announced his support of the United States Supreme Court's historic
decision today. The Supreme Court Justices decided in
favor of firearm rights for all Americans.
Root, an enthusiastic gun owner himself, believes all law-
abiding Americans should have the right to keep and bear
arms to protect themselves, their families and property.
Root stated, “As a Jewish American, I understand very clearly the
importance of gun rights. They are a matter of life and death.
The first thing Adolph Hitler did before arresting, imprisoning,
torturing and murdering millions of Jews - including my relatives-
was to take their guns away.
The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right of
all Americans. That's why I'm a proud member of the Gun
Owners of America (GOA) and Jews for the Preservation
of Firearms Ownership (JPFO).
"It's also why I'm a Libertarian."
Root continued, “This decision upholds the precious Second
Amendment of our Constitution protecting the rights of all gun
owners and law-abiding Americans. Just as our Founding Fathers intended."
It should now be clear that power-hungry politicians and over-
reaching bureaucrats cannot disarm law-abiding Americans...
No matter where they live, no matter the color of their skin.
As Americans, we all have the same unalienable right to
defend ourselves and our families.
Urban areas with stringent gun control laws have far higher
crime rates, than where the rights of gun owners are protected.
Now, citizens of Washington, D.C. will have the same right
to defend themselves as other law-abiding Americans across
this great land.
The Supreme Court has unequivocally stated that power- as
per the Constitution- does not belong to Big Brother, it
belongs to us. We, the American people. This proves once again
that America is the greatest nation in history. God Bless America.”
For more information on the views of Wayne Root, please visit:
www.ROOTforAmerica.com or www.BobBarr2008.com
[ add comment ] | permalink | related link |
( 3 / 1946 )By Wayne Allyn Root, Libertarian Party Vice Presidential candidate
An article of faith of the populist left is that there are too many rich people, who have too much income in the United States. They rant about this being a bad thing, aside from being grossly unfair, because it is the result of specific actions taken when fiscal conservatives have controlled the government. They believe that the principal cause of this appalling “inequity” is Ronald Reagan's Tax Reform Act of 1986, and of course George W. Bush's further transgression with his major tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. And of course the liberal “tax and spend; punish the rich; redistribute the wealth” crowd paints the CEOs who receive “unconscionable” multiples of the wages of their hourly workers as the prominent villains in this rich versus poor epic saga.
This political story line is useful for those who believe fermenting class hatred is the way to win the political wars. For anyone willing to examine data (aka facts), the real story is both dramatically different and more constructive, as well as instructive. A recently published research project Top Incomes Over the 20th Century (Edited by A. B. Atkinson and T. Piketty), uses income tax data to develop top income shares for 10 countries over long time frames. The data in the accompanying table (below) is extracted from the extensive tables contained in this book.
Income Before Tax (in Percent Shares)
Top 1% Highest Increase
Year Since 1970
U.S. 14.7% 1913 +6.9
Canada 13.6% 1921 +4.6
U.K. 12.7% 1918 +5.6
Germany 11.1% 1938 -0.2
Ireland 10.3% NA +4.4
France 7.7% 1905 -0.6
What is the real story? The rich are indeed getting richer in the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Ireland, as well as the United States. Using the Top 1% of income earners (which is where the most variation occurs), the share of income for this small minority follows a “U” shaped curve through time. Their percentage of total income was high before 1929; declined during the depression and WWII; and then began to recover in the past quarter century. But is this recent recovery bad? The Top 1% of incomes began to raise first in the United States, beginning in the late 1970s; then in the early '80s it spread to UK, Canada, Australia; by the late '80s it reached New Zealand. The trend has been nearly steadily upward; through the presidencies of Republicans and Democrats (Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton) alike in the U.S. and a mix of Labor and Conservative (right and left) governments in the other counties.
Across the board, the component of income that has risen the fastest is the infamous wage income (which includes stock options)- not dividends or capital gains. In fact the steady rise of top income shares for 30 years has resulted in this “richest 1%” gaining almost as high of a share as they had attained earlier in the last century.
However, in four of the 10 countries in the study the share of income of the top 1% has declined over time. These declines result from lower income from dividends and interest, not wages. For these countries wage income has been nearly flat for the whole period. Total income shares peaked in 1970 for Netherlands and Switzerland (8.6 and 11.0% respectively) and they have declined ever since. In France and Germany, the share of the top 1% has been flat- Germany at a high level (11%) and France at a low level (7.7%). If the critics of United States income distribution believe the top incomes must be reduced to attain some lower, fairer “more democratically optimal level,” it appears this could best be accomplished by pursuing the economic policies of, say, France.
