9. Employer Pensions

An employer has the option of offering a pension plan to employees or not. If offered, there should be written disclosure (dated hard copy) of the rules (co-payments, benefits, age and years of service to retire, restitution of equity upon termination of employment or of the plan, etc.), and whether the rules can be changed or the plan terminated. Just as with an insurance policy, it is the personal responsibility of the prospective employee to read and understand the plan and decide if he/she wants to work there. In recent years many plans have been changed or terminated (sometimes as part of bankruptcy) by firms in financial trouble. The government created the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. (PBGC) to protect workers from loss of pensions. Like most government plans it doesn’t work very well. Further, it creates the perverse incentive, or ‘moral hazard’, of temping firms to take advantage of PBBC. The PBGC disclosed in its annual financial report that as of Sept. 30, 05 it had $56.5 billion in assets to cover $79.2 billion in pension liabilities. There has been an explosion in recent years in the number of big, ailing companies - especially in labor-heavy industries like airlines and steel - transferring their pension liabilities to the PBGC. With billions of dollars flying out of the agency's door, concern has been mounting in Congress and elsewhere over its financial footing.

ARTS' Position: A company need not offer a pension plan, but if it does, the rules must be published when an employee joins, and not changed without negotiation. Anything less would be fraud, and breach of contract. The government’s only role should be to require full disclosure of the rules noted above, and ongoing disclosure to confirm that the plan is properly funded. The absence of these two forms of disclosure is what has led to the painful loss of pensions by both current and retired employees.

10. Social Security

SS is the largest U.S.government program (23 % of budget) and the largest government program in the world. It was enacted by Congress in 1935 as partial income for retirees, yet it is treated as a primary or total source by most retirees. Payments by workers started in 1937 at the rate of two percent of the first $3,000 of income per year for a total of $60. Employer and employee each pay half. Today the rate is 12.4 % on the first $90,000, for a total of $11,116. Adjusted for loss of dollar value (inflation), the $60 is now $834. Thus, in equal dollars, we are paying 13.3 times as much. Of course benefits, and those covered, have expanded. Payments are ‘invested’ by law in non-marketable U.S. bonds, and the government spends the money right away. Thus there is no meaningful ‘trust fund’, just another debt (about $26 trillion !!), which is treated as a non-budget item in government accounting (deceptive hiding?). We are in fact on a pay-as-you go plan, with payments from workers going directly to retirees. In 1937 the ratio of payers to beneficiaries was about 100 to 1, but now is less than 3 to 1. The government’s own accountants admit that by 2018 the program will be in ‘negative-cash-flow’ (benefit payments exceed tax income) and the government will need to borrow or raise taxes to have enough to pay retirees. Since government debt is already excessive (refer to the ‘Spending’ issue above), a large increase in taxes on workers will be needed, and this is a political time-bomb the politicians are avoiding. As ‘baby-boomers’ start to retire, there will be more trillions of unfunded liabilities. Congress is playing games with statistics to avoid the worker complaints from this reality. The law allows the government to change taxes and payments to beneficiaries at any time. Retirees have no equity in the plan (when you die there is no asset for your estate). A private (corporate) pension plan with such rules would be considered a rip-off and fraud, yet we are required by law to join SS. Adding to the insult, government workers and elected official are not required to join and have a better and cheaper plan (subsidized by taxpayers).

ARTS' Position: Give workers an option to; 1) Put half of their current payments into personal accounts (owned by them) as investments or an annuity, 2) Quit the plan entirely, or 3) Stay with the current plan. As a transition, SS taxes and benefits would be adjusted to put it on a fully-funded pay-as-you-go basis. A similar plan is described in detail in the ‘Cato Handbook on Policy’ shown in the Recommended Reading section below. In 1981 Chile started a system where citizens have property rights and equity in the government’s pension system. It is working well, and has been copied by others. I say the same results can be achieved in the U.S. !  In the USA, our Social Security and Medicare systems are facing combined unfunded liabilities of more than $65 trillion. Changes in these programs are needed so this debt will not be passed on to our children and grandchildren. 

11. States Rights (Federalism)

The 'Articles of Confederation' were considered too weak on national defense and other matters, so a convention was called to strengthen them. This evolved to writing an entire new Constitution, which was completed in 1787. At first the States were sovereign and dominate and the new nation was referred to as 'These United States'. This soon evolved to 'The United States of America' and States Rights kept getting weaker, especially when the federal government got control of the monetary system in 1913 with creation of the Federal Reserve System (more below). Our constitution grants enumerated powers (a list; if it’s not there, you can’t do it) to the Federal government (hereafter ‘DC’), and by the 10th amendment, all other powers to the States, or people. Over the years, Congress, the President and courts have twisted the ‘general welfare’ and ‘commerce’ clauses of the Constitution, and invented the 'implied powers' concept, to grant enormous powers to DC, including overriding existing state laws. The Founders knew it was good to have differences between states so citizens could ‘vote with their feet’ if laws and taxes got oppressive. This is why U.S. Senators were to be appointed by their state legislatures, so they would better represent the interests of the states in DC. Part of the reason the DC involvement has grown is that they control the monetary system (run by the Federal Reserve Bank, 'Fed') and can create money out of thin air! The size of the DC piggy bank is only limited by politics in the short run, and hyperinflation and bankruptcy in the long term, and this why states become dependent on DC grants for projects and professors’ pay. States love getting these grants, including those for local issues such as schools and police, and Congressmen love taking credit for them (it’s called ‘pork’ to get votes and campaign donations), but it comes with strings attached (‘You must do X and Y or we will stop sending money’). Thus, DC feel free to impose unfunded mandates, and immigrants/refugees, on the states, and activate the National Guard (originally State Militia), without the Governor’s permission.

ARTS' position: Federal power and spending must be pushed back. The Fed’s have no business in education, overriding state laws, drugs, abortion, and a long list of other local issues. The Federal government should not be involved in an issue, unless empowered by the Constitution. These issues should be viewed as none of the Federal governments' business. 

