Some years back I discovered a book called For the Courage of the Founders by Tom Rancich.

In the book, Tom makes a stunning case that America’s Global War on Terror is not only an illusion but is counter to our most basic principles and American values.

In the book Tom makes some bold claims:

1) Terrorists are not a true threat to America.

2) Our own undermining of the Constitution IS a threat to America.

So who is Tom Rancich?  Does he know what he’s talking about?  He must be a Californian dope smoking, America-hating hippy right?

More on that in a second.

Terrorism Kills, but so do Cigarettes

The book goes on in great detail.  With scientifically objective thinking, Tom points out that most scars left by terrorism are more emotional than of significant objective material consequence to our nation.  Example: far more people die of cigarettes or obesity than terrorism, yet we don’t change our Constitutional values to fight junk food.  In other words, terrorism hurts our ego more than it actually threatens us.  What Tom does believe is that the increasing erosion of our freedoms by our own government is a significant threat. Although written after the passage of the Patriot Act, the book had not yet seen the suspicion-less highway stops, wiretaps, expansion of Homeland Security, full body scans and many other draconian controls initiated in recent years by Uncle Sam.

An additional side effect of the “War on Terror” is that while our soldiers, intelligence agencies and law enforcement officers are fighting a war against “terror” (an emotion), conventional threats such as large nations are going unmonitored or neglected.  Did the huge number of Russian spies in the US suddenly go home just because the former KGB head became their leader?  Domestically our FBI is so busy chasing terrorists that fraud and other serious crimes are ignored.  (Yes, ignored.  On more than one occasion I have reported financial fraud and theft to the FBI on behalf of clients and in all cases my clients have been ignored.)

So who is this Rancich guy?

Surely Rancich does not know anyone who wears a uniform and must be a coward right?

Well, it reminds me of one of the often repeated and extremely stupid things said by so many hawks who think war is cool: “How dare someone speak out against America’s actions if he never wore a uniform!”  A preposterous notion that goes against the very values the speakers usually proclaim to support: a free, civilian-run society where the military is used for protection of rights of all citizens.  So no, it doesn’t matter whether Rancich wore the uniform or not, his opinions are as valid as any citizen.

Anyway, propaganda being strong as it is, it’s understandable why many misguided people would attack someone who is anti-“War on Terror” as being against the troops or whatever other reason.  Surely if some President went mad and sent troops to Canada it would not be be “un-American” to criticize that too.  Chickenhawks can pick on hippies in Berkeley and Cambridge, use the word “liberal” as if it’s a slur and assume that anyone who questions why a soldier’s life should be risked is unpatriotic.  They can continue to bash the anti-war-on terror crowd and assume that because they read a lot of Tom Clancy books or once did drills with Jr ROTC, that they are the real patriots and the anti-war crowd isn’t….

Trick is, with ole Tom the conversation might go something like this:

He thinks the Al Qaida threat is a myth?  Must be a hippie soldier-hater.  I know all about those kind from my armchair where I watch Bill O’Reilly talking tough.

Actually, he was in the US Navy.

Weekend-warrior reserves for a couple years right?

Actually he was a Lt Commander and served for 20 years.

Ahh, I see, a supply clerk medical officer who hid behind a desk in Chicago right?

Not exactly, he was a Navy SEAL Platoon Commander.

Hmm, Oh, …um… well then, he must have been some kind of umm desk SEAL right?

Fraid not, he served in and led SEAL missions in South America, Afghanistan and elsewhere and earned the Bronze Star for his actions in Afghanistan.

Okay fine.  Well he just must be a misguided vet who doesn’t know much about terrorism like I do.

Well, actually he was Commander of Naval Special Operations in Afghanistan, Expeditionary Antiterrorism Officer and Director of the Combat Terrorism Warfare Innovation Development Team and was Commander of the Atlantic Fleet’s Antiterrorism Program.

Hmmm, Umm ohh.  Well, my mind is already made up, don’t cloud it with facts!

Once the jaw-dropping stops and people realize that the author of this book has far more street-cred than Bill O’Reilly, Sarah Palin, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Dick Cheney, Ted Nugent, Donald Rumsfeld, Karl Rove, Matt Drudge or whoever else they might look to for military leadership, they might actually listen to a few things he has to say (wait I just noticed, none of those people ever did serve, interesting how keen they all are on sending others to die).  Yes, Tom even has more credibility than all those Navy SEAL video games and movies.  Maybe the hawks who take lightly the sending of American soldiers to die should revise their motto about only those who’ve worn a uniform can criticize a war to saying perhaps that only those who’ve worn a uniform should have the right to support a war.

