It’s crucial to remember, however, that a prior liberal/Progressive SCOTUS created the regulatory powers of the Administrative State. These court-created powers lasted for many decades and greatly diminished Congress’s powers to control the Administrative State.

To prevent a return to an all-powerful, court-sanctioned Administrative State, it is imperative that Congress seizes this period of anticipated regulatory sanity to codify and expand the court’s decisions. The role of congressional action in preserving this victory cannot be overstated. After being absent from the regulatory reform debate for decades, Congress must now actively protect the benefits of these recent decisions.

The three SCOTUS decisions are excellent examples of how, in the absence of Congress, the federal judiciary can allow regulators to take on the trappings of a “Star Chamber” that can only be dismantled by a future court.

In Loper Bright Enterprises v. The Secretary of Commerce, the court reversed the forty years of deference courts gave to federal agencies under Chevron vs. NRDC. Chevron’s legal and economic impact is gargantuan. At the time of the Chevron decision in 1984, the federal bureaucracy had issued approximately 65,000 regulations since the beginning of the Administrative State. After Chevron, the tentacles of the Administrative State expanded to control almost every aspect of society, including the products made, the information provided, and the energy it used. By 2023, the bureaucracy had issued 215,500 regulations costing the economy approximately $2 trillion to implement annually.

The courts dutifully applied Chevron’s deference. Seventy future SCOTUS  decisions relied upon it, and it was cited in 17,000 lower court decisions. By removing agency deference, SCOTUS returned agency rulemaking power to Congress’s original intent, formulated in its Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”)—that judges, not bureaucrats, make independent interpretations of the law.

In the second case, SEC vs. Jarkesy, the court struck down the power of federal agencies to act as regulators, judges, and executioners, which could impose substantial civil penalties without providing the defendant’s Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial.

While Jarkesy sought judicial review in a federal court, the SEC forced him to adjudicate the matter in-house. The agency’s administrative law judge levied a $300,000 fine on Jarkesy and ordered the disgorgement of $685,000 in illicit profits for violations of the anti-fraud provisions in federal securities law. Jarkesy petitioned the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals for judicial review, arguing that he had the right to a jury trial since the SEC sought penalties. The federal appellate court agreed with Jarkesy.

The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s finding. It is reasoned that when an agency seeks to impose civil penalties, the action is in the nature of punishment. Since punishment at common law was imposed by courts holding jury trials, Jarkesy was entitled to a jury trial.

The ruling in Jarkesy is significant because federal agencies hire several thousand ALJs to hear evidence and make judicial decisions. These administrative proceedings are very costly to defendants but are more comfortable for agencies since the outcome is determined by their paid-for, in-house “judges.”

Loper and Jarkesy build upon  WVA v. EPA, the case in which SCOTUS formulated its Major Questions Doctrine requiring an agency to establish statutory authority when transforming long-standing policy into a dramatically new one. EPA historically applied section 111 of the Clean Air Act only to specific energy sources at particular locations. Suddenly, the EPA “discovered new authority” and authorized itself to determine what types of electrical power could be generated and distributed to the nation. SCOTUS found that EPA lacked the statutory authority to transform its facility-by-facility approach to clean air regulation into the power to regulate the entire electricity grid. The critical aspect of its ruling is that when federal agencies suddenly change long-established policies, the agency must prove Congress granted them such authority.

In the three cases, SCOTUS reversed long-established positions that agencies could fill in the legislative blanks in the law, force citizens into trials controlled by agency-paid judges, and unilaterally extend regulatory powers to “newly discovered activities.”

The dramatic change in the court’s judicial philosophy exhibited a newfound respect for Congress as it searched for its congressional intent or any constitutional support for agency activity

For those familiar with our Constitution and congressionally written laws, it’s clear that vagueness is omnipresent in most texts. This understanding should raise concerns about the potential for a future SCOTUS with a liberal/Progressive majority to reverse the current limits. Such a reversal could allow agencies to once again operate as unsupervised lawmakers, thereby potentially making them supreme in the lawmaking process. This potential imbalance underscores the need to preserve the recent SCOTUS decisions.

While conservative Republicans in Congress for decades voiced concerns over the growth of the regulatory state, they could not secure the votes to restrain the system created by the liberal/Progressive SCOTUS.

Only the 115^th Congress seriously attempted to reform the APA and, by implication, the Administrative State through the proposed Regulatory Accountability Act (“RAA”). The RAA sought to reform the rulemaking process to ensure final rules were based on sound facts and law, inadequate science could be challenged, major rules were subject to on-the-record hearings with cross-examination, and courts, not regulators, interpreted the law.

The House passed the RAA several times. A Republican Senate even voted it out of committee; however, Senate leadership under Mitch McConnell, a patron of the Administrative State, refused to bring the legislation to the floor. This effort was Congress’ first and last serious attempt to reform the Administrative State since its creation in 1946.

In the final analysis, agencies will fight to the last rulemaking proceeding to expand their regulatory powers. The Biden administration recently proved the truth of the assertion by forgiving additional student loan debt after a conservative SCOTUS declared such actions beyond the powers granted to the Executive by Congress. While the current SCOTUS has significantly limited the power of agencies to make new laws without congressional authority, a future liberal/Progressive court could reverse these limits. It is up to Congress to place statutory limitations on an agency’s power to make laws without authority from Congress. Such action is necessary if Congress is to reclaim and retain its constitutional role as the nation’s sole legislative authority.

