Monthly Archives: June 2007

Americans Want Less Government and Lower Taxes- Translation: A Libertarian Life!

The latest survey is out and the Top 11 "growing real estate markets" in the USA (according to the National Association of Realtors) are primarily low tax red states (meaning states that voted Republican in the last Presidential election). 8 of the 11 are in red states, while one of the 3 blue states is a state with no state income tax (Washington). So it could be argued that 9 of the top 11 fastest growing cities in America are located in low tax states. What a surprise! Even after Republicans have lost power and respect from the voters, Americans still choose FISCAL CONSERVATISM. You know what it's called when you're fiscally conservative, but socially liberal? Libertarian. That my fellow fiscal conservatives, is why I switched from the GOP to LP (Libertarian Party). I did not leave the GOP. The Republican Party left me when it embraced extreme religious right wing "out of the mainstream" views on issues such as Terri Schiavo, abortion, gay rights, stem cell research, etc. And to top it off, abandoned fiscal restraint by presiding over the greatest government expansion in modern political history.

But nothing has changed when it comes to money. A majority of Americans may no longer vote Republican, but they are still fiscally conservative. The proof is in the places they choose to live. Americans are voting with their feet and their wallets by relocating to places where taxes are lower, government spending is therefore lower, and freedom for entrepreneurs is higher. The Top 11 markets for 2007 are:

Seattle, Washington-blue state but ZERO state income tax
Beaumont, Texas-red state
Biloxi, Mississippi-red state
Bismark, North Dakota-red state
Salt Lake City, Utah-red state
Cumberland, Maryland-blue state
Albuquerque, New Mexico-red state
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma-red state
Salem, Oregon-blue state
San Antonio, Texas-red state
Farmington, New Mexico-red state

So once again, despite a seismic political revolution in the USA from Republican (red) dominance to Democrat (blue) control of both houses of Congress (and a lead in polls for the White House in 2008), Americans still crave lower taxes and less government. Fiscal conservatism is still very much in style. It's just that voters no longer trust the GOP to reduce government spending, or the size and scope of government. Another poll earlier in the week points out that a majority of Americans thinks it's time for a third party President. Support for fiscal conservatism? Lower taxes? Less government? Support for a third party with these fiscal conservative values? Sounds like the American people are describing the LIBERTARIAN PARTY!

But wait- more interesting studies and polls point towards fiscal conservatism: AOL just released the "Tour America Best Cities to Live In." Based on a variety of factors, 9 of the 10, 90% were red low tax states!

Austin, Texas-red state
Ashville, North Carolina-red state
Coeur 'd Alene, Idaho-red state
Fairhope, Alabama-red state
Barren County, Kentucky-red state
Albuquerque, New Mexico-red state
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma-red state
Colorado Springs, Colorado-red state
Alaska-red state
Vermont-blue state

And then there's the official U.S. Census Bureau, which recently predicted that the 5 fastest growing states in America for the next 25 years would be Nevada, Arizona, Texas, Florida, Utah. All 5 (surprise!) are red low tax, limited government states!

Despite what the liberal media have told us, nothing has changed. Americans have NOT abandoned traditional Republican Party fiscal conservatism. They have simply abandoned the GOP over the war in Iraq, the massive corruption and scandals of Republican politicians, the massive scale of incompetence of the Bush Administration, and the religious right extremism on social issues. The polls and studies above prove that Americans still want fiscal conservatism, lower taxes, smaller government, reduced government spending, and more economic freedom. They have simply decided that the GOP is no longer the party to give it to them.

Today, this former "Millionaire Republican" (the title of my best-selling book of 2005) stands proudly before you as a Libertarian Party candidate for President of the United States. I am that third party candidate Americans are searching for. I am fiscally conservative and socially tolerant. I am carrying the mantle of my heroes- Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. Today if they were alive, neither would call himself a Republican. Like me, they would call themselves Libertarian conservatives. As Bob Dylan would say, the world it is a-changing. As a man who is paid millions of dollars to make accurate predictions, I can feel something big happening in the pit of my stomach. The time is ripe for a serious challenge to the 2-party system that is so badly failing America's voters. It's the right time and place for a Libertarian political revolution.