But is France our role model? If France's economic policies do indeed promote “fairness” and equality, why are the headlines dominated by riots in France's poor neighborhoods? France is indeed “fairer” if what you mean by fair is that everyone shares the misery, everyone is unhappy, and everyone complains about a lack of opportunity. Because taxes are so high in France, the economy is stagnant, there is no job growth, opportunity for class mobility is nonexistent, and workers can never save enough of their own money to invest in stocks, real estate or start their own business (all of which results in capital gains- the fastest way to attain wealth). Is that what we'd like to see happen in the USA?
What is the more likely explanation for a growing share of income, and especially wage income, accruing to top income earners in countries like the United States? How about “market forces” being more important than government actions? Using a method other than taxes, one graph in the study depicts the “Globally Rich” (defined as those with 20 times the world mean income) as a percent of the world population. Not surprisingly this percentage declined the six decades prior to 1970, reaching a nadir of about 10%, and it has trended up ever since- reaching nearly 15% in the last year shown 1995.
The real mistake of the political left is to focus on government as the arbitrator of top income shares. Global competition, not government policy or pliant Boards of Directors, determine how talent is compensated. As global trade has thrived, competition has escalated, technology has accelerated decision-making, and global free markets have placed a premium on creativity, education and leadership talent. Then too, as the media has globalized and expanded, there is enormous demand for exceptional athletic prowess, coaching success, a lyrical voice or an exquisite look- meaning the global free market awards outsized compensation to entertainers and big producers of all sorts- actors, singers, athletes, coaches, artists (and of course executives, entrepreneurs, business owners, technology gurus). High demand in the free market and scalability of global media have created disproportionate rewards for the exceptional few.
Some will argue that the real solution to inequality is to raise marginal tax rates for the top bracket and redistribute more of this unfair “ill-gotten income” for humanitarian purposes. Economist Arthur Laffer has eloquently explained the error of that scheme previously. Say for example, you are a talented native of France, Switzerland or The Netherlands- where taxes are steeply progressive. Those high taxes often drive top earners, producers, creators, and business owners to relocate to low-tax domiciles such as Monaco, Lichtenstein or The Caymans- thereby encouraging the top earners and producers to choose to pay nothing in income taxes to their high-tax country of origin. High taxes therefore chase away the highest earners and thereby result in lower revenues for high-tax governments.
If tax rates in the United States become more progressive some portion of big earners,
producers, business owners and entrepreneurs will choose to either leave altogether or shelter their incomes offshore. Of those who choose to stay, they will (as always) choose to defer income, move income from wages to capital, and hire the smartest lawyers, accountants and lobbyists to pursue more esoteric but legal means of paying lower taxes. Higher tax rates will, without a doubt, cause less taxable income to be declared and slow the growth of reported income in the top brackets.
On a moral basis, most people- including many of the rich- would prefer for incomes to be more equitably distributed. And there is hope for this. Fifty years ago Simion Kuznets theorized that as the industrial revolution matured, more jobs would require more skill and would therefore become more highly paid- thereby drawing more income to the great numbers of workers in the upper middle class. This pattern held for much of the 20th century, until competitive dynamics changed. Still, the proportion of white-collar, highly compensated jobs has continued to grow as technology and complexity have affected the job market. In the world today, lack of education and skill are an increasingly severe handicap- in most cases THE severe handicap.
The real challenge then is to provide citizens with an abundance of skills and opportunities that result in high productivity and high pay. The most important thing that government can do to improve the economy is to get out of the way- shrink the size, scope, power and control of government over its people. But government does have at least a small role to play in this mission: Improve the quality of the education system (on the state level). Subsidize skill development. Foster investment that provides each worker with more capital. Keep inflation and the cost of capital low. Lower income tax rates so that its citizens can save the money necessary to invest in stocks, real estate and business start-ups. Lower capital gains tax rates so that those willing to take the risks, also receive the rewards. Foster and encourage risk, entrepreneurship and ownership (the surest ways to attain wealth).
The answer is not to take money away from the rich, or tax the rich to death (and even after death with high rates of “death taxes”). It is to create more opportunity and mobility for the poor and middle class. It is to make the “American Dream” realistic and available for all Americans. The answer is motivation- empower the poor and middle classes with the education, tools, capital and mobility (opportunity) to succeed. Give them the hope (and role models as proof) that the American Dream is alive and well- that anyone can move up from poor to middle class, from middle class to upper class, from upper class to wealthy, and you will see an economic tsunami like never before in history.
Stealing from the rich to hand entitlements they didn't earn to the poor is not the answer. No government will be successful over a sustained period of time in attempting to warp market outcomes with progressive taxation of highly skilled, highly productive income producers; or by attempting to cap the compensation of high-achievers; or by shaming decision-makers into accepting outcomes contrary to free market results. These liberal “tax and spend; punish the rich; redistribute the wealth” policies can only result in less total income; lower tax revenues; less motivation by the brightest and most productive members of society; less innovation and creation; retarded economic growth; and a far poorer populace.
