The Unseen Causes of Rising Tuition Rates

As the great French economist Frederic Bastiat once said:

I originally wrote this article for RevoluTimes on November 10, 2011

“Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all.”

This is precisely the reaction given to Congressman Ron Paul’s proposal to eventually phase out student loan programs offered by the government. While Paul has stressed that his budget plan does not seek to actively eliminate federal student loans anytime soon, he does concede that this is the ultimate goal.

The words had hardly rolled off his tongue before the media blitz began. From CNN to NBC to various websites, the headlines were filled with claims that Paul sought to deprive the masses of a sound education. Paul addresses these claims here.

But perhaps the most outrageous (and horribly misinformed) article came from a site in which the author claims that education is a “human right, not a product.” Such thinking is unfortunately becoming common place among today’s youth as an entire generation has been raised under the pretense of entitlement. The author continues by stating:

“…the problem here is not who is doing the lending, but that such sums of money must be lent to young students at all. Many young people cannot possibly fathom the magnitude of debt they are accruing to obtain a degree that is fast becoming, let’s face it, more and more useless every year…We need to make university education more affordable. It should not put both young and old students into debt which they then spend a lifetime attempting to pay down.”

This is what Bastiat referred to as “What is Seen and What is Unseen.” As Bastiat explains, the sound economist does not only evaluate what is seen from government policy on a particular part of society, but must consider the effects that are not seen and how it affects society as a whole.

The concerns of Paul’s critics and many others who are desperately seeking to pay down their student loan debt are justified in their indignation at the skyrocketing cost of college tuition; however they’re condemning the symptom of the problem rather than addressing the root cause.

As Congressman Paul and many economists have demonstrated, prior to the government’s interference in the education market, tuition costs were much lower and the quality of education much higher. For many college students in the 1960s, tuition rates were low enough that working a summer job would pay for college and enable the student to graduate without facing a heavy burden of debt. Today, the total amount of money owed in U.S. student loans is over $1 trillion; that’s more than the total U.S. credit card debt!

It seems reasonable enough to most people to blame the universities and claim it’s due to a capitalist system based on greedy universities only seeking to make a profit. If only this were true. There are two key factors however, that are not acknowledged by many college students and much of the American public.

The first is the direct correlation between government subsidies and rising prices. Prior to government issuing of student loans, colleges and universities were forced to operate within the market and cater to the interests of students that resulted in lower tuition rates and a higher standard of education. To those who claim this wouldn’t occur, they need only direct their attention to products such as cell phones and computers. Such industries that are mostly unregulated and left to the markets (especially compared to services like education and healthcare) continue to drop in price as the quality of their products increase.

Once the government intervenes in the market via student loans, universities no longer face market pressures to provide the most affordable education because their funding comes from the State (and the government has no limit to its resources-taxation). As all human action is based on self-interest, it’s to be expected that by eliminating the forces of the market and securing endless funding for universities, these institutions will seek to take advantage of the government’s meddling at the expense of the public.

The second factor is inflation. Just as the price of gasoline has risen dramatically over the last few decades, so too have other goods and services. As government expenditures vastly outweigh tax revenue, money is printed to cover the shortfall. This mass printing of currency decreases the purchasing power of the money already in circulation, wiping out the middle class as wealth is transferred to the wealthy and politically-connected.

The artificially high costs of college tuition are one of many examples of unintended consequences from government interference in the market and the lack of a sound currency. Without market forces, businesses and institutions are given the power to manipulate and exploit the consumer. Just as the Obama administration claimed to be fighting the insurance companies with its healthcare mandate, only to further entrench the power of the insurance companies by forcing those who would normally not seek health insurance to purchase it, the efforts to allegedly empower those seeking higher education has in fact stolen their power of influence over the market and left them in a state of indentured servitude.  If only the busy bodies in Washington were being graded on their performance, they would have flunked out a long time ago

Herman Cain's Economic Amnesia

Republican presidential hopeful Herman Cain appears to be suffering from a mild case of memory loss these days. In an article published last year at The Daily Caller, Cain writes, “The worst idea is a proposed national sales tax which is a disguised VAT (value added tax) on top of everything we already pay in federal taxes.”

