A Prophetic 1944 Interview

Norman Mattoon Thomas (November 20, 1884 - December 19, 1968) was a leading American socialist, pacifist, and six-time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America. He said this in a 1944 interview:

The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.... I no longer need to run as a Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democratic Party has adopted our platform.

This statement reveals several key ideas:

The first is that a third party can win support for its policy positions without winning any elections if one of the two main parties adopts its positions.

The second is that it is a winning political strategy to advantage a small segment of the voters at the expense of a smaller segment. Do that for enough small segments and eventually you will have socialism.

The third is that it is a winning strategy to avoid allowing your ultimate objective, or the constitutional implications, to be framed as the question to be decided by the voters. People wouldn't vote for socialism, or for violating the Constitution, if the question were framed in those terms, but will vote for incremental steps toward it, and fail to understand the opponents when they try to explain to voters what those steps lead to, or that they are unconstitutional.

The problem for libertarians is that liberty doesn't sell as well as government benefits. People don't really appreciate liberty until they have lost it, and too often they will not even realize they have lost it, or they will attribute the loss to something other than their own past election choices. It is easier for most people to imagine a prospective financial gain or loss than a loss of liberty. Money can be counted in a way that liberty can't.

The same may be said of constitutional compliance. Few politicians make it a leading issue in campaigns. Most people don't understand it and have come to think that calling the opponent's position "unconstitutional" is just rhetoric. The few who do understand usually don't have enough influence over the others. The number of people who can understand what is and what is not constitutional is fairly small, and always has been. The only time in history it was large was during the first three American revolutions: the War for Independence, the ratification of the Constitution, and the Election of 1800, the last of which entrenched the Jeffersonian position on constitutional interpretation for the period from 1800 through 1824, and then to a declining degree for most of the rest of the 19th century. But even during the ratification debates it is unlikely that the majority of the people really understood the proposed Constitution in its entirety. Some focused on particular provisions that seemed dangerous, and opposed it until their fears were alleviated. Most probably supported it because George Washington did, demonstrating that the way to get complicated reforms is not to educate all the people but to get the support of charismatic personalities the voters like and trust.

"Bait and switch" works in political selling as well. Voters are offered some charismatic personality or government benefit and never told that either represents a violation of the Constitution. Some will argue that the people have voted for the departures from constitutional compliance and thus ratified them in some sense, but that is deceptive, because the people were deceived by not having the constitutional implications of their choices explained to them. They did not vote for violation. The issues weren't framed to them that way.

That doesn't mean it is not a productive activity to educate people on constitutional compliance. We need to create a learning environment in which some of those charismatic personalities can "get it" and then bring their insights with them when they take office. We have to spread the education around because it is not always easy to discern who will be the charismatic personalities of the future, and because such people are herd animals like any other who are going to want the reassurance of like-minded people before they will venture forth with constitutionalist positions. The trick is to both educate those individuals and enough of the individuals around them.

What we learn from the study of the diffusion of innovations is that most people don't adopt new things because they learn about them from some kind of broadcast message. They are influenced more by the examples of those they look to as role models, and that chain of influence tends to sort itself into levels, with "early adopters" at the top, "secondary adopters" below them, "tertiary adopters" below both, and "quadranary adopters" below the first three. We also learn that most people don't adopt new things in long leaps or from single exposures to messages or examples. Except for the early adopters people generally adopt in small steps spaced over a period of time in response to repeated messages. That means you need to target people who are ready to take the next step, figure out where they are and how far you can get them to go on that occasion, then move on to others, but return to the first before they go cold and move them on to the next step, repeating the process until you get many people recruited. Then you need to keep them recruited with positive reinforcements, because most adopters won't stick to a new things unless it rewards them in some way, and because there are usually competing innovations that may win them over if you neglect to hold them.