William L. Kovacs, author of Devolution of Power: Rolling Back the Federal State to Preserve the Republic. Received 5 stars from Readers’ Favorite. His previous book, Reform the Kakistocracy, received the 2021 Independent Press Award for Political/Social Change. He served as senior vice president for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and chief counsel to a congressional committee. He can be contacted at wlk@ReformTheKakistocracy.com

The post SCOTUS Ignites a Regulatory Reform Revolution appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

This debate is an unnecessary waste of time. The Biden administration detests the Constitution and the rule of law. Appointing a special counsel not eligible to serve under federal regulations or the Delaware Rules of Professional Conduct (“Bar Rules”) is no greater offense to the Constitution than refusing to enforce immigration laws, forgiving student loans by assuming Congressional spending powers, or accepting bribes from foreign nations. It’s all criminal activity harmful to the U.S.

If Mr. Weiss insists on serving as special counsel, he will be another “in-your-face” Biden-supported lawbreaker. He will operate in violation of federal regulations governing special counsels and Bar Rules. He is appointed by an Attorney General (“AG”) who believes he is “The Law.”

The statutes, regulations, and Bar Rules are irrelevant except to law students.

A law student might discuss 28 U.S.C. sections 509, 510, 515, and 533 as granting the AG vast powers to conduct investigations and to appoint so-called “special counsels.” All the AG needs to do is prepare an appointment letter which tells the public little. From that point forward, the public is locked out of the justice system, and the special counsel is free to make any innocent person a criminal or any criminal an innocent person.

The law student would cite 28 C.F.R Part 600 as the regulations governing special counsels. 28 C.F.R. Sec. 600.3 is the key section.  It mandates that “the Special Counsel shall be selected from outside the United States Government.” As a U.S. Attorney, David Weiss is disqualified as a government employee. Moreover, that section requires the special counsel to “conduct the investigation ably, expeditiously and thoroughly.” The past performance of Mr. Weiss in the Hunter Biden saga, in which he failed, after four years, to find even publicly available evidence, establishes an embarrassing lack of skills.

Section 28 C.F.R, sec 600.7 requires that a special counsel shall comply with the rules …  and policies of the Department of Justice, including being from outside the government. Being in violation of sec. 600.3 qualifies as misconduct. There is no direct language in AG’s Order No. 5730-2023, appointing Weiss, that specifically revokes the prohibition. Using sleight of hand, the AG attempts to unilaterally change federal regulations, without any notice, by requiring Weiss to comply with only a few of the federal regulations, sections 600.4 to 600.10. The AG omits compliance with sec. 600.3, the provision that requires Special Counsels to be outside of government. Fortunately, due to sloppy drafting, sec. 600.7, one of the sections that must be followed, mandates compliance with all policies and regulations of the DOJ. Since sec.600.3 was not revoked, it still applies to Weiss.

This is another example of the lengths the AG will go to break the law just to protect a corrupt administration. He tried a similar scheme in the Hunter Biden plea deal when he hid Hunter Biden’s complete immunity from prosecution in an unrelated section of the documents.

Does the AG have the legal authority to secretly revoke a regulatory requirement without going through the Office of Legal Counsel and taking public comment on the proposed rule? Doubtful, but such deceit is more proof of the Biden Syndicate at work.

Additionally, the AG cannot destroy the rule of law in the states unless the states want to be complicit in its destruction.

Under Bar Rule 1.7, a lawyer may represent a client if there is the existence of a conflict of interest if “the representation is not prohibited by law.” Unfortunately for Mr. Weiss, sec. 600.3 prohibits such representation since regulations are considered laws.

Under  Bar Rule 3.3 and in comments, a lawyer owes a duty of candor to the court. By serving as Special Counsel, Mr. Weiss has an affirmative duty to notify the court that he is acting in violation of federal regulations. Under Bar Rule 8.4, Mr. Weiss must inform the court he is intentionally committing misconduct before the court. Acting as Special Counsel in violation of federal law, he violates the Bar Rules by engaging in conduct involving deceit and misrepresentation if he tries to hide his federal employee status and the AG’s attempt to secretly waive federal regulations without the proper notice.

If Weiss ever returns to federal court in Delaware, or anywhere, in the Hunter Biden matter, the judge should ask: “Are you a government employee?” If Weiss answers “yes,” the court should disqualify Weiss. It would be an oxymoronic act for the AG to state his department has a conflict of interest in the Biden investigation and then waive a regulation so he could appoint a special counsel that has the same conflict of interest. It is the duty of all judges to supervise the conduct of prosecutors and to report professional misconduct.

Weiss was appointed special counsel because the Biden administration has public disdain for the rule of law, the Constitution, and Congress. If the judge disqualifies Mr. Weiss from operating as Special Counsel, the public will quickly discover the administration’s disdain for the courts. Paraphrasing President Andrew Jackson, “the judge made her decision, now let her enforce it.”

It is almost impossible for a court to enforce its orders without assistance from the Department of Justice. Unfortunately, most courts, when confronted by a ruthless president, “will hear no evil, see no evil, and speak no evil.”

Historians will write volumes on the most corrupt presidential administration in history. Citizens a century from now will wonder why U.S. law enforcement agencies supported and protected such a corrupt president. The “Books” will range from “We did not know he was a Manchurian President” to “The Deep State was the puppeteer of a mindless old guy.” Unfortunately, the nation will decline as long as the DOJ is the bureaucratic handmaid for corruption.

Future Americans will ponder the imponderable until they realize that no matter how strongly we believe in our Constitution and the rule of law, such beliefs are irrelevant if our leaders are corrupt. Corrupt leaders destroy every nation they rule. In the final analysis, corruption is happening here in the “Good Ol U.S.A.” Corruption is the signature characteristic of the Biden administration.