The former CEO of Godfather’s Pizza is absolutely right. The trouble is his now famous “9-9-9 Plan” seems to cause quite a discrepancy with the above statement. To be fair, Cain was condemning the proposal of implementing a national sales tax without removing the massive tax burden already imposed on the American people. He goes on to suggest scrapping the entire tax code and replacing it with the Fair Tax. While I applaud his desire to abolish the 16th Amendment and the IRS, many of the criticisms given by Cain in the article could be directed at his current economic plan.

As he notes regarding the threat of a value added tax being imposed, Cain writes:

“In every country that has established a VAT with the promise of reducing its national debt, the VAT has eventually gone up or expanded on top of the existing tax structure. After discovering many of the tax grenades in the recently passed health care reform bill, which is already driving costs up and access down, it would be real easy for an overzealous bureaucrat to insert the language in the legislation ‘national retail and wholesale’ tax.”

Though Mr. Cain does not consider his tax plan to be a VAT, his points concerning the nature of government are just as applicable. Why should I trust an overzealous bureaucrat or politician under “9-9-9” any more than I do now? Why should job creators (the wealthy), feel more at ease with both an income and sales tax structure put in place?

To calm the nerves of his supporters, the Georgia native claims his plan is merely a stepping stone in the right direction of his desired goal to implement the Fair Tax. But yet again, Cain’s own words offer the greatest warning of what economic turmoil can develop from trusting such a promise:

“…Just look at the Social Security system, Medicare and Medicaid. Over the years since their inception, taxes have gone up, benefits have gone down… Giving the administration and Congress another tool to tax us and confuse us is like giving an alcoholic a key to the liquor store with no supervision, only to discover that he locks the door after he is safely inside.”

Once again, I find myself agreeing with the dire warnings of Herman Cain the writer, but am left with much dismay by Herman Cain the candidate. The previous quote illustrates a glaring inconsistency on Cain’s part as he seems to condemn the thought of trusting the government to not manipulate the tax code for its own ends and even casts the notion of expecting new taxes to not become destructive as naïve; unless of course he’s in office, in which case such dangers apparently cease to exist.

The most crucial point discussed in Cain’s article demonstrates the fundamental error in his 9-9-9 proposal. Despite the claims of economic growth and real wealth that will emerge should his tax plan be put in place, as Cain himself said last November, “…we have a spending problem in Washington, D.C., not a revenue problem.” Where are the substantive cuts in federal spending? How many departments is he abolishing? Should the American people be comforted by the thought that their wealth is being taken in a different manner? Is this what prosperity looks like?

Catchy slogans and “economic plans” are not going to bring about recovery. The tax plans proposed by Cain and many of the other candidates demonstrate the fatal flaw in mainstream economic thought: the notion that the economy can be planned. The issue is not necessarily how we are taxed, but why are we taxed and how much we are being taxed. It’s true a progressive income tax punishes success and drives jobs away overseas, but what is overlooked by such “revenue neutral” proposals as Cain supports is the amount of wealth being stolen from the productive sector of society and that government spending causes taxation in one form or another.

Prosperity only comes through production. Something must be produced before it can be consumed, and production is only possible through savings and investment. Real wealth and economic growth will only return to this country when we restore sound money and market interest rates that encourage savings, and drastically reduce the size and cost of government. This can only be achieved not by trusting the government to manage a new tax system, but by starving the beast. Don’t replace taxes, repeal them.

While such economic truths seem to have slipped the mind of business-savvy Herman Cain, they are truths the American people cannot afford to forget.


