Primary Voter ID failures lie with Texas' Republican Congressional delegation; #TXLEGE failures are incidental....

"But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death."
Revelation 21:8

Empower Texans has a piece on this week's Voter ID discussion:

With the clock ticking and an important deadline looming, House lawmakers passed a fix to the state’s voter ID bill with only a few hours to spare.

Responding to a last-minute push by Gov. Greg Abbott, the Texas House moved yesterday to give preliminary approval to Senate Bill 5 by State Sen. Joan Huffman (R–Houston) – a measure designed to preserve Texas’ Voter ID law by amending the statute to incorporate a court order. Though the bill sailed through the Texas Senate in early March, it had long been obstructed in the Texas House.

In short, SB 5 would implement much of the court-ordered changes to the state’s law which has been on the books (and in court rooms) since passing in 2011. Huffman’s legislation would allow registered voters who fail to produce a photo ID to cast a ballot after showing common documents that contain their name and address.

The Trib details the most problematic amendment:

But the House accepted an amendment authored by Rep. Joe Moody, D-El Paso, that would reduce the penalty to a Class A misdemeanor, which carries no more than a year of jail time.

That was a win for Democrats and civil rights groups that had called the legislation a good start but want ID options beyond what was in the bill — student IDs or tribal IDs, for instance — and raised particular concerns over the Senate bill's stricter penalties.

More than 16,400 Texas voters signed “reasonable impediment” affidavits during the 2016 general election, according to a tally of documents provided by the Texas Secretary of State’s office. And an Associated Press analysis found at least 500 instances in which voters signed the affidavit — and didn’t show photo ID — despite indicating that they owned one, a phenomenon some county clerks attributed to widespread confusion about legal changes just ahead of the election.

That’s why some Republicans argued for strict penalties for false claims. Democrats called it it too harsh for the crime — particularly in cases where a Texan is otherwise casting a legal vote.

We could write a piece ripping on Joe Straus for slow walking this bill, and Phil King for being a dingus and accepting that amendment. Both of those things are certainly true.  But the real failures lie with Congress, and specifically with the Republican caucus of the Texas delegation.

If the Republicans in Texas' congressional delegation were doing their job, Joe Straus would be irrelevant.

There's a simple solution to this problem: Amend the (federal) Voting Rights Act to explicitly state that state level voter ID laws are ok.

Obviously, the only thing missing is political will, and no Texas Republican (Note: including Louie Gohmert and Ted Cruz) is stepping up to the plate.

Bottom Line: It's bad enough that they're dropping the ball on national issues, but the failure of Texas' congressional delegation to protect the State from federal lawsuits (which enables additional shenanigans from Straus) is a whole separate outrage.

To Take Lamar Smith at his word...

"Whoever falsely boasts of giving
Is like clouds and wind without rain."
Proverbs 25:14

Last month, we asked Congressman Lamar Smith the following question:



Earlier in the same event, Smith had made a prediction about Paul Ryan's speakership:



Obviously, those days are not over, as Breitbart explains:

[U.S.] House Speaker Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) relied on Democrats to pass the $1 trillion dollar omnibus bill.

Most of the votes for the massive bill came from Democratic members of Congress rather than Republicans.

In the House, the Omnibus bill passed 316-113, with 150 Republicans voting yes and 166 Democrats voting yes.

....

But Ryan has tried to paint the budget as a victory for conservatives.

Ryan boasted this week on the Michael Medved show that the Omnibus bill lifted the ban on oil exports arguing that it’s “something we’ve been trying to do for 40 years in this country.” He added, “Think of what we get by removing the ban.”

However, in exchange for this lift, Democrats were able to put many liberal policies in the Omnibus bill, which explains why they ended up providing the necessary votes for the measure’s passage.

On Thursday, Pelosi bragged to her colleagues about all of the additional policy directives Democrats were able to put into the bill, saying, “Republicans’ desperate thirst for lifting the oil export ban empowered Democrats to win significant concessions throughout the Omnibus, including ridding the bill of scores of deeply destructive poison pill riders.”

That Lamar Smith personally voted against the bill is irrelevant; Lamar Smith voted for the "leadership" that used Joe Straus' playbook passed a bill written by lobbyists via Democrat votes that "gave away the store" to Democrats.