12.  Privacy and Personal Liberty

A. National ID Card: Support for a national ID card (with the same info imbedded in drivers licenses) is growing and must be stopped. Abuse is inevitable in this type of federal system.

B. Wiretapping: Tell your representative to protect Fourth Amendment guarantees against warrantless searches:

• Repeal the Protect America Act. The PAA legalizes warrantless wiretapping of U.S. residents, which the Bush Administration secretly began in 2001, and violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and the Fourth Amendment. (H.R. 3773 and 3782 would repeal the PAA.)
• Restore the requirement for individualized warrants for wiretapping of U.S. communications and email. U.S. Intelligence agencies cannot oversee themselves. The judicial branch has a necessary role in preventing abuses of power. (H.R. 3782 would restore individualized warrants for any wiretap of U.S. calls or emails, whereas H.R. 3773 would permit the wiretapping of some international calls and emails of Americans without individual warrants.)
• No immunity for telecommunications companies that broke the law by permitting the government to conduct surveillance of their customers' phone and email records. To grant those companies retroactive immunity condones presidents and private industry collaborating to ransack the public trust. (Neither H.R. 3782 nor H.R. 3773 currently grants immunity, but administration allies may introduce amendments that do so.)
• Let the public see the text of Congress's bills BEFORE they are passed. Fourth Amendment rights to privacy are among our fundamental and inalienable rights. The specific text of any bill that may affect these rights must go before the American people for comment.  

13. Abortion

Problem: There will always be abortions. The legality and conditions are what vary. Roe v Wade, and government payments in many cases, have made abortion so cheap and convenient it is often treated as a means of contraception. Carelessness and irresponsibility are rampant.

Solution:  ARTS members are personally opposed to abortion except to protect the mother's life, and say in no case should the government pay the costs. They further oppose abortion after the first trimester (3 months is plenty of time to make up your mind), and partial-birth abortions. However, the ARTS says one should not seek laws to force others to comply with one's own value system. Again, The 'Core Principle' applies (see Item 1b above). The question is. 'When does the fetus become a separate person with rights?'  Many people take the position that abortion is a moral or religious issue, and assert that the fetus is an 'unborn child', just as they righteously assert their dogma about deities, angels, virgin births, Heaven, Hell, etc. in the absence of supporting logic or fact. Others take the clinical approach that new DNA (and thus life) occurs at conception. These are meaningful positions, but do not negate the fact that the fetus is not a separate person with rights until born. It is a living part of the mother's body, like her arm, but not a 'person' with rights. Herein lies the basic dispute. The 'start of life' (conception, and new tissue in the future mother) is not the key. The key is the ‘birth’ of a new person with rights.

As to the law, a woman's body is her property, and does not belong to the government, her doctor, or her church. Thus, it is a woman’s right to make an informed choice on what happens to her body. In fact, for a responsible woman there are a series of three choices involved. Whether to;

1) Have sex,

2) Use protection, and

3) Have an abortion.

The Roe vs Wade ruling is invalid because the Federal government has no constitutional authority in this area. Thus it is a State issue.

In summary:

1. Opponents of abortion should not attempt to impose their personal views or religious beliefs on others by force of law. That would be immoral and unconstitutional. They should peacefully oppose abortion without using force or threat to the pregnant woman, or her doctors and staff and their facilities.

2. Proponents should exercise their right without expecting others (including via the government) to pay for it, and they should be responsible by observing the three choices shown above.

14. Separation of Church and State

Persons of faith sometimes complain that their right to engage in religious activities is unfairly restricted. They say our Founders were Christians, so the USA is a Christian nation. Well, they were also white males; does that make us a white male nation? Solutions are usually sought in the 'Establishment Clause' of the First Amendment, or 'Freedom of Speech'. I say this is the wrong approach since these clauses are only about the government; 1) Not naming and supporting a certain religion (as had been done in Europe and some states), and 2) 'The free exercise' of the religion chosen by an individual. As we see in 'Dave's Core Principle', property rights need to be superior to personal rights (such as religion) to avoid conflicts. This applies to many subjects and situations.

ARTS' position: ARTS recommends a property rights approach. While it is compulsory to abide by the laws of the government where you live, religion is an optional and personal choice of each individual. Laws and rights of others must not be violated in the practice of religion. Our constitution protects us from tyranny of the majority. Thus, religious groups should not attempt to mix government and religion, even when in a majority (or active minority), since it imposes (by force of law for coins, pledge), or insertion into government events and places, owned by all (schools, buildings, prayers at events) their option on others. The U.S. has complete freedom of religion so people can engage in their religion as much as they like on their own time, events, and property. However, just as it would be trespassing for a preacher to enter a private home or event to conduct a service, no religious group can use or adorn property, objects, procedures, or events owned in part by others (such as the government) without the permission of ALL owners (not just a majority), or their authorized agent. This applies to coins, the Pledge of Allegiance, public schools, non-church meetings, displays in government buildings, prayers at public meetings, even if attendance to such events or displays is optional. 

A similar issue of trespassing would apply to Islamic mosques using loudspeakers for 'call to prayers' if they create unwanted noise in the neighborhood.  The noise should be stopped on the basis of violating the neighbor’s property rights ('quiet enjoyment' laws and precedents).

Bush-43’s 'faith based' subsidies to religious groups are an obvious unconstitutional ploy to promote religion, and should be stopped. Further, it harms religious work by making such groups dependent on government handouts, and subject to its rules (strings attached).

Religion obviously should not be part of our relations with other countries as to special treatment abroad, or with their lobbies in the U.S. (can you say Israel and AIPAC?).

15. Education

Today’s K-12 government schools offer essentially only one flavor of education. In some districts parents can choose a school, but this offers minimal variation. They all preach 'government approved' mush that promotes government as the source of 'good and nice' things, and hide the many lies, and unconstitutional, criminal acts of the government, at all levels. Kids learn the wrong lesson when school is 'free' (paid by others), because most funding is by property taxes, without regard to whether the taxpayer has kids in school. This teaches them that the government is the source of 'free' benefits. Administrators have a perverse incentive to promote poorly educated kids to keep them enrolled so the state and federal money keeps coming. Our students test lower than students in European schools under similar circumstances. A big part of the difference is the poor work ethic we engender in our kids due to lack of discipline, including almost no risk of expulsion for causing trouble.  

