DownsizeDC.org

4 Questions About Defense Spending

2012-02-08T14:38:00Z

Quote of the Day: "The U.S. should stop garrisoning the globe, subsidizing rich friends, and reconstructing poor enemies. Instead, it’s about time Washington focused on defending America and its people." - Doug Bandow

The federal budget can never, ever be balanced. Why? Because defense spending must be cut, and that's sancrosanct to the Republican criminal gang. If you want the budget balanced, you need to shame the "Pork Hawks."

I sent this letter to Congress using DownsizeDC.org's Cut Federal Spending campaign.

The hard-wired message says simply...

Cut federal spending.

I added these fact-filled comments. You may borrow or copy from them...

I don't think you want the budget to be balanced. To achieve balance, you'd need to make real cuts in Defense spending.

In an article I urge you to read, former Reagan administration member, Doug Bandow, patiently explains that the Department of Defense spends most of its money to protect other nations, including those that are populous and prosperous such as Europe, South Korea, and Japan: http://tinyurl.com/7fgfxup.

I'm not as patient. I have some burning questions.

Why are WE still paying for THEIR protection?

After all...

* Defense expenditures increased 74.5 percent over the last decade.
* Your big-spending ways are so bad that you spend more than the rest of the world, combined.
* You blow more money now than at any point during the Korean War, Vietnam War, or Cold War.

Does this amount of spending really protect us or is it wasted on pork?

If anything, such overcapacity actually encourages ideologues in Washington to meddle in foreign conflicts that foolishly deplete our military capital. Iraq and Afghanistan come to mind.

Does combating terrorists really require massive spending on conventional arms and forces?

Al-Qaeda has been wrecked by relatively INEXPENSIVE techniques short of conventional war: timely intelligence, Special Forces strikes, international cooperation, and financial sanctions.

* But those things don't "bring home the bacon," do they?
* You love those sizzling pork barrel projects, don't you?
* You relish being there to cut the ribbon and to declare, "Look at all the jobs I brought to you," right?

You don't get it...

* The so-called "cuts" the Obama Administration proposed are only cuts in projected increases, NOT cuts in real spending.
* If no budget agreement is made and spending is "sequestered" under the 2011 debt ceiling law, in 2021 Defense spending will still be more than it is today!

That's astonishing and wrong.

How can you balance the budget without real cuts in Defense?

You can't. But you should know that it IS possible to make DEEP cuts in the Defense budget and still have, by far, the most feared and powerful force on earth.

And in an era of trillion-dollar deficits, YOU really HAVE NO CHOICE.

We need a Defense Department that is focused upon defending America. But you will only make us poorer and weaker if you continue to police the world.

END LETTER

You can send your letter using DownsizeDC.org's Educate the Powerful System.

If you are concerned about bloated spending, please share this on your social networks. Go to our blog where you can "like" and "tweet" this.

And if you value the Downsizer-Dispatch and our easy-to-use Educate the Powerful System, please give a generous one-time contribution or invest with a monthly pledge.

Thank you for helping Downsize DC!

James Wilson
Policy Research Director
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

NEW CAMPAIGN: Abolish the Department of Homeland Security

2012-02-07T14:48:00Z

Media Alert: Downsize DC President Jim Babka guest-hosts a radio show tomorrow. And there's a NEW way to listen to it. Details in the P.S.

A direct way to "downsize" the Federal State is to simply abolish unconstitutional, harmful, and unnecessary Cabinet Departments. That's why DownsizeDC.org has called for abolition of...

And now we target the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

The reasons for this are given on a fact-filled Educate the Powerful campaign page.

I highlight a few of them in my letter to Congress. The hard-wired message says simply...

Abolish the Department of Homeland Security.

I added these comments, from which you may borrow or copy in sending a letter of your own...

When the DHS was created the year after 9/11, it lumped in 22 agencies from other departments to improve efficiency and coordination. It has FAILED...

* The budget jumped from $19.5 billion in 2002 to $44.1 billion in 2010.
* In fact, it's a new avenue for pork-barrel spending. Only 25% of DHS anti-terrorism "grants" to local governments goes to actual terrorism prevention and response.
* Many of the agencies have only minor or tangential roles in possible terrorist attacks or response, and the DHS overseas far-flung responsbilities from anti-counterfeiting to flu epidemics.
* It hasn't protected us from terrorism; most foiled "terror plots" were really sting operations of the FBI.

Moreover...

* Neither the CIA nor even the FBI (a domestic agency) has been placed under the DHS umbrella.
* Which makes a coordinated, DHS-led antiterrorism strategy impossible; leaving the FBI and CIA out defeats the very purpose of the DHS.

Even worse...

* It is funding pernicious, totalitarian Minority Report-style "pre-crime" experiments.
* The DHS funds "fusion centers," which create reports about possible breeding grounds of terrorism. They include everything from third parties, Tea Party AND anti-Tea Party groups, and even student groups at historically black colleges.

In other words, ANYONE who dissents or is dissatisfied with the status quo might be a terrorist. Such assessments reflect the paranoid minds of Statist bureaucrats and their political bosses, rather than reality.

And don't get me started on the abuses and humiliations inflicted by the TSA!

One last point, the word "homeland" is offensive t o many Americans. It evokes the "blood and soil" patriotism of European-style nationalism or totalitarianism rather than the American patriotism traditionally understood as devotion to republican liberty. (http://reason.com/blog/2007/07/19/what-does-homeland-mean-to-you)

One has to wonder, was the initial use of the word "homeland" intentional? ...is it conditioning us for tyrannical rule?

I know that you don't want to be perceived as "against security." But that doesn't justify the continued waste, fraud, and abuse of the DHS. The DHS was has no real reason for existence. Some of its agencies should go back to the Departments they belonged to before 2002. Others should be abolished together, as should the DHS itself.

Once upon a time, a small boy declared the truth no one dared utter -- "The emperor has no clothes." I'm looking for similar courage in an elected official. The DHS is exposed. Will you have the courage to put an end to the waste, fraud, and abuse of this agency?

END LETTER

You can send your letter using DownsizeDC.org's Educate the Powerful System.

Do your friends know about the massive waste and outright harm the Department of Homeland Security is doing to all of us? Please share this Dispatch with them.

Jim Babka
President
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

P.S. I'm guest hosting a talk-radio show tomorrow (Wednesday). The show is Straight Talk w/Jerry Hughes, heard on the Accent Radio Network.

We're going to discuss executing Americans. Did you know it's now legal, if the President determines you're a terrorist? Wait till you hear this defended by the Secretary of Defense.

Speaking of terrorists, I'm going to address them too. I'm going to explain why Americans are NOT their government, and why killing sheeple doesn't work.

You can listen live at 2:07 PM Eastern (1:07 PM Central, 12:07 PM Mountain, and 11:07 PM Pacific).

To hear the show on the web, or to find a local station, visit the network's website.

Affiliates can be found in Alabama, California, Florida, Georgia, Missouri, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Utah, and Oregon.

AND NOW THERE'S A NEW WAY TO LISTEN! On your phone! Toll free at 1-386-524-0333.

Bills Passed in Congress: January 2012

2012-02-04T22:30:00Z

BILLS PASSED IN CONGRESS

The following are the bills the House and Senate passed last month. The bills were passed by voice vote except where indicated. Roll call votes for the House are found here, and for the Senate here. The descriptions of bills are essentially taken verbatim from the Congressional Record Daily Digest ((Index).

Page numbers of bills are based on the pdf display of the latest version from the Government Printing Office.

SENATE: 6 bills, 30 pages

SOAR Technical Corrections Act: Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions was discharged from further consideration of H.R. 3237, to amend the SOAR Act by clarifying the scope of coverage of the Act, and the bill was then passed. 2 pages

St. Croix River Crossing Project Authorization Act: Senate passed S. 1134, to authorize the St. Croix River Crossing Project with appropriate mitigation measures to promote river values, after agreeing to the committee amendment, 4 pages

Airport and Airway Extension Act: Senate passed H.R. 3800, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the funding and expenditure authority of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, to amend title 49, United States Code, to extend authorizations for the airport improvement program. 4 pages

Ultralight Aircraft Smuggling Prevention Act: Senate passed H.R. 3801, to amend the Tariff Act of 1930 to clarify the definition of aircraft and the offenses penalized under the aviation smuggling provisions under that Act. 6 pages

State or Local Government Levee Construction: Senate passed S. 2039, to allow a State or local government to construct levees on certain properties otherwise designated as open space lands, 6 pages

Border Tunnel Prevention Act: Senate passed S. 1236, to reduce the trafficking of drugs and to prevent human smuggling across the Southwest Border by deterring the construction and use of border tunnels. 8 pages

HOUSE: 7 bills, 44 pages

Permanent Electronic Duck Stamp Act of 2011: H.R. 3117, amended, to grant the Secretary of the Interior permanent authority to authorize States to issue electronic duck stamps, by a \2/3\ yea-and-nay vote of 373 yeas to 1 nay, Roll No. 5; 10 pages