The "B" in Bloomberg Stands for BLAND. But what America needs is BOLD! Libertarian Presidential Candidate Asks Does America Want a "Competent Administrator?"

How typical of the American media. They specialize in creating "overnight sensations." Now they have instantly anointed Michael Bloomberg the next President of the United States. Why? Because he has big ideas? No. Interesting "out of the box" ideas? No. Is he the potential leader of a political revolution? No. The answer is simple: because he's a Billionaire (that's with a capital "B"). You see Michael Bloomberg is a very very very rich man! Perhaps $19 or $20 Billion dollars worth of rich (but hey what's a billion among friends). He could very easily spend $500 million, or perhaps even a billion of his own money on the race for the White House- and that's more than any campaign has ever spent before. That's a lot of buttons, bumper stickers and TV ads! And his biggest advantage of all is that it's his own money- so he doesn't have to waste valuable time attending fundraisers and sucking up to various special interests and rich fat cats. Bloomberg can just get out his checkbook and start writing checks. And this very rich guy can keep writing those checks forever!

But winning the Presidency isn't just about money (although it helps). If writing checks were all it took, Ross Perot would have been elected President. Or John Kerry. There's something everyone is forgetting or ignoring- the power of personality. From everything I've heard, Bloomberg is a nice man and a very bright man. As far as business goes, he's a genius. But by all accounts, he is not exciting. He is not bold. He is more of an administrator than a leader or visionary. He has been described by the media as a "non-political manager." In other words, he's exceedingly competent at managing things- whether they be a business, city or perhaps a country. But is that the kind of personality that wins national elections in the age of MTV and Paris Hilton? Is that the personality America is looking for to win over friends (and enemies) on the world stage? Is that the personality to reform and dramatically reduce government? Is that the personality to lead the war on terror?

If Americans agree we need bold change to turn this great nation around, then I don't believe Michael Bloomberg is the answer. Bloomberg is quite simply "Guliani-lite." To be fair and honest, Rudy Guliani is the mayor who turned New York City around; who guided New York through 9-11; who took on the mob; who made big headlines with his bigger-than-life personality. But Bloomberg? He's simply "the guy that followed Guliani." He's the administrator that took over the ship and kept it floating. He kept it floating well, by the way. No knocks on his management style. But all the heavy lifting was already done. All Bloomberg had to do was steer! So if you want to congratulate a guy for keeping the trains running on time, well then Bloomberg's your guy. He's the King of Status Quo. How exciting is that? How impressive is that? This guy makes accountants look exciting. But because he's got a fortune in the billions, literally overnight the American media has awarded Bloomberg the mantle of frontrunner. Those dollar signs around Bloomberg's neck are so massive that everyone has forgotten how boring this guy is. Heck, give him a few weeks on the campaign trail, and Bloomberg will make voters hunger for the excitement of Al Gore!

So why is the media so enamored with Mayor Michael Bloomberg? It's pretty simple- GREED. Yes, the same media that spends all their waking hours attacking capitalism, business, and businessman is steeped in hypocrisy. You see all they really care about is the bottom line. The media makes its living condemning greed- but that is simply because big headlines attacking wealth and wealthy people sells papers and creates higher ratings. The news media is actually greedier than the greedy businesspeople they attack. Hypocrisy at its finest!

So how does the candidacy of Michael Bloomberg help the greedy hypocritical liberals that run the American media? First of all, a high-profile billionaire third party candidate (ala Ross Perot) creates excitement, headlines and RATINGS. So if the media can help create, build and promote that candidate, the result is an exciting three-way horserace and lots of controversy, hype and headlines. That adds up lots of people buying newspapers, magazines (Time, Newsweek, U.S. News & World Report, etc.) and watching the news. And of course those sky-high ratings translate into billions of dollars in profits for the media.