Our college and university 'industry' is also in trouble due to government intervention. The administrations, faculty, and students have all become dependent on federal financial 'assistance' in the form of subsidies, grants, and student loans. This has flooded the industry with money, with the distortions you would expect in the form of; a) Higher fees for students (the admin's keep raising prices and never lose customers, because they just borrow more and graduate with big debts), b) Many professors spend half or more of their time writing grant applications, then doing the project, and teach few or no classes, and c) The administrators (Deans, Chancellors) spend more on buildngs and excess staff to enhance the school's (and their own) stature. All of these funds from DC are unconstitutional and do more harm than good by distorting prices, causing excess spending, and making the admin's and faculty beholden to DC. This applies most to the Economics departments which kow-tow to Federal spending and fake money programs (the Federal Reserve), to keep their money-line secure. The 'tenure' concept started centuries ago when kings funded the universities and often dictated what should be taught. It has long lost its purpose and results in unneeded staff that hampers management of the school's finances and evolution of courses (stuck with unneeded faculty). Professors don't deserve guaranteed jobs any more than anyone else!

ARTS' solutions: Education of children is the responsibility of parents as to amount and type. The same benefits we enjoy from a free market in food, cars, etc. (as to variety of types, and cost) would apply if schools were all private (for-profit or non-). By paying tuition, parents would instantly ‘be involved’ to be sure they were getting their money’s worth. School administrators would instantly treat students and parents as customers who seek a good service, and can shop around for it! Good teachers would get raises the same way an engineer does (ask if you feel you deserve it, or quit and go to a competitor). Good teachers attract customers. Parents would monitor curriculum content and teacher quality and negotiate for changes, or leave. Poor quality schools would be exposed by independent testing services or college entrance exams. This would reduce incentive for administrators to engage in grade inflation, because they would get caught.

We recommend: 1) Allow creation of private (profit or non-) K-12 schools without government controls, 2) Phase-out property taxes as a source of revenue for government schools (this is immoral gang-theft-by-vote) since payments have no relationship to having kids in school, and replace with tuition. Note that some schools would be run in homes by volunteer teachers at about 10% of today's costs per student; they tried this in Harlem, NY and were shut-down by the government!, 3) Terminate all federal  money to schools at all levels (K to PhD) such as grants, subsidies, 'No Child Left Behind', abolish Dept. of Education, etc. All are unconstitutional and often violate states rights, 4) End all tenure programs (K to College), and 5) Write tax laws that encourage donors to create scholarships and endowments to provide affordable access to these private nonprofit schools for needy students. At the K-12 level, all of these changes will allow parents to choose the school that best fits their children’s needs (including religion) instead of pouring more tax dollars into the present failing system. 'Do-gooders' will complain that the above approach does not guarantee a certain level (to 9th or 12th grade?) for every child due to negligent or poor parents. They prefer equal mediocrity for all. However, history shows that incentive, parents, and liberty produce much better results than government schools, while private charity helps those in need. 

At the university level, these changes will result in more focus on teaching, rather than research grants for extra income for the faculty. Let industry do more of its own research! We're not saying 'end research', but just reduce it to about 25% or less of faculty time, not the over 50% that often occurs now (especially in engineering, science, and economics).

16. Environment

It is a violation of the property rights of others (including damage to their bodies/health) to cause pollution, erosion, floods, noise, odors, or other changes to the natural state that cause damage, hazards, or threats thereof. Remember, your property not only includes land, buildings, cars, etc., but also your body, thus health hazards are included.  The question is: "How to reduce or eliminate such violations, without ending the conduct, or economic viability, of needed activities (electrical generation, heating, etc.) that create  pollution." Another problem is how to reduce or discredit the self-serving political hype dished-out by self-serving folks like Al Gore and his followers, many of whom are sincere, but have bought into the false threats about CO2 emissions by human activity, dangers of earth-warming, etc.

ARTS' position: Local and occasional problems can be handled from a property rights perspective by suing the source for restitution (not just a fine paid to the government). For example, toxic smoke, underground or surface liquid toxics that enter your body, land or other property can be litigated as property damage. Nuisance items (no permanent damage) such as odors and noise that come upon your property are the same. Sometimes the polluter will claim; "We were here first, so have a 'grand-fathered' right". The answer usually is; 'Sorry, but you just got away with pollution for a while until someone complained.' A classic case is building homes next to an existing pig farm with its odors and flies (or a noisy 7 day X 24 hr. factory, etc.). Must the pig farmer cease or control his 'nuisance emissions', or must the new neighbors beware? For non-owned items such as wild animals, or natural 'wetlands', protective legislation can be passed, but it is important to not violate property and personal rights (such as farmers) in the process. Protection from, or elimination of, long-term pollution (electrical, chemical, and manufacturing plants, and vehicles, etc.) requires a legal program that is on-going, as discussed below. This all ties-in with Energy policy, as discussed in Item 23 below.

As to the false-hype about the causes and dangers of earth-warming, look at the report 'Enviro Effects of Increased Atmospheric CO2' at

http://www.oism.org/pproject/GWReview_OISM600.pdf, published in the 'Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons' in 2007. The report shows that the causes and dangers of global warming are based 100% on junk science. A key chart is in the Summary on P.1 of the report, where the current warming trend of earth is shown to be still recovering from the 'mini-ice age' of years 1500-1700. We are still below the 3,000 year average temperature. Yes, the earth is warming, but it is just part of a normal cycle that ice-core samples prove has been happening for eons due to natural causes (sun spots, etc.), and is in fact beneficial to plants and animals (including humans). Yes, there could be coastal flooding, but human production of CO2 is not the cause. The most vocal promoters of Global Warming as a man-made disaster are not interested in the details of physical science. They are interested in two things: political control over the general public and the establishment of international socialism. Notice the political orientation of the 'control' pushers.