Al Qaida is a Threat!  O’Reilly told me so!

Rancich goes into exacting detail about how Al Qaida is not the sophisticated global threat our mass media would have us believe.  Without the power to hold significant territory, command cities, blockade ports, control trade, sign treaties, levy taxes or engage in mass manufacturing or drafting of soldiers, Al Qaida is really nothing more than a not that large gang of thugs.  Some estimate the number of Al Qaida to be 10,000 or so and the number of LA gang members to be 40-50,000.  By the way, LA gangs have killed far more citizens than terrorists in the last decade.

Microsoft is a global network, points out Rancich, not some guys in caves whose most sophisticated technology is a satellite dish.  The Nazi’s were a true threat, not these thugs with sticks and bombs.  How does Rancich define threat?  One cold comparison is made by Rancich between the tragedy of 9-11 and the attacks by the Nazis in WWII.  In this war, the rough equivalent of a 9-11 sized attack occurred nearly daily for three years in England.  The 9-11 attack, while tragic and horrible as Rancich and everyone else agrees, was not of sufficient scale to come close to destroying our way of life…unless we let it.

But What if the Terrorists Win?

Rancich goes into detail including the type, likelihood and feasibility of attacks ranging from another 9-11 to the dreaded dirty bomb, chemical attack or biological attack.  He goes further to evaluate this in terms of historic significance and actual threat.  A US Naval Academy graduate, Rancich uses knowledge of historic warfare standards to measure the chances of terrorists having meaningful impact on our ability to operate as a nation.  Could Al Qaida conceivably “take Boston” for example?  Sending US troops to skirmish for control of New York, Virginia or other areas as we did 200 years ago against the British?  Surely not.  Could they have meaningful impact on our food supply and trade such as a blockade?  No.  Could they destroy an entire city?  Possibly.  Could they attack us with 9-11 scale every single day for a year?  Unlikely.  But even in a doomsday scenario (which is very unlikely) our Constitution and our Republic could survive.  Yes, terrorists could destroy a city.  So could Americans.  So why are we continually undermining the very fabric of what makes us great in the name of stopping “terrorism” while spending so much money, effort and time (and erosion of our rights) on something so statistically insignificant?  “Would a drug company spend any effort to cure a disease that kills 4000 people every 200 years?” asks Rancich with cold, hard logic.

Have you no feelings?

Many will be quick to point out the loss of life and property resulting from 9-11, some even point out the enormous emotional cost of the attack as well as the changes we have made as a result (changes in civil liberties, creation of the Department of Homeland Security and others).  Rancich doesn’t dispute this.  Many argue that these very measures are a threat to our way of life far more than any terrorist.  He who sacrifices freedom for security will have neither.  This is exactly Rancich’s point: terrorists cannot defeat a country by any conventional means of measuring warfare success, terrorists only win if they succeed in terrorizing people to the point that the people undermine and defeat themselves.

As Rancich boldly points out:  the terrorists cannot win, but we can lose.

If his words and opinions sound controversial, read his book yourself, it is available for download at tomrancich.com.  Next time someone questions your patriotism, send them to Tom.

Bruce Fenton is an entrepreneur and editor of FentonReport a global economic newsletter, he served in the cub scouts.

Much has been discussed about the exchange between Senate candidate Dr. Rand Paul and talk show host Rachel Maddow.

In the exchange, essentially Maddow drilled on some old comments Paul had made in which he said that he took issue with certain provisions of the Civil Rights Act.  He has before and since said that he is for the Act and would have voted for it.

Here is some food for thought:

Did Paul change his opinion about being for or against the Civil Rights Act?

Many have said that Paul flip-flopped on whether he was for or against the Act and that someone cannot be against a provision of the Act (as Paul described, one out of ten of the major points of the bill) but for the Act itself.

However, this is common in politics, with large bills it is virtually impossible to be for or against every single part of a bill, it’s called compromise and it happens with every major piece of legislation.  Yes, someone can certainly be against a small piece of a bill but for the whole bill.

Is Paul’s stand evidence of racism?

Paul has been called everything from a racist to a fool for his comments.  First off, what Paul has said is that he is against one portion of the bill:  the provisions relating to telling private businesses that they cannot be segregated.  He has gone on record many times for saying that he is in favor of the other parts of the bill.