Bottom Line: Just last month, Lamar Smith told us Paul Ryan's ascendance meant the era of phony fiscal crises' was over.  That hasn't happened.  We'll see how the thirty year incumbent treats Paul Ryan between now and election day....

CD-21 candidates address Central Texas Republican Assembly

"When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice;
But when a wicked man rules, the people groan."
Proverbs 29:2

The Central Texas Republican Assembly held a special meeting this afternoon to hear from Congressman Lamar Smith; Matt McCall, his main opponent in the March primary, briefly addressed the group as well.

Smith's Prepared Remarks:



Highlights:

• Obama bad re: Keystone.

• Budget deal bad

• Paul Ryan -- re: Immigration - Saying the right things though he hasn't done them in the past.
• Something, something, "regular order."
• Phony crises followed by rushed bills: "That time is over."

• Kevin Braday as Ways and Means chair good.

• Iran deal bad.

• EPA bad

• National Science Foundation wasting lots of money.

• Patent Reform -- Sponsored "America Invents Act."
• Sponsored by Democrat Pat Leahy from Vermont in Senate.
• Heritage writes about the 2011 version of the bill: "The patent reform legislation pending in Congress has a serious flaw: It delegates to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) of the Department of Commerce the power to both hike the fees imposed on Americans who deal with the USPTO and then spend the revenue derived from those fees, without any further congressional exercise of the appropriations power. When the House of Representatives considers the patent reform bill, it should, in addition to addressing any other flaws in the bill, adopt an amendment to provide that the USPTO may spend the revenues it receives from fees “to the extent and in the amounts provided in advance in appropriations Acts” and not make the fees available to the USPTO to expend without fiscal year limitation."

Smith Q&A:

Highlights:

• Why should we send you back after 30 years of the problems getting worse?!?
• Blames Harry Reid and John Bohener.
• Seniority -- Typically takes 20 to 25 years to become a chairman.
• Author's Note -- We can think of no greater condemnation of the status quo than the statement above.

• "What assurances did you get" from Ryan re: Amnesty?!?
• Ryan doesn't trust Obama.
• Hastert rule.
• Sends reading material to other members re: Border Issues.

• Attending official candidate forum?!?
• "We'll see who files."

• "America invents" act screws small inventors.
• "I hope you're an outlier."

• How many calls did you get re: Bohenher and Ryan?!?
• Wouldn't answer but did say his office usually gets about 500 constituent contacts per week and that it takes a dozen contacts to get their attention and about 50 to flip their vote.

• Will the pattern we've seen at the state level (coalition of D's and liberal R's running everything) continue at the federal level?!?
• Give Paul Ryan a chance.

Matt McCall's remarks:

Highlights:

• "I'm Matt McCall and I'm running against Mr. Smith."

• "On the one hand he tell us he's this senior powerful member of congress...on the other hand he tells us he's only one out of 435."

• Over 30 years, which one of our values has Mr. Smith advanced?!?
• Debt up from $2 trillion to $20 trillion.
• 60.  MILLION.  ABORTIONS.

• If Paul Ryan can skip several levels of seniority to become speaker, seniority doesn't matter.

• "One man can do a lot."

Bottom Line: The contrast between a 30-year incumbent like Lamar Smith and a grassroots candidate like Matt McCall speaks for itself; thanks to both gentlemen for taking time out of their day to address the group.

Matt Beebe Faces the Lions

San Antonio, TX -- In front of a room that was two thirds full, and an establishment leaning crowd, the campaigns for Texas House district 121 made their final pitch.  Matt Beebe spoke to the myriad shortcomings of the Texas House under current Republican leadership.  Standing in for speaker Joe Straus, Representative Lyle Larson (last seen embarrassing himself at the Wallace Hall impeachment hearing) made a number of far-fetched claims.

Larson opened by lauding Straus for "balancing three straight budgets unlike Washington D.C."  In doing so, Larson ignored the fact that the Texas constitution requires a balanced budget.  Larson lauded Straus for not raising taxes, which is a low bar for a Republican in Texas to clear.  In the most telling line, Larson called Straus a "Five decade Republican in Bexar County."  Of course, it was exactly five decades ago that George Bush 41 first ran for the United States Senate.