Rota Cultural and Natural Resources Study Act: H.R. 1141, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability and feasibility of designating prehistoric, historic, and limestone forest sites on Rota, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, as a unit of the National Park System, by a \2/3\ yea-and-nay vote of 278 yeas to 100 nays, Roll No. 6. 6 pages

World War II Memorial Prayer Act of 2011: H.R. 2070, amended, to direct the Secretary of the Interior to install in the area of the World War II Memorial in the District of Columbia a suitable plaque or an inscription with the words that President Franklin D. Roosevelt prayed with the nation on June 6, 1944, the morning of D-Day, by a \2/3\ yea-and-nay vote of 386 yeas to 26 nays, Roll No. 8; 4 pages

War Memorial Protection Act: H.R. 290, to amend title 36, United States Code, to ensure that memorials commemorating the service of the United States Armed Forces may contain religious symbols; 4 pages

Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2012: H.R. 3800, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the funding and expenditure authority of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund and to amend title 49, United States Code, to extend authorizations for the airport improvement program; 8 pages

Ultralight Aircraft Smuggling Prevention Act of 2012: H.R. 3801, to amend the Tariff Act of 1930 to clarify the definition of aircraft and the offenses penalized under the aviation smuggling provisions under that Act, by a \2/3\ yea-and-nay vote of 408 yeas with none voting ``nay'', Roll No. 11. 6 pages

Buffalo Soldiers in the National Parks Study Act: H.R. 1022, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study of alternatives for commemorating and interpreting the role of the Buffalo Soldiers in the early years of the National Parks, by a \2/3\ yea-and-nay vote of 338 yeas to 70 nays, Roll No. 10. 6 pages

Congressional Lies about NDAA Kidnapping Law, Part 2

2012-02-03T17:53:00Z

NDAA is the National Defense Authorization Act. Two sections of the bill permit the Kidnapping (arrest and indefinite detention without due process) of both citizens and non-citizens, charged with being tangentially related to terrorist groups or activities.

Members of Congress keep misleading constituents about what the bill actually does.

DownsizeDC.org already addressed the lie, "Don't Worry, the NDAA exempts Americans" back on January 17. We consider that to be Part 1 in our responding to lies series.

The Latest Lie

A DC Downsizer writes, "Senator (blank)'s office is claiming that the NDAA gives the executive no new authority and only codifies a 2001 Supreme Court decision."

This is supposed to make us feel better?

It doesn't matter whether the office making this claim realizes they are prevaricating or they're just ignorant and repeating a fable they've been told. Neither explanation of their behavior reflects well on them.

Let's strip the cleverness. What are they're ACTUALLY saying?

"For years, the Executive Branch has usurped and used very similar powers. We, in Congress, have come along and brought the code of law in compliance with these acts. We have merely provided our endorsement and cover to them."

Now, there's actually a grain of truth in that statement, when it's rendered that accurately. The Executive branch was outside the law. So what the Senator's office is really saying is, "Two wrongs make a right."

But this answer is still misleading because this bill does NEW things . . .

1) For the first time, America was declared part of the "battlefield" in the war on terrorism.

* Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who backed the bill, indicated that the bill “basically say(s) in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield,” and that people can be imprisoned without charge or trial “American citizen or not.”
* Another supporter, Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) also declared that the bill is needed because “America is part of the battlefield.”

2) Indefinite detention for American citizens was also novel.

Consider the following exchange between him and Senator Rand Paul from the Senate floor . . .

MR. PAUL: My question would be, under the provisions, would it be possible that an American citizen could be declared an 'enemy combatant' and sent to Guantanamo Bay, and detained indefinitely?

MR. McCAIN: I think that as long as that individual, NO MATTER WHO THEY ARE, if they POSE A THREAT to the security of the United States of America, should not be allowed to continue the threat.

3) As of yet, no bill calls for total repeal of BOTH offending sections, 1021 and 1022. But there are bills by Senator Diane Feinstein, Ron Paul, and others, calling for modification or repeal of various aspects.

Why would such bills be necessary, and even more important, why are they being resisted, IF, no new power is represented here?

Repeal 1021? Well, we don't really need it because the power already existed, right?
Declare that America is not part of the battlefield, continuing with Posse Comitatus? Why not, since there's nothing new here?
Exempt Americans? Why object, if there's nothing novel about this law?

By the way, since there's an office saying that there's a Supreme Court case, and they are merely "ratifying," then I'm curious about two more things . . .

1) What is the decision to which they are referring?

2) What clause in the Constitution permitted either the Executive Branch or the Supreme Court to create a law, and the Congress to come along and "ratify" it? Isn't this EXPRESSLY the opposite of the Constitutional design, whereby the elected representatives of the people legislate?

I hate to name names because this "Don't Worry" lying campaign is widespread amongst Congress-criminals. Call your Reps and Senators to find out if they are among the guilty.

Copyright (c) 2012 by Jim Babka. Permission to distribute this blog post for educational purposes is granted, if done with attribution to the author and the DownsizeDC.org, Inc. Permission to use for commercial purposes is denied.

Please share it with others. Please tell your friends that they can receive similar material in the future by subscribing to our free email newsletter, The Downsizer-Dispatch.

URGENT - NDAA Protest Day: Oppose Federal Kidnapping

2012-02-03T05:42:00Z

TODAY, Friday, February 3 is NDAA Protest Day. Thousands of patriots will be protesting at local Congressional offices.

YOU can participate in the protest, even if you are unable to attend in person. But first...

Some Background

NDAA is the National Defense Authorization Act, signed into law by President Obama on New Year's Eve 2011. Sections 1021 and 1022 authorize the President to "indefinitely detain" (kidnap) ANY person - American or non-citizen - without bringing charges and without a day in court. Learn more.

The Tenth Amendment Center asked DownsizeDC.org President Jim Babka to present a detailed yet plausible scenario, whereby these kidnapping provisions could be used to snare activists.

The Backlash

Anger toward the NDAA was immediate. DownsizeDC.org fought against the bill before passage, and launched its repeal campaign on January 9. At least three repeal bills have been proposed. Regrettably, none are sufficient...

Rep. Ron Paul's bill HR 3785 repeals Section 1021 but not 1022.
Rep. Jeff Landry's HR 3676 would restore Constitutional protections for American citizens but denies them to foreigners -- even legal residents.
Sen. Diane Feinstein's bill S.2003 restores due process to American citizens and lawful alien residents but seems to deny even a citizen’s due process rights if apprehended on foreign soil.

In addition, citizens are working through their states and local communities to communicate their opposition to Sections 1021 and 1022. For instance...

Resolutions have passed in two counties in Colorado, and the Northampton MA city council was scheduled to vote on a resolution yesterday.
An Act, sponsored by Delegate Bob Marshall, requires state employee NON-compliance with 1021 and 1022 of the NDAA on American citizens. It quickly passed out of committee, and on to the Virginia legislature.
The Bill of Rights Defense Committee provides tools for you to get involved locally
And the Tenth Amendment Center is also working at the local level

NDAA Protest Day

The event is TODAY from noon to 7pm at your Representative's Congressional District offices throughout the country. Downsize DC is not involved in planning or coordination these in-person protests, but it appears that you can come when you can, as long as you can.

If you are able to attend, you can locate the office nearest you here: http://www.house.gov/representatives/

More information here: http://www.facebook.com/events/335643799778967/

If you are unable to attend, then PLEASE call Your Representative and Senators.

To call, go to your Downsize DC "District Information" page. If you're logged in that link is located in Your Toolbox. It contains each of their phone numbers: https://secure.downsizedc.org/toolbox/district/info

Here are a few words you can use...

It is a cowardly act to surrender our freedoms in the name of fighting terrorists. Please introduce legislation that repeals Section 1021 and 1022 of the NDAA and restore strong due process rights for all.

BUT IF YOU DO NOTHING ELSE, send a letter: Go to DownsizeDC.org's Repeal Indefinite Detention Campaign.

You may borrow from or copy this...

It is often said that terrorists hate us because of our freedom.

So if we give up our freedom in the name of fighting terrorists, doesn't that mean they win?

That's a cowardly act!

It started with the Patriot Act. It continued with other terrible bills such as the Military Commissions Act. But Sections 1021 and 1022 of the NDAA endanger EVERYONE's freedom.

These provisions authorize the military to kidnap any person whom this, or any future President decrees is a "terrorist." Non-Americans and Americans alike. On foreign soil AND our soil. For as long as there are "hostilities," i.e., possibly forever.

What if any other country passed such a law? Would you travel there? Wouldn't our own State Department condemn such a human rights violation? Would you call its people "free" or "unfree?"

The power to kidnap, to "disappear" people, is the mark of a backward tyranny.

The NDAA destroyed a legal tradition going back to the nearly 800 year-old Magna Carta. The protection of persons from arbitrary arrest and imprisonment is the very foundation of a free society. It's one of the crown jewels of civilization. It makes us feel fortunate to live in a country like the United States.

Make us proud to be Americans once again.