****

This piece originally appeared at RevoluTimes on November 8, 2011

Anarchy in Carolina

There are few things in life that satisfy my thirst for relaxation like a day at the beach. This is probably no surprise. Who doesn’t enjoy a few hours in the sun with freshly soaked sand beneath their feet? My tastes have changed over the years of course. No longer do I crave an overcrowded shoreline crawling with underage drinkers on a Spring Break bender. No I prefer the calm of a secluded cove or scarcely visited coast, armed with only a cold brew in my hand and Bob Marley in my ear; hidden from the rigors of a regimented society.Though the seductive breeze of a summer afternoon at high tide never fails to woo me, it is the blissful experience of self-organization that wins me over.

As I walked down Kiawah Island Beach this weekend, (a short drive from Charleston, SC) I took in the seemingly chaotic nature of the scene. There was no central planning. Hundreds of strangers sorted their way along the water’s edge, until finding the perfect spot to settle in. Parents marched along carrying bags, coolers and chairs, with their kids in tow, as young couples strolled among them, holding hands. All colors, creeds and socio-economic backgrounds were co-existing peacefully; each seeking their own self-interest and yet building upon each other. 

New friendships were made as neighboring children began to build sandcastles together. Was I witnessing the beginnings of a future architect? Who knows? An elderly couple enjoying retirement gazes as young teens prance by, enthralled with youthful love and excitement; no doubt reflecting on their early years. And yet no one was directing any of this.

I finally found my place as I meandered through a maze of beach towels and smells of tanning lotion, when I noticed a sign posted just to the left with the warning:

NO GUARD BEYOND THIS POINT

At last, Freedom! I was even beyond the jurisdiction of the lifeguard, as were dozens of others. And still, no one was directing anything as children covered themselves in sand, only to brush it off and reach for a bag of chips. But who will make them wash their hands?! Who will balance out their meal with a side of broccoli?

Ships were visible in the distance, small crabs lurked under rocks, waves rushed in higher upon the shore-and still no one was regulating the amount of swimmers in the water. Birds flew in circles overhead, occasionally swooping in to scoop up some indiscernible grub, and no one seemed to harm them. But I saw no presence of the EPA. And worst of all, I was enjoying an ice cold Heineken and not a soul had bothered to ask for my ID.

How is it that I not only witnessed this apparent state of lawlessness thrive for more than two hours without so much as a baby crying, but that it occurs on a daily basis around the world among millions of people?

The fact is society is self-organizing. Some may object that it is only because of government that such pleasures as a day by the ocean is possible but of course this is absurd. Contrary to what we’re led to believe by the media and policy-makers in D.C., legislation and bureaucrats possess no magical powers. No matter how many decrees they may make, there are no incantations that can enforce them everywhere, all of the time.

 Certainly there are laws in existence that protect person and property, and indeed they should exist-but by no means must they be administered by the state. There are thousands of ‘laws’ issued by regulatory agencies such as the FDA, EPA, etc. but where were these enforcers this weekend? Why were there no gun fights and massacres instead? Because individuals have an incentive based on self-interest to cooperate with one another peacefully and respectfully.

None of us on that beach could have claimed property ownership over the particular spot we held, and yet everyone minded their own business. There was no lack of commerce, commerce flourished-not because of government-but in spite of it. The few rules that need be enforced for protection of person and property could easily be dealt with on a voluntary basis with competing private agencies.

 Consider the lifeguard; typically, a privately hired individual is hired to carry out this job. And unless someone actually needs assistance, he or she stays put on lookout. The lifeguard has far more important things to be concerned with than what you’re pouring into your plastic cup, how close you are to a neighboring family or whether or not you’re a licensed professional swimmer.

Now consider if a government bureaucracy were entrusted with carrying out the same position. Is it difficult to imagine the debilitating and obnoxious regulations and arbitrary rules that would be enforced? Virtually no one would want to go to the beach.

This is precisely why I believe so many people long for a weekend in the sun. Of course the natural beauty is a major factor but there is also an inherent desire to break free from the shackles of the structured and rigid world we’re accustomed to. Whether you’re seeking a week-long party with college students or a soothing release from your day job, guarded from the outside world-crashing waves will always provide a cure.

What keeps calling me back to that chair or towel on hot sand is not just that it’s pleasing to the eyes, but the euphoric sense of autonomy. While I love the scent of saltwater, and the slight burn of summer’s first tan, I love the peaceful and exhilarating serenity of freedom more.