Beebe opened by quoting the Wall St. Journal about profligacy in the 83rd Texas Legislature.  He disputed Team Straus' ex post facto celebration of last summer's abortion legislation, describing how the law passed in spite of Straus.  Beebe also illustrated how Straus hasn't led on school finance.

In the Q and A section on education, Beebe called for greater local control and a "student centered funding model."  Larson promoted HB 5, a dubious bill the legislature passed in 2013.  Larson also claimed condescendingly that Beebe "doesn't understand local government."

During the section on immigration, Larson cited state level efforts. Beebe discussed recent favorable comments Straus has made regarding Paul Ryan and immigration.  Beebe called for an end to illegal immigration magnets like in-state tuition.

The candidates also discussed transportation.  Beebe called himself "absolutely anti-toll road" and cited an old Larson campaign mailer to prove his point.  Larson was speechless.

Today's forum highlighted the well known differences between Matt Beebe and Joe Straus.  Unlike Joe Straus, Matt Beebe isn't beholden to Democrats.  From the state budget, to school finance, to transportation, the choice for conservative leadership in Texas House district 121 is clear.

-----

Read our endorsement for Matt here; donate to his campaign here.

Official Endorsement: Mitt Romney for President

I haven't kept secret my intention to vote for Mitt Romney; I'm officially endorsing him because there are several issues on which Mitt Romney is better than recent Republicans.

First things first, it's important to understand that Mitt will only have two responsibilities as President: sign the legislation a conservative Congress sends him, and be a better Commander-in-Chief; any other leadership President Mitt shows will be pure bonus.

I've discussed National Security, and the continuous orgy of treason that is Barack Obama's administration, at length recently.  I don't want to re-hash ground I've previously covered.  Suffice to say, I like what I've heard from Mitt so far on this topic.  While I'm not (yet) sure that Mitt understands the threat from Islamic Cultural Subversion, I trust Mitt's instincts and ability to learn over time.  Trust me, I'll be watching.

On several other issues, however, Mitt has taken positions that are substantially better than anything proposed by recent Republican candidates or Presidents.  Consider the following:

• Energy -- This was one of Mitt's strongest areas last night.  In addition to supporting the Keystone Pipeline and expanded development in Alaska, Mitt wants to return permitting authority to the States. This is a huge shift from Dubya who, at best, reigned in a modest amount of Federal red tape.  In addition, despite the public perception of Dubya as an Oilman, he was actually a big green energy proponent.  Mitt, by contrast, has indicated a willingness to reign in these corrupt boondoggles.

• Entitlements -- Mitt put Paul Ryan on the ticket; need I say more?!?  Paul Ryan's proposal doesn't go far enough, but it's a huge shift in the right direction.  Paul Ryan's proposal will prevent a sovereign debt crisis; for now, that's good enough.

• Sound Money -- Mitt's view's on the Federal Reserve were the hidden bombshell of that (otherwise boring) 47% video.  Given those remarks, his support for auditing the Fed, and his pledge to not re-appoint Ben Bernanke, Mitt clearly intends to reign in the worst abuses.  I suspect, however, that Mitt is open to deeper structural reforms.  Paul Ryan has also been very critical of Bernanke.

• Spending -- Mitt Romney has released the most detailed plan to cut Federal Spending since Ronald Reagan, if not Calvin Coolidge.  Much like his endorsement of Paul Ryan's budget before putting him on the ticket, Mitt's proposal shows his understanding that spending reduction is a key component of economic revival.  Again, Mitt's proposal might not go far enough, but it's a major step in the right direction.

• Tenth Amendment -- Last night, Mitt discussed the role of states as 'laboratories of democracy."  Mitt has endorsed block granting Medicaid to the states.  Romneycare, for all its flaws, is a policy Mitt defends on Tenth Amendment grounds.  As discussed above, Mitt's energy policy is based on empowering states.  Who knows, maybe Mitt will even champion Uproot and Overhaul.

I harbor no illusions about Mitt Romney.  I don't think his election will be some magic elixir.  I think the real action is, and will remain, in Congress.  I do, however, think Mitt will sign the legislation a conservative Congress sends him, and I think he will be a much better Commander-in-Chief.  In addition, several of Mitt's policy proposals are dramatically superior to anything we've seen in at least 30 (if not 90) years.  For those reasons, Cahnman's Musings unapologetically and unconditionally endorses Mitt Romney for President of the United States.