Thank God for history. It will be the only voice to hold the Biden administration and its corrupt legal system accountable for its misdeeds. History will be brutal.

William L. Kovacs has served as senior vice president for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, chief counsel to a congressional committee, and a partner in law D.C. law firms. His book Reform the Kakistocracy is the winner of the 2021 Independent Press Award for Political/Social Change. He can be contacted at wlk@ReformTheKakistocracy.com

The post The Constitution is Irrelevant if our Leaders are Corrupt appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

It will be a trying time since the loudest voices will seek retribution against Democrats through much-needed investigations. Undertake a few very well-structured investigations to expose the corruption in the Biden administration, but, please do not forget your Commitment to America. Some of it can be accomplished with control of only the House. Republicans promised to right the ship of state. You will be doing this for the country, not to satisfy primal urges of revenge.

As part of your Commitment to America, you pledged to “Curb wasteful government spending that is raising the price of groceries, gas, cars, and housing and growing our national debt.” A similar promise was made by the Republicans in its1994 Contract with America. The national debt in January 1994 was $4.4 trillion. The national debt in 2022 is almost $31 trillion. Most concerning, Republican administrations increased the national debt during that period by $14.05 trillion, about 53.6% of its increase. Democrats increased the national debt by $12.15 trillion, about 46.4% of the additional debt in that period.

Worst still, 97% of our national debt has increased dramatically since the end of the presidency of Jimmy Carter, the last president to preside over a national debt of less than a trillion dollars. In those forty years, using fiscal year calculations, the Republicans added $17.46 trillion to the national debt (59%), and the Democrats added $12.15 trillion (41%). It is imperative that the national debt matter to Republicans when they have the power to do something about it. Pontificating about it on cable television is not sufficient.

Interest payments on the national debt over the next 30 years are estimated to exceed $66 trillion. Each taxpayer’s share of the national debt today is $245,191. The average personal income in the U.S. is $63,211. If Americans are concerned with inflation, wait until they get the bill for the national debt. The national debt will become so burdensome to future generations that it will undermine democracy. If the federal government taxed current citizens the amounts needed to pay for today’s government, a tax revolt would topple the government.

How did the government put us in this position?

The framework of our Constitution has few guardrails for the type of government formed by our elected leaders. Today’s federal government combination of capitalist, socialist, oligarchy, kakistocracy, and woke cult. Moreover, the federal government can tax us as much as it needs to satisfy its wants. From 1932 to 1981, the marginal tax rate in the U.S. ranged between 63% – 91%.

Since it is unlikely, we will pay off the national debt in our lifetimes, our federal government and every American must recognize, we are living on the future productivity of those who have no say in creating our debt. The national debt is unjust to those who will have to pay tomorrow for our spending today.

What can House Republicans do today without control of the presidency?

Our Constitution reads, “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.”

For Congress to spend more of the taxpayer’s money, it must appropriate new money by enacting a law that requires the approval of both Houses of Congress and a Presidential signature. To spend no money, however, one House of Congress merely needs to do nothing. No provision in the Constitution gives anyone the power to force Congress to spend money. Moreover, Congress is the only government institution controlling the nation’s purse. The House of Representatives can shut the purse.

A few simple ideas for a Republican House to cut almost one trillion dollars from the budget by Just Saying “No.”

Do not fund unauthorized laws. Almost a half-trillion in savings can be achieved by following congressional rules prohibiting the funding of laws that are not authorized. All Congress needs to do is refuse to fund unauthorized laws.

The Congressional Budget Office annually issues a report on “Expired and Expiring Authorizations of Appropriations” for the Fiscal Year. While CBO prepares this report according to the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the report is to assist lawmakers in complying with House rules by identifying unauthorized laws that should not be funded. Its 2022 report identifies 1,118 authorizations of appropriations that expired before the beginning of FY 2022 and an additional 111 that will expire during FY 2022.

CBO estimates Congress appropriated $461 billion in 2022 to fund unauthorized laws. Moreover, CBO identifies each committee of Congress that has failed to authorize laws under its jurisdiction and the amount of money appropriated to fund these unauthorized statutes. Forty-four percent of the unauthorized laws being funded expired over a decade ago. If Congress is unwilling to review these laws and reauthorize them, that lack of interest alone should be sufficient to let them expire.

Reduce agency budgets for refusing to provide Congress with the information requested. Congress has a constitutional responsibility to oversee federal agencies. Many times, however, federal agencies refuse to provide Congress with the information requested. Usually, Congress, especially the party in opposition to the Executive, must live with the refusal until a president from its party occupies the White House. Then matters are reversed. One mechanism for addressing this issue would be for the House of Representatives to reduce the agency’s appropriations by some percentage each time an agency fails to provide the information requested.

Use spending power as bargaining power. Since Congress cannot be compelled to spend money on any activity, it needs to leverage this power to ensure the Executive implements the policies Congress enacted. From day one the Biden administration refused to protect the southern border of the United States. The border is open to all comers, no matter how much the Republicans complain. By being in charge of the House, however, Republicans have solid leverage to negotiate with the administration by withholding money for programs Biden deems essential.

The leverage should be the Department of Education (“DOE”) since it is owned and operated by Biden’s most significant political supporters, the teachers’ unions. The DOE is a perpetual pay-off to the teachers’ unions. The teachers’ unions donated $43 million to liberal groups in the 2020 election cycle.

By controlling DOE, teachers’ unions foster the teaching of Critical Race Theory, impose mask mandates, and torture children’s minds by telling them they are born racists. The mere possibility of the teachers’ unions losing this power will likely persuade Democrats to accept the reality that building the border wall and enforcing immigration laws is a cheap price to pay to keep DOE.