Please introduce legislation that repeals Section 1021 and 1022 of the NDAA. Restore strong due process rights for all.

END LETTER

You can send your letter using DownsizeDC.org's Educate the Powerful System.

Thank you for taking part. Encourage your friends to do the same!

James Wilson
Policy Research Director
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

YOU Won in the Supreme Court

2012-02-02T14:16:00Z

The Supreme Court has decided "Antoine Jones v U.S." You won and The State lost, 9-0. The High Court ruled unanimously that police must have a warrant before they can attach GPS tracking devices to your vehicles.

This is an historic decision and DC Downsizers merit much of the credit. You've helped fund many previous Supreme Court briefs, but never before has your influence been so clear. We had an impact with two different briefs at two different stages of the case . . .

In the Petition brief, we urged the court to take the case, re-examine its Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, and restore the property basis of the Fourth Amendment. We wrote, "The original objective, property-based text and purpose of the Fourth Amendment should be revived and applied."

The Court responded directly. "Petition GRANTED. In addition... the parties are directed to brief... Whether the government violated respondent's Fourth Amendment rights by installing the GPS tracking device on his vehicle without a valid warrant and without his consent." (Emphasis added)

That's YOUR victory.

But the second victory was even better. It may change judicial reasoning far into the future.

Our briefs asked the Justices to restore the 4th Amendment's protection of your property rights. For the past 43 years the Court's 4th Amendment decisions have been based on a right to privacy, NOT property. But the privacy protection is a much weaker standard. Our briefs, and ONLY our briefs, specifically aimed to restore the property right protection.

Our argument prevailed! Look at what Justice Scalia wrote in his majority opinion . . .

"The text of the Fourth Amendment reflects its close connection to property, since otherwise it would have referred simply to 'the right of the people to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures'; the phrase 'in their persons, houses, papers and effects' would have been superfluous."

This was our point exactly.

Four other briefs mentioned property in passing. Ours majored in it. Only we asked the Court to make a fundamental course correction. Our strategy prevailed. As a result, the Jones decision even includes a frank admission of how far the Court has strayed from the Constitutional text:

"Our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence was tied to common-law trespass, at least until the latter half of the 20th century (but) our later cases... have deviated from that exclusively property-based approach" in favor of a more flexible, modernist analysis based upon the Court's perceptions of a "reasonable expectation of privacy."

This too shows the influence of our briefs. We explained the history of 4th Amendment jurisprudence and specifically argued for a return to the original text. This "history lesson" contributed to the majority decision:

"The Government physically occupied private property for the purpose of obtaining information. We have no doubt that such a physical intrusion would have been considered a 'search' within the Fourth Amendment when it was adopted."

In addition, we ALONE asserted the valiant proposition that it was NEVER possible for the government to attach a GPS to an automobile for the purpose of gathering general evidence. The Fourth Amendment does not permit "fishing expeditions." The author of another brief told me our position was "extremist." At this link you'll see why I thanked him for the compliment.

Here's the key issue . . .

Throughout history, The State has been fond of issuing general warrants. Such "warrants" were fishing expeditions designed to quell and intimidate potential opposition. That's why the Framers specifically wrote the 4th Amendment to prohibit general warrants. Instead, warrants must be based on a specific and probable cause. They must also be particular about where the police can look and what is being sought.

Our brief made these points by focusing on a crucial English case from 1765, Entick v Carrington. This case was well-known to the Founders. It's been cited in two previous Supreme Court cases. Justice Scalia's majority opinion celebrates Entick as a "monument of English freedom," that explains "in plain terms the significance of property rights in search and seizure analysis."

Scalia continued: "Our law holds the property of every man so sacred, that no man can set his foot upon his neighbor's close without his leave; if he does he is a trespasser, though he does no damage at all; if he will tread upon his neighbor's ground, he must justify it by law."

Scalia is echoing our UNIQUE historical argument based on Entick v. Carrington.

Would the Court have returned to the property-based approach without our briefs? Who knows? All we know is that we were the only group to submit all the fundamental arguments that most guided this landmark ruling. Our fingerprints, YOUR fingerprints, are all over this decision.

And that stoked us to send a press release, touting your success.

You see, the Downsize DC Foundation took a lead role in funding this effort. Your contributions made this possible.

But we need to be ready to jump on other opportunities as they come up (e.g., we're hearing rumors of another opportunity in the Obamacare case).

Plus, hard-hitting legal briefs aren't the only thing the Foundation does. We also do educational work that is just as unique as the legal briefs we support. You can read it at our DownsizeDCFoundation.org blog.

I've already told you that we're going to be much more aggressive this year. We have a very modest goal -- average monthly income need to equal in dollars the number of subscribers to this list. With 32,119 subscribers, our goal is $32,119.

As January ended the combined income for the Downsize DC Foundation and DownsizeDC.org, Inc. was $12,596, which was not only short of our goal, but also shy of our budget.

To do better this month, some DC Downsizers could make generous one-time, TAX-DEDUCTIBLE contributions to the Downsize DC Foundation. Last year's largest donor gave $15,000, but lots of individual contributions of other amounts all combined to make a difference.

To reach the goal in future months, please consider making a monthly pledge.

Are you as inspired as I am by this landmark win? If so, please support this work, even if it's a $1 per month pledge. As you can see, we do a lot with a little.

Thank you to everyone who made this resounding victory possible,

Jim Babka
President
Downsize DC Foundation

One Simple Act to Create More Jobs and Revive the Economy

2012-02-01T15:56:00Z

ANNOUNCEMENT: National NDAA Protest Day is this FRIDAY, February 3 from noon to 7pm at your nearest Congressional office. See details in the P.S.

Do you believe corporations have too much influence in Washington?

There's one simple way to remove a signficant portion of that influence and revive the economy at the same time.

But you may find it radical...

Abolish corporate income taxes.

If this idea seems strange or even abhorrent to you, then please read this letter I sent to my Representative and Senators and consider the arguments...

In his State of the Union address, the President frequently threatened to tax corporations for doing things he doesn't like and recommended tax breaks for corporations he likes. http://bit.ly/yT5Trp

Instead he should've called for the abolition of ALL corporate income taxes.

You don't have to be a conservative ideologue to oppose these taxes. They simply don't work...

* Corporate income taxes bring in only about $200 billion in a year - far less than 10% of revenues and about 1/7 of the deficit.
* The only nation with a higher corporate tax rate is Japan, which has been in a slump for 20 years.

Taxing corporations is NOT a form of taxing the rich, because shareholders include the pension funds and 401(k)s of the middle class and retirees. Not only that, but corporate taxes kill jobs and stifle wages. Here's how...

* When adding in the cost of compliance with the tax code, corporate taxes cost corporations about $250 billion per year.
* Tax compliance costs PER EMPLOYEE range from $517 in large firms to $1,584 in small firms (http://archive.sba.gov/advo/research/rs371tot.pdf, Table 1)

Companies pass on these costs through...

* Lower wages for employees
* Higher prices for consumers
* Less money for investment in innovation or job-creating expansion
* Smaller taxable earnings for shareholders
* Or, they leave the country altogether for a more business-friendly environment, killing even more jobs in the process

And that last point explains why most Americans sense that manufacturing jobs have left.

And these costs even work against the alleged goals politicians like you advocate...

* Less is collected from individual income taxes
* And MORE is spent on anti-poverty programs

Isn't it fair to say that these costs are far greater than the revenues from corporate taxes?

The U.S. would gain a competitive advantage over every other country by simply eliminating the corporate income tax altogether.

* Corporations would relocate to the U.S., the new "tax haven."
* Leading to better wages, lower prices, and more jobs.
* The expanding economy would quickly compensate for the "loss" of corporate tax revenue.
* The anti-poverty rolls would shrink and so would the burdensome expense of these programs.

Ending the corporate income tax would also mitigate corruption. Corporate influence in Washington would be reduced because companies can't lobby for tax breaks when they're not paying taxes in the first place!

This isn't about ideology. It's in the national interest to repeal the corporate income tax and to elimate similar taxes on non-incorporated firms.

END LETTER

If you agree, we encourage you to send your own letter to Congress. You may borrow from or copy the the above.

Do your friends know that the U.S. has a higher corporate income tax rate than all of our competitors except Japan? Do you think they would find this letter interesting and persuasive? Then please share this message with open minds and encourage them to join you in taking action.

James Wilson
Policy Research Director
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

P.S. On Friday, February 3 from noon until 7pm, citizens of all parties and ideologies will come together to protest will the kidnapping provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) at local Congressional offices.

DownsizeDC.org is not organizing or coordinating this event. To learn more, check out this Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/events/335643799778967/

DownsizeDC.org will provide tools for those who can't participate in person. Stay tuned for details.

VICTORY! "One Subject" Introduced in Congress!

2012-01-31T15:10:00Z

We have a major victory to report. It's been a LONG TIME coming.

The "One Subject at a Time Act" has finally been introduced in Congress!

