|
|
|
Reclaiming Representative
Government: An old joke tells of the super-optimist who falls off a 60-story building and, as he whizzes past the 43rd floor, exclaims, "So far, so good!" But it is not such blind optimism that causes politicians to act in similar fashion as America plummets toward economic disaster. Instead, it is a varying mixture of ignorance, gutlessness, vested interest, wishful thinking, and lack of character -- with strong emphasis on the latter -- that typifies the 1992 "pretend everything's hunkydory" Congress. This "look the other way" mentality is so pervasive that nary a murmur is being heard from the incumbents in this year's congressional campaigns about the massive, escalating national debt. To do so could remind the electorate that their smiley glad-hander is, in fact, one of its creators. The federal government must borrow $1,094,520,500 each and every day of the 1992 fiscal year to pay for out-of-control spending. Just the interest on the $4 trillion national debt will cost the average household over $3,000 for 1992. By running up these massive debts and deficits, our politicians are, in effect, mortgaging America's future. They are big spenders to be sure, but they are even bigger borrowers. How can this be happening? Who's minding the store? Is the citizenry asleep? Distracted? Without hope? Some of each. Delmar Dennis, a senior field coordinator for the John Birch Society in the 1970s, always encouraged the JBS members in his area to be "five percenters." He pointed out that practically all of the significant major changes, both good and bad, throughout recorded history have been achieved by an organized, dedicated few, consisting of less -- often much less -- than five percent of the population. He categorized another 15 percent of the population as being generally aware of what is going on, but for whatever reason they just sit on the sidelines, unwilling or unable to act. The remaining 80 percent, Mr. Dennis said, simply don't know what's happening! They are either wrapped up in their own narcissistic existence or float through life with a "whatever will be, will be" fatalistic attitude. They are the flotsam and jetsam of humanity, benefiting whenever the white-hat five percenters strike a blow for freedom, or suffering -- often perishing -- when the black-hat five-percenters crush their little corner of the world. TRIMing Congress TRIM --Tax Reform IMmediately -- was organized in 1974 by the John Birch Society for the purpose of providing grass-roots Americans with the organized means to lower taxes through less government. TRIM began forming committees at the congressional district level. Staffed by volunteers, the committees raised money to print and distribute the TRIM Bulletin, which included the voting record of their local congressman on major spending bills. TRIM is strictly educational. It neither endorses nor opposes candidates for any office. Its purpose is not to elect or defeat candidates, but to inform the public. When the American electorate is truly informed, the political process will take care of itself. Is widespread distribution of a congressman's voting record effective? As national director of TRIM, I can attest to the fact that it is. One measure of this effectiveness is the way a big-spending congressman will dance all around the issues as soon as his voting record receives the light of day. But no matter how quick on his feet the congressman tries to be, widespread exposure of his record will result in either a change of tune or a change of congressman. The reason is simple: Most voters want lower taxes and less government, not high taxes and more government. Most of the House members on Capitol Hill now attempt to use one or more of the following tap dances in their ongoing effort to bamboozle the folks back home. "Trophy" Tap Dance A standard diversionary tactic of the big-spending congressman is to trot out a list of awards that have been bestowed on him for his supposed service on behalf of his constituents. One favorite award is "Watchdog of the Treasury." Just the name conjures up images of a vigilant, trustworthy servant of the people, ready to tear out the pants seat of any sleazy bureaucrat who even thinks about pilfering a tax dollar. Considering that a great many of the recipients of this award have voted yea on some of the biggest welfare-state, budget-busting bills to come along, this "watchdog" definition must be literal: a cur that meekly sits, just watching as the U.S. Treasury is systematically looted by assorted collectivists and special interests. One champion "trophy" tap dancer, former Congressman Steve Bartlett (3rd District of Texas), attempted to counter voter concern about his big-spending record by boasting: ... I've received the "Watchdogs of the Treasury" Award for every year in Congress for my votes to reduce federal spending; I just received another "Taxpayers' Friend" award last week, so I must be doing something right .... The latest wrinkle in using awards as a distraction is the "Congressional Budget Tracking System" by the National Taxpayers Union (the same outfit that has been pushing for a dangerous constitutional convention). The "system" is based on tracking the sponsorship of spending legislation, but, incredibly, disregarding the actual votes cast by the congressmen! So, a big spender like Ray Thornton (2nd District of Arkansas) regularly sends out photocopies of an article from a local newspaper that praises him (and the whole big-spending Arkansas delegation) for being "among the most frugal" -- according to the NTU "system." Meanwhile, Thornton votes for almost every major spending bill that comes down the pike! When your congressman pulls this award braggadocio on you, bring him back to reality. Firmly tell him to forget his trophies and, instead, explain his specific votes that you have inquired about. "Scare Tactic" Tap Dance Scare tactics, too, are used to prey on the electorate's