George Orwell's America

The recent assassination of Muslim cleric and American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki marks a tragic point in our nation's history and is an indication of how far we've truly drifted from the society envisioned by the Founders. It was once understood that a country only remains free so long as it jealously guards the natural rights of its citizens.

The first objection to Obama's critics in regards to assassination is that Awlaki was well-known to be associating with terrorists and had therefore committed treason; forfeiting his constitutional rights. But as fellow RevoluTimes contributor Wes Messamore has pointed out, Article III, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution states differently:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

The Constitution mandates that even in the act of treason, a U.S. citizen is entitled to a trial by jury as indicated in the Fifth Amendment:

"No person shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." 


Not only has the government failed to present any evidence whatsoever that Awlaki is guilty of anything other than participating in free speech, (no matter how ignorant, hateful and evil the speech may be) but White House press secretary Jay Carney, explicitly stated that there would be no evidence presented to the public to substantiate the claims of the Obama Administration that resulted in the unconstitutional assassination of an American citizen.

What's more disturbing is the widespread support among Americans that their president now claims the power to kill anyone he deems worthy of a death warrant; the 1st Amendment and the Constitution in general be damned.

Is this what we've become? A mere shell of the nation of laws established by our forefathers, replaced with a nation of men that only honors their memory out of ritual and rhetoric? Have we long forgotten the warnings given to us by patriots such as Thomas Paine who said:

"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself"?

It was once taken for granted that liberty once lost, does not return; that the Bill of Rights was not written to protect the popular or the non-controversial--the popular and non-controversial need no such protection. It was adopted specifically to protect the unpopular, despised and the hated.

But as one individual claimed earlier today online in defense of Obama, "Some people need killing..." But exactly who holds the authority to make such decisions? At what point did the 1st and 5th Amendments become nullified? And how could the president being recognized with the power to order the killing of any American he wished be construed as anything but a threat to the American people? Where are the liberals who protested against Bush's civil liberties violations? And to conservatives desiring limited government, exactly at what point do those limits kick in?


 George W. Bush himself declared in the wake of the 9/11 attacks that, "freedom itself was attacked today," and what did he insist on taking in order to keep you safe? Your freedom. But the so-called president of "change" has out-Bushed his predecessor with his most recent circumvention of the Constitution by declaring himself Awlaki's judge, jury and executioner. No doubt we will be reassured in the latest Orwellian Newspeak such unlawful expansions of government power were necessary to protect our freedoms.

As fate would have it I had finished reading Orwell's classic 1984 the day before the assassination was reported. It's always troublesome when such works of fiction become prophecy. In the novel a tyrannical government kidnaps, tortures and murders its own citizens who it deems are guilty of "thoughtcrime". Thoughtcrime is simply to even consider having thoughts that doubt the actions of the State. As Orwell describes it in the book, "Thoughtcrime is death. Thoughtcrime does not entail death, Thoughtcrime is death.... The essential crime that contains all others in itself."

An American citizen was killed by his government last week for what amounts to thoughtcrime. This is no defense of his actions, views or remarks-but a defense of the rule of law. Are we a nation of laws or a nation of men? Do we have inalienable Natural rights derived from our humanity that can not be taken away without due process? Or are we mere subjects to an omnipotent State? If the president holds the authority to kill anyone he deems a "threat" without having to provide any evidence to the public, what defense do the innocent have against  such actions?

If ideas justify assassination, what ideas are safe? Without free thought and speech, (even if those thoughts and words are repulsive) is there any freedom at all?

As Orwell himself said:

"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear."

The Wall Street Occupation: A Sign of What's to Come?