Freshman Representative Tom Marino of Pennsylvania is the sponsor. The bill number is HR 3806.

We encourage you to give him POSITIVE FEEDBACK. Can we flood his Facebook page with positive comments and his congressional office with phone calls?

http://www.facebook.com/CongressmanMarino
(202) 225-3731

The Williamsport Tea Party was a crucial ally. This is a unique group that was well-organized and principle-focused (instead of candidate-centered). They had a clear objective. They maintained persistent pressure.

This morning, we sent a press release to several hundred media outlets. Here's a sample: http://tinyurl.com/863k7ma

NOW we can begin to attract co-sponsors, IF . . .

We can build a sound foundation. Here's what we mean . . .

We accomplish a lot with a little. THIS YEAR that little NEEDS to average $1 per subscriber per month. This is a perfectly reasonable goal. It's a modest price for what we provide.

Here's where we stand . . .

We have 32,123 subscribers.
We've raised $11,704.91 so far this month.

This amounts to 36 cents per subscriber. We're 64 cents per subscriber shy of our humble goal.

Are you as thrilled as I am that we have gotten an ORIGINAL, Downsize DC Agenda bill sponsored in Congress?

We don't want to stop there, do we?

You see, getting to this point was NOT easy. It took lots of time.

Often, when dealing with legislative offices, you invest energy at the expense of more immediate, more certain opportunities. Dealing with these constantly-distracted congressional offices requires persistence and patience. There's no guarantee of progress, let alone success. But, it all comes down to this . . .

Getting more sponsors requires more organization with a larger army behind it -- and that means a bigger budget. But we can do a lot with a little.

So, do you like what we're doing? Please start a monthly pledge or make a one-time donation.

Jim Babka
President
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

P.S. I described our GOAL above. But we're on the last day of the month, and Downsize DC is shy of our actual BUDGET need by about $2,600. Your generous support is needed. It would be very encouraging to my team if someone reading this could contribute that balance today.

Booing the Golden Rule

2012-01-25T14:08:00Z

A personal message from Perry Willis, Co-Founder and Vice President of the Downsize DC Foundation

Ron Paul called for a "golden rule for foreign policy" during the recent presidential debate in South Carolina. The audience booed.

This reaction shocked me, given that most of the people booing were almost certainly Evangelicals. Jesus taught the Golden Rule. Did Christians now hate it? Would Jesus have booed what Ron Paul said? Is there some Christian principle by which Jesus's teachings DO NOT APPLY to foreign policy, national defense, and the conduct of war?

I called Jim Babka to discuss this. Jim is a believer, and I am not. Still, we agree about many things. We were both shocked that Christians would boo the Golden Rule -- IN ANY CONTEXT. You probably won't be surprised to learn that Jim had lots of insight to offer, some of which appears below.

We both think our society has a huge moral failing when it comes to recognizing and condemning state criminality. We both think that the Evangelical community is especially at fault in this regard. Too many Christians support actions by The State that they would condemn as criminal if committed by an individual. In other words, many Christians are moral relativists when it comes to The State.

Jim and I both think that changing this is essential to Downsizing DC.

But we have failed to take action to help cause this change because of FEAR that my fellow NON-BELIEVERS would oppose the project. So I want to ask the non-believers reading this to seriously consider the following questions . . .

Can you achieve your goals if the Christian populace is against you? Does the math work? Are there enough of you to gain what you seek without the aid of your Christian neighbors?

And if you need the help of Christians in order to win, how can you gain that help if you will not talk to them and address their concerns?

And if you're going to talk to them, wouldn't it be most effective to do so using their own religious language and concepts?

Shouldn't those of us who are non-believers be the most enthusiastic cheerleaders for a project to encourage Christians to defend the Golden Rule in all things?

Even though I'm a non-believer, I very much want to collaborate with my Christian neighbors in Downsizing DC. I asked Jim to write a "chain-letter" that the Downsize DC Foundation would distribute among Christians as part of our educational mission.

The booing of The Golden Rule during the South Carolina debate is a teachable moment. Jim's letter addresses this.

Jim was enthusiastic about the goal, but fearful that the non-believers on our list would protest. So that's the purpose of what you're reading now -- to convince fellow non-believers to support this project.

Jim and I have quite different religious beliefs. But we work together every day to promote shared values. Please join us in this cause.

I strongly hope that the non-believers receiving this will embrace Jim's letter to the Christians, just as I do.
And if you're a Christian then I hope that you'll help spread Jim's letter to your fellow believers.

Personally, I think The Golden Rule is a self-evident concept about which believers and non-believers should be able to agree and unite. Let's make common cause for the defense of this profound principle, which has existed in all societies as far back as we have records. Jim's epistle to the Christians follows my signature. Please help it to win a large audience. Spread it to every Christian you know. Forward it. Link to it on Facebook and Google+. Tweet about it.

Thank you,

Perry Willis
Co-founder and Vice President
Downsize DC Foundation

Would Jesus Have Booed Ron Paul's "Golden Rule for Foreign Policy?" by Jim Babka for the Downsize DC Foundation

This is an open letter to my fellow Christians. If it moves you, please share it with other believers. It is intended to be a chain letter, to spread and cause discussion.

Here is The Golden Rule as expressed by Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ . . .

"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you..." And in this instance its "golden" because it "...sums up the Law and the Prophets." [Matthew 7:12 (NIV)]

On Tuesday, January 17, 2012, in the South Carolina Republican debate, candidate Ron Paul said the following...

My point is, if another country does to us what we do others, we're not going to like it very much. So I would say that maybe we ought to consider a golden rule in foreign policy. [loud boos begin to drown out Paul] Don't do to other nations what we don't want to have them do to us. [indecipherable angry shouts can be heard]

The booing stunned me. Maybe it wouldn't have a while back. Maybe I would've booed too. After all . . .

I was brought up in a fundamentalist church, educated at a Baptist school, thanks to parents who listened to Christian radio. My father was a Goldwater/Reagan Republican. I was a College Republican and a "dittohead" (Rush Limbaugh fan). In my adulthood, I taught Sunday School in two mainstream Evangelical churches.

Therefore, I understand that South Carolina crowd. But there's no disputing that many of them booed the words of their professed Messiah.

My heart has grown and my mind has transformed. So when the booing happened during the debate, I thought . . .

"Would Jesus have booed?"

Jesus advocated The Golden Rule. Ron Paul advocated applying The Golden Rule. But the Christian crowd booed the words "golden rule."

Someone committed an error. Was it Jesus? Was it Ron Paul? Or was it the church-going crowd?

Is there any way to defend that crowd without rejecting Jesus?

As I said, maybe I too would have booed in the past. I suspect I would've justified myself as follows . . .

The Golden Rule doesn't apply to government, which according to Romans 13 was given the "power of the sword" to "terrorize evildoers."
Ron Paul was being naive. These are dangerous Muslim terrorists, and they want to kill innocent Americans. The Golden Rule doesn't apply to Al Qaeda. They will see meekness as weakness and hurt us some more.

Indeed, according to Romans 13, government leaders are to be a terror to evildoers. The "power of the sword" may be required.

But candidate Paul advocates policies that accord perfectly with Romans 13. He admits that war is sometimes necessary. His only caveat is that Congress must first declare it. Mr. Paul argues that this legal impediment helps to ensure that war is pursued rarely and with sufficient cause. This position has the virtue of being consistent with Christian tradition (Just War) and the Constitution.

But is it somehow naive? And if so, was Jesus naive?

Consider what some call the hardest verses in the Bible, Matthew 5:38-42. They come from the Sermon on the Mount . . .

"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' 39 But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. 40 If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. 41 And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. 42 Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away."

And these thoughts are echoed in Romans 12:17-20 (see also Proverbs 25:21-22) . . .

"17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. 18 If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19 Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: 'It is mine to avenge; I will repay,' says the Lord. 20 On the contrary: If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head."

Is this how we conduct our foreign policy? Is this how we defend ourselves? Or is it possible that Jesus knows more about true security than either our politicians or that Christian crowd in South Carolina?

Didn't our Savior admonish us, AT A MINIMUM, to at least stop for a moment and ponder the following possibility . . .

that listening to our enemies,
considering their concerns,
and treating them always as we would want to be treated,
even going the extra mile with them

. . . might help them decide that they no longer want to terrorize or attack us? Conversely . . .

Isn't it possible that our hyper-aggressive, vengeful approach has actually created more enemies for us than it has killed? Don't Christ's words strongly suggest that this is not only possible, but probable?

And haven't Christians made this mistake before?

Every good Protestant knows that a lot of harm has been done to the reputation of the church due to crusades and inquisitions. But what American Evangelicals don't seem to know is that in certain other parts of the world the crusades are still underway, AND WE ARE THE CRUSADERS.

Stated differently, millions of Muslims think Christians are not ambassadors of The Gospel (good news). Instead, they view "Christian" America as a military force, intent on occupying and looting.

This problem goes back decades. Our politicians have constantly propped up foreign rulers who are friendly to us, but oppressive and offensive to their people. This has made the American people complicit in the crimes of dictators. It has made people hate us. By contrast . . .