17.  Immigration, and Border Security

Problem: Having a 'Work Permit' (green card), becoming a 'permanent resident', or citizen of the US is a privilege that should include a set of rules and obligations. You must apply, be accepted, and follow the rules, or don't come. Our country was built by immigrants who came here to work, be free, and become Americans (use our language and laws, and adopt the USA as their new 'homeland'), and that is still desirable. But now, in addition to jobs and freedom, free health, education and other benefits are part of the attraction, and most immigrants (legal and illegal) have no intention of assimilating as Americans. Many citizens, legislators, and foreign governments, want to use immigration as a 'social refuge system' which allows the poor and displaced of other nations to come here, rather than work to cure the problems in their homeland. Thus, the Federal government deposits hundreds of Somalis, Hmong, Russian Jews, etc. in communities, without permission of the State government or community. More federal unfunded mandates, arrogance and loss of States Rights! The US has become a ‘salad bowl’ instead of a 'melting pot' and many immigrants become a burden on our benefits system. They often replace citizens working in low-paying jobs, adding to welfare costs and cultural stress, especially for blacks. Many unskilled citizens have lost their jobs to illegal immigrants. The 'illegal aliens' (a term often replaced by 'undocumented', as if they are victims or otherwise legal) are a further risk because they bypass checks on health and criminal records.

Illegal aliens take advantage of our freedoms by getting bolder and publicly demanding 'immigrant rights' (in-state tuition to college, health/welfare benefits, free K-12 school, welfare, etc.) even though they are trespassers in our land. The Mar-06 mass demonstrations in many US cities are a good example. They were timed to occur a week before Congress started debate on new laws.

Minimum wage laws are a big part of this problem. Most laws require pay in the $5 to 7 per hour range, and many jobs don't justify this pay (i.e., employer can't make a profit), so employers look for other solutions. Cheap immigration labor is one alternative. It is said that Americans won't take the below minimum wage jobs, so immigrants are needed in order to get unskilled work done. WRONG! Americans will do the work, but wage laws prevent them being offered at low rates. If the competitive market doesn't support the prices needed to cover the high minimum wage, the jobs disappear, or are secetly given to illegals. When displaced by cheap illegal immigrant workers, our unskilled citizens may just go on welfare, leading to cultural problems and higher government expenses. Illegal immigration is not the answer to achieving price reductions! The 'Anchor Baby' loophole ceated by the 14 th Amendment to our Constitution allows illegals to become a legal 'US Family'. 

Most politicians ignore illegal immigration because: 1) cheap labor is sought by their campaign donors, or 2) immigrants are likely to vote for politicians who hand out the free services (in most states it is easy to just get the ID needed to register from a trash bin). Illegal immigration is increasing because of: 1) the ease of walking over the border, 2) the corruption and restrictions that inhibit creation of jobs in their homeland, and 3) lax enforcement by the INS at the border and in the US.

The government of Mexico lobbies against US immigration reform because it wants the $20 billion dollars per year their people in the US send home (known as 'remittances').

After oil, this repatriated money is the second biggest source of income for Mexico.

The Mexican government is complicit in illegal immigration because; 1) It relieves pressure to reform the government socialism and corruption that reduces job creation in Mexico, 2) Their Ambassador refuses to use the term 'illegal' in reference to those who sneak over the border when interviewed on TV, 3) They desperately need the money, and 4) They published a booklet to assist illegal entry.

Few people know that Mexico has many restrictions on Americans who live there. Americans cannot own property, or get citizen-style health and education benefits, such as they demand here. While the Mexican government not only requests, but claims special rights for ‘their people’ in the U.S., it is a FELONY to be an illegal immigrant in Mexico, subject to fines, imprisonment and deportation. What dishonesty and chutzpa !! What a bizarre one-way deal they are demanding!!

Our proud and historic tradition as a 'melting pot' is being abused. There are lumps and islands in the pot made of people who are here illegally, or refuse to assimilate. 

ARTS' Solution:

1) Employers should be required to verify legal status of all current employees and then all new hires, of any ethnic group (hence, there would be no charges of profiling), and have the government ship the illegal persons home. Once the word is out that deporting is being done, many would leave on their own.

2) Border restrictions, and temporary resident permits, should be enforced.  Laws against harboring criminals and abetting illegal acts should be enforced. This will stop the work of bleeding-heart liberals and misguided religious folks from encouraging and performing illegal acts.

3) The 14 th Amendment should be revised or interpreted, so 'birthright citizenship' does not apply to children of illegal aliens. Since the loosened rules in the Immigration Act of 1965 a flood of immigrants, then their relatives, have come to the US primarily for jobs, and benefits, and most have no intention of learning English or assimilating (i.e., becoming ‘Americans’).

4) Proficiency in English should be a requirement for citizenship. The U.S. should adopt English as an official language for all government documents and discussions, including voting info. This will reduce costs, and encourage assimilation.  Having public documents (by both business and government) issued in multiple languages, and so-called ‘multiculturalism’, creates a trend toward cultural disintegration in any country. The 2006 riots in France, Germany, Australia, and England are examples of the results.

5) Immigrants must agree to follow U.S. laws. If you want to live under Islamic 'Sharia', don't come! Religious activity, such as Islamic calls to prayer on loudspeakers which cover a neighborhood, must be treated as a violation of the neighbor's property rights. 

6) The concept of 'hyphenated Americans' (such as 'Mexican-, and African-American', or by religion) should be discouraged (but not made illegal), since it tends to slow assimilation and create separate sub-cultures. This hyphenation is a sign of resistance to assimilation (a desire to keep your group separate). There should be an oath (spoken, written, witnessed, and signed) upon becoming a citizen that the person will adopt the USA as their new homeland, and give her their first loyalty above their religion and former homeland.

7) Enforce the fact that illegal immigrants have no 'rights' except humane treatment while they are being deported! In March-06 there were huge demonstrations in many U.S. cities by immigrants (legal and illegal) demanding there self-made 'rights' that they claim are about the same as U.S. citizens!