So the big question:  if someone does not think it should be required by law to have private businesses serve people regardless of race, does that mean they are racist?

Of course at first glance, the obvious answer seems “Yes!” They are racist!”  The thought of racial segregated restaurants is reprehensible to me and many other people.  However, to be fair to Paul, one needs to go beyond sound bites and look at his deeper philosophy- a philosophy that says that government should not interfere with private property, people or businesses.  Like any philosophy, this has its drawbacks.  Are people like Rachel arguing that all racism everywhere should be illegal?  How about in churches?  Private clubs?  Homes?

Personally I draw the line at homes for sure.  Should people be allowed to discriminate and make offensive racist comments in their own home?  I say yes, absolutely.  I don’t agree with them and I will not go to such a home but they have that right.  How about private clubs?  Should the Nazis be allowed to exist?  Its pretty clear that offensive groups and speech are a price of free speech and liberty.

What I’d like to ask Maddow

I’d ask Rachel if she feels that any type of discrimination not be regulated by the government.

What about a private club?  What about a home?

Surely Maddow would not think that the US Federal government should regulate that people in their own homes be required by law to admit any guest regardless of race.  Or that they not be allowed to make racist or otherwise offensive comments in their own home.  Okay then, what about a home-based business?  Its here where Maddow may have surprising common ground with Paul -  although both state that they agree racism is bad, it is only a line of where each feels the responsibility of Government comes in to regulating this.

How about businesses that sell Christian services such as books?  Should they be required to allow atheists to their store?  Maddow would probably say yes.  How about Israelis and Palestinians?  Should they be required by Federal law to serve each other?  Yes again perhaps.  How about gay clubs or bars?  Should a gay association be required to serve non-gays?  Should a gay club be required to allow 50 straight frat boys in?

When I was in the military, the 18 and 19 year old service members, often from small towns who had never heard of a “gay” nightclub, let alone seen one, often thought it would be amusing to go to one, especially those catering to lesbian females.  They would march in step to the door giggling and acting like goofy hillbillies, apparently with juvenile fantasies about the adventures they would have once allowed into the mysterious gay zone.  Without fail, they would be turned away at the door.  Was this club violating the law by discriminating against patrons based on sexual orientation?  Perhaps.  Was it smart business that probably saved their patrons and the young men in question some hassles, embarrassment or a broken nose?  Probably.

So Rachel, should people be allowed to discriminate in their own homes, free from Government intervention?  If so, then you share something in common with Dr. Paul, that not all areas that we find offensive should be regulated by Government.  How about that female gay bar?  Should the law require them to let in the straight frat boys and Marines knowing full well that no good will come of it?  How about the black-only rallies that Louis Farrakan held some years back, should a speaker be allowed to select who can attend his event based on race?  Private clubs, be it the Nazi party, democrats, republicans or a Gay Business Alliance are allowed to discriminate based on race, orientation or beliefs.  Should they be?

Should businesses be allowed to discriminate who they hire based on belief?  Should The Advocate be forced to hire straight people?  Should a Jewish deli be forced to hire a Nazi?  Should democrats be required by law to hire republicans?

Lastly Rachel, how about communists? Surely you don’t think businesses should be forced to hire communists do you?  If so, then you don’t believe in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, because the Act, which was written in the times of the red scare, specifically allows discrimination against communists and exempts them from the other parts of the bill (Section 703 a. (2) (f)).  Does this make you racist or discriminatory?  I don’t think so.  Does Ron Paul drawing a different line on where Government responsibility comes make him a racist?  No.  Debate all you want, but lets be smart enough to debate about what the real issues are rather than degrade the whole thing to name calling.

Rachel Maddow and Ron Paul draw the line in a different place about where the Govt should intervene: so what?  Lets debate the line, the place government belongs.  Better yet, lets debate issues that are actually part of this campaign.

Osden Coolidge is associate editor of the FentonReport and wants to go on record as supporting the Civil Rights Act, without question would have supported it in 1964 but also recognizing that no document in our nation’s history has been perfect.

In one of the biggest political upsets in history, the most liberal state in the USA has voted a republican as US Senator for the office formerly held by Ted Kennedy.

My good friends who are democrats, especially those in Massachusetts and even more so, those who worked on the campaign for Martha Coakley-  I feel for you.  I know you are angry, frustrated and hurt.  Drop the anger.  Instead take this opportunity and learn from it.