A Golden Rule foreign policy takes note of the actual motives of your enemy, not the made up propaganda ones like, "They hate us because we're free."

Moreover, in the economy of God's Kingdom -- where the last are first, the greatest is the servant, and enemies deserve love -- love is a battle strategy! It's a way to quell your enemies, even to heap coals on their heads.

It's also the parsimonious method of achieving victory. Lives are saved, literally and spiritually. It avoids the killing of innocents, the death of troops, and the destruction of the bodies and minds of war survivors. And the profiteering of bankers and agents of death are all minimized or eliminated.

Having a Golden Rule foreign policy is not a doe-eyed innocent's suggestion that suddenly the lion is now ready to lay with the lamb. It's NOT pacifism. Rather, it's an assertion that there's far more war than there needs to be. It's the faith that a Tower of Babel, full of wise men (politicians), can't accomplish nearly as much with coercive force as can be achieved following God's instructions, from Scripture, with grace.

But what if they STILL want to kill us?

Well, even candidate Paul voted to go after Bin Laden following 9/11. Having a Golden Rule foreign policy doesn't rule out a Congressional declaration of war (something that hasn't happened since 1941). Sometimes, you have to fight.

But the policy of our current leaders, in BOTH parties, is that we should be LOOKING for fights, until every nation is acting in OUR interests. Listen to the words of the other GOP candidates; you'll hear it. In the debates, they've been especially fond of saying that Pakistan and Afghanistan should be looking out for U.S. interests.

How would we feel if some other power was trying to make us look out for them, instead of our own interests? Oh wait: That's The Golden Rule popping up again.

You see, we want to be treated a certain way! Jesus taught us to empathize. He said that we must show AT LEAST equal respect to others. But, as you've already seen, he actually advocated going even further. He said we should consistently treat people even BETTER than they deserve!

The equal respect part of this -- The Golden Rule -- is very nearly a universal ethic. It can be found in virtually every major religion and most major philosophical systems. It teaches us, as does nature, that we cannot expect to be treated well if we don't treat others with decency. That makes The Golden Rule the most practical rule in the world.

It's a law of reciprocity. But compare it with other forms of reciprocity, like an eye-for-an-eye. The Golden Rule is an ethic that is not only more gracious, but also potentially rich with opportunity. It's reflected in the words, "Father forgive them, for they know not what they do," when we all know that instead, the man who spoke those words could've called ten thousand angels to his aid.

Instead of booing, shouldn't we pause and prayerfully consider whether our Savior's wisdom applies?

Who was wrong? Was it Jesus? Ron Paul? Or the Christians who booed the Golden Rule?

I think the answer is obvious. What do you think?

Copyright (c) 2012 by Jim Babka. Permission to distribute this blog post for educational purposes is granted, if done with attribution to the author and the Downsize DC Foundation. Permission to use for commercial purposes is denied.

This message is an educational service of the Downsize DC Foundation. Please share it with others. Please tell your friends that they can receive similar material in the future by subscribing to our free email newsletter, The Downsizer-Dispatch.

Stop Taxing Our Children

2012-01-24T15:04:00Z

Media Alert: Downsize DC President Jim Babka guest-hosts a radio show tomorrow. Details in the P.S.

Quote of the Day: "Public debt allows present taxpayers to reduce their tax payments and obligates future taxpayers to amortize that debt, and it is here that the burden of the debt resides." – Dick Wagner (hat tip: Don Boudreaux)

For the first time since World War II, the national debt is larger than the Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

The debt is now over $15.2 trillion (http://www.usdebtclock.org/). In contrast, it was "only" $5.67 trillion in 2000.

Our children will be poorer because of the fiscal recklessness of the Bush-Obama years. MUCH poorer.

That's why I wrote a letter telling Congress to end deficit spending, using DownsizeDC.org's Cap the Debt Campaign.

The hard-wired message says simply...

Do NOT raise the debt ceiling ever again.

I wrote these additional comments...

Government borrowing is theft. I'll prove it to you.

Let's say I consume more than I earn today on a Vegas spending spree, using my credit card. Starting next month, more of my income must be devoted to a higher monthly credit card payment. The credit card issuer paid for my consumption and must be paid back.

This means...

* I'll have less money in the future
* I must consume, save, or invest less than I otherwise could have

This is true EVEN if my income rises, and the relative burden of the credit card payments decrease over time. I still won't be as wealthy as I would have been.

Likewise, when the Federal State blows more money than it receives in revenue, it must borrow the difference...

* Taxpayers will either pay higher taxes or see their purchasing power devalued by inflation, in order to service the debt, making them poorer.
* Or, if the State defaults, the bondholders who lent to the State won't get their money back, and THEY are poorer as a result.

A Vegas bash on the plastic is foolishness that I must own. I'm the only one who has to pay later. However, when the Federal State spends more than it takes in, it robs the next generation of their wealth, before they can even vote. This "taxation without representation" is really intergenerational theft.

Stop taxing our children. Stop deficit spending. Instead, cut spending NOW to balance the budget NOW...

* Make deep cuts in the Pentagon budget, end the wars, and bring the troops home
* Abolish unconstitutional, harmful, and wasteful Departments such as Education, Energy, HUD, and Homeland Security
* Remain faithful to those currently dependent on Social Security and Medicare, but make reforms to drastically reduce their long-term costs and liberate the next generation from the system
* Dismantle the regulatory State and enact real tax reform to boost employment and restore prosperity

The costs of Congress's spendthrift ways are incalculable. The least you can do is stop harming our children.

STOP deficit spending. STOP adding to the national debt. STOP NOW.

END LETTER

I encourage you to send a letter, and you may borrow from or copy the above comments.

James Wilson
Policy Research Director
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

P.S. Jerrol LeBaron wants to make legislators in every state to READ THEIR BILLS. He wants Honor In Office.

But Jerrol's just one man. He chose a small state with a ballot initiative process, and tried to get rules for legislators put on the ballot. A new documentary, "Fools on the Hill," covers his quest and why it matters to all of us.

DownsizeDC.org's Read the Bills Act is an inspiration for Jerrol, and he joins Jim Babka, tomorrow (Wednesday), as he guest-hosts Straight Talk w/Jerry Hughes.

You can listen live at 2:07 PM Eastern (1:07 PM Central, 12:07 PM Mountain, and 11:07 PM Pacific).

To hear the show on the web, or to find a local station, visit the network's website.

Affiliates can be found in Alabama, California, Florida, Georgia, Missouri, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Utah, and Oregon.

Jim will monitor his Twitter account for comments and questions during the broadcast. @JimBabka

Stop Internet Censorship Day

2012-01-18T13:38:00Z

Today, major websites are protesting a bill that could decimate the Internet, as we know it. I'm not given to hyperbolic rhetoric. But that's not an exaggeration.

Wikipedia, Reddit, and others are going black, in protest of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). Google announced they will offer a link on their home page. But for a moment, I want you to imagine life with out YouTube and your favorite search engine. They might survive this law because they're big. But they definitely won't be the same.

And you won't be as free to express yourself.

DownsizeDC.org is NOT going black today. Our part in this protest to encourage people to contact members of Congress and tell them to KILL this bill. Our message?

* Don't fix it.
* Don't reform it.
* Don't amend it.

As you'll see in the video below, SOPA is unnecessary. This bill should be ripped out by its roots and left to die in the blistering Sun.

You can send your message to Congress using DownsizeDC.org's Educate The Powerful (ETP) System.

@sirpengi and Jacob Miller have provided this excellent, CONCISE, explanation and video about SOPA and its Senate companion. You can use this material to fashion your own personal letter to your Representative and two Senators . . .

PROTECT IP / SOPA Breaks The Internet from Fight for the Future on Vimeo.

What is SOPA?
The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA, H.R. 3261) is on the surface a bill that attempts to curb online piracy. Sadly, the proposed way it goes about doing this would devastate the online economy and the overall freedom of the web. It would particularly affect sites with heavy user generated content. Sites like YouTube, Reddit, Twitter, and others may cease to exist in their current form if this bill is passed.

What is PIPA?
The Protect IP Act (PIPA, S. 968) is SOPA's twin in the Senate. Under current DMCA law, if a user uploads a copyrighted movie to sites like Youtube, the site isn't held accountable so long as they provide a way to report user infringement. The user who uploaded the movie is held accountable for their actions, not the site. PIPA would change that - it would place the blame on the site itself, and would also provide a way for copyright holders to seize the site's domain in extreme circumstances.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation laid out four excellent points as to why the bills are not only dangerous, but are also not effective for what they are trying to accomplish:

* The blacklist bills are expensive. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that PIPA alone would cost the taxpayers at least $47 million over 5 years, and could cost the private sector many times more. Those costs would be carried mostly by the tech industry, hampering growth and innovation.
* The blacklist bills silence legitimate speech. Rightsholders, ISPs, or the government could shut down sites with accusations of infringement, and without real due process.
* The blacklist bills are bad for the architecture of the Internet. But don't take our word for it: see the open letters that dozens of the Internet's concerned creators have submitted to Congress about the impact the bills would have on the security of the web.
* The blacklist bills won't stop online piracy. The tools these bills would grant rightsholders are like chainsaws in an operating room: they do a lot of damage, and they aren't very effective in the first place. The filtering methods might dissuade casual users, but they would be trivial for dedicated and technically savvy users to circumvent.