If Biden concedes, the House Republicans will get the border wall and immigration enforcement. If Biden refuses to negotiate, the Republicans get to eliminate the agency they have wanted to eliminate since 1980, when it was created.

Require all federal agencies to implement GAO’s Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (“GAAP”) or suffer budget cuts. Congress mandates GAO to perform a GAAP analysis of federal spending and assets and provide recommendations to ensure the financial reporting by the agency is transparent and consistent. One specific GAO recommendation is for all agencies to address the government-wide improper payments, estimated to be $175 billion. A Republican House should refuse to fund agencies failing to implement this recommendation.

By implementing these four recommendations, Republicans can reduce the budget by over $850 billion. Only time will tell if Republicans mean what they promise in their Commitment to America. Republicans’ this is your “put up or shut up” moment.

William L. Kovacs, author of Reform the Kakistocracy, winner of the 2021 Independent Press Award for Political/Social Change, and former senior vice president at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

The post Republicans Win the House. It’s Time to Honor their Commitment to America appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

The first order of business for the House of Representatives was to pass another law making it harder to fire federal employees—who already literally have job protection for life. Next, the two-million-person federal government workforce wants to be paid, but it does not want to return to the office after the two years of “pandemic pajama living.”  The pandemic allowed many in the bureaucracy to work remotely. These bureaucrats—with literal jobs for life—now want the right to work at home as a permanent legal right. Congress should recognize that the workplace has changed and that work can be performed from anywhere.

There is another part of this reality, however—no one person, not even federal workers, should have a guaranteed job for life. It is time for Congress to reorganize the entire civil service. It’s time for bureaucrats to be accountable. Since the federal workforce wants to reorganize the government so they can work in pajamas, Congress should reorganize the Civil Service by imposing “Term Limits for Bureaucrats.”

The bureaucrats argue working from home reduces traffic congestion and allows GSA to downsize office space between 20% to 50% of post-pandemic levels while reducing greenhouse gases. Moreover, workers argue it saves energy, increases worker productivity by having fewer distractions, and opens up the nationwide talent pool to government recruitment. All resulting in greater diversity, inclusion, and equity. One study found that “remote work is now the status quo for much of the federal government.” The same study noted “… 6 in 10 [workers] would take a pay cut” if allowed to work from home.

The studies on remote work open the door for Congress to reorganize the bureaucracy for the next century. Since the existing system is based on the Pendleton Act of 1883 and the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, it is in serious need of reform if it is to function efficiently in a more complex society. Today’s civil service has literal lifetime appointments. Federal employees are fired at the rate of 0.55%—a rate so low that deaths outnumber firings. Two significant agencies had zero firings.

In addition to job security, the Congressional Budget Office found that pay and benefits for bureaucrats are 47% more than the combined pay and benefits in the private sector. A Cato Institute study put the number at 80% more than the private sector. The average federal worker receives $123,160 in pay and benefits compared to $69,901 in the private sector.

The fact that bureaucrats and their unions want to change where and how government employees work opens the door for Congress to rid itself of a fossilized civil service system. Achieving a successful transition of the federal workplace will require opening the civil service to the new talent spread around the nation.

How does Congress achieve this reorganization?

Unfortunately, when it comes to bureaucrats, the US Supreme Court ruled that they can only be dismissed from federal employment after a trial-type hearing. This ruling makes discharging a bureaucrat almost impossible. It leaves two million civil servants to control the spin in the information given to elected officials. In foreign affairs, these bureaucrats replace the President’s policy with policies adopted by interagency working groups. They write the hundreds of thousands of regulations few of us read but control our lives. Bureaucrats determine who of us acts lawfully or unlawfully.

These “lifers” fundamentally change the role of the President. Article II requires the President to execute the laws of the U.S., yet the President controls only 4000 appointments out of 2 million positions. 99.8% percent of the bureaucracy beats to its own drummer, and the Supreme Court protects its music. Many of these highly paid elites believe “the public knows little or nothing” about issues facing the nation.

Over time, the public lost trust in the government. In 1958, almost 75% of Americans trusted the government. In 2022, only 20% of Americans trust the government.

The worst part of the bureaucracy is that it hides behind statistically flawed, faux evaluations which give  99.5% of the 2 million federal employees a “fully successful” rating or above. Of the 2 million bureaucrats, only 0.1% received unacceptable ratings. The cost of these federal bureaucrats is a massive $66 million per hour. It is truly amazing how many “geniuses” can be hired to run a government that has a $30 trillion national debt.

The Solution: Term Limits for bureaucrats

If Congress is to reorganize the bureaucracy, it must place term limits on bureaucrats; perhaps eight years of service. Term limits would have three major benefits for our country. First, it would break bureaucratic control of government by eliminating the power imbalance between elected officials whose service can regularly be limited by citizens and an unaccountable bureaucracy that can hold jobs for life. Second, with term limits, a greater number of Americans will be able to serve their country and reap the rewards of a federal job. Finally, term limits would reduce the number of bureaucrats qualifying for massive federal pension and health benefits, which Moody’s estimates, for now, represents a $3.5 trillion unfunded liability.

The social and economic benefits of term limits on bureaucrats

With open positions, the federal government can hire talent on basis of ability, knowledge, and skills from every part of the country. These new employees could even be located in rural and low-income areas that presently have few federal workers. One study estimated that 20% of federal positions (approximately 400,000 jobs) could be done effectively anywhere in the U.S. The study also finds that a more distributed workforce can combat “widening geographic inequality.”