The answer isn't bigger government; more government spending; more bureaucrats; more entitlements; more taxes; more control by government over the lives of its citizens; more Big Brother to rule our lives. All that does is create more misery. And more citizens that are best described as hopeless, helpless, aimless and clueless. Studies prove that those who depend on welfare and government entitlements feel a loss of control, freedom, satisfaction, and self worth. Every American wants the same things- freedom, control, mobility (the opportunity to move up from where we started), the ability to earn our own way, and the freedom to make our own decisions with our own money. The only way to achieve all those worthy goals is through smaller government, dramatically reduced government spending, lower entitlements, fewer bureaucrats (and reduced regulation), more economic freedom, free and unfettered markets, and a dramatically reduced tax burden so all Americans get to earn and keep more of their own money.
Mr. Root is a successful small businessman, entrepreneur, author, business speaker and commentator. He is currently the Vice Presidential nominee for the Libertarian Party on the Presidential ticket of Barr/Root.
For more on Wayne Root's views and commentaries go to:
www.ROOTforAmerica.com or www.BobBarr2008.com
[ add comment ] | permalink | related link |
( 3 / 920 )An article of faith of the populist left is that there are too many rich people, who have too much income in the United States. They rant about this being a bad thing, aside from being grossly unfair, because it is the result of specific actions taken when fiscal conservatives have controlled the government. They believe that the principal cause of this appalling “inequity” is Ronald Reagan's Tax Reform Act of 1986, and of course George W. Bush's further transgression with his major tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. And of course the liberal “tax and spend; punish the rich; redistribute the wealth” crowd paints the CEOs who receive “unconscionable” multiples of the wages of their hourly workers as the prominent villains in this rich versus poor epic saga.
This political story line is useful for those who believe fermenting class hatred is the way to win the political wars. For anyone willing to examine data (aka facts), the real story is both dramatically different and more constructive, as well as instructive. A recently published research project Top Incomes Over the 20th Century (Edited by A. B. Atkinson and T. Piketty), uses income tax data to develop top income shares for 10 countries over long time frames. The data in the accompanying table (below) is extracted from the extensive tables contained in this book.
Income Before Tax (in Percent Shares)
Top 1% Highest Increase
Year Since 1970
U.S. 14.7% 1913 +6.9
Canada 13.6% 1921 +4.6
U.K. 12.7% 1918 +5.6
Germany 11.1% 1938 -0.2
Ireland 10.3% NA +4.4
France 7.7% 1905 -0.6
What is the real story? The rich are indeed getting richer in the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Ireland, as well as the United States. Using the Top 1% of income earners (which is where the most variation occurs), the share of income for this small minority follows a “U” shaped curve through time. Their percentage of total income was high before 1929; declined during the depression and WWII; and then began to recover in the past quarter century. But is this recent recovery bad? The Top 1% of incomes began to raise first in the United States, beginning in the late 1970s; then in the early '80s it spread to UK, Canada, Australia; by the late '80s it reached New Zealand. The trend has been nearly steadily upward; through the presidencies of Republicans and Democrats (Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton) alike in the U.S. and a mix of Labor and Conservative (right and left) governments in the other counties.
Across the board, the component of income that has risen the fastest is the infamous wage income (which includes stock options)- not dividends or capital gains. In fact the steady rise of top income shares for 30 years has resulted in this “richest 1%” gaining almost as high of a share as they had attained earlier in the last century.
However, in four of the 10 countries in the study the share of income of the top 1% has declined over time. These declines result from lower income from dividends and interest, not wages. For these countries wage income has been nearly flat for the whole period. Total income shares peaked in 1970 for Netherlands and Switzerland (8.6 and 11.0% respectively) and they have declined ever since. In France and Germany, the share of the top 1% has been flat- Germany at a high level (11%) and France at a low level (7.7%). If the critics of United States income distribution believe the top incomes must be reduced to attain some lower, fairer “more democratically optimal level,” it appears this could best be accomplished by pursuing the economic policies of, say, France.
But is France our role model? If France's economic policies do indeed promote “fairness” and equality, why are the headlines dominated by riots in France's poor neighborhoods? France is indeed “fairer” if what you mean by fair is that everyone shares the misery, everyone is unhappy, and everyone complains about a lack of opportunity. Because taxes are so high in France, the economy is stagnant, there is no job growth, opportunity for class mobility is nonexistent, and workers can never save enough of their own money to invest in stocks, real estate or start their own business (all of which results in capital gains- the fastest way to attain wealth). Is that what we'd like to see happen in the USA?
