as a Vice Presidential candidate is my background as a small businessman, home-school dad, and citizen politician. My greatest asset is the common sense of a common American citizen.
I'm proud to say I´m NOT your typical politician. I've never served in office; never worked in Washington D.C.; never collected a check from any government (state or federal); nor done business of any kind with government. What I have done my entire adult life is start businesses and create jobs by risking my own and my investors' money - not the government´s (that is, not YOUR money).
None of this year's major Presidential contenders- Barack Obama (my college classmate), Hillary Clinton, or John McCain has ever created a business or a job without government money. What could they possibly know about healing or growing the American economy? The answer is simple - NOTHING. Unless, of course, you consider spending your hard-earned tax dollars on ´Pork Barrel´ projects as valuable experience for a politician.
Most importantly, I want to stress the “small” in my small business experience. In modern political history there has never been a small businessman on a Presidential ticket. Most of our past Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates have been cut from the same mold- either spoiled brat, “lucky sperm club” members born to wealthy, connected fathers; wealthy out-of-touch CEO's of Fortune 500 companies; or career politicians who have lived their entire lives off of taxpayer-funded paychecks.
Today small business is the economic engine of America. We live in a “Small Business Economy”, where the majority of America's jobs are created by small business. Small business owners, men and women willing to risk their own money and security, are the backbone of the American economy.
Isn't it time we listened to these heroes of the American workforce? Isn't it time we elected someone who wants to support small business owners? Isn't it time we elected someone who understands the unique challenges and problems of small businessmen and women, and knows how to empower them to create more jobs and more prosperity for this nation?
Now I'm going to let you in on a deep dark secret you won't hear from clueless out-of-touch career politicians or government bureaucrats: We are in a RECESSION. And I believe it's a deep one- possibly the worst since the Great Depression. Despite government assurances that it has not occured yet, I believe we've been in this recession for over a year. How do I know? Just ask any small business owner. It's that simple. They are the “canary in the coal mine.” Small business feels a recession first; and they feel it the deepest. We can no longer rely on what the Fed says. What do blue-blooded Ivy League bankers from wealthy families know about the real world? Nothing. Nor can we rely on career politicians or government bureaucrats- few of them know anything about what's really happening in the business world. Worse, they are disingenuous. Their job is to deceive us.
What used to be a two party system has now sadly become one big bloated “cover your rear” bureaucracy with incumbent politicians and their friends at the Fed lulling us to sleep to convince us to support the status quo; behave like good little voters; and never throw the bums out of office who are responsible for running our country (and economy) into the ground. To achieve that end and prevent anger and panic, government leaders and bureaucrats will do whatever they need to do, including “cook the books” to stay in power. Amazingly, if a small businessperson reported his or her accounting in a way that was as misleading and inaccurate as the government does, they'd be thrown in jail for 20 years (or longer). And what is so sad, is that most politicians know so little about economics and business, they do not even know the difference.
The bottom line is that I believe that our government has NOT been truthful to us. Government statistics report we are not in a recession. Any small business owner knows that can only be classified as misleading propaganda. Those same government statistics report that inflation is under control. Any consumer who has spent 5 minutes in a grocery store or gas station knows that too is misleading propaganda. I don't need government economists or Fed bankers to tell me where the economy stands. I only need to listen to my friends who own small businesses on Main Street USA.
My friends can tell you we are in the midst of a deep recession. My friends are the very heart of America's “economic engine.” My friends don't fly private planes. They don't run billion dollar companies. I've never met billionaires like Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Donald Trump or Steve Wynn.
I don't hang out with jet-setters. My friends own small businesses- restaurants, dry cleaners, real estate firms, mortgage firms. My friends are stockbrokers, real estate appraisers, insurance brokers. My friends are the very pulse of American business. These people understand business. They ARE the American economy. And they are in deep distress. This economy can best be described as being in crisis. Yet politicians on both sides of the aisle either haven't a clue, or are purposely misleading us.