What can you learn?

1)  Voters are often stupid but at times can be surprisingly smart.  Voters often know when they are being handled and manipulated.  The presumptive nature of the democrats in the race turned off many voters.

2)  Americans are sick of government spending/  the ‘health care’ bill sucks.  Have you actually read these so called “health care” bills?  Do you see where the billions are going?  To drug and insurance companies – the same jerks who are at the root of most of the problem.  Show me a bill that spends $700 billion to build 1000 state of the art $1 billion hospital complexes (20 in each state) and I’ll be impressed –   $700 billion so Merck and Pfizer and Sherring Plough can keep screwing the people?  No thanks.  Better yet, let us keep the $700 billion (or at least not borrow it from China) and have the freedom to do what we want.

3)  Let this be a wake up call to all politicians:  the people are tired of your BS.  Idiots like Rachel Maddow and Olberman have consistently missed the point of the Ron Paul/ Tea Party movement – dismissing it as racist or whatever — they miss the point-  the point is that people are tired of the BS in Washington from BOTH parties.  Go to a tea party rally and you will see as many angry with Bush’s bailout bonuses as Obama’s money-printing.

4)  The government works for us.  This was never “Ted Kennedy’s seat” this Senate seat belongs to the people – Kennedy was a steward of it who, lets face it, got it in the first place because of nepotism and held on to if by shrewd politicing, pork projects and a iron curtain like network — he was a decent man but also repres.ented much of what is wrong with politics today.

Mr. President and the dems — if you want to have ANY hope of getting anything done, please take this as a wake up call.  If the most liberal Senate seat in the USA can go to a republican then ALL elected officials (and the media) is hereby on notice: quit the old games and politics as usual – YOU WORK FOR US.

Written by Osden Coolidge — opinions not necessarily those of the FentonReport

“How’s business?”, the question is asked in coffee shops and law firms, factories and fishing boats.  “How’s business?” Massachusetts needs a win.  Record lost jobs and homes and uncertainty loom.  Our economic crisis calls for leaders who understand economics.  While business talent is not reason to elect a candidate, looking past credentials to his skills and values gives inspiration to countless supporters of Steve Pagliuca for US Senate.

Today’s economy has so massive effect on our lives that it has some career politicians posturing as economic experts.  Perhaps in a food shortage, they would try to become instant farming experts.  Real working professionals comprehend real hopes and needs of Americans: they also understand what works and what doesn’t.  They know how to build consensus, make friends and understand change.

Let’s be clear: there are professionals like great basketball players at the community court and there are professionals who are more like Celtics starters.  We know who Steve Pagliuca is: his wins are so staggering that some joke his success could alienate a voter.  A pundit or two even implied that working Americans have less value than career politicians.  When our founders inscribed “By the people”: surely they didn’t mean members of an elite club whose door is locked to us workers from the real world.  Are brains and hard work not as vital as political maneuvering?  Today’s dire situation confirms one thing:  we need starters in our corner.

Mr. Pagliuca’s competitive spirit that started in 1963 in Pee Wee football continues with his turnaround work as co-owner of the Celtics and drive to make so many charities successes.  Mr. Pagliuca’s spirit helped him become a leader at Bain Capital: an economic developer whose workers regularly roll up their sleeves and actually fix things.  In 1984, 15 people partnered to invest and improve companies.  They grew to a $70 billion investor empowering businesses including Staples, Hospital Corporation of America, Burger King and the Weather Channel, companies providing over 70,000 jobs.  Mr. Pagliuca’s experience building and fixing things brings an understanding of commerce, globalization and economics that other candidates only dream of.

America is in chaos with many politicians clueless about how our economy works or what drives it. Career politicians have little economic, globalization, trade, finance, development or job-building knowledge.  In some times this just might be okay.  Not today. If faced with a threat from asteroids, we’d elect those who know how to save us.  Economic science is no different: its complex and hard to learn.  Changes in our world from Brighton to Beijing and Dover to Delhi need deep understanding.  We need economic doctors. Do we trust career politicians with fast, on-the-job bluffing and pre-packaged business buzzwords or do we elect someone with real-world operating room experience?