What is the more likely explanation for a growing share of income, and especially wage income, accruing to top income earners in countries like the United States? How about “market forces” being more important than government actions? Using a method other than taxes, one graph in the study depicts the “Globally Rich” (defined as those with 20 times the world mean income) as a percent of the world population. Not surprisingly this percentage declined the six decades prior to 1970, reaching a nadir of about 10%, and it has trended up ever since- reaching nearly 15% in the last year shown 1995.
The real mistake of the political left is to focus on government as the arbitrator of top income shares. Global competition, not government policy or pliant Boards of Directors, determine how talent is compensated. As global trade has thrived, competition has escalated, technology has accelerated decision-making, and global free markets have placed a premium on creativity, education and leadership talent. Then too, as the media has globalized and expanded, there is enormous demand for exceptional athletic prowess, coaching success, a lyrical voice or an exquisite look- meaning the global free market awards outsized compensation to entertainers and big producers of all sorts- actors, singers, athletes, coaches, artists (and of course executives, entrepreneurs, business owners, technology gurus). High demand in the free market and scalability of global media have created disproportionate rewards for the exceptional few.
Some will argue that the real solution to inequality is to raise marginal tax rates for the top bracket and redistribute more of this unfair “ill-gotten income” for humanitarian purposes. Economist Arthur Laffer has eloquently explained the error of that scheme previously. Say for example, you are a talented native of France, Switzerland or The Netherlands- where taxes are steeply progressive. Those high taxes often drive top earners, producers, creators, and business owners to relocate to low-tax domiciles such as Monaco, Lichtenstein or The Caymans- thereby encouraging the top earners and producers to choose to pay nothing in income taxes to their high-tax country of origin. High taxes therefore chase away the highest earners and thereby result in lower revenues for high-tax governments.
If tax rates in the United States become more progressive some portion of big earners,
producers, business owners and entrepreneurs will choose to either leave altogether or shelter their incomes offshore. Of those who choose to stay, they will (as always) choose to defer income, move income from wages to capital, and hire the smartest lawyers, accountants and lobbyists to pursue more esoteric but legal means of paying lower taxes. Higher tax rates will, without a doubt, cause less taxable income to be declared and slow the growth of reported income in the top brackets.
On a moral basis, most people- including many of the rich- would prefer for incomes to be more equitably distributed. And there is hope for this. Fifty years ago Simion Kuznets theorized that as the industrial revolution matured, more jobs would require more skill and would therefore become more highly paid- thereby drawing more income to the great numbers of workers in the upper middle class. This pattern held for much of the 20th century, until competitive dynamics changed. Still, the proportion of white-collar, highly compensated jobs has continued to grow as technology and complexity have affected the job market. In the world today, lack of education and skill are an increasingly severe handicap- in most cases THE severe handicap.
The real challenge then is to provide citizens with an abundance of skills and opportunities that result in high productivity and high pay. The most important thing that government can do to improve the economy is to get out of the way- shrink the size, scope, power and control of government over its people. But government does have at least a small role to play in this mission: Improve the quality of the education system (on the state level). Subsidize skill development. Foster investment that provides each worker with more capital. Keep inflation and the cost of capital low. Lower income tax rates so that its citizens can save the money necessary to invest in stocks, real estate and business start-ups. Lower capital gains tax rates so that those willing to take the risks, also receive the rewards. Foster and encourage risk, entrepreneurship and ownership (the surest ways to attain wealth).
The answer is not to take money away from the rich, or tax the rich to death (and even after death with high rates of “death taxes”). It is to create more opportunity and mobility for the poor and middle class. It is to make the “American Dream” realistic and available for all Americans. The answer is motivation- empower the poor and middle classes with the education, tools, capital and mobility (opportunity) to succeed. Give them the hope (and role models as proof) that the American Dream is alive and well- that anyone can move up from poor to middle class, from middle class to upper class, from upper class to wealthy, and you will see an economic tsunami like never before in history.
Stealing from the rich to hand entitlements they didn't earn to the poor is not the answer. No government will be successful over a sustained period of time in attempting to warp market outcomes with progressive taxation of highly skilled, highly productive income producers; or by attempting to cap the compensation of high-achievers; or by shaming decision-makers into accepting outcomes contrary to free market results. These liberal “tax and spend; punish the rich; redistribute the wealth” policies can only result in less total income; lower tax revenues; less motivation by the brightest and most productive members of society; less innovation and creation; retarded economic growth; and a far poorer populace.
