from the sale of non-depreciable assets held more than 5 years makes sense.
  
  
• Implement a minimum tax so that anyone with any income at all pays 2% of their gross income or a minimum of $100. You have probably read that over 50% of Americans now pay no income tax at all. A few of these are relatively wealthy people with all their money in tax-free municipal bonds. But, most are lower income people or people with a lot of deductions. In fact, 50% of Americans pay nothing at all for national defense, national parks, or the court system, in spite of the fact that they undoubtedly benefit from all of these services and more. Everyone who earns a paycheck or a dividend payment should participate in the funding of the basic elements of American government. The top 20% of incomes will still fund 67.9% of everything. But, everyone with income will participate in some way. Society succeeds when all pay and all benefit. Society fails when a few pay and most receive.

CLICK TO TAKE THE JOHN CAMPBELL 2012 TAX CODE, VERSION 2.0 SURVEY

This is serious and complicated stuff. The humor in the survey is injected to make it readable and to try to take some of the mouth-destroying dryness out of tax accounting. But, your answers will be taken seriously and this debate is very important.

I will let you know what you all have to say. Maybe you'll change my mind.......

Until then, drive fast and live free....

Monday, July 9, 2012 - Obamacare: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Stephanopoulos: But you reject that it's a tax increase?

Obama: I absolutely reject that notion.......

Stephanopoulos:......That may be true, but it’s still a tax increase.

Obama: No, that's not true, George.

-Excerpts from an exchange between President Obama and George Stephanopouls in 2009. For the entire clip of the exchange, click HERE.

Obamacare: I am old enough to remember Harry Truman. No, not President Harry Truman. I am not quite that old! I mean the stubborn individualist who lived in Washington State at the base of Mount St. Helens when that volcano erupted in 1980. That Harry Truman refused repeated attempts by government authorities to evacuate him from the base of the mountain he loved. He was never seen again after the eruption and is presumed to have been buried in a deep lava flow. So, what does Harry Truman have to do with Obamacare? Keep reading. I will get to that.

When I sit down with my MacBook Pro to write, I take care to try and avoid trite and overused phrases or metaphors that, in my view, have ceased to have any literary punch. But, I'm going to use one now because it just fits too perfectly. In analyzing the Supreme Court's decision on Obamacare, I truly see “The Good, The Bad and The Ugly”.

First, the Good. The court nearly unanimously rejected the idea that it is constitutional for the federal government to force someone to buy something. Writing for the majority, Justice Roberts noted that the government cannot require someone to enter into commerce so they can then have that commerce regulated. The dissenting opinions, which believed in striking the entire law down, also reaffirmed this notion. This is actually a very good precedent and one which sets back the agenda of self-described "progressives" who want the government to compel us to do (and not do) all sorts of things. The court has ruled that the federal government cannot do that.

And, for the first time ever, a Supreme Court ruled that the federal government went too far in using the carrot and stick of federal money to force a state to do something. The federal government has been doing this for decades. States had to raise the drinking age to 21, for example, or lose federal highway funds. They had to enact seatbelt laws and have a speed limit no higher than 55 mph or lose federal funds. And, there are dozens more similar examples. None have ever been struck down by the court....until now. This court ruled that the threat to withhold Medicaid dollars from states if they did not move more people onto Medicaid rolls (and off of Obamacare) was ruled as overly punishing and prescriptive. The good news here is that, for the very first time, the court has said that there are limits on the extent to which states can be made to enact laws they don't want to enact for fear of being punished with federal money.

And, the final bit of good news was eluded to in our opening quote today. The Obamacare tax, which the President insisted was not a tax, is formally deemed to be a tax. Never again will a congress and a president be able to mislead the American people as President Obama and the Pelosi Congress did in 2009 by calling a tax a “penalty” or a “fee”.