Beyond ability, what does Steve Pagliuca’s background say about his vision and values? Foremost are honesty, integrity and work ethic.  Steve masters a schedule we wish all politicians would keep:  traveling from Longmeadow to London, Taunton to Tokyo or Springfield to Seattle, deciding issues affecting thousands of people, collaborating with experts on issues of our day, leading global economic conferences and charitable boards like the Mass Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children.  Steve doesn’t just observe; he does things.  He takes action quickly, massively and often.  Seeing Steve in action makes some wonder why he works so hard, one answer is his character.  Steve is a reliable friend to many, a coach for all four of his children’s teams and a dedicated husband.  Perhaps most of all, his success comes from one trait: intelligence.  Steve is extraordinarily smart and uses his brainpower to aid others: be it at companies he helps like food chains and medical companies, sports teams or charitable boards.  But we won’t hear bragging from Steve; he is a humble, grounded man who knows his roots.  You may be refreshed to see someone gain success by being overwhelmingly positive and building industry that works and wins.

Plato said “philosopher-kings” lead an ideal government.  We don’t have kings and don’t see philosopher-candidates but we can have: “smart and hard-working”. When the Pagliuca family immigrated to America, his shoe-repairman grandfather surely didn’t imagine the success Steve’s hard work and wits would bring.  Opponents attempt manufactured unease over electing a ‘rich guy’ Senator.  Yes, if the American Dream has winners, Steve Pagliuca is a living example, but don’t hold that against him.  Forty-seven years ago a young man with extraordinary wealth, who never needed to work again, ran for US Senate.  Even his keenest critics honored Senator Kennedy’s record of being un-beholden to PAC money.  True, Steve Pagliuca has financial success.  Because of this he will never be bought by special interest money.

Massachusetts citizens and Americans need hope, guidance, work ethic and brains. We need the A-team, we need the starters, we need people who know how to make friends and build stuff that works.  We need leaders who know the difference between China and Chinatown who see what is going on in the world and how it affects us.  We need people who understand health care, finance, jobs and globalization not because of sound-bites by political packagers but because they’ve been there and directly worked on the issues.

Steve sees a better America and a better Massachusetts and having him in our corner is what we need.

“How’s business?”  The business of Massachusetts needs a winner.  Steve Pagliuca for US Senate.

Vote for Pags in the special primary on December 8.  Registered independents CAN vote in the special primary.  Also mark your calendar to vote in the special election on January 19.

www.StevePagliuca.com

Endorsement By Bruce Fenton, Massachusetts entrepreneur, veteran and global economic strategist

Congress just cut Federal funding for ACORN.  Great move, but not for reasons most think.  Cutting the funding is a good decision, but not over controversy about ACORN tactics and the recent fiasco where an undercover reporter caught ACORN employees giving tax advice to people posing as an illegal prostitute and pimp.  Cutting funding makes sense because Federal funding of programs doesn’t work.  The problem is, the cut is all smoke and mirrors with little meaning.  More on that in a second, back to the reason Federal funding is broken:

There are four ways to spend money:

Spend your own money on yourself and you are pretty careful, for example when buying your own car.

Spend your own money on someone else and you are pretty careful, nearly as much as if spent on yourself, buy someone a car as a gift, you will likely get a good deal but wont care as much about the color or other details.

Spend someone else’s money on yourself and you might get a little lavish and less efficient.  Your company or government gives you money for a car; you might get extra features even if the cost is more than you would have paid yourself.

Spend someone else money on someone else and you have the least efficient, most wasteful way to spend.  Your company or government lets you buy a fleet of cars for someone as part of a contract.  In this example humans care least about quality, efficiency or value and most about self-interest.

Welcome to the land of government and government-funded programs.

Billions are wasted annually in this type of spending: purchasing authorities will never care for the money as if it were their own and often participate in graft and corruption.  Ever have a car dealer try to bribe you into buying a car?  Offer you kickbacks, favors, donations or a cushy job?  Not likely.  Government purchasers are another story.

The US is among the most generous and charitable of nations.  Our spirit of ingenuity crosses into philanthropy.  Great charitable achievements are initiated and funded privately:  private hospitals of the 40s, the finest universities, Carnegie libraries and foundations who work daily on problems ranging from addiction to illiteracy to endangered species.  Private and private-funded charitable organizations are universally more efficient and effective than government-run or funded ones.