The answer isn't bigger government; more government spending; more bureaucrats; more entitlements; more taxes; more control by government over the lives of its citizens; more Big Brother to rule our lives. All that does is create more misery. And more citizens that are best described as hopeless, helpless, aimless and clueless. Studies prove that those who depend on welfare and government entitlements feel a loss of control, freedom, satisfaction, and self worth. Every American wants the same things- freedom, control, mobility (the opportunity to move up from where we started), the ability to earn our own way, and the freedom to make our own decisions with our own money. The only way to achieve all those worthy goals is through smaller government, dramatically reduced government spending, lower entitlements, fewer bureaucrats (and reduced regulation), more economic freedom, free and unfettered markets, and a dramatically reduced tax burden so all Americans get to earn and keep more of their own money.
Mr. Root is a successful small businessman, entrepreneur, author, business speaker and commentator. He is currently the Vice Presidential nominee for the Libertarian Party on the Presidential ticket of Barr/Root.
For more on Wayne Root's views and commentaries go to:
www.ROOTforAmerica.com or www.BobBarr2008.com
[ add comment ] | permalink | related link |
( 3 / 4564 )PG Exclusive Interview: Wayne Allyn Root steps up as “rebel with the pitchfork,” seeks Libertarian nod
Pulling out his veto pen on March 8, 2008, President George W. Bush was able to successfully thwart congressional efforts to ban the use of certain harsh interrogation tactics by Central Intelligence Agency officers. This veto marked only the ninth of his near six and a half year presidency, the fewest by any Commander in Chief dating back to the Civil War. The two exceptions being Warren Harding who died two years into office and James Garfield, assassinated just six months after inauguration.
One presidential candidate, Wayne Allyn Root of Nevada, hopes to reverse this, promising to use his veto power widely and frequently if elected this November. Root, the millionaire Las Vegas odds maker, author, celebrity, and television personality is one of many candidates seeking the Libertarian Party nomination in their upcoming May convention in Colorado. Armed with two million fans in his database, Root is seeking to deliver the message of personal freedom, state's rights, and low taxes.
“I love the smell of vetoes in the morning,” declares root on his web page. Root pledges to depart significantly from the Bush administration by issuing more vetoes than any other president in history-even Franklin D. Roosevelt, who issued a whopping 635 of them during his tenure (or 25 percent of all presidential vetoes ever issued).
Recognizing the problematic nature of the Line Item Veto, struck down in 1998 by the Supreme Court, Root advocates a much more powerful tool allotted to the president, a little-known power known as “impoundment.” This particular act occurs when a president seeks to delay or eliminate the use of congressionally approved funds-an act that has traditionally been opposed by Congress.
Following President Thomas Jefferson's lead, Root will return what he sees as unconstitutional congressional expenditures back to the United States Treasury rather than permit said funds to be used in violation of Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.
“Many presidents have exercised this power ever since, the last being Richard Nixon, who attempted to curb runaway spending,” says Root. “But Congress-at a time when Nixon was weak from his criminal scandals-seized the opportunity to overstep its bounds by passing the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which took away the president's unilateral power not to spend money. Nixon's argument was based on Executive powers, and not on the Constitutional duty of the Presidency.”
Root plans on using impoundment in the same way Jefferson did in 1801 when he returned $50,000 to the U.S. Treasury rather than spending it on a number of Navy gunboats. “This President will impound every last red cent of spending that violates the Constitution,” according to Root. This means goodbye to hundreds of federal programs that fail to meet constitutional consent: African Development Foundation, Agency for International Development, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms, Commission on Civil Rights, Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Election Commission (FEC), International Monetary Fund, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Tennessee Valley Authority, Women's History Commission, and hundreds (if not thousands) more.
Root will head to the Libertarian Party convention, taking place May 22-26, with a small government message that not only emphasizes the traditional views of the Republican Party, but also the some ideas being ignored by both major parties. Root, a self-described S.O.B. (son of a butcher), says that the “Very first cabinet position to eliminate will be the Department of Education.”
A Reaganesque proposal, Root hopes to use this issue, as well as his plan to “end all federal income taxes immediately and move all of them to the state level” to win disaffected members of all parties. “The Founding Fathers never envisioned a government that could take away 50 percent of the money we make,” claims Root. “I will push for an end to all federal income taxation, even opposing the Fair Tax, which will place a 30 percent sales tax on everything we buy and amounts to a big welfare program.”
“I plan on taking millions of votes away from the Republicans,” says Root, who is also an opponent of warrant-less wiretaps, eminent domain abuse, and Real ID. “McCain is a big government conservative who wants to fight wars all over the world. There is nothing conservative about neocons. The majority of Republicans believe in smaller government, lower taxes, and patriotism that doesn't try to stuff democracy down people's throats. I am going after the millions of disgusted, disgruntled Republicans and the 27 million small businessmen and women in America.”