lack of knowledge of the legislative process. A congressman will often imply that he is in agreement with the constituent's opposition to certain funding but that, if he had voted against it, some other essential services contained in the same bill would then have been defeated, resulting in the shutdown of a vital portion of the government. For example, if a congressman votes against the $81 billion bill that funds HUD, the Department of Housing and Urban Development with its scandal-ridden, unconstitutional bureaucratic swamp, he would also be voting against funding for the Veteran's Administration. Implied are acres of destitute vets pouring into the streets from boarded-up VA hospitals. Baloney! Yes, HUD and VA funding, which should be treated as separate items, are lumped together in the same bill. But if this package deal were defeated because of the HUD funding, then a bill to fund only the VA could be brought back for a new vote in short order. And this is exactly what would happen if the "package" approach were defeated. Last November, the House failed to override President Bush's veto of the massive $205 billion Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education bill. (Mr. Bush vetoed it not because of the megabuck spending, but because of an abortion counseling provision.) Did Mr. Bush's successful veto of this bill shut the government down? Hardly. Three days later, a bill with the objectionable provision removed was rushed through and approved by the House. Packaging popular programs with unpopular ones that would not pass on their own merits is just one of the many tactics of the big spenders. Recently, Congressman Lee Hamilton (9th District of Indiana) spoke at an Indiana luncheon sponsored by a proforeign aid group. He complained about the increasing difficulty in rounding up enough congressional support for foreign aid and admitted that their best hope for passage was to package it with popular programs that would be hard to vote against. Congressman Chet Edwards (11th District of Texas) exemplified the use of the "scare tactic" when he claimed: Many of the "wasteful" measures which this publication [the TRIM Bulletin] refers to are appropriation bills -- bills which are vital government programs. Voting against these measures literally would have shut down programs important for flood control, clean water, housing, national security, NASA, and health care .... Rebut your congressman's scare tactics. Tell him that truly vital functions of government will merit his support when stripped of the parasitic welfarestate packaging. Let him know that you know a snow job when you see one. "Meat Carving" Tap Dance A third major diversionary tactic used by the big spenders is to make extensive references to preliminary votes taken against parts of a spending bill prior to the vote for final passage. The politician portrays himself as a slashing, chopping champion of the taxpayer, carving off every shred of pork humanly possible. Then, his over-taxed constituents are supposed to accept his vote for the bloated final bill, as if, after the minor cuts, they must accept the gargantuan remainder. To put things in perspective, our TRIM Bulletins attach an "average cost per household" to each of the congressman's votes listed on the Bulletin. There are now about 97 million households in the United States. If a congressman boasts of voting to cut $48 million in belly-button lint subsidies from the $52.6 billion Agriculture Appropriations bill, for example, what he is really saying is that he slashed the average cost per household from $551.00 to a mere $550.51. But the resulting 49 cent "tax relief" effort just isn't going to do the job! Congressman Pete Geren (12th District of Texas) complained: The TRIM Bulletin fails to state that on each of these appropriation bills, amendments were offered to cut the appropriations spending by various percentages. I supported many of these across-the-board cuts, but these amendments were defeated. So, of course, Pete voted for all of the final bills covered by this Bulletin! When challenged on their nickel-and-dime whittling, exasperated congressmen will often rail against the "simplistic meat-ax approach" of those dreaded conservatives who demand major cuts in unconstitutional spending. A speaker touting for the John Birch Society years ago drew audience applause when he speculated that the reason politicians object so strenuously to the meatax approach is because it's our ax -- and it's their meat! "Starving Widow" Tap Dance This is really just a variation of the "we can't shut the government down" excuse. In this case, the congressman points out some cause in the bill that he believes you'll support on humanitarian grounds. He righteously announces that he could not stand by and see it go unfunded. He fervently hopes that you will, in the process, overlook the billions being spent in addition to the supposedly worthy cause. Congressman John Tanner (8th District of Tennessee) explained his vote for a $200 billion-plus Labor, HHS, and Education bill this way (get out your kleenex): It is absolutely deplorable that, as a technologically advanced country, we have such a high rate of babies dying each year. The Bureau of Maternal and Child Health and Resources Development is funded by money directed to HHS, and it is important that we learn why so many of our babies die each year and correct the problem. Often in combination with one or more of the above excuses, the big spenders will cite their vote and support for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Your logical retort: "If you're such a big supporter of a balanced budget, why do you vote for huge deficits now?" "Wrong Votes" Tap Dance TRIM is also regularly criticized by big spenders for choosing only a few votes out of "the hundreds cast each session." The congressmen are depending on the average voter's unfamiliarity with those "hundreds of votes" -- the votes for