As work is created in economically depressed areas, it will generate economic opportunities for these areas by attracting other professionals wanting to provide services to the federal operations located there. By working in lower-cost areas, the federal government can reduce its cost-of-living adjustments from 30.5% in high-cost areas like Washington, DC to 16% in most of the US. While the federal government saves money, so does the employee who lives in low-cost areas.

More importantly, with federal employees spread throughout the United States, the federal government will be closer to the governed. Citizens in every part of the country will be able to interact with federal employees and understand them better. Moreover, by being distributed over 50 states, the federal employees will learn about the needs of Americans in fly-over country and state and local government. Over time, this should help restore trust in government.

The lifers in the federal bureaucracy certainly have taken “advantage of the pandemic. Unfortunately, the only thing those managing the federal workforce know about its workers is where to send the paycheck. To integrate the federal government into the nation, Congress needs to reorganize the federal workforce.

The starting point to reorganizing the massive federal workforce is term limits on bureaucrats.

The post Integrate Feds into the Nation: Term Limits for Bureaucrats appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

In the United States, the Biden administration just took a big step toward creating a New Green Republic with the passage of the falsely titled “Inflation Reduction Act.”  This new law may not reduce inflation, but by pumping another $370 billion into the economy, it sets the cornerstone for the new Republic.

Will these new republics be utopias or dictatorships? While only time will tell, a few places on earth are giving us a glimpse of the future.

Sri Lanka is an island nation off the coast of India. It had been rebuilding itself for decades after years of authoritarian rule. Its agriculture yield had so dramatically increased it had become a middle-income nation until its government banned the use of fertilizers for growing crops. The nation quickly became a nightmare with people starving, a third of its land dormant, crop yields cut in half, energy shortages, and skyrocketing inflation. The people revolted.

At the same time, the Netherlands government announced plans to cut nitrogen and ammonia emissions, thereby forcing thousands of family farms to be closed. Another baffling move since Dutch farmers are the second largest food exporters in the world. The farmers launched protests similar to the Canadian truckers. The protests are ongoing.

Across the world, green governments are seeking to ban new factory farms, pesticides, and even the use of pesticides on private property, beef, turkey, chicken, and cheese. Environmentalists are even organizing a revolution against factory-made food. To some, the entire food system is a threat to the environment.

Several commentators attribute Sri Lanka’s fall to its president “being under the spell of western green elites peddling organic agriculture and seeking a high ESG” (Environment, Social and Governance) rating. Sri Lanka has a near-perfect ESG score of 98. The U.S. has a 51, down with Cuba and Bulgaria. The Netherlands has a 90.7 ESG score.

These woke-type governments are choosing “climate and ESG goals at the expense of feeding their populations and enabling citizens to keep their homes warm during the winter.” The Biden administration is also obsessed with following this path.

An ESG score is a numerical measure of how a corporation or country is perceived to perform on a wide range of environmental, social, and governance topics. The operative word in the definition is “perceived.” Unfortunately, there is a gap between what is real and what is perceived. An ESG score is simply a branding effort by authoritarian governments to secure money from international organizations.

This is where government decision-making becomes baffling. An ESG rating “explains” how a nation’s risk factors impact the long-term sustainability of the economy.  Why would a country with a growing economy and high ESG rating intentionally ban pesticides and harm the economy and health of its people? Why would the Biden administration want to eliminate fossil fuels and the 6,000 essential products made from its components to sabotage the living standards of Americans?

When decisions simply do not make sense, they simply do not make sense.

Decisions to throw a nation into turmoil actually conflict with the theoretical goal of ESG, which is to help investors assess the sustainability of a country. A nation in chaos is not sustainable under any circumstances. These arbitrary decisions more closely resemble decisions made by Caligula, the Roman emperor who gave his horse a majestic house and, to prove his absolute power, sought to appoint the horse to the high office of consul before being assassinated.

A “spell” to protect the environment should cause the bewitched ruler to protect the environment; while destroying the means to produce food or energy, the ruler forces the nation into chaos, perhaps revolution. Both outcomes destroy the environment. There must be a more existential reason.  Either it is a drive to form a utopia, or it’s the implementation of the radical environmental community’s long-held belief that humanity is a cancer on the earth, and must go.

Finding utopia has been a dream of philosophers for centuries. Their dreams are structured around a beneficial elite; religious dogma, science, communism, or totalitarianism.

If the ruler takes the utopian path, it would have to take the path described by some as the “Great Reset.”  ESG would become a “social credit system to drive ownership and production away from the non-woke or non-compliant.” It is a system in which profitable monopolies and the state rule by controlling data, artificial intelligence, genetics, nanotechnology, and robotics. Humans would only know what the elite allow them to know. All human thought would be controlled by the elite.

The major problem with the utopian model is the difficulty of feeding seven billion humans. The elite would have to develop a massive food production system which would be extremely expensive, especially with bans on pesticides and many foods. It would literally require the enslavement of much of the population. Since the cost of supporting billions of people in utopia is too high, the elite need an easier plan to control humans.

Plan B is the plan the radical community has written about for a century, the mass reduction of humans. The Left’s Little Red Book on Forming a New Green Republic is a collection of quotations from the radical left that supports this view in their own words.

The famous undersea explorer, Jacque-Yves-Cousteau noted, “It’s terrible to have to say this. The world population must be stabilized and to do that, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day This is so horrible to contemplate that we shouldn’t even say it. But the general situation in which we are involved is lamentable.”