Now, for the Bad News. As you all know, the biggest, baddest news is that Obamacare was not struck down by the court. And, calling the Obamacare tax a tax now is too late for those who supported it to have had to defend that position during the debate on the bill. So, they got away with it. More bad news is that the concept of the tax that the Supreme Court approved is disturbing in its own right. When we have taxed in this country, we have always taxed an action. If you earn income, you pay an income tax. If you buy stuff, you pay a sales tax. We have never before taxed the people for inaction. If you don't buy health insurance, we will tax you. Think about how pernicious this concept of taxing inaction could become. For liberals reading this, imagine that if you don't own a gun, you will be taxed. Many of you more liberal readers are saying, “Oh, that could never happen.” Are you sure? When freedom is lost, it can be lost to the forces of good or the forces of evil - however you perceive those forces to be. If you don't buy 2 servings of fruits and vegetables a day, you will be taxed. Under the Supreme Court ruling, the government could not force you to eat those veggies, but they can tax you if you don't buy them.

So, what's the Ugly? That is how this whole thing will progress from here. Already, the administration has admitted that various aspects of the bill are unworkable, including the so-called CLASS act, which would have created a new long-term care insurance program. That punched one hole in Obamacare. The unconstitutionality of withholding states' Medicaid money if they do not comply will punch another enormous hole in the bill. To give the illusion that socialized medicine works somehow, Obamacare required states to push a whole bunch of new people into Medicaid that would otherwise be on the roles of Obamacare. This was designed to shift higher costs to the states, which, in turn, would not be reflected in Obamacare when figuring the "cost" of the bill. (i.e. it was a way to hide costs) In order to make states take on this additional cost, the bill would remove all Medicaid funding from states that did not comply with this order. Now, because of the Supreme Court ruling, states don't have to comply and they will still get all their Medicaid funding. However, now, if states don't comply, millions and millions of new people will go on the Obamacare rolls without anyone to pay for them.

And, why would states comply? Remember, 26 states sued the federal government over this very issue. They won. You would have to expect that those 26 states will not choose to voluntarily assume billions of dollars in additional, unreimbursed costs just to help the President fund Obamacare. That alone will make the financials on Obamacare go from bad to worse. Leading Democrats in my home state of California are already praising the ruling and saying that California, of course, will voluntarily comply with this wonderful law. In addition to the added direct costs that this position implies, it also will make California even more of a magnet for people from other states who want free stuff. In other words, more people on government assistance moving in and more people of accomplishment moving out of California. This will all hasten the coming insolvency of my home state.

But, back to Obamacare. The tax, now affirmed as a tax by the Supreme Court, is $750 a year. It is assumed that millions of Americans will pay this tax and go on free Obamacare because it is still a lot cheaper than buying health insurance. This bill was never going to work even if it operated as planned. But, now the wheels are literally coming off. It will collapse of its own weight because many of the fragile and unstable underpinnings have formally been removed now.

But, as it collapses, it will take jobs and the economy down with it. This will make us long for deficits of only $1 trillion, as our new deficits will balloon with all the free health care doled out with little revenue to offset it. (AND, you can confiscate all income of $250,000 and it won't come close to paying for Medicare, not to mention Obamacare. So, don't pretend that is a solution) That's why the House will vote this week to completely repeal Obamacare. That repeal will pass the House with, I would think, all Republicans and a few dozen Democrats voting in favor. But, the Senate will not pass it and the President will not sign it. To change that, you have to send us a new senate and a new president in November.

In closing, I return to Harry Truman. Why did I begin this missive with the crusty fellow from Mount St. Helens? I would not want to have lived Harry Truman's life nor would I have made the decision he did in advance of that volcanic eruption. But, one of the hallmarks of America is that an individual here has the freedom to live the life he or she wants, not the life someone else insists he or she have. Harry Truman didn't ask for anything. He didn't want anything...except to be left alone. To live his life on the side of that mountain, and to make his own decisions in the face of impending threats. But, now it appears if Harry Truman does not buy health insurance, IRS agents will go find him wherever he is and tax him, even if he has no income. And, perhaps in the future, if Harry doesn't own a gun or buy 2 servings of vegetables, they will hunt him down and tax him more. Just like that lava flow, Harry can't escape the conscription of the federal government even alone with his 14 cats in the wilderness.

The Harry Trumans out there lost some freedom on June 28. We all lost some freedom on June 28. We did not lose it at the point of a sword, as has often been our fear. We lost it at the point of a pen. We cannot allow the pen of compulsory action, socialism and statism to prevail, or the "progressives" will rob us of freedom more slowly, but every bit as inexorably as the sword.