One of the best solutions is to improve the legal immigration process. Excessive delays (years), and rude staff (both are typical problems in government programs), cause many otherwise honest immigrants to sneak in.

18. Private Property and Eminent Domain

Private property rights are the foundation of a just and prosperous nation. History, and the world today, shows that justice and prosperity are reduced by lack of such rights. ‘Partial Takings’ abound due to down-zoning of property by the government at all levels (Federal to city). An example is when they rule that, to maintain ‘open space’, a farmer can’t lease a patch of his ground along a road to a billboard firm. At the very least, he should be compensated for loss of income, and land value. The examples are legion. If the ‘community’ wants open-space, let them pay for it! The same logic applies for abuse of eminent domain, where ‘public use’ is applied to taking (owner is forced to sell at an appraised price) someone’s home so a business that sells to the ‘public’ can use the land for a store, condos, etc. Liberals like to take money from ‘the rich’ using ‘gang theft by vote’ to fund their projects, so it is only a small step to use eminent domain to take land! ARTS will fight to stop this abuse. 

19. Gun Ownership

Activist groups have attempted to limit private gun ownership by citing the threat of accidents in the home and killings by crazed or criminal people. They attempt to eliminate damage by deviates and criminals by restricting everyone.

ARTS' Position: The second amendment to the Constitution is usually cited as the legal basis to own a gun, but this is related to state militias (why else mention it). In fact, gun ownership is an inherent right, the same as owning a potentially lethal device such as a car, knife or ball bat, and it is only improper use that is subject to regulation. Concern over home gun safety is more emotional than real. The record shows that gun-owners are very safety conscious. Since the 1930s the population has more than doubled, the number of guns in the US has quintupled, yet firearm accidents have been cut in half. A 2002 study in Maryland shows firearms average 0.8% of unintentional deaths in over the 18-year span. As to hazards to children in the home and family life, drownings take more lives of children under 14 than firearms by a factor of 18 over the period. Even knives, and scissors take more children’s lives than firearms. More children suffocate (e.g., choke on solid food) by a factor of 16 than die from firearms. As to killings by criminals, the government’s war on drugs has created drug dealer turf wars that account for over 90% of deaths by guns in the U.S. These killers can get guns no matter what restrictions are put on purchases. In England, Canada, and Australia where gun ownership is highly restricted, burglaries and muggings (even daylight home robberies) have increased because criminals feel safe. In states where concealed-carry is allowed, muggings decrease because criminals are afraid their targets may be armed. ARTS says activists should focus on other threats and leave responsible gun owners alone. 

20.  Social Programs; Welfare and Culture

Our vast social programs, preferred minorities, and uncontrolled immigration, are destroying our culture. We are at the 'tipping point' in many areas where benefit recipients and new (often illegal) immigrants control the vote. Government has become Mother and Boss, and people become dependent and demand handouts and other special treatment as 'rights', rather than working for their own success. Ethics are in decline because one's reputation matters less when a person is shielded by Mother's laws. Lawbreaking and misconduct thrive.

ARTS wants all levels of government to 'back off' and let people manage their own affairs and interaction. Private welfare and counseling (such as Red Cross, Salvation Army, Goodwill, churches, private orgs, etc.) will serve the truly needy well. Further, private groups require less than half as much money to do the job due to better efficiency, and reduced overhead, fraud and abuse. The end ot the 'entitlement' attitude and laws will cause people to manage their lives better. There will be fewer self-made 'victims', and more 'responsible citizens'. Incentives rule !! Refer to Chapter 2 'Empire' for a discussion of decadence in a failing empire.

Humans thrive in an environment where they are comfortable with the region's personal value system, laws, religious attitudes, etc. This gives the feeling of 'home'. A common language has a lot to do with this bonding. Conversely, all animals (humans included) are uncomfortable (or resentful and violent) when others mingle with them that are excessively 'different' (especially if staying separate is done on purpose), or attack the established values. We see the results in the 2005 and 2006 riots of Europe, the Mid East (indeed since Israel was created in 1948), and Australia, among others.

ARTS says 'Reduce Welfare, Encourage Personal Responsibility', and recommends that these problems can be avoided by; 1) Making English the official, and only, language for use by the government (documents, voting, road signs, etc.), 2) Making English proficiency a requirement of citizenship, and 3) Discourage (but not make illegal) the use of  'hyphenated Americans' in speech and text.

The failed concept of 'multiculturalism' opposes assimilation (the adoption by immigrants of their new country's language and customs), and leads to ghetto concepts in personal interaction and housing. Today, a high percentage of immigrants (legal and illegal) have no intention of assimilating. They are only here for jobs and benefits. This will lead to strife for all.

History and logic show that my 'less government intervention' approach not only yields more liberty, but more peace, justice, prosperity and better ethics. This approach rewards personal responsibility and work, and private charity cares well for the needy (and there are about 80% fewer cases due to reduced abuse, reduced perverse incentives-i.e., 'career' welfare users-, lower costs due to use of volunteers, and no 'entitlements').

The 'more government' systems such as Progressive, Liberal, Socialist have the opposite effect, and do more harm than good (counting side-effects) largely due to; a) reduced ethics due to immoral fundraising ('tax the rich', gang-theft-by-vote), b) Concentration of power in the central government, which always leads to less liberty, and prosperity, and more corruption, and c) Damage to society due to social programs that reward lack of personal responsibility and work (career welfare, etc.).

When people become dependent on government, they care less about support from, and relationships with, friends and family. As these relationships whither, other social problems such as crime, broken homes, and laziness grow.

21. Gay, Ethnic, and Hate Laws

There are many conflicts in the law as to what gays (homosexual persons) can do. Marriage and adoption are active issues. Most churches view gay conduct as a sin (i.e., wrong even if you are not violating or threatening another's rights; see issue 2, 'Core Principle' above). Of course, those who consider it a sin (or on any subject; abortion, gambling, etc.) are free to peacefully promote their views, short of violating the rights of the so-called 'sinners' by ;1) Their conduct, and 2) Lobbying  the government for passage of  laws to impose  their views on others by force.