Paul Ryan at the Values Voter Summit

Paul Ryan brought his a-game to the Values Voter Summit yesterday:


Highlights:

• "The Obama Economic Agenda failed not because it was stopped, but because it was passed."

• "A classic Barack Obama straw-man: If anyone dares point out the facts of his record, then they're being negative and pessimistic about the future of the country."

• "If we renew the contract [with Obama], we'll get the same deal."

• "When a Romney/Ryan administration takes office, we will take responsibility."

• "The only argument Obama can win is against a straw man."

• "You would be hard pressed to find another group in America that does more to serve women and their babies than the Catholic Church."

• "In a just society, the law should stand on the side of life."

A Republican Party in Transition

I want you to think back to Wednesday, November 5, 2008; the day after Barack Obama's election.

Today, the Republican VP nominee is publicly identified with entitlement reform.  Audit the Fed is part of the party platform.  The Republican Party's central economic message is opportunity via entrepreneurship.

If I had offered you this situation in November 2008, would you have taken it?!?  Heck, if I had offered you a Mitt Romney/Paul Ryan ticket in November 2008, would you have taken that?!?  I certainly would.

This convention, and the entire campaign, is taking place at a weird moment in the history of the Republican Party.  The Tea Party has created a new political reality, but the institutional Republican party has yet to fully adjust.  While the Republican Party isn't maximizing this opportunity, it's light years ahead of where it was in 2008; that's good enough.

The institutional Republican party, even now, doesn't understand Barack Obama.  They don't understand the Fabian Socialists.  They don't understand the Frankfurt School.  They don't understand Saul Alinsky.  They don't understand Frank Marshall Davis.  They don't understand the long term objectives of the Weather Underground.  They don't understand third-world anti-Colonial thinking.  That's unfortunate, because if the institutional Republican party understood the a fore mentioned aspects of twentieth century progressivism, they could illustrate how the economic, geopolitical, and moral devastation Barack Obama has wrought has been deliberate.

That being said, consider how far we've come.  If the Republicans win, we'll get meaningful entitlement reform, tax reform, and constraints on the Federal Reserve.  This will alter the trajectory of federal spending, grow our economy, and prevent our central bank from printing money willy-nilly.  Four years ago, a Republican President "abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system."  We've already come VERY far; heading into November, it's good enough.

In his speech at FreePAC last month, Sen. Mike Lee pointed out that it took fifteen years to get from the Boston Tea Party to ratification of the Constitution.  This is a long-term fight.  It will continue past this convention, and past this election.  We still have A LOT of work ahead, but compared to November 2008, we've already covered A LOT of ground.

How Entitlement Reform will Promote Economic Growth

Last night on CNBC, Larry Kudlow called entitlement reform a distraction from economic growth; I can't find the transcript, but this tweet Kudlow sent out yesterday captures the same message:

Message to #Romney/Ryan: Don't lose the growth message.  Econ is still #1 issue.  #tcot

If Larry Kudlow believes entitlement reform is a distraction from economic growth and productive employment, then he's lost his marbles.  I can explain.

A long time ago, economists identified a phenomenon called crowding out.  Crowding out is a fancy-pants, highfalutin' term that means when Washington D.C. spends us into oblivion, there's less money left for businesses and consumers to consume and invest as they see fit.  Given that Business Investment is the primary driver of economic growth, any action that restrains Washington D.C.'s ability to crowd out business investment promotes economic growth and productive employment.

Medicare is the largest component of the Federal Budget.  It's also the fastest growing.  Left unchecked, Medicare will consume the U.S. economy.  Thus, getting Medicare on a sustainable less suicidal path is essential if we want to restrain Washington D.C.'s ability to spend us into oblivion crowd out business investment.  As Glenn Beck explains in the 2010 best-seller Broke:

As any budget expert will tell you, no honest discussion about getting the country back on a sustainable track can happen without talking about mandatory spending, of which entitlement programs are the most common form....In 2010, autopilot programs...will eat up 56 percent of our federal budget, and that does not include the interest that we pay on the money we pay on the money we have to borrow to meet those commitments (146-7)

Of course, being a blue-blooded, Wall Street, Republican Establishment type, Larry Kudlow would NEEEEEVER listen to Glenn Beck; thus, I will quote another eloquent and erudite economic analyst:

Harking back to the Founders' principles of constitutional limits to government is a very powerful message.  It's a message of freedom, especially economic freedom.  The tea partiers have delivered an extremely accurate diagnosis of what ails America right now: Government is growing too fast, too much, too expensively, and in too many places -- and in the process it is crowding out our cherished economic freedom.