Secondly, if Bloomberg enters the race and spends a remarkable one billion dollars to get his message out, guess who the beneficiary is? The media. He'll spend that billion on ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, CNN, Fox News Channel and MSNBC. And even better, Bloomberg's record-setting spending will trigger a political "arms race" of epic proportions. He will force the Democrats and Republicans to spend more than they've ever spent in history. Michael Bloomberg is the best thing that has ever happened to a corrupt, greedy, hypocritical, biased American media that is riddled with conflicts of interest. They need Bloomberg to run. They want him to run. They will profit from his decision to run. And in order to make it happen, they will create the story (as opposed to reporting on it). They will purposely build Michael Bloomberg into a third party savior and superman of epic proportions. Even if in reality he is just a bland, boring administrator.

But it's actually much more than just greed that drives the media to over-estimate Michael Bloomberg. The media is ultra-liberal. That makes them biased and flawed in their thinking process. They wouldn't know what a typical American voter was thinking, if it hit them square in the face. The media has therefore misinterpreted the definition of "moderate" that American voters are looking for. Yes, the GOP has drifted too far to the extreme right. Yes, Democrats have drifted too far to the extreme left. There is no doubt that the 2-party system is a dramatic failure. Neither party is representing the interests of the American people. The time has never been more ripe for a successful third party candidate. That much is true. That's precisely why I'm running for President of the United States as a Libertarian.

But is Mayor Michael Bloomberg the answer? Absolutely not. Here's where the media has misjudged. Being a bland personality is the smallest of Bloomberg's problems. His biggest problem is that his stands on the issues are bland and boring. I am running for President as a Libertarian because I believe the American people want someone to lead this nation who has strong opinions and the bold personality necessary to carry them out. Someone who can lead a political revolution. Not a revolution that leads us to the boring, namby-pamby, wishy-washy center that stands for nothing. Not a competent administrator that leads us to various shades of grey. Not a man who is proud of the fact that subways run on time. Not a man who instead of cutting government and taxes dramatically, is proud of the fact that he didn't grow government very much, or raise taxes very much. Wow, is he a daring revolutionary! Wow, that Bloomberg fellow is really going to shake up America!

The media is correct about one thing- the majority of American voters are neither extreme left nor extreme right. But that doesn't mean they want wishy-washy moderation. To be moderate on every issue is to declare vanilla the best flavor and go home. Bloomberg has no strong convictions- he's just a competent manager. If status quo is what American voters want, Bloomberg is the perfect administrator for the job. He is a brilliant business strategist and he will certainly keep the trains running on time and the ship on course. His opinions are neither left nor right- so he won't offend anyone. Nothing controversial. Nothing out of the box. No inspiration (like JFK). No charisma (like Bill Clinton). No leading of revolutions (like Ronald Reagan). If Bloomberg was a color, he'd be vanilla. But is that what the American people want? Is that who they will follow? Is a bland vanilla administrator the right choice to shake up a fat, over-reaching government that seems intent on taking over our lives, decisions and bank accounts? I believe that we need a bold visionary. Someone who doesn't run away from controversy- but rather embraces it. Someone to lead a seismic political revolution. Someone to dramatically change "business as usual" in Washington, D.C. Someone to throw the bums out on their butts!