ARTS views these conflicts as examples of why the government should 'back off' and abolish laws that control our lives by favors and restrictions (i.e., social engineering). Marriage is a personal matter and none of the government's business. Favorable tax laws for married persons should be abolished. A 'marriage contract' will handle inheritance, etc., and should be used by all; gay and straight. Adoption should be controlled by the birth parents and private orgs (if parents died together, gave-up rights, etc.).

Laws giving any group special rights and preferential treatment (which creates a 'preferred minority') should be abolished also.  Such laws are easily abused by ethnic persons or groups. For example, 1. In Oct-07, the former football coach of a major U.S. university won a $2 million judgment claiming the school fired him because of his race (black), not his 6-27 won-loss record, and 2. A minority person now feels free to park illegally (including at the front door!) of a shopping center, or post office, etc., since usually no one will challenge them for fear of a lawsuit, or being attacked! ‘Hate Crime’ laws are another example. There should be no 'special' penalties; murder is murder. All citizens should have the same rights, with no special rights for gays, or any other group, as to race, sex, economic or social status, religion, etc. (see 'Core Principle' in Issue # 2 above). People should be able to associate with whomever they want without fear of lawsuit for violation of special 'civil rights', and the same applies to clubs, employers, etc. as to membership, hiring, and firing (short of violating a person's rights). This approach leads to a just and harmonious society, where people learn to 'get along' without government coercion.

Restrictions and favors do more harm than good as to improving social, and economic success of minority groups. Special rights and subsidies reduce incentive for self-improvement, and create the opportunity to abuse such rights. Intrusion in people's lives is unconstitutional and none of the government's business.

For more, go to the essay ‘Freedom of Association and Rights’, May 22, 2010, by Dr. Tibor Machan at http://www.thedailybell.com/1066/Tibor-Machan-Freedom-of-Association-and-Rights.html .

22. The Drug War

Our legal system for drugs is antiquated and distorted with hypocrisy and inconsistencies. 'Drugs' such as nicotine and caffeine (stimulants, uppers) and alcohol (a depressant, downer) are legal to use and available anywhere. They are both damaging to health, but are legal for political reasons (voter demand), and because the government wants the tax revenue. Other uppers and downers are illegal. Extracts of marijuana with proven medicinal uses are illegal, while morphine (made from otherwise illegal opium) is used by doctors for pain suppression. Why is one OK and not the other? Changes are needed. While excess use of 'sporting' drugs is a serious medical and social problem, only fools and ignorant youths do it. However, ARTS says criminalization of such stupid activity only makes it worse. Our experience with alcohol prohibition is a good comparison. Further, such use is none of the government's business unless the user violates or threatens someone else's rights (see Dave's 'Core Principle' in issue  # 2 above). The FDA and our 'War on Drugs' do much more harm than good. Users can get drugs easily even after years of the Drug War (but they cost more now), and the violent 'turf wars' of pushers and gangs, plus burglaries and muggings by users to support their habit, are worse than ever. It also corrupts police; 1) With the easy abuse of 'asset forfeiture' laws (which can be imposed as 'civil' arrests on just 'suspects'; no profit on illegal acts); includes local police taking title to, and selling, cars, planes, ranches, etc. without trial; see article at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs/special/forfeiture.html), and 2) funds and excitement from SWAT Team 'combat' style attitudes and raiding equipment. Our illegal and immoral war in Afghanistan is adding to thr problem. Since we started the war in Nov-01, the production of opium poppies has soared. The government of Mexico is near collapse as drug lords murder government and police people who won't cooperate; most do.

ARTS' solution is to treat drugs like alcohol and nicotine (tax it and control age of buyer and offer optional control on purity of product), and handle abusers as; a) A mental and medical problem, or b) Illegal if a user threatens others, such as driving a car while high. Abuse and violence will soon subside, just as with alcohol, after the end of prohibition. The fact that many drugs are more potent than alcohol makes it even more urgent to get such business out of the hands of criminals. 

23. Energy

Problem: Energy costs and consumption are going up worldwide, while oil reserves and production (barrels per day, B/D) are going down. The world’s daily production averaged 83 million B/D in 2004, and the USA consumed about 25% of it. Production of ‘cheap oil’ (cheap to pump and refine) is forecast to decline to 39 mill. B/D by 2030 while consumption increases to 118 ! This is the 'peak oil' concept, where wells in liquid oil pools start to produce less per day. The difference will have to be made up by coal, natural gas, tar-sands, shale-oil, nuclear, wind, solar, and bio-fuel, algae farms, etc., OR CONSERVATION !! Each fuel has its own economic, technical, and enviro issues. Oil has been cheap to get, and convenient to use, so has been the first choice so far. As the price of oil goes up, these alternate fuels will become more attractive, especially if renewable and/or sustainable.

Consumption by China and India is growing faster than any other country. They are shopping for long-term OIL DEALS, big time! This ties-in with why Bush invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, and is threatening Iran (as of NOV-07); namely to control the Greater Mid East oil producers (including Uzbekistan, other ‘xxstans’, the Caspian area, and North Africa) before other countries make deals for it. Bush and Cheney wanted it ALL!

Solution: ARTS recommends; 1. End the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, and engage in peaceful oil-supply negotiations with all producers worldwide (we are a big customer, and they need us!), 2. Allow eco-friendly oil drilling in all parts of the USA. Note that the Audubon Society has done this well in their preserves, 3. Encourage development of alternate fuels and methods (such as electricity from new-generation engines, solar, hydro and nuclear), and 4. Allow gas and oil prices to rise to their free-market levels, without subsidies or control, but with appropriate anti-pollution laws based on property-rights (of your body, water, air, and land) for those people and places at present or future risk. The past errors, distortions and fears of nuclear energy need to be updated and corrected so the new and safe methods for generation of electricity can be employed.