One of the wishes of Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh, President of the World Wildlife Fund International was “If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.” And, our college-age students are being taught that government must focus on reducing the world population by at least 80%.

Perhaps the most honest discussion of humans being cancer on the earth is presented in a 2019 essay in “Culturico,” a Swiss Cultural platform that bills itself as fighting misinformation. “Culturico” compares humans to cancer cells. The environment is our host, and humans’ selfish, harmful actions are destroying the host, just as a tumor would destroy living organisms in our body. The platform goes through the five steps of how tumors spread cancer. The essay ends with the question, “Can we conclude that humans are a cancer? Yes, we are.”

If the environmental community believes its own writings, and there is no reason to doubt its beliefs, its long-term goal is to radically reduce the human population on this planet.

So, the next time some ruler—be it president, minister, or chief—performs a baffling act that harms a large number of people for some inexplicable reason, ask yourself what the ruler’s real intentions are. The ruler may be stupid, evil, or power-hungry, but the ruler may also be following the elite’s playbook of wanting humans gone so they can inhabit the earth without us cancer cells threatening their reign of the planet.

Image Source: YouTube WION

The post Using Climate Change to Form Peopleless New Green Republics appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Two lower court decisions ruled against Biden holding his termination decision violated the APA and immigration law. President Biden has ignored the court orders to implement the MPP without consequence other than Republicans complaining about it on cable talk programs.

Biden’s policy has created a de facto open southern border that allows millions of immigrants to enter our country illegally, including drug smugglers, sex traffickers, and terrorists.

Since the court is without enforcement authority and Congress is generally unable to take on the Executive, the simple answer may be there will be no political consequence to Biden until the 2024 election. But what about the many Americans injured by the millions of illegal immigrants trespassing on farms causing damage to land and animals, and the assaults and even murders of Americans, not to mention the costs of migrant care imposed on hundreds of small towns?

A similar situation occurred in 1832 when President Andrew Jackson was outraged over a Supreme Court decision striking down a Georgia law regulating the entry of white people on Native American lands. Jackson stated, “John Marshall has made the decision; now let him enforce it.” Jackson viewed the Supreme Court’s decision as interfering with his Executive power to remove Indians from their land. Jackson’s contempt for the rule of law eventually led to the horrifying Trail of Tears.

An open southern border seems to be as crucial to President Biden as acquiring Indian lands was to President Jackson. What happens if the Supreme Court orders the Biden administration to enforce the MPP policy and Biden tells the court, “You made the decision; now you enforce it?”

There are very few workable options to make Biden enforce the law.

Congress could appropriate hundreds of billions of dollars to detain the millions of illegal immigrants until their asylum dates. Is it unlikely that Congress would appropriate such amounts since the Biden administration has refused to complete the most straightforward task, building the border wall.

A Republican House of Representatives in 2023 could impeach Biden; however, it is unlikely the Senate will have 67 votes to convict him. Besides being a footnote in history, the impeachment will not result in any serious border enforcement.

Congress could cut off funds to the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”). Still, Biden would veto such an effort, and it is unlikely that Congress can override the President’s veto.

Conversely, one House of Congress could refuse to appropriate any funds for DHS operations. This situation is unlikely since it would eliminate all border protection.

A real politick option would be for one House of Congress to refuse to provide any funding for an agency desperately desired by Biden’s allies, such as the Department of Education. Withholding these funds might bring the Biden administration to the negotiating table to ensure his most significant contributor, the teachers union, continues its control over American education. It is unlikely, however; that the Republicans have the courage to enter such a high-stakes negotiation.

A more practical option might be for citizens injured by the administration’s actions to seek compensation under section 1985 (c) of the Civil Rights Act of 1871. They would allege that the president and the Border Patrol conspired to act illegally and such conduct deprived them of their right to equal protection of the law.

Federal immigration law requires the President and the Border Patrol to prevent persons and goods from illegally entering the U.S. and harming the nation’s security. Since the start of the Biden administration, citizens have complained of the harm caused by its failure to secure the border, a violation of Biden’s constitutional duty to  “Take Care” that the laws be faithfully executed.

The federal government’s defenses of sovereign immunity, (the government can do no wrong), and that it operates as one entity so there cannot be a conspiracy, usually prevail. In the civil rights context, the situation is different when the government deprives citizens of their constitutional rights. Simply, the courts have recognized some limits on the immunity given to government corruption.

In a civil rights context, “… when execution of a government’s policy or custom,” is an official policy that inflicts an injury, the government is liable for the harm. If Biden refuses to obey the court’s order, and the Border Patrol follows Biden’s illegal orders the two entities are conspiring to violate U.S. policy.  The conspiracy deprives those harmed of their right to the equal protection of the law; e.g., intentionally allowing into the U.S. drug dealers, sex traffickers, and terrorists who harm Americans.

For far too long, citizens have lacked remedies when injured by the joint illegal conduct of the Executive and the agencies following illegal government orders. Other examples help illustrate this point: the IRS  targeting the tax returns of conservative groups and the FBI filing false FISA applications to spy on citizens.

The general remedy of injunctive relief is usually a day late and of no compensatory value. Federal apologies for violating the civil rights of citizens are cheap. Seeking monetary damages under the Civil Rights laws against the federal agencies that intentionally implement illegal government policy may be the best mechanism for citizens to uncover the scope of any unlawful activity and be compensated for their injury.

Image: TLR compilation. Biden image by Gage Skidmore.

The post Biden v. TX: Will Biden Obey the Supreme Court? appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

In the 21^st century, government knows it does not need to beat people bloody in front of cameras to destroy their lives. First, it’s very bad press. Second, it is unnecessary. Government need only make laws so unjust and lacking in due process, that people cannot defend themselves.