The protests being held in Manhattan's Zuccotti Park will have reached the two week mark this Saturday, October 1st and are expected to continue indefinitely. News outlets estimated a few thousand joining together near Wall Street, but Time.com's Nate Rawlings reports if you exclude tourists and those temporarily marching, those in it for the "long haul" are roughly 200 people.While the initial demonstrations on September 17th were driven primarily by resentment towards bankers and corporate executives, (who many feel are guilty of malfeasance in collusion with the government) the movement can hardly be defined by a single issue. Though the vast majority of participants have expressed their desire to see some form of legal action against those they feel contributed to the recession, those in attendance represent various groups.

From war, unemployment, economic inequality, union members, campaign finance reform, and even some angered over the recent execution of Troy Davis, the wide range of concerns being addressed has left the public a bit confused. Much of this is attributed to the nature of the protests. Most of the eclectic group have no desire for a leader or any central organization. This decentralization has resulted in a very slow process of evaluating and delivering a clear message. Writes the Huffington Post,
"The lack of clear direction may eventually prove a stumbling block to the occupiers, but the mood in lower Manhattan this week was one of cheerful energy. A sign -- one of perhaps 100 strewn about the square, or being waved to and fro by demonstrators -- read, 'DEMOCRACY MAY BE HARD BUT AT LEAST WE ARE DOING IT.'"


As of now there have been no specific demands or intentions made known to the public but committees have been spontaneously created to narrow down and select precise goals for the occupation. Because they are not allowed a microphone or bullhorn, the mostly twenty-somethings and a few Baby Boomers are using a method of  mass repetition to spread the message throughout the park. Whenever someone has something to discuss, they speak very slowly, stopping every few words so that the crowd can repeat those words in unison; thereby magnifying the report as liberal  film maker Michael Moore demonstrates here.

Among the committees created, one has been organized to take donations for food, water and personal items to help care for those camping in Manhattan's financial district. Supplied with blankets, sleeping bags, cardboard boxes and the occasional mattress, Zuccotti Park's latest visitors have tried their best to make themselves at home. Many in the community have assisted in this effort by opening up their homes for the use of showers and even some restaurants from McDonald's to several pizzerias have donated food to accommodate the growing swarm of people.

While the past two weeks have been peaceful for the most part, this past weekend resulted in the NYPD arresting of at least 80 people and using pepper spray on five young women in what many are calling a blatant case of police brutality. According to one young journalist, John Farley, he and dozens of others were arrested during one of the planned marches to Union Square for disrupting traffic and disorderly conduct.

Writes Farley,
"As more people spilled into the street, police started to demand that protesters stay on the sidewalk. But as people seemed to be retreating from harm's way, police began pushing the protesters. I saw police use large nets to corral people en masse. I watched as police pepper sprayed several young women in the face. (An NYPD spokesperson confirmed the use of pepper spray to MetroFocus.) I saw senior citizens and teenagers get arrested. I saw about 20 or 30 police officers tackle people and prod them roughly with police batons."

The NYPD commissioner is said to be investigating the incident.

The footage and photos of the mass arrests and demonstrations have gone viral online, as many protestors and bystanders took it upon themselves to become citizen journalists; streaming much of the events live and giving daily reports on numerous social networks and blogs.

Despite what many feel has been an intentional blackout or lack of sufficient coverage by the mainstream media, news of the protests seem to be spreading as there are plans to stage similar occupations in Washington, D.C. and other cities throughout the U.S. The political and economic impact of these events remains to be seen as there are no indications of any explicit demands thus far; but the current lack of organization notwithstanding, grassroots movements such as these are sure to be more common in the coming months, should the current discontent among average Americans continue.

Who is Serving You?

While it’s often argued by many that the State must help to provide for the needs of the people; what is not discussed is what the people actually want. While visiting family in Atlanta recently, it occurred to me that most Americans simply do not recognize the differences between the nature of the State and the nature of the market.

When it came time to eat lunch we stopped in a small restaurant in Atlantic Station. As we found our seats, the server cordially gave us menus, asked what we’d like to drink and said to simply let him know if we had any questions. Though the cuisine and atmosphere was very impressive, after a brief look at the menu we decided the prices were too expensive.