Remember, you can send your message to Congress using DownsizeDC.org's ETP System.

Remember then, to use the very mediums the Statists fear -- social media -- to spread this message far and wide. Encourage others to JOIN YOU in defending the Internet using our ETP System.

And if you can, please support this work.

Jim Babka
President
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

How YOU Might Be Called a Terrorist

2012-01-17T13:59:00Z

Media Alert: Downsize DC President Jim Babka guest-hosts a radio show tomorrow. Details in the P.S.

Downsize DC President Jim Babka recently wrote an analysis of the detainee provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act. You can read it at the Tenth Amendment Center.

I have borrowed some of his analogies and facts to write a letter to Congress urging repeal of these provisions. I urge you to do the same.

You may borrow from or copy these comments...

Jim Babka explains a plausible scenario... (http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/01/04/ndaa-open-season-for-the-police-state/)

* You're concerned about the future of the country and meet with others every week in an activist group.
* One night, a new fellow shows up. He’s frustrated and outspoken. He complains that the time for meetings is over. Something must be done — something that will “get their attention.”
* You’re uncomfortable with his remarks but unsure how to respond; you hope he never returns, and he doesn’t.

But later, you discover...

* A couple of your colleagues met with the newcomer and decided to carry out a plot against a U.S. Government facility.
* Your club's meeting places and email accounts were used in their communications.
* Because of the actions of a few, your club is designated a "terrorist organization."
* You’ve donated to the club. You’ve participated in its meetings. The night this angry man walked in, you didn’t call the authorities.

As a result, the President can have the military come and arrest you, and you can be held indefinitely in a military facility without charges.

It doesn't matter what the cause may be: environmental, anti-war, pro-life, religious, or anything else. Fear of being swept up because of inadvertent "association" with terrorist plotters will chill free speech and political involvement.

Many in Congress claim the bill exempted Americans. I know that's not true! As Babka further explains...

* Section 1021 exempts NOBODY (despite a last minute amendment).
* Section 1022 doesn't REQUIRE the President to detain Americans in military facility, but it allows the OPTION.

Under these provisions, I have no "rights." Must I fear getting involved in politics?

How can you, as an American, tolerate this? Do you want to be remembered as part of a Congress that passed these provisions?

This Congress CAN redeem itself. Repeal these provisions and restore due process to EVERYONE.

END LETTER

You can send your letter using DownsizeDC.org's Educate the Powerful System.

James Wilson
Policy Research Director
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

P.S. Are libertarians placing too much stock in the Ron Paul campaign?

Paul Craig Roberts says nothing's more important because Paul is "America's Last Chance"

Professor Matt Zwolinski, of the Bleeding Heart Libertarians blog, argues that the Paul campaign is siphoning off too much energy for the payoff.

Mr. Zwolinski joins Jim Babka, tomorrow (Wednesday), as he guest-hosts Straight Talk w/Jerry Hughes.

You can listen live at 2:07 PM Eastern (1:07 PM Central, 12:07 PM Mountain, and 11:07 PM Pacific).

To hear the show on the web, or to find a local station, visit the network's website.

Affiliates can be found in Alabama, California, Florida, Georgia, Missouri, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Utah, and Oregon.

I will monitor my Twitter account for comments and questions during the broadcast. @JimBabka

ECONOMIC FREEDOM: America is NOT #1 on this list, but it should be

2012-01-16T15:18:00Z

Quote of the Day: "No man has ever ruled other men for their own good." -- George Herron (1862-1925)

Hooray! We're number ten! Nine other nations are more economically free than the United States. Should we be proud or angry that politicians have taken so heavily regulated away our prosperity?

I've written a very passionate letter that might not be appropriate in all Congressional districts, using DownsizeDC.org's "Obey the Constitution" campaign.

The hardwired letter to Congress for that campaign reads . . .

Please obey the Constitution's limits on federal power.

To this I added the following spirited comments . . .

Your obedience to your oath of office is especially important to me given the latest Index of Economic Freedom, compiled by the Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal. You can find an overview of that report here: http://www.heritage.org/index/

I'm furious to see that the United States ranks ONLY number 10 on the list. We should be number one. The fact that we are NOT number one is YOUR FAULT.

If you obeyed your oath to the Constitution then we would be number one, easily. It is only your willful law-breaking, and that of your partners in crime in Congress, that has allowed us to slip so far.

I fire companies that fail to please me. I really wish I could fire you.

I am all-powerful as a consumer but almost completely powerless as a citizen.

* I have to get 50-plus-percent of the people in my area to agree on your replacement before I can get rid of you.

* And I have to get that many people in the entire country to agree just to get rid of unlawful programs that I DO NOT WANT.

* If I'm successful, I get a booby prize -- a new set of politicians who will be gangsters, just like the old set.

Please take note that there is NO institution in the Voluntary Sector that works this way. It is only the Coercive Sector -- The State -- that works in this matter.

All I can do is withdraw my consent. Let me be very clear about this . . .

You do not have my consent to govern me.

You have no legitimate power, because I will delegate none to you.

If you want to correct this situation and restore some of your legitimacy, then you must . . .

* start obeying the Constitution. This means that you must ONLY do things that are among the enumerated powers granted in the Constitution.

* abide by a correct, narrow interpretation of the Commerce Clause, which was only intended to create a free trade zone among the states. It was NOT meant to permit you to regulate peaceful, honest economic activities.

If you take these steps, then America will be number one again. If you do NOT take these steps, then "we the people" will be forced to "alter or abolish you."

Do not fool yourself. Peaceful but fundamental change is coming. The days of the gangster-politician are numbered.

END LETTER

You can send a letter of your own, borrowing from my personal comments if you want, using DownsizeDC.org's Educate the Powerful System.

Please share this message with others, by forwarding it, and promoting it via Twitter, Facebook, and Google+. These actions make the uprising grow.

Do you appreciate this plain, non-euphemistic talk? Please consider making a contribution to further this work.

Perry Willis
Co-founder
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

Iran's Defiance is Not Surprising

2012-01-12T14:55:00Z

I wrote the following letter to my Representative and Senators telling them to oppose conflict with Iran.

I am not surprised that Iran convicted an American citizen, Amir Mirzaei Hekmati, for spying. (http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2012/jan/12/ml-iran-american-detained/) It's no surprise that it's unsafe for Americans to visit Iran. Anyone could be arrested for espionage with zero or trumped-up evidence.

I assume Hekmati is innocent, and that this was a show trial. Did we expect different behavior from Iran?

* Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, under which it has a right to develop nuclear power.
* American politicians lie when they claim Iran is developing nuclear weapons. YOU know that U.S. intelligence agencies believe Iran ended their weapons program in 2003, and the IAEA hasn't provided any actual evidence to the contrary, only "recycled, discredited data." (http://bloom.bg/AcoFLH)
* The endless and increasingly stiff sanctions against Iran only encourage that nation to seek any kind of leverage, such as arresting visiting Americans.
* Our insane refusal of diplomacy with Iran only increases the risk that people like Hekmati won't be released but will instead be executed.

The fervent anti-Iranianism in Congress actually strengthens the very Iranian rulers and politicians we oppose. The Iranian people, like those of any nation, believe their country has a right to develop nuclear power and defend themselves, and will rally around a regime they otherwise despise.

Worse, this anti-Iranianism brings on economic instability. Iran's threat to close off the Straits of Hormuz will likely lead to more speculation in the oil market. If it makes good on the threat, there will likely be yet another costly war -- maybe even a depression.

How does that serve U.S. interests?

Normal economic and diplomatic relations with Iran will increase security and global economic stability. This does NOT mean that Iran's ruling class would be our "friend." But it WOULD be a sign that WE base our policies on a clear-eyed view of America's interests and NOT on irrational fears.

It could also save the life of Amir Mirzaei Hekmati.

END LETTER

I invite you to send a letter as well. You may borrow from or copy the above.

And we invite you to "like" us on Facebook and share our work with your friends.

James Wilson
Policy Research Director
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

Why you should use the term "Pre-Constitutional Rights"

2012-01-11T15:32:00Z

Downsize DC is making a change. This change was caused by recent controversies about who deserves the protection of Constitutional rights. These controversies have persuaded us that the concepts of "citizenship" and "Constitutional Rights" have corrupted the American mind. As a result, millions of us have a defective sense of right and wrong. To do our small part to correct this intellectual and moral rot, we here at Downsize DC will use the term "Pre-Constitutional Rights" INSTEAD OF "Constitutional Rights." Jim Babka explains why in a 730 word essay, followed by a new kind of action item.