That quote was from Larry Kudlow in April 2010.

Bottom Line: If you believe restoring free-market capitalism is the best path to prosperity, then putting Medicare on a less suicidal trajectory is critical to free up business investment.

Back to you Larry Kudlow.

Update: It might have been better to say that increased productivity is the primary driver of economic growth, and that business investment is the primary driver of increased productivity.

Medicare 2012: Freedom vs. Death Panels

Let's talk Medicare.  With Paul Ryan on the ticket, it's going to be a major topic.  That's fine with me.

Medicare is Broke.  It's not going broke, IT'S ALREADY THERE!!!  Medicare, as it's been understood for 50 years, isn't an option.  Left unchanged, Medicare will eventually consume our economy.  The relevant question is not whether Medicare will change, but how it will change.

In 2010, Barack Obama signed massive changes to Medicare into law as part of his health care law.  That legislation contained $700 billion in cuts to Medicare THAT ARE NOW WRITTEN INTO LAW.  To oversee these cuts, Obama's Health Care Law creates a new entity, called the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB).  According to the New England Journal of Medicine:

Provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (now being referred to as the Affordable Care Act, or ACA) create an Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) to meet the need to oversee health care system costs.1 The legislation establishes specific target growth rates for Medicare and charges the IPAB with ensuring that Medicare expenditures stay within these limits. The IPAB must also make recommendations to Congress as to how to control health care costs more generally.

 Translated into English, this means 15 unelected bureaucrats will ration health care from Washington D.C. without accountability to Congress or the American People.  For the record, IPAB was what Sarah Palin was talking about when she referred to 'death panels.'  That's Obama's vision.

Patient centered Medicare reform, by contrast, puts individual Americans in charge of their own Health Care.  Instead of an unaccountable Medicare Politburo making decisions for the entire country, Washington D.C. would send the money directly to individuals.  This would leave individuals free to purchase Health Care services in whatever manner they see fit.  Over time, as traditional price signals return to the Health Care services market, costs will come down.  Paul Ryan's budget proposal is one example of patient centered Medicare reform.

Medicare, as it was understood for 50 years, went away with Obama's health care law.  It's not coming back, because WE CAN'T AFFORD IT.  The relevant question now is what will replace it.  We can either follow Obama's vision of unaccountable bureaucrats rationing care or we can pursue patient centered reforms along the lines of Paul Ryan's proposal.  On way or the other, however, we must choose, because we can't afford the old status quo.

Paul Ryan on National Security

Over the past month, I've had a lot of positive things to say about Mitt's approach to national security.  That's good, because Paul Ryan's national security positions are unspecific and vague.  On national security, Paul Ryan is a blank slate.

In looking into Paul Ryan's record on national security issues I was amazed at it's thinness, especially for someone who has been in Congress for a decade and a half.  Paul Ryan supports standard Republican boilerplate on Afghanistan, he voted for some sanctions against Iran, and he opposed cutting and running in Iraq five years ago.  That being said, Paul Ryan has maintained remarkable silence on many national security issues, from border security, to domestic Islamic subversion, to Vladimir Putin's Russia.

Paul Ryan does deserve credit, however, for his position on Obama's War in Libya.  Last year, Paul Ryan said:

"[Obama] didn't go to Congress, didn't ask for authority, the leading from behind strategy at NATO I think was very strange, and I don't think they had a mission well defined.

This is important, because it demonstrates that Paul Ryan understands that the issue of Congressional approval supersedes any discussion of the merits or demerits of the policy.

I had hoped Mitt would pick Alan West or Michele Bachmann, both of whom have demonstrated national security leadership in the past year.  That obviously didn't happen.  Paul Ryan's addition to the ticket tells us nothing about the national security policies of a Romney/Ryan administration.