Root also differs with McCain on the Iraq War, thus offering up the possibility of attracting Democrats and independents to his cause. While McCain favors keeping U.S. forces in Iraq for the next 100 to 1,000 or 1,000,000 years if necessary, a Root presidency would admit that the Iraq war was a mistake, admit the post-war planning was a disaster, and finally acknowledge that a civil war situation currently exists in Mesopotamia. He also differs from McCain in his opposition to nation building, an effort that McCain has long supported.
Recognizing that the United States is locked in a war with radical Islam, Root could be the one presidential candidate who believes that Iraq should be helping pay for the war, which according to Boston University Professor Andrew Bacevich, is costing the United States $3 billion per week and $22 billion in total aid and assistance to the Iraqi military as of this month. Root also calls for drastically reduced foreign aid, more oversight of government spending at the Pentagon, and a cut in spending at the United Nations.
Root plans to lead the charge on fiscal conservative issues and tap into the large number of voters who gravitated to Texas Congressman Ron Paul's campaign this year. “On fiscal issues, I'm straight up conservative,” says Root. “Someone needs to lead the movement away from the nanny state.” Emphasizing his pitch to supporters of Paul's campaign, Root stresses that he is “Ron Paul with one little difference-a quarter of a century from now, I'll be younger than Ron Paul is today. I'm Ron Paul on steroids!”
In order to make it to the big dance in November, Root must first win his party's nod by defeating former U.S. Senator Mike Gravel (profiled here a few weeks ago), former Congressman Bob Barr, and a number of lesser-known candidates also seeking the nomination. Andrew Davis, Libertarian Party spokesman, tells Political Grind that the total number of candidates may be close to 16.
“The Libertarian Party can't win being the same as the Republicans and Democrats-my being a small businessman, home school Dad, citizen politician, and son of a butcher all help make me more like the Founding Fathers,” says Root. “I'm the rebel with the pitchfork. Mike Gravel is a liberal, big government Democrat who was a DC politician for many years. Gravel stands for universal healthcare, the hallmark of liberalism. He believes in global warming-I believe it is a fraud. Gravel also believes that NAFTA is a mistake, as a Libertarian, I believe that free trade is a positive thing.”
Commenting on the recent announcement of former Georgia Congressman Bob Barr's entry into the race, Root notes that “Bob Barr and I have the same politics, but unfortunately, he is a lawyer and lawyers are the root (no pun intended) of the problem in Washington.”
Root sees a golden opportunity for Libertarians this year to run to the right in order to score a multitude of new voters. “If you are anti-war and liberal, you will vote for Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton-not the Libertarian. The proof is set for me by Mike Gravel, who ran in the Democrat primary system and got 24,000 votes. Ron Paul, who they laughed at and compared to Don Quixote fighting windmills, pulled in 800,000 votes or four percent of the overall GOP vote,” he says.
A Root victory in the Libertarian nominating convention would set the stage for a history-making election. Root, like Senator Barack Obama, was a 1983 graduate of Columbia University, which according to Root, creates the first presidential contest in history featuring two college classmates from the same graduating class squaring off against each other.
The role of government, the nanny state, and the nation's crushing income tax system underscore the major differences between the two classmates. “Obama is showing he is an elitist,” says Root. “I'm the opposite of him in every single way. Elitists like Barack Obama argue 'what are Wayne Allyn Root's qualifications to be president?' I argue 'what are his qualifications'?”
Root sees Obama as a typical politician who has “never had his name on one significant bill.” “Under an Obama administration, the Democrats will already have the cash in your wallet and will then want the change too,” he says. “Barack Obama is like going back to the future for the Democrats, nominating a candidate just like McGovern, Muskie, Mondale. He is a divider, not a uniter as he claims.”
Currently the leading fundraiser in the Libertarian Party race, Root will press onward to Colorado this May to face his opponents. Clips of the recent Libertarian Party debate in Kansas City featuring Root, Barr, and Gravel can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_q ... arch_type=
Nathan Shrader can be reached at nathanrshrader@yahoo.com
[ add comment ] | permalink | related link |
( 3.1 / 412 )In the last year and a half that I've actively campaigned for the Libertarian Presidential nomination, I've traveled to 30 LP State Conventions and many major Libertarian events across this great country. I've gotten to know LP leaders and delegates from coast to coast. I've received thousands of emails from LP voters (and answered back almost every single one). And over the past 2 weeks, I've personally phoned hundreds of delegates to the LP Convention. What I've found, not surprisingly, is that Libertarians are not your typical American. We are far more intellectual and cerebral than the typical American. We read far more books than the typical American. We are populated by professions such as professor and engineer in far higher numbers than the American populace. And we seem to be populated with far fewer gamblers, poker enthusiasts, sports fans or sports gamblers than the populace as a whole. As a result, we travel far less frequently to Las Vegas. As a matter of fact, few Libertarians seem to recognize how popular gambling (and Las Vegas) is in American culture today. So it is my job to explain to my fellow Libertarians why gambling and gamblers are so important to the LP cause- and particularly the 2008 Presidential campaign.