National Health Care - Pros & Cons

It's no secret that health care costs are spiraling out of control in this country. On average, we now spend more per person on health care than both food and housing. Insurance premiums are multiplying much faster than inflation, which prevents economic growth and leaves businesses with less money to give raises or hire more workers. While the quality and availability of medical care in the United States remains among the best in the world, many wonder whether we'd be better off adopting a universal government-controlled health care system like the one used in Canada.

The number of uninsured citizens has grown to over 40 million. Since health care premiums continue to grow at several times the rate of inflation, many businesses are simply choosing to not offer a health plan, or if they do, to pass on more of the cost to employees. Employees facing higher costs themselves are often choosing to go without health coverage. No health insurance doesn't necessarily mean no health care since there are many clinics and services that are free to indigent individuals. However, any costs not covered by insurance must be absorbed by all the rest of us, which means even higher premiums.

Health care has become increasingly unaffordable for businesses and individuals. Businesses and individuals that choose to keep their health plans still must pay a much higher amount. Remember, businesses only have a certain amount of money they can spend on labor. If they must spend more on health insurance premiums, they will have less money to spend on raises, new hires, investment, and so on. Individuals who must pay more for premiums have less money to spend on rent, food, and consumer goods; in other words, less money is pumped back into the economy. Thus, health care prevents the country from making a robust economic recovery. A simpler government-controlled system that reduces costs would go a long way in helping that recovery.

Medical professionals can concentrate on healing the patient rather than on insurance procedures, malpractice liability, etc. Doctors have to take classes now simply to understand all the insurance plans out there; they are often restricted by insurance practices, such as what tests can be ordered. Doctors must practice defensive medicine to avoid getting sued. Some physicians are even leaving the profession rather than deal with all these non-medical headaches. A simplified universal health system would allow doctors, nurses, and other medical professions to simply focus on doing what's best for the patient. Medicine is a complex enough subject as it is. Our current system just adds to an already mentally-draining profession.

There isn't a single government agency or division that runs efficiently; do we really want an organization that developed the U.S. Tax Code handling something as complex as health care? Quick, try to think of one government office that runs efficiently. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? The Department of Transportation? Social Security Administration? Department of Education? There isn't a single government office that squeezes efficiency out of every dollar the way the private sector can. We've all heard stories of government waste such as million-dollar cow flatulence studies or the Pentagon's 14 billion dollar Bradley design project that resulted in a transport vehicle which when struck by a mortar produced a gas that killed every man inside. How about the U.S. income tax system? When originally implemented, it collected 1 percent from the highest income citizens. Look at it today. A few years back to government published a "Tax Simplification Guide", and the guide itself was over 1,000 pages long! This is what happens when politicians mess with something that should be simple. Think about the Department of Motor Vehicles. This isn't rocket science--they have to keep track of licenses and basic database information for state residents. However, the costs to support the department are enormous, and when was the last time you went to the DMV and didn't have to stand in line? If it can't handle things this simple, how can we expect the government to handle all the complex nuances of the medical system? If any private business failed year after year to achieve its objectives and satisfy its customers, it would go out of business or be passed up by competitors.

Government-controlled health care would lead to a decrease in patient flexibility. At first glance, it would appear universal health care would increase flexibility. After all, if government paid for everything under one plan, you could in theory go to any doctor. However, some controls are going to have to be put in to keep costs from exploding. For example, would "elective" surgeries such as breast implants, wart removal, hair restoration, and lasik eye surgery be covered? Then you may say, that's easy, make patients pay for elective surgery. Although some procedures are obviously not needed, who decides what is elective and what is required? What about a breast reduction for back problems? What about a hysterectomy for fibroid problems? What about a nose job to fix a septum problem caused in an accident? Whenever you have government control of something, you have one item added to the equation that will most definitely screw things up--politics. Suddenly, every medical procedure and situation is going to come down to a political battle. The compromises that result will put in controls that limit patient options. The universal system in Canada forces patients to wait over 6 months for a routine pap smear. Canada residents will often go to the U.S. or offer additional money to get their health care needs taken care of.