It's time for a Libertarian Revolution. The time for vanilla is long since past (Dwight Eisenhower was the last time that vanilla was the solution). Yes, American voters are sick and tired of the 2-party system. Yes, they are angry at "business as usual." Yes, they want moderation, instead of extreme right or left. But the definition of moderation that they crave is my Libertarian definition. You see American voters are both conservative and liberal (depending on the issue). What they're looking for when they say they want "moderation" is someone who is fiscally conservative and socially liberal, yet STRONG on every issue. Not wishy-washy middle of the road. Wishy washy doesn't work- it just gets the trains running on time. But it won't change a complicated, unfair tax system. It won't change crushing tax rates that force most Americans to work until April or May to pay their taxes (only then can they see a dime for themselves). It won't eliminate death taxes. It will not lead to dramatic reform of the Social Security or Medicare system. It won't reduce out-of-control government spending. It won't end welfare as we know it. It won't dramatically lower foreign aid. It won't boldly secure the borders. It won't solve the Education crisis we face- where 50% of minority children drop out of our public schools. Yes, we all want the trains to run on time- but there are more critical issues for a President of the United States. We have cabinet-level administrators for that job. So if you admire the competent job that Bloomberg has done by getting the trains to run on time, let's make him Secretary of the Department of Transportation. But not President of the United States.

The new immigration reform bill known on Capital Hill as Kennedy-McCain is a good example of the damage that moderation, compromise and "wishy-washy" can inflict on our nation. It's certainly moderate. It's certainly full of compromise. It certainly brings together politicians from both the right and left. Yet the result is disaster. The bill stinks. Moderation is a worthy goal in this country. But my definition of moderation is completely different than that of Mr. Bloomberg, or the media. Moderation- like the Kennedy-McCain immigration reform bill- is in many cases a huge failure. Most solutions are not found in the middle. They are found on either the right or left- just not all right or all left. That's the complaint of the American people. Republicans think every answer to every problem is found on the right. Democrats think every answer to every problem is found on the left. But as O.J. would say, one glove doesn't fit all hands. Sometimes the solution is from the right, sometimes from the left. But rarely is it a
wishy-washy mishmash of moderation.

I define myself as "moderate" because I believe that some solutions are found on the right...and some are also found on the left. Polls prove that most Americans agree. I'm strongly, passionately and unabashedly conservative on issues such as limiting the power of government; reducing the size and scope of the federal government; dramatically cutting taxes; reducing spending; cutting entitlements (including corporate welfare); cutting foreign aid; supporting each citizen's right to bear arms; supporting States' Rights (moving the power of government whenever possible to the local level); instituting lawyer abuse reform: ending affirmative action and racial quotas; encouraging parental choice and competition to solve the education crisis in this country; establishing personal savings accounts to solve the Social Security crisis; securing our borders; and protecting rights and freedoms for the individual. Those are strong conservative stands that Michael Bloomberg would find far too bold...far too controversial.

Yet at the same time, I believe that certain social issues demand a solution found only on the left- a women's right to choose (with limits), gay rights, stem cell research, the right to die (the Terri Schiavo crisis), protecting the environment, legalization of medicinal marijuana and online gaming, ending government interference in the censorship of television, ending warrantless wiretaps, repeal of many aspects of the Patriot Act. On those issues I fall clearly on the side of freedom. I want to end "the Nanny State" and give the power back to the people. I don't want government involved in my bedroom, on my computer, on my television set, or having control over my body or my personal decisions.

That's the definition of "moderation" that I believe the American people are looking for. A willingness to move to the right or left, depending on the issue. Moderation does not have to mean weak. The Kennedy-McCain immigration reform bill will fail because it tries too hard to be "moderate." It combines both right and left to create a complicated, dysfunctional disaster that works for no one. There are in fact strong, common sense solutions for the crucial issues that plague our country- those solutions come from both the right and left. The answer isn't compromise in the middle, but rather a willingness to utilize bold solutions from wherever they come. What America needs now is a strong, bold leader who can lead us in a new direction. Bloomberg's version of "moderation" will leave American voters feeling dissatisfied, bored and bland- in other words, vanilla is not the answer to every craving 24/7 for the rest of our lives. But hey, at least the trains will run on time.