These four changes will give incentive for conservation and production of alternate energy. The free market is very good at responding to demand. Government bureaucrats always spend more and accomplish less than people using their own money, and their projects usually do more harm than good. For example, consider the politically-driven scandal of subsidies for ethanol, which is toxic, expensive, causes land misuse by excess corn production, is bad for the environment, and increases food prices, etc. BOO !  Algea farms, using flooded ponds, have good potential because they; use minimal fertilizer; can use areas with bad soil; and can use saltwater. New 'external combustion' engines are more efficient, and can burn low grade fuels. For a comprehensive list of energy choices, see www.peswiki.com). This all ties-in with Environmental policy, as discussed in Item 16 above.

24. Traits of Capitalism and Corporations:

Liberals, Socialists, and Progressives like to attack 'Capitalism' and label it as a 'social system', and 'corporations' as bastions of greed and abuse. However, Capitalism is defined in my 1953 and 1961 dictionaries as an 'economic system' based on private ownership and free enterprise. Current editions have crept toward defining it as a 'social system' as Liberal editors take control; very convenient, but false. A Corporation is just a legal structure to allow shared ownership and financing. Liberals like to say that corps are a way to avoid personal responsibility. These definitions were invented by Liberals as straw men to avoid their own complicity in corrupt and unconstitutional government. It is bad 'people' (as usual; same for churches and governments), bad laws, corrupt government (including legal 'favors', subsidies, etc.), and perverse incentives that cause the trouble. Liberals avoid criticizing government because they want it to keep giving the legal favors and welfare, but only to their projects. What a stash of ignorance and hypocrisy! For example, the June 26, 02 main editorial in the Wall Street Journal, by Dr. Henry Manne (George Mason Univ., Univ. of Chicago, etc.), made a great point that the Williams Act of 1968 (now rules 13d and 14d of the 1934 Securities Act) was the birth of the Boardroom and Officer fraud and self-dealing we have been seeing since the '80s (it took a few years to set in). The new law required takeover groups to announce their intent once they had 5 % of the target stock, which gave warning so officers could protect themselves. This allowed officers of many firms to get lazy and corrupt without risk of getting booted out. Remember, corporations become takeover targets only because their profits, and return on assets, are low, usually due to bad management. In takeovers, the shareholders win, but bad managers lose! Thus, at-risk bad managers whine to the government for protection (can you say 'campaign donation'?). Many states have passed laws to ‘protect’ their local firms from ‘outsiders’, and the ’poison pill’ was born to fend-off the takeover groups! It wasn't long (and quite predictable) that biased 'Buddy' Directors were selected by Officers (a ‘slate’; a reverse of the proper order). The self-dealing started, and the combined 'Chairman and CEO' position was born (an inherent conflict) ! These hot-shot CEOs plundered their firms with huge salaries and stock options, while trying to set a glorious, resume-enhancing, growth record with short-term profit enhancements (reduce staff, announce grand plans, etc.), and excess debt, spending and risk They often got themselves and their firms in business or legal trouble, but left with ‘golden handshakes’ or hung around a while with ‘retention bonuses’ (read, ‘scoop up the last few bucks’).  Exodus, Hewlett-Packard, Home Depot, and Georgia-Pacific are examples. There are hundreds! Why should a low-performing, or corrupt, CEO get a multi-million dollar bonus when fired?? It is white-collar theft!

Solution: ARTS says the solution is to repeal the Williams Act, and other distortions of the free market, not pass a slew of new regulations. Let the free market do its work; Then Shareholders will wake-up and vote for honest, competent Directors that select and monitor the officers.

25. Origins of 2008 Crash and Effect of Bailouts

The rush of home loan defaults and bank problems started in late 2007, and peaked in Sep-08, and is continuing at this writing in Aug-08. The underlying cause was Fake Money, as described in Chapter 3. This excess supply of money, delivered to lenders by the Fed and its pals at FreddieMac and FannieMae, was the ‘mother’s milk’ of market distortion. 

 A major facilitator was the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), a 1977 federal law that requires banks and thrifts to offer credit throughout their entire market area and prohibits them from targeting only wealthier neighborhoods with their services, a practice known as "redlining." The purpose of the CRA is to provide (force?) credit, including home ownership opportunities, to underserved (unqualified?) populations and commercial loans to small businesses.

The CRA was passed into law by the U.S. Congress in 1977 as a result of national grassroots pressure for affordable housing, and despite considerable opposition from the mainstream banking community. The CRA mandates that each banking institution be evaluated to determine if it has met the credit needs of its entire community. That record is taken into account when the federal government considers an institution's application for deposit facilities, including mergers and acquisitions. The CRA is enforced by the financial regulators (FDIC, OCC, OTS, and FRB). In 1995, as a result of interest from President Clinton's administration, the implementing regulations for the CRA were strengthened by focusing the financial regulators' attention on institutions' performance in helping to meet community credit needs. These changes were very controversial and as a result, the regulators agreed to revisit the rule after it had been fully implemented for five years. Thus in 2002, the regulators opened up the regulation for review and potential revision.

The Clinton Administration's regulatory revisions with an effective starting date of January 31, 1995 were credited with substantially increasing the number and aggregate amount of loans to small businesses and to low- and moderate-income borrowers for home loans. Part of the increase in home loans was due to increased efficiency and the genesis of lenders, like Countrywide (set up as an ‘off brand’ by Bank of America), that was aggressive and did not mitigate loan risk with savings deposits (ie, borrowers must have deposits) as did traditional banks using the new subprime authorization. This is known as the secondary market for mortgage loans (high risk for banks). The revisions allowed the securitization (packaging, with insurance, and called AAA; FRAUD!!) of CRA loans containing subprime mortgages. The first public securitization of CRA loans started in 1997 by Bear Stearns, and it helped break them in Sep-08!. The number of CRA mortgage loans increased by 39 percent between 1993 and 1998, while other loans increased by only 17 percent ( a flood of money into high risk).