The citizens of the U.S. can learn a lesson from Canada’s recent use of its Emergencies Act. During the truckers’ protest in Canada, Prime Minister Trudeau invoked the  1988 Emergencies Act, claiming the protest is an illegal blockade endangering public safety. The Act is to be used in situations that “seriously endangers the lives, health or safety of Canadians.” The types of situations it is to address include espionage, foreign influence activities, serious threats of political violence, or acts intended to undermine or overthrow a constitutionally established government. None of these situations apply to peaceful protests whose offense is blocking streets and making noise.

The Emergencies Act allows the government to force banks to freeze the social media accounts that collect money to support the protesters, freeze the bank accounts of the protesters, seize their [300] trucks, revoke their driver’s licenses, deny them insurance on their trucks, and of imprisoning them for years. It also authorizes the government to deny citizens the right to assemble and prohibit travel in certain areas of the country.  By cutting off the ability of truckers to make a living, Trudeau is executing their ability to live a normal life. Trudeau was the first prime minister in the thirty-four years since its enactment, to invoke the Emergencies Act. Trudeau finds peaceful resistance to be so extreme as to be a threat to the state.

In the U.S., our federal government does everything “bigger and better” than any other country. If at any time, the president of the U.S. feels, thinks, or worries about an emergency, he has the power to declare it through an emergency proclamation. While the U.S. has only one law designated “National Emergencies,” NYU’s Brennan Center identifies 136 laws or other authorities that allow the president to establish a national emergency. Ninety-six of these laws require nothing more than the signature of the president on an emergency proclamation. Fifteen of these emergency laws have restrictions such as involving a specific subject matter or the need for armed forces. Only thirteen of these emergency laws require a congressional declaration of emergency.

These 136 emergency laws are part of a massive legal framework that contains over 3000 separate criminal offenses in 50 titles of the U.S. Code and 23,000 pages of federal law and over 200,000 regulations that have the same effect as a law. More troublesome, the National Emergencies Act “…does not define what constitutes a national emergency.”

Without a legal definition, determining the statutory meaning of the term falls into the common meaning found in a dictionary. Merriam Webster defines a national emergency as “a state of emergency (an unforeseen circumstance needing immediate action) resulting from a danger or threat of danger to a nation from foreign or domestic sources and usually declared to be in existence by a governmental authority.” A very subjective definition.

Historically, emergency powers were limited to wartime. But today, non-war-time presidents want war powers to control citizens in a domestic setting. The Covid pandemic is the most recent use of emergency powers. Relying on emergency public health powers, the federal government-imposed mask and vaccine requirements on the nation’s entire population while keeping the science supporting its proclamation secret. It locked up the entire nation for almost two years. Another recent example, on inauguration day, Joe Biden, without the involvement of Congress, terminated all authorities requiring the construction of the Southern border wall which was being built to keep drug cartels, sex traffickers, and criminals out of the U.S.

The troubling use of both proclamations is that they were invoked without any direct factual findings to support the actions of the government. The public health emergency law referenced a waiver of liability law for those assisting the federal government address Covid, i.e., protecting the pharmaceutical companies from being sued. As for revoking authority to construct the Southern border wall, president Biden proclaimed the wall “is not a serious policy solution.” So much for the rule of law.

The only requirement to implement emergency power is that the president must specify the provision of law under which he will act. The provision cited does not need to relate to the actions taken.

The emergency law terminates on the anniversary of its declaration unless the President notifies Congress of its continuation. The other option for terminating an emergency is for Congress, by joint resolution to terminate it. Since joint resolutions must be signed by the president, Congress needs a two-thirds majority to override a presidential veto. Otherwise, these emergency powers are continuously available to the president. President Biden has stated he will veto any repeal of the Covid emergency powers.

In addition to health emergencies and the Southern border wall, other powers available to the president include the ability to control airports, industrial facilities, and any device capable of emitting electromagnetic radiation, i.e., our communications system. The authority most used is the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”). It authorizes the president to invoke emergency powers relating to U.S. national security, foreign policy, or the economy, including financial and commercial transactions. Sanctions can be imposed on individuals as well as countries, including the freezing of bank accounts and the seizure of assets. While there is a requirement that the threat is related to an activity in whole or part outside of the U.S., it is easy for a president to assert a foreign connection merely by accusation. The IEEPA has been invoked 55 times.

Literally, Congress, through the enactment of the National Emergencies Act, gives presidents the ability to convert our Republic into an authoritarian state. Unless Congress limits the use of such powers to foreign situations, it is only a matter of time until these emergency powers are invoked to create an authoritarian state.

The post Emergency Laws Can Convert a Republic into an Authoritarian State appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

The present federal income tax code creates a massive amount of wealth inequality by allowing the extremely wealthy to escape taxation by passing its wealth, tax-free to future generations, who again, with proper planning, can pass it to their heirs, tax-free. These tax provisions allow the wealthiest 10% of Americans to control $93.8 trillion of the nation’s wealth, more than double the $40.3 trillion in the hands of the remaining 90% of Americans.” By returning to a more transparent and fair tax code, the government can raise the money it needs to operate, create more jobs for its people, and lower the marginal tax rates for all Americans.

This transformation can be accomplished by simplicity.

First, to create jobs, eliminate income taxes on corporations. Currently, the tax code allows corporations to manipulate the tax system to obtain government subsidies and disadvantage competitors. The U.S. can stop these tax games by junking corporate taxes.