Most days you receive this newsletter with an action item from DownsizeDC.org, Inc. But today, this editorial is provided courtesy of the Downsize DC Foundation.

Why you should use the term "Pre-Constitutional Rights"
by Jim Babka

In the Declaration of Independence, America's Founders proclaimed a universal principle -- human beings have inalienable rights.

In the Bill of Rights, some of these rights were named -- but NOT all of them. In the Ninth Amendment, the authors of the nation's charter said that they couldn't possibly list all of the rights that you and I inherently possess. Those rights are innumerable. But with the Tenth Amendment, the Founders declared that they COULD count (enumerate) the few powers the new government would possess.

These concepts of inalienable rights and limited government were not original to the Founders, but the attempt to build an experimental government based on them was novel. Please notice that the ideas came first, and the government second. Likewise, the rights this new government was supposed to protect pre-existed that government. In other words . . .

You do NOT get your rights from the Constitution.

Your rights are too important, too natural, and too fundamental to be derived from parchment. Instead, your rights existed BEFORE the Constitution was even written.

A Constitution is, at best, only an insurance policy. It will often protect you, but sometimes it won't. Depending on the tenor of the times this insurance policy can sometimes be poorly underwritten by the politicians, bureaucrats, and judges who have sworn an oath to defend it. But even during such times of moral decay, your rights continue to exist.

Are you with me so far? ...because this next part may bother you . . .

Because your rights come from your humanity, they are also inherent to every other human being, REGARDLESS OF CITIZENSHIP, OR ANY OTHER FACTOR.

Thus, the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, which also includes rights of conscience and expression, due process, the ability to be secure from arbitrary searches and seizures, and even the right of self-defense, are ALL enjoyed by EVERYONE, citizens and NON-citizens alike.

Sometimes, the Constitution is explicit about what it seeks to protect. The Fifth Amendment, for example, refers to "persons" instead of citizens. But even where the governing charter fails to be so definitive, the principle remains...

Human rights are "pre-constitutional" rights.

To argue otherwise is to say that your rights are NOT inherent to your humanity, but are instead a privilege conferred by other human beings, simply because those humans happen to have power. If you believe this then you have built on a foundation of sand, and your life and liberty will be washed away.

Such a view also raises the question as to where and how the humans who control The State gained the power to grant and deny rights to other people? In fact, there can be no answer to this question, because no such power exists. There is no magic that elevates some humans above other humans.

This is why we at Downsize DC will no longer use the term "Constitutional Rights," but will instead ONLY use the term "Pre-constitutional Rights." Please be clear about this. It does NOT matter which nation-state claims a human being as its chattel, that person's rights are still pre-existing and inalienable.

Pre-constitutional rights are necessary to a natural law viewpoint; the philosophy held by the signers of the Declaration of Independence, the framers of the Constitution, the ratifiers of the Bill of Rights, AND Downsize DC. We shout it loud and proud -- "Pre-constitutional rights precede and are superior to Constitutional rights."

Obviously, we're still grateful that our pre-Constitutional rights are acknowledged in the Constitution. It's important that the requirement for The State to protect these rights is the law of the land, because those who covet State power constantly seek to harm humanity. But . . .

If we're depending on the whims of the employees of The Leviathan State to protect us, simply because we're all Americans, then our faith is misplaced. The Constitution cannot protect a people who fail to vigilantly understand from where it is their rights derive. Neither can the protection of those rights be honestly maintained if we're unwilling to acknowledge that everyone else has these rights too, NOT JUST CITIZENS. Remember the Golden Rule!

To deny that human rights are inalienable in any one case, it to deny them in every case, including your own.

END of article.

We ask you to please join us in replacing the inferior term "Constitutional Rights," with the superior formulation, "Pre-Constitutional Rights."

AND THEN TAKE ACTION . . .

If you agree with our argument and think more people should use the term "Pre-Constitutional Rights" INSTEAD of the term "Constitutional Rights," then please FORWARD THIS MESSAGE to other people who might agree. Ask them to read it, and tell them that you too are adopting the term "Pre-Constitutional Rights."

I have done this with a number of people, the most important of whom is the supreme defender of the Constitution on national TV, Judge Andrew Napolitano.

In addition to whomever else you send this to, if you agree that it would be especially powerful for Judge Napolitano to adopt this language, you could forward this essay to him at this special address: JudgeNapolitano@DownsizeDC.org

I, personally wrote...

Dear Judge Napolitano,

I am writing to encourage you to make a change to your personal, on-air lexicon. Instead of referring to our "Constitutional Rights," begin instead calling them "Pre-Constitutional Rights." The essay I've written below, which was distributed to more than 31,000 subscribers of the Downsize DC Foundation newsletter, explains why this is a superior way to speak of our rights. And I know as a fan of your show and a reader of your most recent book, that you agree with the sentiments here. I hope you find this simple change to be compelling. I'll be watching to see if you adopt it...

And then I cut and pasted the article from this link: http://www.downsizedcfoundation.org/blog/our-lexicon-preconstitutional-rights

Alternatively, I could've written...

Have beliefs about "citizenship" and "Constitutional Rights" corrupted the American mind? My concern is caused by recent controversies, like the National Defense Authorization Act, where Americans have debated about who deserves the protection of Constitutional rights. These controversies have persuaded me that the concepts of "citizenship" and "Constitutional Rights" have corrupted the American mind. As a result, millions have a defective sense of right and wrong. A small but important to step toward correcting this would be to stop using the term "Constitutional Rights." Instead, use the phrase "Pre-Constitutional Rights." Downsize DC President, Jim Babka, explains why in this 730 word essay.

If I'd gone with that approach, I could've, once again, pasted the article from this link: http://www.downsizedcfoundation.org/blog/our-lexicon-preconstitutional-rights

Also, we'd like to generate lots of "tweets" to the Judge. You can RETWEET this: https://twitter.com/#!/DDCDispatch/status/157119539442745344

You can expect to see more of this kind of ACTION ITEM in the coming year. We're going to start reaching out to other power centers besides Congress. Stay tuned to the Downsizer-Dispatch to see what this will mean.

Jim Babka
President
Downsize DC Foundation

NEW CAMPAIGN: Shut Down the Energy Department

2012-01-10T15:21:00Z

Media Alert: Downsize DC President Jim Babka guests hosts a radio show tomorrow. Details in the P.S.

Quote of the Day: "Doing away with DOE turned out to have very little support within the business community. This was because DOE is a significant source of corporate welfare and also because the energy industry sees the energy secretary as its representative at Cabinet meetings." - Chatterbox in Slate Magazine, 2001

DownsizeDC.org would like to close down several Cabinet Departments. Our latest target is the Department of Energy. Presidential candidates Rick Perry and Ron Paul agree.

As the letter below explains, DOE has no reason to exist. That's why DownsizeDC.org has a new campaign to abolish it.

We invite you to participate by sending a letter to your Representative and Senators. Through our quick and easy Educate the Powerful System, you write or paste the letter once, and it will be transmitted to all three offices.

The hard-wired message says,

Please shut down the Department of Energy. End subsidies and cumbersome regulations. Allow a free market in energy.

You may borrow from or copy these additional comments...

The Department was created in 1977 to "do something" about gas prices and develop alternative energy. And yet...

* Foreign oil imports kept increasing until 2005 (http://www.eia.gov/energy_in_brief/foreign_oil_dependence.cfm).
* Wind and solar power production is still very expensive and is but a tiny percentage of U.S. energy output.
* It has no authority over oil drilling permits in areas like the Arctic Wildlife Refuge.
* Decisions on projects like the trans-national Keystone XL Pipeline are in the hands of the Secretary of State, not Energy.
* Other key regulations or policies are implemented by the Interior Department or the EPA, not Energy.
* Over 60% of the Department's budget is devoted to nuclear weapons storage, maintenance, and cleanup; these functions should be under the Defense Department.

Much of the rest of the Energy budget goes to corporate welfare: research grants, subsidies and loan guarantees to promote "green" energy and nuclear power. One such beneficiary was the solar power company Solyndra, which received over $500 million in taxpayer-backed loan guarantees, yet promptly went bankrupt.

As Nicholas Loris explains, subsidies are harmful because... (http://bit.ly/qpJXZt)

* they give the beneficiaries an unfair price advantage and reduce their incentive to become cost-competitive.
* energy providers shift from competitive technologies to uncompetitive (subsidized) technologies; this means waste for taxpayers AND consumers.
* perverse incentives are created, where more and more industries lobby for their "fair share" of handouts.

Finally, the very existence of a Department of Energy sends the wrong message: That the Federal Government should have the authority to control energy production and distribution.

Markets provide a more efficient, less-costly method of producing and distributing the energy needs of producers and consumers. You wouldn't want The State to ration your food, clothing, or shelter, would you? If not, then why should The State control energy supplies?

Ending the Department of Energy will send the RIGHT message: Our energy needs are too important to be left up to the whims of political favor and unelected bureaucrats.

END LETTER

You may send your letter using DownsizeDC.org's Educate the Powerful System.