Bye ACORN, score for efficiency!  Don’t get happy, chumps:

Cutting ACORN, like cutting funding for midnight basketball or other tiny programs is chumpifantastic smoke and mirrors.  House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) stated that ACORN received $31 million in funding from 1998-2008.  $31 million?  Seriously?  Sound like a lot of money?  That’s less $3.1 million a year.  This may sound like real money to working Americans but in the happy-go-lucky world of government play-money it’s miniscule.  We spend more money daily in Iraq than 100 years of ACORN funding.  Failed (but well-connected!) financial giant, AIG received enough money in one day to fund ACORN for the next 3000 years.  One single employee at Merrill Lynch last year received a bailout bonus of over $200 million, enough to replace Federal funds for ACORN from now until the year 2070.  This of course was only a piece of the overall $3.6 billion in bonuses taxpayers paid Merrill Lynch employees from the Federal boondoggle in one year.

The entire Wall Street bonus bailout cost taxpayers enough to fund ACORN, the National Endowment for the Arts and virtually every other social and welfare program in all 50 states from now until the end of the century.  Put in those terms, even die-hard conservatives might muse, “Gee, dollar for dollar, ACORN isn’t so bad.  Such a large and well-mobilized organization must do some good.”  At least projects like the NEA manage to offer some semblance of public benefit after the cronies and well-connected take their cut.  Relative to dollars spent compared to Wall Street, big pharma, big insurance and government contractors, ACORN is a bargain.

With bailouts we see no return whatsoever.

Unless you are a Hamptons realtor selling deca-million dollar vacation homes or a Manhattan Ferrari salesman decking out bonus-babies with new wheels, you are left in the back of the bus for benefiting from the bailout bonuses.  However, there is one other category that might benefit… the world’s oldest profession.  Fake-conservatives bashing the bogus ACORN bimbo but who backed Bush’s bailout-bonus boondoggle, just might want to take a look in their backyard.  It’s possible, just possible that all those thousands of testosterone-crazed Wall Street bailout bonus babies who need companionship during Ferrari rides to beach homes reach out to the oldest profession with some of their easy-earned cash.  Out of the tens and tens of billions taxpayers have paid in bonuses, you can bet that more than a dollar or two ended up in places that would make the most extreme ACORN tax advisor (or opponent) blush.  Show me some footage of ACORN driving 1000 Ferraris off a cliff every day for a year and paying salaries on enough hookers to fill the Superdome 100 times over and we’ll have something close to significant in terms of real government dollars.  Problem?  Sure.  But when a city is burning down you don’t worry about a fruit fly.  If less than  .0001% of the bailout money was spent on prostitutes it would surpass the previous decade of nationwide ACORN funding.  As a true conservative I say double ACORN’s budget, the NEA and give every member of Congress a $2 million raise…in exchange for them promising not to mess things up anymore.  We’d save hundreds of billions.  To the Bush / Bernake cheerleaders who despise ACORN but support Wall Street bonus bailouts what say you?  Investigative report anyone?

What some are calling “the end of Camelot,” calls for added reflections not just on the person of Edward Kennedy, but on the Kennedy Clan’s dynastic run, and implications for the future of American life & politics.

French novelist Honore de Balzac is quoted, perhaps apocryphally, as having said that behind every great fortune lies a great crime.  Balzac’s statement came at a time when possibly it was a universal truth.  Early great fortunes were made by those linked closely with royalty, and thus favored by royal charter and gift.  Modern life has created private entrepreneurs whose fortunes clearly are not derived from crime–think Apple Computer titan Steven Jobs.

Joseph P. Kennedy Senior exemplified Balzac’s dictum.  The twin sources of his fortune were Prohibition-era bootlegging and Wall Street stock manipulation–FDR famously appointed the Kennedy patriarch to chair the newly-formed Securities & Exchange Commission because, it is rumored, he wanted a crook who knew how to catch other crooks in the same racket.  Later appointed Ambassador to the Court of St. James, Joe Sr. became an overt Nazi sympathizer.  According to a widely believed and likely true story, Joseph Kennedy Sr. via Frank Sinatra, enlisted the Mafia to fix the 1960 Illinois election to secure his second son, JFK, the Presidency in 1960.  Ironically, the Kennedy Clan coolly jettisoned Sinatra due to his mob connections.

The Kennedy Clan made vast charitable contributions, amplifying their wealth with the leverage given equally vast political power.  They combined, as it were, the benevolent charity of John Beresford Tipton of “The Millionaire” late-1950s TV series, with the less benevolent charity of Godfather Don Vito Corleone.  Tipton gave anticipating gratitude; Don Vito demanded absolute loyalty in return.  If a recipient crossed John Beresford Tipton his benefactor would be disappointed; crossing the Kennedy Clan entailed risking more than disappointment.  Thus the Kopechne family, parents of Mary Jo Kopechne the former campaign worker who died on Chappaquiddick Island, was silenced in return for accepting a monetary payment.