Patients aren't likely to curb their drug costs and doctor visits if health care is free; thus, total costs will be several times what they are now. Co-pays and deductibles were put in place because there are medical problems that are more minor annoyances than anything else. Sure, it would be nice if we had the medical staff and resources to treat every ache and pain experienced by an American, but we don't. For example, what if a patient is having trouble sleeping? What if a patient has a minor cold, flu, or headache? There are scores of problems that we wouldn't go to a doctor to solve if we had to pay for it; however, if everything is free, why not go? The result is that doctors must spend more time on non-critical care, and the patients that really need immediate help must wait. In fact, for a number of problems, it's better if no medical care is given whatsoever. The body's immune system is designed to fight off infections and other illnesses. It becomes stronger when it can fight things off on its own. Treating the symptoms can prolong the underlying problem, in addition to the societal side effects such as the growing antibiotic resistance of certain infections.

Government-mandated procedures will likely reduce doctor flexibility and lead to poor patient care. When government controls things, politics always seep into the decision-making. Steps will have to be taken to keep costs under control. Rules will be put in place as to when doctors can perform certain expensive tests or when drugs can be given. Insurance companies are already tying the hands of doctors somewhat. Government influence will only make things worse, leading to decreased doctor flexibility and poor patient care.

Health care equipment, drugs, and services may end up being rationed by the government. In other words, politics, lifestyle of patients, and philosophical differences of those in power, could determine who gets what. Any time you have politicians making health care decisions instead of medical or economics professions, you open a whole group of potential rationing issues. As costs inevitably get out of control and have to be curtailed, some ways will be needed to cut costs. Care will have to be rationed. How do you determine what to do with limited resources? How much of "experimental" treatments will have to be eliminated? If you're over 80, will the government pay for the same services as people under 30? Would you be able to get something as expensive as a pacemaker or an organ transplant if you're old? Would your political party affiliation or group membership determine if you received certain treatments? What if you acquire AIDS through drug use or homosexual activity, would you still receive medical services? What if you get liver disease through alcoholism, or diabetes from being overweight, or lung cancer from smoking--will the government still help you? You may or may not trust the current president & Congress to make reasonable decisions, but what about future presidents and congressional members?

Removing the medical sector from the free enterprise system tends to reduce the overall quality of health care. Study-upon-study has shown the quality of health care is typically higher in the U.S. than in any other nation, including those with nationalized health insurance. The United States has lower breast and prostate cancer mortality rates than New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Germany, Canada, France and Australia.

In short... there are good arguments for, and good arguments against a nationalized (or socialized) healthcare plan. And, as I tend to believe in most things, I feel that the truth lies somewhere in the middle. I don't know where in the middle it lies on this issue... I just know that both sides are wrong, and blatantly mis-representing both the pros and cons of this issue in their own favor. It's as if Americans have become incapable of independent, rational thought, and rely solely on what political or religious leaders tell them to believe or say. Stop it! Use your brain!

Dangers of the Political Parties

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

George Washington - 1796

Secession Talk & Economics (Political Rant)

Let me start by saying that I am not necessarily a supporter of Texas secession. While Texas could certainly survive, and likely thrive as an idependent nation, there are more pros to remaining in the union at this time. Those that mock our governor for his "secession talk" need to listen to what he actually said. His words were more of an affirmation of the 10th Amendment limitation of Federal Governmental powers. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." On April 14, Perry expressed his “unwavering support for efforts all across our country to reaffirm the states’ rights affirmed by the 10th Amendment.” OUR COUNTRY = The United States, not Texas! He also noted that he and “millions of Texans are tired of Washington, D.C., trying to come down here and tell us how to run Texas.” Are such views “extreme”? Do they not, rather, reflect mainstream and historically accurate sentiments? After all, is not the resolution Perry supported simply a reaffirmation of the very words of and the philosophy underlying the 10th Amendment?

Now, don't get me wrong, I am not a cheerleader for, or even a great supporter of our Governor, but I dislike those that attribute sentiments to anyone in office that have not been expressed by the politician in question. This is the same thing as those that call the President a terrorist sympathizer. In short, people need to take off their partisan glasses and look at what is best for the country and its citizens. Neither party has it right at this point, and the infighting is only going to make things worse.