Wayne Allyn Root is a Libertarian Presidential candidate. For more about Wayne and his bold stands on important political issues, go to:

Online Gaming- the Simmering Controversy That the Mainstream American Media Chooses to Ignore, But Could Prove the Difference in the 2008 U.S. Presidential Election

I am the U.S. Presidential candidate that Ladbrokes of U.K. (the world’s largest legal bookmaker) calls the frontrunner for the Libertarian Presidential nomination. Ironically, in England (our best friend in the world and partner in the war on terror) millions of bettors (or “punters� as they call them on the other side of the Atlantic) are able to legally bet their hard-earned money on my chances of winning the Libertarian Party Presidential nomination (I’m the favorite). And they’re also legally betting on my odds of winning the White House (the odds are 100 to 1 against me). Ladbrokes has even set the odds on my likelihood of attracting the most votes of any Libertarian candidate in history (I’m a prohibitive favorite). Yet here in America, it would be a crime to take that bet. But why?

Almost 40 million Americans visit Las Vegas annually- making the gambling capital of America also our tourist capital. America has legal online horseracing. Many states have legalized slot machines being installed in horse racetracks across the country. Tribal gaming is thriving from coast to coast- with gambling revenues at tribal casinos in California alone now surpassing the Vegas Strip! We have legal state lotteries- and the recent online gaming law passed by Congress actually carved out exceptions for online state lotteries. So Americans can play the lottery on their computers- with state governments playing the role of casino. Poker shows dominate the airwaves of American television. And of course, stock investors gamble billions of dollars online every day- they bet on stocks like IBM, Microsoft and MGM Mirage with the stroke of a mouse and click on a computer keypad.

These are questions that need to be asked by American voters and the mainstream American media: Why are millions of Americans now barred from playing poker in the privacy of their own homes, on their own computer, with their own money? Why is online gambling or online poker a problem? What is the difference between betting on the direction of a stock like IBM or betting on the Dallas Cowboys? Isn’t poker a game of skill just like bridge, chess or fantasy football (which are both legal to play online)? Does Prohibition ever work or does it make a mockery of the law? Does this ban actually stop online gaming or merely push it all underground (where consumers, compulsive gamblers, and underage gamblers are at far higher risk)? Are we throwing away billions in new tax revenues that could be used to fund homeland security, the war on terror, education, or deficit reduction?

Is it the business of government to tell Americans what they can or cannot do in the privacy of their homes? To tell us what choices we can or cannot make for entertainment? How does any individual choosing online poker as his or her favorite form of entertainment hurt anyone else? Is it the job of government to protect us from ourselves? Is it government’s right to choose what is (in their estimation) good or bad for individuals? Isn’t that why we’re supposedly fighting the war in Iraq- so the Iraqi people can enjoy freedom? So why are we losing our freedoms here at home, at the same time we fight for freedom in Iraq?

Does the same government that brought us warrantless wiretaps, unlimited corruption investigations and indictments in Congress, the Hurricane Katrina disaster, the war in Iraq, the Walter Reed Hospital scandal, the illegal U.S. Justice Dept firings, and out of control deficit spending in Washington that threatens to bankrupt our country and our children…does that same government have a right to lecture us on morality? Do they even know the meaning of right and wrong? Could they even spell “morality� if we spotted them the first 5 letters?

This is the issue that the mainstream media is ignoring. It may decide the 2008 Presidential election. It is an issue important to as many as 30 million American gamblers and poker enthusiasts. It is not going to go away. Yet the issue is not gambling- it is FREEDOM.