As the waiter returned to the table, we thanked him for his service but told him we weren’t looking to spend that much money and had decided to find lunch elsewhere. With a smile he politely thanked us for coming in and wished us a nice rest of the day.  There were no guns, no threats of arrest, and no men with badges forcing us to give up our money.

While most encounter this at least once a day, rarely do Americans take the time to appreciate what’s actually taking place. How often do we go into a department store or restaurant with the understanding that these businesses have spent hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars in advance to provide a good or service without any guarantees of a return on their investment? There are no demands or obligations to purchase any product; indeed the demand comes from us that these products be available. Should a business fail to produce what is demanded by consumers, it will soon file bankruptcy and cease to exist.

This is the nature of the market. Every entrepreneur must take massive risks and invest large sums of money to create production, innovation, distribution and let’s not forget paying the wages of the servers who welcome you when you enter and thank you as you leave; all to give you what you want.

The functions of government are diametrically opposed to the nature of the market. How many times have you been given the option to pay or not to pay taxes? Were you ever given an opportunity to not pay for the welfare state, endless wars or bailouts to corporations? Though many view the State as our protector, what happens if you refuse? Can you picture an IRS agent simply thanking you for your time and wishing you a nice day if you withhold your income? People do not pay taxes out of consent or compassion, but out of fear and submission.

As author and editorial Vice President of the Mises Institute, Jeffrey Tucker has pointed out before; even government institutions invoke a sense of submission upon your entering.  As Tucker explained, imagine walking into a department or grocery store. How many people are waiting to assist you? If you purchase a product but decide you no longer desire it or it’s defective, you simply take the item to the exchange desk and are either reimbursed or given the opportunity to choose another item. No questions asked.

Tucker then asks you to imagine entering the DMV. How many people are there to welcome you? Do any of the employees, (who are paid with your tax dollars) seem to have any urgency in helping you? Do these institutions ever seem to be efficient?  If you have a complaint how eager do they appear to be to resolve the issue?

The circumstances are even worse at the airport. If you’ve purchased tickets in advance online, you expect them to be available and to save some time before the flight. Should the airline fail to provide efficient services, you have the ability to seek out a competitor. It is not the owners of companies who hold the power in the market, but the consumer. Whether you’re wrong or right the business must cater to your interests or suffer a loss in sales.

But once you go through security, your demeanor changes entirely. There is no sense of control on your part. You walk with intimidation, hoping you’re not selected for the extensive security measures. No TSA agent seeks to make you feel safe or welcome. There is no greeting or sense of service, but a look of suspicion, of accusation and an implicit threat of force.

Behind the very notion of every government program is the assertion that the State is doing what’s best for the country; that our wise leaders are simply acting on behalf of the interests of their constituents. But at what point did politicians ask the people what they wanted? Was there not an overwhelming rejection of ObamaCare throughout the country? How many Americans asked to be subjected to the TSA’s strip searches? Were you ever asked how your money should be spent, or if it should be taken from you at all?

Politicians and bureaucrats have long fashioned themselves as benevolent leaders acting upon the will of the people, but broken promises and the increasingly violent disposition of the State has revealed them to be the direct opposite and has proven the State to be an abysmal failure. The voluntary sector of society, the peaceful cooperative nature of individuals within their communities and throughout the world that provide for society have demonstrated it is not government that produces the greatest public-servants, but the market.

The Show Must Not Go On

In the world of politics, the usual anecdote of left vs. right is often seen as self-evident. The Democrats or those on the left seem to stand in stark contrast to their apparent counterparts and rhetorical foes on the right and within the Republican Party. As the liberal rises in defense of the poor and seeks to avenge the victims of greed and corruption, the conservative reaches into his deep pockets lined with crisp Benjamins and remembers where his loyalties lie. While the Republican refuses to allow the hateful threats of religious fanatics to stifle the American Dream, the Democrat tucks his tail between his legs and waits for the proper moment to unleash his Marxist takeover.

 Depending on which side of the alleged aisle you find yourself, this legislative folklore is accepted, and perhaps even embraced. Considering that such narratives are perceived as a given by most Americans, it's easy to understand why so many devote such time and energy to defending one group over the other. But a look behind the curtain reveals the noble tale of public-servants to be for the most part, a stage show in which you're forced to purchase tickets.