Obama's "stimulus" packages have been sold as a way out of this crisis, but simple high school economics tells you that you cannot spend your way to recovery. Supporters of this idea think that "taxing the rich" will pay for it, but taxing those that create jobs has been proven time and again to deplete the number of available jobs. Think of it on a household level. If you have someone coming to maintain your lawn for $150 per month, and your income drops (for whatever reason) by $300 per month... You are not only going to cancel the lawn service, but find other ways to cut to maintain your lifestyle. You have just added another person the the unemployment rolls. Does this make you evil? No! You are simply being pragmatic. "The rich" are where they are in life (in general) through hard work and pragmatism.

While many people disagree with the principles of "Reaganomics", the reality is that it has never been tried or given a chance to work. The partial implimentation in the 80s still resulted in historical economic growth. In general, there are four principles that must be applied:

1. reduce the growth of government spending,
2. reduce income and capital gains marginal tax rates,
3. reduce government regulation of the economy,
4. control the money supply to reduce inflation.

In the past, the marginal tax rates have been reduced, and are now climbing back up, resulting in lower revenue collections as we pass the critical point. Government regulation of the economy is at record highs, as are job losses, and this is not a coincidence. I am not saying that complete de-regulation is the answer either, as that would result in atrocious working conditions and run-away inflation... or worse yet... Carter era "stagflation". What is actually needed is simple regulation/oversight, with the freedom to let capitalism actually work. Right now, the noose is so tight that the free markets are unable to function, and the crashes in the economy are the natural result. Control of the money supply to reduce inflation will never happen as long as the Federal Reserve is in charge of the monetary policy. Since this is an extra-governmental agency, it is outside of the control of those that need to be able to control it. That's why the constitution specifically grants CONGRESS the power "To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures". Congress has un-constitutionally ceded this right to the Federal Reserve, which operates under an appointee of the Executive branch, and this needs to be fixed.

Finally, "the reduction in the growth of government spending"... This has never been tried, and frankly is the key to getting the nation back on track. Earmarks, pork, automatic annual budget increases, and generally out of control spending by both parties must stop. Many people are blaming the current spending spree on President Obama, while others are blaming President Bush. The reality is that they are, or are on track to be two of the most fiscally irresponsible Presidents in US History! It is not a partisan issue, but a financial one. If your expenses at home go up, you cannot go to your boss and write yourself a check for the difference, but this is exactly what is happening in Congress. It has now spread to bailing out large private companies, because everyone involved is paranoid of another Worldcom or Enron. While GM, Chrysler, and AIG may not be the result of corruption, the result of failure would be the same. Another smaller company (or companies) will expand and fill the gap left, and the American people will dust themselves off, and move on. Our ability to do so is what makes this country great, and why our Republic has stood the test of time for over 200 years under the same governing documents.

Returning to secession... Texas could survive secession, and in all likelihood would thrive. The map at the left is interesting in that it places each state in perspective with respect to national GDP of various countries. It does not address population, but I'll cover that in a minute.

Texas' annual GDP is roughly equivalent to that of Canada, which is considered a fairly prosperous "First World" nation in its own right. They are the 13th largest GDP among nations, and sit at around 10% of US GDP. This means that if Texas were to leave the union, we would immediately take that spot (and roughly 10% of the US economy) with us. When you address the per-capita aspect, Texas is at roughly 2/3 of the population of Canada, making per capita GDP about a third higher for Texans, if secession were to happen. Texas also happens to be home to one of the largest military installations in the free world (Fort Hood). Obviously, equipment would transfer to the US, but Texas would quite likely maintain a pretty significant military strength, so the weak argument that we would "lose the protection" of the US military just doesn't hold water. Frankly, we could pretty quickly turn ourselves into a powerful nation both economically and militarily. There would be no issue with maintaining our independence, and becoming a presence on the world stage.