I was honored to hear that on NBC television this weekend, during the broadcast of the popular show “Poker After Dark,� former World Series of Poker champion Greg “Fossilman� Raymer publicly mentioned my candidacy for President of the United States and declared me the frontrunner for the Libertarian nomination. A feature story on my Presidential candidacy also appears this week in the popular weekly magazine “Poker News� read by millions of poker players across America. That follows on the heels of the story last week on my Presidential candidacy in the Las Vegas Sun. Yet despite this barrage of positive support and publicity, I am not a one issue candidate. Far from it. The legalization of online gaming or poker is certainly not the point of my campaign. Freedom is at the heart of my longshot third party Presidential run. The federal government’s attempts to ban online gaming (behind closed doors- with no discussion, debate or even explanation of the bill attached at the last second to a Port Security Bill) was senseless, sad and just plain stupid. It violated the rights and freedoms of millions of Americans. It throws away billions of tax dollars (while our good friends and allies England and Australia both rake in billions from legalized online gaming). Yet the real issue has nothing to do with gambling. This issue merely represents our loss of freedom, rights, individual initiative and personal responsibility. Our rights are being violated every day by Big Brother (in the form of Democrats invading our wallets and Republicans invading our bedrooms, computers and television sets). Unfortunately “The Nanny State� is alive and well.

The ban of online gaming simply represents how invasive our federal government has become- with its tentacles spread into every aspect of our lives (involving issues such as Internet freedom, warrantless wiretaps, mandatory cancer vaccines for 12 year old girls, the Terri Schiavo intrusion, expansion of seat belt laws, medicinal marijuana, FDA attempts to limit medical options such as holistic doctors, vitamins and alternative therapies- the list is endless). You see banning online gaming was just a means to justify the “end.� For government that “end� is power. To gain power, government and politicians need control over our lives. They need to create endless laws that tell us how we can live our lives. But those attempts to expand government power violate the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution is an instrument to limit the power of the federal government and keep the power in the hands of the individual. My Presidential campaign will encourage Americans to read their own Constitution and fight to take back what is rightfully theirs- FREEDOM.

To Learn more about Libertarian Presidential candidate Wayne Allyn Root go to:

The Great Economic and Political Battle in America: Private Sector Taxpayers Versus Public Employee Unions

Nevada Governor Jim Gibbons did something amazing before the 2006 election- he made a promise to the voters to not raise taxes. That got him elected in the most Libertarian state in America. Then he did something even more amazing- he kept his promise to the voters and taxpayers. The howling, screaming, ranting, raving, complaining, protesting and predictions of disaster from the usual big-spending liberal suspects was deafening. Yet despite what all the "horrified" journalists, public employee unions, big-spending politicians, naysayers and liberal elite lucky-sperm-club snobs (blessed with big trust funds) said was impossible- Gov. Gibbons actually did it and Nevada (gasp!) is still standing. Can you imagine? It's actually possible to survive as a state without tax increases. Who would have ever believed that? To the contrary, Gibbons’ courageous stand guarantees that Nevada will remain one of the (if not THE) fastest growing states in all of America, with one of the fastest growing economies, the lowest unemployment, the best climate for entrepreneurship and home ownership, and the lowest taxes. That combination is no coincidence. South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, a true Libertarian, proved the same thing 3000 miles away from Nevada- Sanford too held the line on taxes and spending- he actually made drastic spending cuts. Like Gibbons, he too was vilified by liberal critics, savaged in the press, and attacked by politicians from his own Republican Party. Yet surprise of all surprises- Sanford won re-election by a landslide!

But champions of smaller government and lower taxes, like Governors Gibbons and Sanford, cannot afford to rest on their laurels now. None of us can afford for them to rest. Our work has just begun. Now comes the next big issue that courageous politicians (there are few) across America will have to face: the disaster of public employee unions looting taxpayers and devastating our children’s and grandchildren’s economic future with lavish wages, pensions and health care benefits.

If you doubt me, please Google The Los Angeles Times cover story of Sunday 6/10/07 on this economic tsunami headed our way. The normally ultra-liberal L.A. Times reports that California will surely go bankrupt sometime in the near future under the weight of unfunded public employee liabilities. The Times reports that health care benefits alone for retired California public employees will grow from $4 billion today to $31 billion by 2020. That's just the healthcare! There is no possible way to pay for it all. It is a looming disaster for every state in the nation. But the bleeding-heart liberal, “People’s Republic of California� is the perfect test-tube, poster-child for the disaster headed our way. Let’s all study it and take it very seriously. The problem exists all over the country- although on a smaller scale (simply because California is that much bigger, more liberal, and just plain STUPID). The L.A. Times article entitled “Public sector reels at retiree healthcare tab� reports that local governments will soon be overwhelmed. "It will be impossible to meet their obligations. The only possibilities are bankruptcies, or a death by a thousand cuts in services to the public." That’s a direct quote from the ultra-liberal Los Angeles Times.