America is a nation of risk-takers (otherwise known as gamblers). It is in our blood. We are all descended from the biggest risk-takers on this planet. Our ancestors were the ones willing to risk everything (including their lives) to travel thousands of miles, on a dangerous journey, to reach an unknown land (called “The New World”), often leaving behind friends and family. In most cases, they arrived at Ellis Island without money or job prospects. That's a greater risk than any gambler ever takes today (times one thousand). It was literally the gamble of a lifetime.
On the other end of the journey, our ancestors were told they were mad, crazy, insane, foolish, reckless, or even called traitors to their country of origin. The people who disdained risk all played it safe and stayed home in Russia, Europe, Asia and other countries. It was the wild risk-takers and big dreamers who threw caution to the wind to take the biggest gamble of their lives to travel thousands of dangerous miles to start a new life in a mysterious new land called America. So in fact, gambling is in the blood of most (if not all) Americans.
That would explain why we are the most gambling-crazed nation in the world. More money is risked on our stock markets (Wall Street) than any other place in the world. We are also a nation of entrepreneurs- we lead the world (by far) in small business creation. What could be a greater gamble than betting your life savings on opening an unproven business with no guaranteed income ever again- instead of keeping a safe job with a guaranteed weekly check, health insurance, and a pension. Small business owners are serious gamblers.
And these same Americans with gambling in their blood are also the most willing to pick up and move to another place in order to find new opportunity. Last year eight million Americans relocated to another state. In almost every case, they left a high-tax, big-government, highly-regulated, Big Brother state to move to a low-tax, limited-government state where economic freedom is more abundant (meaning taxes are lower and government leaves us alone). It's no coincidence that the state where taxes are zero and gambling is legal- Nevada- is the fastest growing state in America (for 21 of the past 22 years). They may not know it yet, but all these risk-taking, opportunity-seeking Americans searching for more economic freedom and their own piece of the famous American Dream are Libertarians. They just want to be left alone by government to achieve their own destiny.
Want more proof that we are the most gambling-crazed nation in the world? During the last decade (until the U.S. Congress voted in a ban on online gaming), Internet gambling and poker were a global phenomenon. Billions of dollars changed hands- daily. America was the only major country that considered making a bet on the Internet on your own computer a crime. England, Canada, Australia and virtually every other industrialized nation either legalized online gaming,
or looked the other way. Yet guess where the majority of the gambling dollars came from? You guessed it- the United States. Experts estimated that 70% of all the dollars wagered on the Internet came from American gamblers- despite the fact that it was considered illegal. Can you imagine- the rest of the world said it was legal, and all those countries COMBINED only added up to 30% of the dollars wagered!
How popular is gambling in this country? How much has gambling grown legally in the past 25 years? In 1980 about $1 billion dollars was legally wagered in the United States. Today almost $50 billion is legally wagered in one state- New York.
In 1980 there were no legal casinos outside of Nevada or New Jersey. Today there are 400 tribal casinos across the United States producing over $20 billion in revenues. California alone now has 60 tribal casinos that, remarkably, just surpassed the famous Vegas Strip casinos in revenues.
Americans made 376 million trips to casinos in 2007- that means that one quarter of all adult Americans visited a casino last year. Remarkably, it's now far easier to buy a lottery ticket than a Big Mac- there are 14,000 McDonalds in the USA, versus 185,000 lottery retail establishments.
But here's the statistic that should open the eyes of Libertarians everywhere as to how popular, accepted and mainstream gambling is this country- The New York Times reports that more money is spent on gambling in the USA than books, movies, music, videos and DVD's COMBINED.
Gambling has never been more widespread or accepted by voters. According to the annual poll of American adults conducted by Luntz, Maslansky Strategic Research and Peter D. Hart Research Associates, 84% of American adults view casino gambling as acceptable for themselves or others. An even larger majority, 86% of Americans adults believe that people in individual states and communities should be allowed to decide what is best for them with respect to gambling. When it comes to gambling, Americans display a strong Libertarian bent.
But no form of gambling is more woven into the American psyche than sports gambling. According to the U.S. Congress Impact Study on Gambling in 1997, over $380 billion dollars is wagered on sports annually in the United States, making sports gambling the most widespread form of gaming. That $380 billion dollar figure makes sports gambling bigger than the entire U.S. auto industry. According to USA Today, more than 1 out of every 2 American adults places a bet on sports annually.