Bottom Line: Paul Ryan is a blank slate on National Security.  Unlike Barack Obama and Joe Biden, however, neither Mitt Romney nor Paul Ryan is actively committing treason against the United States.  That's good enough.

Update: John Bolton on this topic.

Franklin Roosevelt: A Monstrous Liar

Franklin Roosevelt: A Monstrous Liar

In a recent debate, when Governor Rick Perry described Social Security as “A Monstrous Lie,” he was right on a deeper level than he intended. Social Security’s financial difficulties are the logical consequence of its corrupt foundation. Social Security is a welfare transfer, not insurance, and Franklin Roosevelt lied when he said otherwise. Franklin Roosevelt also knew that government clients are reliable Democrats, so he deliberately designed Social Security to turn seniors into a dependent underclass. In order to solve this problem, it must first be properly defined, because different definitions lead to radically different solutions. Today, well-intentioned reformers, led by Congressman Paul Ryan, are boxing themselves in. Americans should not restructure Social Security until we justify its continued existence. Given Social Security’s morally bankrupt foundation, this is impossible. Americans should therefore dismantle Social Security, not save it.

In a January 1935 address, Franklin Roosevelt called on Congress to create “compulsory contributory annuities which in time will establish a self-sufficient system for those now young and for future generations.” When Franklin Roosevelt said that, he was consciously lying. Social Security has never been a “contributory annuity” to which an investor could stake a legal claim; the Supreme Court confirmed this in the 1960 case Nestor v. Fleming. Social Security has always been a welfare transfer from productive citizens to government clients. Franklin Roosevelt knew he was lying. Shortly before his January 1935 speech, Franklin Roosevelt confided to Labor Secretary Frances Perkins that Social Security was “the same old dole under another name. It [was] almost dishonest to build up an accumulated deficit for the Congress of the United States to meet in 1980.” Social Security first went bankrupt in 1983.

Franklin Roosevelt’s web of lies was never sustainable. Transfer payments are always welfare; they forcibly confiscate the property of one citizen and redistribute it to the politically favored. In so doing, they inevitably become vote-buying operations. Transfer payments create a structural imbalance where government clients vote into office politicians who ratchet up benefits while productive citizens are too busy to stop them. This misalignment of incentives is why Social Security’s financing so closely resembles a Ponzi scheme; eventually the Golden Goose always dies. Making matters worse, payroll taxes raise the cost of employing citizens by creating an artificial “wedge” between an employee’s take home pay and that employee’s cost to his employer. Social Security is worse than a Ponzi scheme; while the financing is identical and both destroy jobs, no one went to prison for refusing to participate in Bernie Madoff’s far less monstrous lie.

Focusing on the foundational corruption of Social Security, instead of myopically obsessing over financing, leads to radically different conclusions about what problem needs to be solved. Many similarities exist between the collapse of America's welfare state and the collapse of Soviet Communism; the differences are of degree, not kind. In this emerging debate, Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan, like former Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev, wants to preserve a corrupt system that deserves to die. Like Gorbachev, Congressman Ryan also wants to add trillions of new debt doing it. Post-Wall Street Bailout America can no longer afford to mask progressivism's economic symptoms; we need to address the core philosophical pathology. Congressman Ryan’s glasnost approach does more to subsidize Wall St than promote freedom; instead of a heavily regulated personal account, Americans should have the option to free ourselves from the Social Security system. The overwhelming majority of Americans under 30, and a substantial number of older citizens, will gladly renounce Social Security benefits in exchange for freedom from payroll tax tyranny.

Before discussing solutions to Social Security, Americans must properly define the problem. Social Security is built on a foundation of lies; it masks welfare and vote-buying in the illusion of insurance. President Obama’s callous attitude towards Social Security benefits during the debt ceiling debate demonstrates the tenuous, politically driven, nature of the corrupt status quo. Social Security's financial bankruptcy is a symptom of its moral bankruptcy; why should productive citizens subsidize government clients?!? Dependence transforms citizens into subjects; in a free society prosperous citizens will care for themselves. Social Security should be dismantled, not saved. Until Americans understand and acknowledge that the monstrous lie behind Americas collapsing welfare state extends far deeper than its financing, we cannot make Washington D.C. truly inconsequential in our lives.

The Author is a 30 year old Tea Party Activist in Austin, TX; he voted for Governor Perry twice last year