National Pickle Week and on petty parliamentary maneuvers. TRIM reports only on the big-buck bills involving at least a billion dollars in mostly unconstitutional spending. Congressmen who employ this tactic hope they can get themselves off the hook if they can convince their constituents that the votes in the TRIM Bulletin are not representative. But the truth of the matter is that how a congressman votes on roll calls that were not reported by TRIM does not change how he voted on those roll calls that were reported! If, for example, a congressman who is shown as having voted for foreign aid had voted against foreign aid on another occasion, his anti-foreign aid vote does not change the fact that he voted for it this time. If his record is inconsistent, don't blame TRIM ! Congressman Jim Kolbe (5th District of Arizona) lameriled in a hand-written note to one of his constituents: TRIM uses 5 or 6 votes a year out of hundreds -- and they always pick the wrong votes. Actually, TRIM uses about 24 votes a year, but, from Mr. Kolbe's standpoint, they're still "the wrong votes." This completes our review of the big spenders' favorite straw arguments. In each instance, it is simply a matter of bringing the evasive congressman back to the main issue he would prefer to sidestep: "Did you vote the way TRIM says you did on the measures listed?" A congressman has yet to say no. Counterattack in '92! Just as the most successful military campaigns throughout history usually took advantage of favorable environment -- darkness, cloud cover, high tide, commanding hilltop, etc. -- 1992 offers a uniquely advantageous circumstance for the launching of a counterattack to reclaim our constitutional republic. The best way for an informed electorate to rein in their out-of-control government is through the Congress, particularly the House of Representatives. The Establishment elite and major media cannot influence 435 congressional races every two years to the same extent that they influence the 33 or 34 Senate races -- or the one presidential race every four years. Congress is the only branch of government that is authorized by the Constitution to make laws, and of course, it cannot make any laws unless both houses vote for the identical bill. And finally, when it comes to spending, the House of Representatives is far more important than the Senate, since all spending bills are required by the Constitution to originate in the House. A simple majority of 218 congressmen can bring deficit spending to a screeching halt! Then, when America's economic freefall is brought under control, we can begin the long road back to the Founding Fathers' magnificent creation -- a constitutionally-limited republic. This year, the House is reeling from scandal -- check bouncing, drug dealing in the House post office, exposure of lavish perks. A lot of 80 percenters now have one eye open (one more than usual). And a growing number of 15 percenters are getting fidgety on the sidelines. With some encouragement, many of them may get involved in this crucial struggle. "But I'm only one person," many would protest. "What difference can I make?" A lot more than they think. Beginning last fall, TRIM has greatly expanded its national presence. We now publish a TRIM Bulletin three times per year for every one of the 435 members of the House. Now, in addition to our local committees, we have thousands of individuals distributing TRIM Bulletins in all 50 states. It is becoming increasingly common for a congressman to see a room full of agitated constituents, waving TRIM Bulletins and asking pointed questions at his town meetings. The counterattack is underway! Is TRIM Bulletin distribution by itself a surefire formula for success? The honest answer is no, but it is an excellent way to get started. The conspiratorial forces that are at work to bring America to her knees are gigantic and ruthless. They pander to some of man's worst character flaws -- greed and self-promotion. The products of their pandering now roam the highest chambers of power in America. And they also promote despair among those whose character will not succumb to the perks of power. Over the years, I have seen time and again decent Americans who went directly from the "something just doesn't feel right" stage of awakening to an "it's too late, we've lost" condition when the trees in the forest finally came into sharp focus. But, even if defeat were a certainty, there is a moral obligation to
oppose evil. The alternative is unthinkable -- a surrender of our precious heritage to the
agents of what may well be an endless high-tech slavery. Become a Five Percenter! Yielding to his penchant for stirring poetry, John Birch Society
Founder Robert Welch began the foreword to the January 1961 JBS Bulletin with these lines
by Josephson:
Mr. Welch then made clear that opposing totalitarianism was "no job for weaklings." Subscribers to THE NEW AMERICAN, by and large, are not 80 percenters "in play at little games." Many are five percenters, activists in the cause of liberty, and have been for years. Most of the remaining readers are still in the 15 percent group on the sidelines, awakened to varying degrees to the fragile state of freedom in America, but not yet ready to commit to active involvement. If you are out there on the end of that diving board, up on your tippy toes, thinking about getting involved, let me give you a friendly little nudge. Come on in, the water's fine! In fact, it's very invigorating! For most of us, those little twinges of conscience that used to flare up occasionally (when we wondered what kind of country we would leave to our children and grandchildren when compared to the legacy of freedom that we inherited) are a thing of the past. Start slowly. Get a hundred TRIM Bulletins and establish a three-per-year delivery to a selected route of voters' homes in your neighborhood; build from there. And welcome to the five-percenter club! TRIMmers in Action
|
|