According to small business owners, things are much worse than the government is telling us. My friends are 35 to 55 years old, and they tell me this is the worst economic downturn of their entire lives. Yet the government claims we are not in recession? Tell that to millions of successful small businesspersons who are seeing dramatic drops in their income. Tell that to small business owners who have made $500,000 a year for a decade or longer, but now are losing their business or their home (or both). Many have given up their entire salary in an attempt to keep their businesses alive. Increasingly, even that extreme sacrifice has failed and they´ve been forced to close their doors, leaving their employees without a paycheck. Small business owners are getting slaughtered. It's that bad in the real world- a world protected politicians, government employees, economists, and Fed bankers obviously know nothing about.
I have first-hand knowledge of this economic tsunami. First, I've spoken to hundreds of small business owners. The lucky ones, who are still in business, are reporting revenues down 20% to 30% over the last year. That's revenues we're talking about- not profits. For many there are no longer any profits.
Secondly, I know how bad it is, because I'm one of them. That's the big advantage of having a small businessman as a Vice Presidential candidate. I'm living in the trenches and I won´t hesitate to provide a dose of honesty and reality to the political process. Unlike politicians, economists, Federal Reserve bankers, out-of-touch CEO's, or the media, I actually understand first-hand what's happening on Main Street. And, I know when the politicians and government bureaucrats are feeding us a pack of lies.
Why would the government mislead us? Because keeping you in the dark is the only way to ensure that voters will march in lockstep like nice little sheep to the voting booth and once again vote for the same
Republican and Democratic career politicians who created this mess. The same politicians and bureaucrats who live off taxpayer checks. This Washington D.C. ruling class only cares about one thing- getting re-elected.
To sum it up, “The books are cooked!” Our government is misleading us. Take it from a small businessman- we are currently in recession; we have been in recession for a year or longer; and it's not getting better. The very people who created this mess are now trying to convince you that more government is the answer. Government grows bigger every day and our economic future gets worse and worse. Do you think maybe there is a connection there?
More government is not the answer. More of the same government is certainly not the answer. Electing
a politician from either of the two major parties is keeping the same government. Those are the people that got us in this mess in the first place. While small business is fighting for survival and cutting jobs, government is expanding, hiring more bureaucrats, and spending like a drunken sailor (no offense meant to drunken sailors).
The answer is less government, dramatically reduced spending, fewer government bureaucrats, and reduced bureaucracy. The answer is letting Americans keep more of their own money, and make their own decisions about how to spend it. The answer is to take the power away from the government and give the power back to the people- exactly as our Founding Fathers intended. What is it that these two-party establishment politicians don´t understand about the simple idea that: When times are bad, government must cut jobs and spending just like the rest of us!
How's that for honesty from a politician? All the more reason why we need to elect politicians who live in the real world; who run small businesses; who create jobs; who understand what is happening on Main Street, instead of only focusing on Wall Street. If given a choice, I'll listen to news-stand owners, taxi cab drivers, and restauranteurs over Wall Street bankers and hedge fund managers any day of the week.
My role as Vice President in a Barr/Root administration will be a unique one. I'll spend every waking hour working with small business owners; solving the unique issues and challenges unique to small businessmen and women; eliminating rules and regulations that impede small business growth; identifying wasteful government programs and slashing spending so taxes can be reduced, thereby allowing ALL Americans who want to achieve the American Dream to keep more of their own money, so they can open their own small business and achieve economic freedom. I will be the first “SMALL BUSINESS VICE PRESIDENT.” That is the true definition of power to the people. That is the advantage of voting for a third party, anti-establishment, anti-status quo Presidential ticket of Barr/Root.
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 / 3321 )Wayne Allyn Root, Libertarian Vice Presidential nominee has
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 / 2700 )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 / 1676 )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 / 5307 )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 / 1169 )Back Next
Avatar