Jim Babka
President
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

P.S. Tomorrow (Wednesday), once again, Jim Babka will be guest-hosting Straight Talk w/Jerry Hughes.

You can listen live at 2:07 PM Eastern (1:07 PM Central, 12:07 PM Mountain, and 11:07 PM Pacific).

To hear the show on the web, or to find a local station, visit the network's website. http://accentradionetwork.com/

Affiliates can be found in Alabama, California, Florida, Georgia, Missouri, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Utah, and Oregon.

I will monitor my Twitter account for comments and questions during the broadcast. @JimBabka

NEW CAMPAIGN: Repeal Indefinite Detention

2012-01-09T14:52:00Z

In his last official act of 2011, President Barack Obama signed the massive bipartisan National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that included shocking detainee provisions.

DownsizeDC.org has launched a new campaign to repeal these egregious provisions.

We explain the reasons in the letter below. We invite you to send a letter to your Representatives and Senators demanding repeal, and you may borrow from or copy this...

I demand you repeal the detainee provisions of the 2011 National Defense Authorization Act. I am appalled that any member of Congress would support provisions such as...

    * REQUIRED military detention of foreigners that are suspected of being terrorists
    * Military detention as the preferred OPTION for American terror suspects
    * No charges need to be filed, and no trials must be held
    * Prisoners to be held "until the end of hostilities"

These provisions can be more accurately described as "kidnapping" — which is a crime whether it's done by individuals, gangs, or bigger gangs called States.

And what does "the end of hostilities" mean? Indefinitely, probably for life. After all, when does "terrorism" end?

Terrorism is indeed a serious crime. But just as with any other crime, many persons "suspected" of it are not guilty. The American, Constitutional presumption is innocent until proven otherwise via due process of law. Terrorism is an especially tricky judicial matter, because mere acquaintances of real terrorists, or people caught in the "wrong place at the wrong time" could be rounded up.

These kidnapping provisions violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. They also disregard my Fourth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendment rights. They even contravene Article III, Section 3, which deals with treason.

Not only is kidnapping unconstitutional, but these kidnapping powers attack the foundation of who we are as a people. The British ancestors of the Founding Fathers enjoyed protection against arbitrary executive power since the Magna Carta of 1215.

How can ANY of our rights and freedoms be secure if the President can, by whim, call me a "terrorist" and order troops to kidnap YOU because you are associated with me?

How can we enjoy the rights inherent in our humanity — life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness — if you or I can be "disappeared" in a federal gulag?

Two bills have been proposed that would restore SOME due process guarantees...

* HR 3676 would restore Constitutional protections for American citizens but denies them to foreigners -- even legal residents. (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h3676/text)
* S.2003 restores due process to American citens and lawful alien residents, but seems to deny even citizens due process rights if apprehended on foreign soil. (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-s2003/text)

Human rights belong to all of us, not just Americans or people living in the United States. Our rights are "pre-constitutional." They are not derived from the whim of any government, but naturally endowed to individuals since creation. Moreover, our Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights protect "persons," not just American citizens.

Please propose a bill to restore Pre-Constitutional rights and Constitutional due process guarantees to ALL terrorism SUSPECTS.

END LETTER

You can send your letter using DownsizeDC.org's Educate the Powerful System.

Also, our friends at the Tenth Amendment Center invited me to write an analysis of NDAA's detainee provisions. During debate many Congressional offices told constituents there was an exception for Americans. I DEMONSTRATE why that was false. I invite you to read this analysis and to check out the other fare at the Tenth Amendment Center.

Thanks to you, we're able to do this work, so...

Thank you for being a DC Downsizer,

Jim Babka
President
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

Your New Year's Resolution

2011-12-30T15:10:00Z

Quote of the Day: "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Frédéric Bastiat

At Downsize DC we've started capitalizing The State.

We believe The State is like a cancer. It is the greatest source of misery on our planet. No artificial force, no disease, does as much harm.

And yet, the ideology that rules our media and dominates our culture is statism. This deadly philosophy believes, quite literally, that initiating coercion is virtue, when that coercive force is done for the right cause. For the statists behind the teleprompters, the only acceptable form of political debate is defining the right cause, because, left or right, The State is always their ideal solution.

At Downsize DC we are sick and tired of this phony choice. We are NOT interested in a debate where, regardless of who wins, human freedom and choice will be dampened, if not crushed.

There is another way!

You exist. Your neighbor exists. Both of you are naturally endowed with rights. Each of you has the right to pursue happiness. And remarkably, when you are free to find your bliss . . .

Society progresses
The needy benefit
The arts advance
Technological progress is enhanced

. . . you lift the tide for all ships!

No system demands more virtue, no program requires more accountability . . .

. . . than a system that emphasizes human liberty!

Statism is an evil system which needs to mask itself in morality-plays, phony compassion, and haughty altruism in order to maintain its pilfering powers. Strip the Statist of those stolen vestments, and the resulting shame shrinks his or her power.

Would you like to see that happen? Well . . .

It's not enough to say all that. It's important to build the intellectual ammunition needed to support this view -- to fashion the rhetoric to make it persuasive. But it's even more crucial to turn it into action and move the culture. So . . .

Downsize DC has a New Year's Resolution! We're about to present major new plans for a significant new year, because . . .

our strategic focus has evolved.
we'll add new tactics which reflect these new priorities.

Strategically, the time is right for you and me to make a more intellectually consistent and morally powerful case in opposition to Big Government. Armed with these insights, you will . . .

seem wiser, every time you make this case.
be more persuasive than ever -- people will be moved.

We've just begun experimenting with this approach, and we've been amazed at the results! Would you like to know more?

Because that's not all . . .

We also believe that with the right tools . . .

you can have greater personal influence
we can accelerate the growth and power of the Downsize DC Army.

But tools cost money, and the New Year is almost upon us. In fact . . .

If you're looking to make a tax-deductible contribution to our educational project, Downsize DC Foundation, you're almost out of time. Donations must be received by midnight, December 31 if made electronically, or postmarked by December 31 if mailed.

As for DownsizeDC.org, the publisher and primary correspondent of this Downsizer-Dispatch newsletter . . .

We grew the army each of the last two years. But frankly, we didn't grow very much. We're not satisfied.

We want to accomplish so much more. We want to do it for the cause and for you! And we need YOUR help to do more and to do better than that.

I believe that the plans we're about to roll out can take us farther, faster than ever. But this can happen if we inspire enthusiasm -- represented by an increased budget.

We're limited by our income. But . . .
Our opportunities are found in growing our revenue.

Your investment in DownsizeDC.org, before year's end, will start the work and bring to pass these exciting plans.

Downsize DC Foundation finished the year strong and is building for next year. But support for DownsizeDC.org, Inc. has slowed, significantly, during November and December. Your support is needed to launch the Downsize DC Army into the New Year. Please add your generous support, now.

Happy New Year,

Jim Babka, President
Downsize DC Foundation
& DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

Throwing In the Towel

2011-12-28T14:36:00Z

For three months, we've urged people to take advantage of an offer from Bill Haynes, of CMI Gold & Silver.

Bill put up $5,000 as a challenge. For every new monthly pledge, he'd match the first two months of that pledge with double the monthly amount. In other words, pledge $10 per month, he'd give Downsize DC $20.

The goal, obviously, was to raise $2,500, per month, in new monthly pledges -- $30,000 per year in gross additional income (before attrition).

And add to that, Bill's $5,000.

But this has not been the most successful fundraising initiative we've ever done. In fact, it's the first time we're in serious danger of failing to meet our objective. We've always achieved the goal before. As of now, we've raised only $1,184.33 in new pledges.

I feel like we've got to give this one more push. But chances are we're going to miss out on more than half of that $35,000. So...

With this message, I'm throwing in the towel.

This will be our last message urging you to take Mr. Haynes' money. A new year is coming, and it's time to start looking forward. We'll do just that in our next Dispatch.

For today, let me say that, pledges can come in any size.

We have many $1, $3, and $5 pledgers, for example.
The average pledge is about $14 per month.
The highest pledger gives $250, and the next two highest give $200 each month.
On two occasions, both in the past, we've had pledgers give $1,000 or more, every month.

Pledgers provide us with more than a third of our income. They give us stability and the ability to plan ahead -- to take entrepreneurial risks and to say yes to projects. We love our pledgers.

If you're already pledging, THANK YOU. But if you're not...

Will you please take advantage of Mr. Haynes, and join us right now?

DownsizeDC.org is sending this Dispatch, and you are encouraged to support our Educate the Powerful System -- keeping you up-to-date and in contact with Congress.

But if tax-deductibility is important to you, then you can direct your donation to our educational group, Downsize DC Foundation.

Jim Babka, President
Downsize DC Foundation
& DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

NEW AT THE DOWNSIZE DC FOUNDATION: Peace on Earth, Good Will to ALL

2011-12-25T12:48:00Z

Read "Peace on Earth, Good Will to ALL" at the Downsize DC Foundation.