The Times quotes nonpartisan studies that report wages for state and local government workers are 40% higher than private employees, and retirement and fringe benefits are a whopping 60% higher. The liberal media pounds the public nonstop about the "divide between rich and poor in America." But this is the secret "fairness divide" the liberal media has up until now completely ignored (or hidden): the obscene compensation and benefits lavished on public employees, and the divide between employees of the public sector and taxpayers of the private sector. Why do public employees deserve so much more compensation than those in the private sector? Based on what? Small business owners like myself take massive risks, often put their life savings and homes on the line, create jobs, make payrolls, pay millions in taxes (payroll, state and local, federal, sales taxes). Yet we have no guaranteed paychecks (actually we often pay ourselves nothing in order to make employee payrolls when things are tight), no pension of any kind, no one to pay our health insurance after retirement. Heck, we have no idea if we can ever retire. Why do public employees deserve so much more than the rest of us? Why do they get to retire early on 80% of salary for life? Why is this gigantic divide “fair�? The answer of course is it is not.

Tens of millions of American taxpayers are going to start asking these same two questions: First, why should we in the private sector take all the risks, work 14 hour days (including weekends and holidays) and labor under the burden of ever-higher taxes, so we can pay for the lavish salaries, pensions and benefits of public service employees? Secondly, why should we slave away at work until the day we die, so we can pay for the early retirements at age 55 or 60 of public employees who get to play golf for the rest of their lives with pensions of 80% (or more) of their last annual working salary, plus full health care for life? Why should the private sector taxpayers be stuck with this burden? The real issue is not whether the overwhelmed taxpayers and small business owners can pay for it or not- we cannot. The real issue is what happens when the unfunded liabilities come due? California, Nevada and the other 48 states are facing bankruptcies and crisis of epic proportions. And the real heroes of the American economy, the risk-takers and job creators called small businesspersons, will be forced to work from January to October to pay the 80% taxes that will be necessary to save this country from economic disaster.

Brave politicians must deal head-on with this looming economic crisis now, before public employee unions destroy the greatest economy in world history and bleed private taxpayers dry. History proves that great Democracies are always destroyed when too many citizens think they should feed off the public dole. When 1 of 5 (or more) taxpayers works for the government, and many more live off companies that do business with the government, our economy is in deep trouble. It is a recipe for political bribery (“Pay me more, increase my pensions and benefits, and I’ll vote for you, support you. Contribute to you, and my union will go door to door on your behalf�). Why should government employee unions that donate millions to politicians, then be allowed to negotiate with those same politicians for obscene pay raises? Why should one class (private sector taxpayers) shoulder all the burden of another class (entitlement junkies and government employees)?

Our Founding Fathers created our constitution to keep the government out of our lives. That constitution clearly gives the power to the people- not the government. But if a majority of Americans live off of, and work for the government, then the tables have turned. Those same people that work for the government, depend on the government, want the government to grow ever-larger (to protect their jobs, benefits and entitlements) will rig the system to continually screw the taxpayers and benefit themselves.

I’m sad to say that the battle being waged today is about the same issues as the American Revolution of 230 years ago: freedom, excessive taxes and taxation without representation. But today it isn’t Americans versus British. Today it is a battle of government and government employees versus the rest of America (the taxpayers who create all the jobs and pay all the taxes). Today it is private sector versus public employees. When the ultra-liberal L.A. Times makes it a front page story, the disaster is bigger, closer and more devastating than we ever imagined. The time to act is now.

Wayne Allyn Root
Libertarian Presidential candidate