The many ways in which the Kennedy Clan wielded power brings to mind the famous aphorism of the English statesman Lord Acton, in its most commonly quoted form: “Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely.”  To believe that such imperial power can be wielded solely for the public good is the myth that lies at the heart of Camelot–the myth of the virtuous knight who slays dragons and saves the kingdom, to rule his subjects benevolently and give happiness to all ever after.

Put simply, no fallible human being can be trusted with the vast power of Camelot–its patriarch or his descendants.  It is worth noting that the Queen of Camelot, Jacqueline Kennedy, kept her children as far away as possible from Camelot in her widow years.

John C. Wohlstetter is the founder of the issues blog “Letter From The Capitol,” the author of “The Long War Ahead and the Short War Upon Us,” and a senior fellow at Discovery Institute.  John’s articles and commentary can be followed on Twitter: JohnWohlstetter

In Federalist 57, James Madison discussed safeguards that would prevent the House of Representatives from oppressing the people who elected them.   One was that laws passed by the House would apply in full to Members of that body:

“I will add as a fifth circumstance in the situation of the House of Representatives, restraining them from oppressive measures, that they can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as on the great mass of the society. This has always been deemed one of the strongest bonds by which human policy can connect the rulers and the people together.”

Madison explained that the connection between legislators and citizens is essential.  “It creates between them that communion of interests and sympathy of sentiments of which few governments have furnished examples; but without which every government degenerates into tyranny.”  Madison continued, “If this spirit shall ever be so far debased as to tolerate a law not obligatory on the Legislature as well as on the people, the people will be prepared to tolerate any thing but liberty.”

To alleviate public fears that the government healthcare plan would over time crowd out private plans by manipulating subsidies and eligibility, Republicans proposed a bill in each house of Congress to link the interests of Congress and voters in a Madisonian way.  They proposed that if health care reform includes a public option, Members of Congress should commit to a communion of interest and assume the same option in lieu of the gold-plated choice plan Congress now enjoys under the Federal Employees’ Health Benefits Plan (FEHBP).  By doing so, Congress would have “interest and sympathy” toward making the public option as attractive as FEHBP, in terms of choice and cost.

However, the House refuses to discuss the matter.  The Senate Health Committee voted 12-11 in favor, but in real world politics, such a provision will not survive a House-Senate conference, even if the Senate should pass it.

Madison assumed voters would call to account lawmakers wicked enough to enact preferential laws.  Were voters in fact aware of how much better the FEHBP is than most private plans, they might well let their lawmakers know that such preferential differences had better be closed.

But most voters have busy lives and do not spend a great deal of time following public policy issues, so for awareness to grow the message must spread through the media.

The positive note is that the public is paying increasing attention to health care and has growing concerns.  The failure of President Obama and the Democratic leadership to push a massive health care bill through Congress before the scheduled August 7 recess improves the chance that the public can learn about the unwillingness of many Members of Congress to re-link their health insurance interests with the parallel benefits of their constituents.

President Obama has called on bloggers to keep up pressure to pass a health care bill: “It is important just to keep the pressure on members of Congress because what happens is there is a default position of inertia here in Washington.”

The President, a constitutional law professor, seems to have forgotten what the Framers of our Constitution regarded as the default position of the Senate.  Federalist 63, attributed to Madison  (but possibly Hamilton) clarified:

“Thus far I have considered the circumstances which point out the necessity of a well-constructed Senate only as they relate to the representatives of the people… To a people as little blinded by prejudice or corrupted by flattery as those whom I address, I shall not scruple to add, that such an institution may be sometimes necessary as a defense to the people against their own temporary errors and delusions. As the cool and deliberate sense of the community ought, in all governments, and actually will, in all free governments, ultimately prevail over the views of its rulers; so there are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be the most ready to lament and condemn.”

Federalist 63 closed with a poignant rhetorical question which can be applied to our healthcare debate: “In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career, and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice, and truth can regain their authority over the public mind?”

Thus when trillions are engaged in a massive reform of one-sixth of the American economy, in an area that is vastly complex and vital to all of us, the “default position” for assessing how health care is delivered to all Americans is to follow the advice given in The Federalist Papers.