In 2003, the Bush Administration recommended what the NY Times called "the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago." This change was to move governmental supervision of two of the primary agents guaranteeing subprime loans, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under a new agency created within the Department of the Treasury. However, it did not alter the implicit guarantee that Washington will bail the companies out if they run into financial difficulty; that perception enabled them to issue debt at significantly lower rates than their competitors. The changes were generally opposed along Party lines and eventually failed to happen

Among banks and the regulatory agencies, there was a consensus that data collection, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements imposed a heavy burden on small community institutions. As a result of a 2002 review of the CRA regulations, and revision of an initial Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) proposal following a public commenting period that was largely negative, the FDIC, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Federal Reserve Board (FRB), made substantive changes to the implementation of regulations for the CRA for banks (not thrifts). Credits: Excepting inserts ‘(xx)’, most of the above five paragraphs are from the Wiki entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act .

In the 1980s, groups such as the activists at ACORN (‘Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now’, www.acorn.org) began pushing charges of "redlining" - claims that banks discriminated against minorities in mortgage lending. In 1989, sympathetic members of Congress got the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act amended to force banks to collect racial data on mortgage applicants; this allowed various studies to be ginned up that seemed to validate the original accusation.

In fact, minority mortgage applications were rejected more frequently than other applications - but the overwhelming reason wasn't racial discrimination, but simply that minorities tend to have weaker finances. A study in 1992 proved that bias was not the problem. Yet the harm was done and banks loosened their rules to avoid lawsuits. 

It all comes back to how distortions of the free-market by the intended beneficiaries, as is the case with these subprime mortgages. The main ongoing effect of the crash is government intervention in the ‘repair’ process of failing firms. Instead of letting the free market and laws take care of troubled companies, the Obama regime wants to own and control the process.

A good example is an article on the government’s takeover of Chrysler as written by Peter Schiff (see #7 in ‘Recommended Authors’ at end of this book) on May 5, 2009 and quoted in part here: “……A real bankruptcy is the only solution. In it, current shareholders get wiped out, current contracts and obligations are voided, and the remaining assets, both physical and intellectual, are sold to the highest bidders. But the process would create the opportunity for new management, with private capital, to buy auto-producing assets for pennies on the dollar, hire skilled auto workers at much lower costs, scrap out-of-date business practices, and produce cars cheaply and profitably. Under the guise of "saving jobs," the Administration has disrupted this process.

In contrast to the holdouts, the administration claims consensus of all major stakeholders. But this ignores how government has tilted the playing field. Billions of dollars of TARP and bailout subsidies have compromised the ability of the big banks and the Chrysler Board to make decisions independent of politics. The independence retained by the holdouts is a thorn that will, unfortunately, be quickly removed.

Giving control of Chrysler, and soon GM, to the UAW and the government will enshrine a culture of failure and seal Detroit's fate. Both companies will become government-sponsored entities, not too dissimilar from Amtrak or the Post Office, forever relying on taxpayer funds to create products of dubious quality.”

The statist approach of Obama’s ‘government intervention and control’ will make the economic recovery worse and longer.

26. Occupational and Business Licenses:

Problem: Licenses are touted as a way to protect citizens from faulty or fraudulent services, but in fact limit choices to the citizens. This applies to lawyers, doctors, plumbers, beauticians, restaurants, contractors, etc. where the licensing is often abused by; 1. The government, and incumbent licensees, to restrict new entrants to protect themselves and friends from competition (unions, donors, etc.), and 2. By associations (unions, medical, legal, etc.) to impose rules such as minimum fees to clients, controlled or no advertising of rates, etc.  Another category is when the citizen is subject to, or can be threatened by, the service provider without initiating choice. An example is a truck driver or airline pilot, where one can be run into, or be in a crash, if an unqualified person is providing the service. These should be licensed to PROTECT the citizen, a proper function of government.

Solution: ARTS recommends that licenses be optional when the citizen can initiate choice of the service provider. This would; 1. Allow individuals and firms to offer services, and set and advertise prices, without permission from the government or a 'professional society' or union (let the buyer beware, and decide), 2. Allow groups to form 'professional societies' or unions that set their own standards of quality, disclosure of member skills and performance records, and membership requirements, and advertise them, without government control, and 3. Bring the benefits of competition (better quality, lower prices) to the trade groups (yes, doctors and lawyers are a trade group). Buyers who prefer a government-licensed provider, could use one; but all buyers (patients, clients, etc.) would have a CHOICE of licensed or unlicensed. Of course, it follows that the chooser would be responsible for the results and not seek free repairs or restitution.

27. Limits on Terms and benefits for Congress

Problem: One cause of corruption in DC is that officials will do almost anything to keep their prestigious and profitable jobs (pork to voters; favors to campaign donors, etc.). Furthermore, they vote themselves pension, health and other benefits that far exceed what they bestow on their constituents. Can you say 'Privileged Upper Class'?

Solution: ARTS recommends that: 1. No U.S. Representative may serve more than four terms (8 years), two terms (12 years) for a Senator, or a combined fourteen years if they have worked in both jobs (all a combined life total), and 2. All elected officials get the same pension (Social Security) and health (Medicare) benefits as the 'common' people, and with the same rules for calculating fees, and reimbursement of claims.

28. Eliminate 'Earmark' Pork Funding:

 Most Congresspersons like to 'bring home the pork' to fund state projects and win votes. These 'earmarks' are hidden, unconstitutional, add-ons to other funding bills such as transportation, and 'Omnibus Appropriations Bills' (5 or 10 funding bills combined), and are not discussed in the normal approval process, yet add-up to billions of dollars per year. Even worse, the omnibus bills are usually many hundreds of pages and few Congresspersons read any part of them! Since the government is already 'in the red', this spending is a serious add-on to our national debt problem! ARTS will promote a bill to make earmarks and Omnibus Appropriation Bills (and sneaky 'Minibus' bills) illegal for all Congresspersons. This will eliminate cries by some voters of; 'We're not getting our share of pork'. Of course we will also fight for reductions and elimination of improper grants and subsidies. Unfortunately, in May-09, Pres. Obama blessed earmarks by saying; ‘The local Congressperson knows best what his/her District needs.’ Another campaign pledge trashed!

                                  ***********************