The Wall Street Journal recently said of sports gambling, “If you've never placed a sports bet in America, you are fast becoming a member of the minority. Since its beginnings at Colonial horse tracks in the 17th century, the amount of money Americans wager on sports has grown to rival the gross domestic product of New Zealand…through the next calendar year, more than 100 million Americans will wager…on sports.”
The popularity of sports on television in this country can be directly attributed to the popularity of betting on sports. The biggest sports gambling event of the year is Super Bowl Sunday- with $6 billion to $8 billion being wagered on that one day, on that one game. Not coincidently, Super Bowl is the highest-rated television event of any kind each year.
NFL football is the TV ratings king- attracting the highest television ratings (by far) of any sport- leading the way are American TV institutions like "NBC Sunday Night Football" and "ESPN Monday Night Football." Not surprisingly, the highest-rated TV show of any kind in the history of cable television is a Sunday Night NFL football game between the Dallas Cowboys and the New England Patriots.
Not coincidently, football is the king of sports gambling too- with about 50% of all gambling dollars being wagered on football. Can you guess what are the two biggest betting games of each week? Of course they are the two highest-rated TV games of the week- "NBC Sunday Night Football" and "ESPN Monday Night Football." The gambling action is actually so hot and heavy on Monday nights that American bookmakers changed “collection day” from Monday morning to Tuesday (after the Monday Night Football game).
But football is not the only big betting sport. The popularity of March Madness has made college basketball the second most popular betting sport in the USA. More money is now bet on the 3 weeks of March Madness than the Super Bowl- over $8 billion. Not coincidently, March Madness is now the second highest-rated television sports event.
What's important in all this is the role that Libertarian Presidential candidate Wayne Allyn Root plays in what Sports Illustrated calls “America's favorite past-time.” The national media has called me, “The King of Vegas,” “America's Oddsmaker,” and “The Face of Las Vegas Gambling.” Since 1990 there have been several million calls for my advice from American sports fans and gamblers. On any given fall football weekend, about 20,000 Americans are each wagering hundreds to thousands of dollars on my advice on a multitude of games.
Our research indicates about $100,000,000 is bet on my advice each weekend during football season. That's approximately $3 billion wagered annually on Wayne Root's advice. My success in this popular and dynamic industry earned me a star on the famous Las Vegas Strip in 2006. My star (in front of New York New York) is one of only 25 stars ever awarded by the Las Vegas Walk
of Stars (I am also the youngest recipient ever).
Then there's poker. One poker site alone- Party Gaming- a public company, reported $45 billion dollars of wagering on their poker site in 2005. Their revenues on that $45 BB in action were just shy of $1 billion- all on one web site. There were approximately 2400 poker web sites on the Internet at that time. Then the U.S. Congress passed an online gaming ban (called UEIGA) which prevented the transfer of monies for online gaming purposes through banks, credit cards or other financial instruments.
Since then, over one million American poker players have joined the political and lobbying arm of poker, The Poker Players Alliance. The Chairman of the PPA is former United States Senator Al D'Amato. Those one million poker enthusiasts can be harnessed by the Libertarian Presidential nominee to support, contribute and vote for LP candidates at all levels of office- especially if a high-profile friend of gaming is the nominee.
Add to that group the 10 to 12 million online poker fans in the USA…the 50 million Americans that choose to play poker with friends…and my personal database of two million Wayne Root fans and clients…and it's easy to see why the LP is positioned for a record-breaking year in 2008.
That is why my fellow Libertarians, gambling should and must matter to the LP this Fall- especially if our goal is dramatically growing the party; attracting record-setting media exposure; electing Libertarians on the local level; and perhaps most importantly, adding tens of thousands of new donors. That is precisely why I believe that putting Wayne Allyn Root at the top of the LP ticket would be beneficial to the LP and the “freedom movement” for years to come.
The media has dubbed me “Ron Paul…on steroids.” They are referring to the dynamic energy, excitement, youthful enthusiasm, passion and high-profile celebrity that I bring to the Presidential campaign. But what should be most important to LP voters is that I'm just getting started. I have a 16 year plan to win the White House. I am here for the long haul. 2008 is just a start in the right direction. I'll work with LP local and state candidates over the next 4, 8, 12, and 16 years to build the base, build the donor list, build the “LP brand,” and build our party.
I hope you're as excited as me. As an old proverb says, “A journey of a thousand miles begins with one step.” I hope you'll honor me with your LP Presidential nomination in 2008 so we can take that first big step to the White House and majority party together.
Wayne Allyn Root is a Libertarian Presidential candidate. For more about Wayne and his bold stands on important political issues, go to: www.ROOTforAmerica.com
[ add comment ] | permalink | related link |
( 3.1 / 1477 )Back Next
Avatar