One of the greatest displays of this spectacle in recent years was this summer's debt-ceiling debacle consisting of the usual suspects. Joe Biden pandered to his constituents claiming the middle class will not "carry the whole burden" of deficit reduction while joining the chorus of Democrats demanding to see the debt ceiling raised. The irony of course being the more the federal government borrows and prints, the lower the standard of living becomes for the poor and the middle class, leaving unborn children to foot the bill.   Not to be outdone the Republicans and House Speaker Boehner lambasted the Obama administration for "requesting business as usual" while reassuring the nation that "those days are over". In case anyone actually thought him to be serious, he and most of the GOP would soon reclaim their status as a party of charlatans, caving to the Democrats so as to avoid a non-existent crisis. Sure the dramatic speeches may have been convincing, but the talking points of choosing between default or raising the debt ceiling were more akin to an Oliver Stone film, than reality. But this charade extends far beyond fiscal issues.

The Bush Regime pulled the wool over the eyes of many, (including this writer) as well as anyone. It was a clever ploy of political theater to cast American imperialism as a defense of American exceptionalism. It takes a rather cunning and twisted group of individuals to turn one of the most blatant usurpations of power into a form of noble patriotism. It's no small task portraying blind nationalism as authentic conservatism, and convincing the right to turn a blind eye to the largest expansion of government since LBJ. From the relentless warmongering and propaganda, to the astronomical debt and personal liberty infringements, the authoritarianism of the Bush administration would have had statists like FDR and Wilson drooling with envy. But after eight long years, the country was in financial ruin, desperate for peace and in need of a fresh start. Sure enough, Bush's so-called opponents had just the man to play the part.

In 2008 we were promised by a re-energized Democratic Party to look no further than the charismatic senator from Illinois if we wished to challenge the status quo. He represented peace and progress. But rather than halting the assaults on civil liberties, corporate welfare, perpetual war or endless spending, Obama became Bush: The Sequel. Those who voted for hope and change were left with a young opportunist who has out-Bushed his predecessor. One would think the egregious abuses of power since Obama took office would have the bleeding-hearts running through the streets, but many of his supporters have yet to give up on their fairy tale.

This cycle of antics is not only expected, it's necessary for Washington to maintain their influence in our daily lives. Were it not for the constant scare tactics and partisan grandstanding used by politicians, the American people might actually realize there's more truth in professional wrestling than there is the bumper sticker rhetoric of the ruling class. Whether it's terrorism, economic depression, drug abuse or the swine flu, there must always be a villain to every story; otherwise the jig is up. It matters not if the soap opera is written in blue or red ink, it always ends with Uncle Sam portrayed as nothing short of a caped-crusader anxiously waiting to save us from any threat imaginable, even ourselves.

As the first term of Obama's presidency comes to a close, it's that time again for the circus to come to town. Waiting patiently for their cue, the GOP ushers in their latest crop of autocrats to audition for the leading role. Packed with southern rabble-rousers, a presidential ken doll and a lady of the heartland, critics have already labeled this next election cycle an instant classic.

But as these tales often go, the powerful few tend to underestimate the will of the many. After a century of new and improved despots, the country is longing to end the marathon of Old Guard puppets and close the curtain on a federal behemoth that's had too many re-runs. Despite D.C.'s best efforts, more and more Americans are seeing through the smoke and mirrors and turning to the most unlikely of heroes; a man who was ignored for decades, only to be ridiculed and slandered as he and his ideas gained popularity. Indeed, the notion that personal and economic liberties are not enemies but a unit, and a man who follows principle instead of oligarchs hardly fits in Washington's fictional paradigm.

 The last few years have left the leaders of both parties looking for answers to quell the growing momentum for an individual who predicted the ending before the previews even started. If America truly wishes to avoid an encore performance directed by the establishment machine, they must first reject its host of actors, and elect a man who doesn't read from a script.