John C. Wohlstetter is the founder of the issues blog “Letter From The Capitol,” the author of “The Long War Ahead and the Short War Upon Us,” and a senior fellow at Discovery Institute.  John’s articles and commentary can be followed on Twitter: JohnWohlstetter

For more on the budget, mathematics and political visualizations, follow me on Twitter: @PoliticalMath

Familiar? The time was 1992. The S&L crisis of the prior few years had resulted in the failures of thousand of thrifts and the creation of the Resolution Trust Corporation. A sluggish economy ensued which prompted many voters to forget about George H W Bush’s early successes in Iraq as the Democratic candidate, Bill Clinton, campaigned on a motto “it’s the economy, stupid.” A former governor of Arkansas, Clinton was little known outside of his home state, but created a strong buzz among disgruntled voters looking for change. Despite rumors of past “affairs” and suspect business dealings, Clinton rode his optimistic message all the way to D.C. and was greeted by a friendly Congress eager to implement change, much to the chagrin of many conservative Americans.

Fast forwarding 16 years…
§ A severe financial crisis resulted in the failure of major banks and long-standing investment firms at a cost of hundreds of billion of dollars to the American taxpayer.
§ The domestic budget deficit ballooned as a bailout plan was devised to a tune of $700 billion (and counting) and the government even raised the federal banking insurance limits to better protect depositors.
§ A government rescue fund similar to the RTC was created to buy bad assets from ailing institutions to help improve their capital positions and also make equity investments in certain banks.
§ The domestic (and global) economy moved into recession as a result of the financial crisis and a continued slowdown in the housing sector.
§ In the ensuing presidential election, a relative unknown, young Democrat ousted the more experienced Republican.
§ The President-elect gained support through his charismatic personality, excellent communication skills, and well-articulated message of “hope,” despite some concerns about his prior affiliations.
§ With early foreign policy successes in Iraq long forgotten, a president named George Bush prepared to leave office with extremely low approval ratings.
§ In the aftermath of the election, the Democrats then controlled both the White House and Congress for the first time since then Republican Revolution of 1994.
§ Early on, some Americans feared “socialism” as certain proposals like government mandated health care were bantered around.

Fresh off his historic victory, President-elect Barack Obama prepares to enter office at a time of intense challenges facing the country. Weakness in the housing sector led to a significant credit crisis which reshaped the entire landscape of the financial industry. The government was forced to enact a comprehensive bailout plan and continued to work with banks and investment firms to improve their balance sheets. Obama inherits a domestic economy on the verge of recession (if not already in one), a global slowdown that threatens to hinder recovery for the foreseeable future, and a volatile stock market that has caused even the most experienced and patient of investors to rethink their strategies. His message of change and hope (and motto “eight years of failed Bush policies”) resonated with voters, though the time for action (and results) is drawing near.

That was Then, This is Now…

Today Americans are justifiably concerned for their jobs, their pocketbooks, and their investment (retirement) accounts. Obama will not have the luxury of time to bask in the glow of victory as the people will be looking to him to deliver on that message of hope and change. He will be tested early and often as Republicans begin planning for a “revolution” in 2010 (much like Newt Gingrich led in 1994).

From a market perspective, some investors remained concerned about Obama’s views on tax policy, particularly capital gains and corporate tax rates. Some are fearful that a Democratic president and Congress could enact legislation that harms the pocketbooks of the upper class (the country’s largest investors) and attempt to push through spending packages that further inflate the budget deficit. Others worry about the continued prospects for free trade in a global marketplace and predict that labor unions will gain power at the expense of Corporate America.

While these concerns create pessimism for the markets (even more than already exists), the optimists point out that many of these same fears existed in 1992. The Dow Jones soared over 200% during the Bill Clinton years, the strongest performance in the post World War II era. While no one dare predict comparable appreciation for the foreseeable future, the similarities of the times should lend some optimism for the investment markets. Congratulations, good luck, and let’s get to work, Mr. President.

The information set forth was obtained from sources which we believe reliable but we do not guarantee its accuracy or completeness. Neither the information nor any opinion expressed constitutes a solicitation by us of the purchase or sale of any securities. Past performance is not a guarantee of future performance.

RB Brounes & Associates 4607 BRAEBURN DR. ▪ BELLAIRE, TEXAS 77401 ▪ 713.962.9986 ▪ ron@ronbrounes.com