Now... Is this what I want to happen? Is this what is best for Texas and the US? Short answer... Heck No! There are far more intricate issues involved than the simplistic economic picture that I have painted above, and military power can only go so far in carving your place in the world. What needs to happen is a return to sanity and responsibilty from both our Federal and our State representatives... And, I'll say it... Sanity among the voters that keep putting these clowns in office just because they have an R or a D behind their name. Stop voting party, and research the issues! You may still end up voting for a straight party ticket, but it will be an educated opinion. Don't vote based on wanting to stick it to the rich or put something in your own pocket (either through tax cuts or government handouts). History has shown that balanced policies work far better than extreme partaisanship. But the new administration seems hell-bent on deriding the "failed policies of the past"... and the previous administration was just as tenacious in their single-mindedness. If this sort of back and forth extremism continues, we are doomed to failure... and we deserve what we get.

Is Obama Too Bright To Be President?

More Roosevelt… Less Jimmy Carter… that’s what this brand needs!

Folks, there’s been a lot of scrutiny of President Obama in these first 100 days. It goes with the territory. The attention is brutal no matter who’s in the Oval Office and it always will be.

Exposure is something most marketers covet . . .but over-exposure especially of the wrong features can be deadly for a personal brand.

That is why, Barack Obama had better stop behaving like Jimmy Carter and start emulating Roosevelt.

In the last week and a half, he’s said and done things and appeared in ways that could lay the foundation for a negative brand image that no one will be able to reverse.

I can hear the peanut gallery objecting: “But President Obama isn’t oozing Carter-sque doom and gloom.” Fair enough. But he’s oozing something worse: he’s oozing too much intelligence.

Yes, too much intelligence. Intelligence is not a bad thing, but a president should never put too much of it on display.

Jimmy Carter’s mistake wasn’t really the doom and gloom, it was his professorial, uber-competence and his legendary micro-managing. The doom and gloom was an inevitable product of his putting too much intelligence on display.

Basically, it was his publicly-aired honesty and wandering intellect that got him into trouble. These traits obscured the sacred/universal qualities of the presidency and the need for strongly directed leadership. It actually diminished the presidency in the electorates’ eyes.

Instead of seeing assured leadership, the American people saw Hamlet — a bright guy constantly re-evaluating and refining his positions (something that presidents and all other effective leaders should basically do behind closed doors and well out of sight). Bottom line: Lincoln delivered The Gettysburg Address from a podium, he didn’t do his famously complicated brooding there.

Americans like to know their presidents are bright; they just don’t need to be part of the intellectual roller coaster that comes from being bright. And they don’t want details, they want results.

Most of all, American’s want a president who instills confidence. When I heard that President Obama was considering planting a vegetable garden at the White House I became worried — this was classic Carter. Do something wonky that seems to fit with an important issue the president values (i.e., the environment) but actually comes across as a little too makeshift and nitty gritty for the President of the United States. Remember how the press turned Jimmy Carter into a peanut farmer? Enough said. President Obama, forget the vegetable garden.

And beyond vegetable gardens, watch out that you don’t appear to be micro-managing the GM situation. Wagoner’s departure might be necessary, but avoid looking as if you now want to run the auto industry down to its most minute details –a President offering warranties on cars is something I simply never thought I’d hear.

The additional problem with appearing too intelligent is that when policies and initiatives go wrong as they inevitably will in Washington, it begins to look like your high intelligence (read, tendency to waffle) is responsible for your legislative and policy failures. In other words, the whole presidential package gets poisoned.

Last week’s press conference only served to emphasize our professorial president.

President Obama answered a wide-range of questions with minute detail. Bravo. But did he instill confidence in his leadership in his Target Market, the American people?

I doubt it, since after the event even The New York Times called him a lecturer and noted that he has a kind of intellectual distance that might make it hard for people to really embrace.

And while I applaud the Leno appearance as a bold poli-marketing attempt to reach the Target Market in new ways, I don’t think those kinds of appearances are the answer either because they run the risk of exposing more negatives about the president (witness his Special Olympics gaffe).

Let’s face it, a president should probably be rarely heard and seen and then only strategically. There’s a reason why the Wizard of Oz stayed behind his curtain. There is something about the office of the presidency that just doesn’t do well with too much accessibility and too much of a human touch. Ronald Reagan understood this and played the presidency with the right doses of warmth, balance and gravitas.

But it’s not Reagan who President Obama should take a page from. Obama is a crisis president and one crisis president should follow the lead of another: FDR.

So how did Roosevelt strike a balance?

Two words: Fireside chats. Roosevelt’s fireside chats let the people in, but just enough and only to show what he wanted to show. The people knew he was bright, but they didn’t want or need to hear all the backroom deliberations and wavering. Most important, they came away comforted because they knew Roosevelt was in charge.

In contrast, the Leno appearance forced President Obama to share his brand with a famous comedian (another brand) and by extension the many celebrities who have occupied the guest chairs. It risked diluting his brand and exposed him to boot, but it didn’t do anything to make him appear presidential or seem to be confidently leading us. Yes, folks, less really is more.

Apparently, President Obama tried to do some confidence instilling at his Internet-based town hall meeting -again, he earns points for the dynamic poli-marketing, but needs to be cautious because there is too much room for error and over-exposure (again, it’s not-Rooseveltian).

At the end of his press conference last week, President Obama likened America to a huge ship that can’t be turned around on a dime. Things will take time, he conveyed. Now this was Roosevelt, the master of lowering expectations while instilling hope.

President Obama should apply his ship example to his presidency. A presidential brand can go in either a good or bad direction. It does this gradually, mistakes or triumphs gradually mounting up. If the negatives are not kept firmly in check from the beginning, a toxic image can be created that might never be erased.

No president wants this and now’s the time for President Obama to make some course corrections and stick to them.

And remember, it’s always easier to understand politics (and almost everything else in life) when you keep marketing and branding in mind.

Why Obama Won

In honor of the certification of the election results, and the impending innauguration of Barak Obama, I am reposting a blog from my MySpace account from November. As most of you may or may not know, I am not in any way shape or form a supporter of Obama. Politically, I tend toward the right side of the middle of the road most of the time... However, that rant is for another time. So... here it is...

Obama won, on the immediate surface, because he inspired the population. His chief opponent, McCain, did not. However, neither candidate has shown a sound understanding of the economy, while the population today lacks a solid footing in the basics of civil society.

The underlying problem that led to this abysmal slate of candidates is that our society has consistently failed to educate our youth, who have slowly become our adult population, about what it takes to run both a successful democracy and a successful capitalistic economy, and the true virtues and potential pitfalls of each. This, coupled with a lack of instilling in our youth, as a whole, the virtues of the work ethic, honesty, and humility, has resulted in a greedy population that does not care who they hurt as long as they get what they individually want.

Our people, and especially the politicians, have learned that in a representative republic, you can vote yourself monies from the public coffers. Politicians all use this fact to buy votes, and the masses are rallied to support them. Without the self-restraint of morality, this will result in the downfall of our system of government. Allowing non-citizens to fairly easily cast votes for our government officials is a case in point as to what is wrong with this picture.

Additionally, in capitalism you need to spread economic opportunity (not money) to all, but not allow the hoodwinking of others by either business or government with regard to the true economic nature of the transactions. Encouraging and strong-arming lenders to make risky loans, and then allowing derivatives that consist of bundled risky loans to be sold in such ways that the lender is divorced from the borrower, have brought us to this point. That shareholders in companies would allow CEOs to make millions as these very companies go out on a limb financially is another example.

We have not taught our population how to be good citizens, and what this entails. Nor have we instilled in them basic morals that make for a civil society. Instead we have created a generation of adults that is no longer asking what they can do for their country, but what their country can do for them. This will bakrupt us, both figuratively and literally. The only question remaining is, "When?"