Corporations are merely organizations to generate wealth by providing society with needed products and services. They pass the generated wealth to its owners, managers, employees, suppliers, consultants, or others who provide goods and services. As pass-through organizations, the taxes should be imposed on those who are paid for the labor, goods, and services provided or contracted for and those receiving the dividends and capital gains from the corporations.

By eliminating the federal corporate income tax, the United States immediately becomes the most tax-competitive nation in the world. If the claims of the corporations are correct—that the taxes are a real burden on their world competitiveness—eliminating corporate taxes should attract businesses from all over the world, so the U.S. can make products for the world and create massive numbers of new jobs in America. With all the new jobs, there will be new wealth, and, yes, more tax revenue for the government. The revenue will come from those paid by the corporations.

Second, make all gross income taxable with few deductions, and the fewer the better.

While this might seem like an impossible idea, it merely follows Amendment XVI of the US Constitution, which reads: “The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived…”

Moreover, “gross income” as defined in the current Internal Revenue Code at title 26, section 61 means:

“. . .all income from whatever source derived including (but not limited to) the following items: (1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items (2) Gross income derived from business (3) Gains derived from dealings in property (4) Interest (5) Rents (6) Royalties (7) Dividends (8) Alimony and separate maintenance payments (9) Annuities (10) Income from life insurance and endowment contracts (11) Pensions (12) Income from discharge of indebtedness (13) Distributive share of partnership gross income (14) Income in respect of a decedent (15) Income from an interest in an estate or trust

By taxing all gross income, every American would be subject to the same simple and transparent income tax code, at every established marginal tax rate. All special tax benefits would be eliminated. By taxing all sources of income, the tax rate could be substantially lower than the current code, since the base of taxed sources would be substantially larger. A 2006 report by the Tax Policy Center on the benefits of a broad-based tax without most deductions, found the lowest marginal tax rate dropping from 10% to 6.6% and the highest marginal rate dropping from 35.5%to 23%. Moreover, with all sources of income taxed, taxpayers will be unable to manipulate the tax code, something they have done since the first amendments to the federal income tax code were enacted by Congress in 1918.

A few examples of the revenues to be raised annually by eliminating tax deductions, thus allowing for lower tax rates:

• Home mortgage deduction, $60 billion dollars.
• Employer-paid health insurance, $300 billion.
• Carried-interest, $1.4 to $18 billion.
• Stepped-up basis allowance in the Estate Tax, $113 billion.
• Close CEO pay loopholes, $ 5 billion annually.
• Treat all fringe benefits as exactly what they are—compensation (income) to attract and retain employees.
• Eliminate the hundreds of obscure special interest provisions in the current tax code, thereby making billions of dollars in income subject to taxation.

Once the complexity is removed from the tax code, the tax structure can easily be converted to a simple, fair, and transparent system for taxing individuals and for funding the government. Moreover, if the federal government seeks to raise taxes, it will be directly visible to every taxpayer.

This seemingly absurd proposal is more than doable, It is, in fact, similar to the first income tax code in 1913. The entire 1913 Internal Revenue Service Form 1040 was four pages long, including instructions.

On the 1913 Form 1040, the taxpayer listed its income, which included income from salaries, wages, personal services, sales or dealings in property, rents, interest from notes and mortgages, partnership profits, coupon payments, trusts, and from any source derived. A certain amount of income was exempt from taxation, i.e.; $ 3,000 – $ 4,000 in 1913. The only deductions that could be subtracted from gross income were those necessary business expenses, interest on personal indebtedness, causality losses, debts deemed worthless in that year, and depreciation.

The 1913 tax, like today, was progressive—it had six rates. At $20,000 there was an additional 1% tax on the income. Marginal rates increased up to 6% on incomes over $500,000. It was a simple return to complete, straightforward in its application, and fair in that it eliminated “tax tricks” that are found throughout today’s tax code.

The 1913 tax code, with a few modifications, could literally be dropped into place today and taxpayers could complete it. Perhaps the first tax bracket would start at income exceeding $30,000, to provide an incentive to work. There would be several tax brackets that are similar to 1913, which had 6, and today there are 7.  The brackets would be determined based on the pre-pandemic revenues so as not to inflate the revenue needs of the government. A few other modifications would be needed, such as eliminating the deduction for the payment of personal interest, which would today be called the mortgage interest deduction.

To prevent tax fraud within this simple process, the penalties, like the penalties in the original 1913 tax law, would need to be stiff. Penalties in 1913 ranged from $20 to $1,000, which is the equivalent of $560 per violation to $27,938. Such high penalties place all individuals on notice that there are serious penalties for tax fraud. This is essential, as those who do not pay their fair share of taxes merely transfer the cost to honest citizens in the form of additional taxes.

Another benefit of this simple approach would be its ability to capture a greater amount of tax owed by closing the Tax Gap.  The IRS defines the tax gap as the difference between true taxes owed for a given tax year and the amount that is paid. The gap is caused by the under-reporting of income, non-filing, and tax evasion. While the exact amount is unknown, the IRS estimates it to range from $574 billion to $700 billion, annually. A complex tax code invites under-reporting, whereas failing to pay taxes in a simple system, could easily place one in a position of defending a fraud or tax evasion charge.

Just based on the new sources of income listed above, and closing a portion of the tax gap, generates around a trillion dollars annually while the marginal rates are lowered for all taxpayers. These revenues would be used for reducing the tax rates imposed on income to their lowest in modern times.

Our current tax code is anything but fair, neutral, and transparent. Every attempt at tax reform has been nothing more than tinkering around the margins of the tax laws to provide more benefits to those who already reap the benefits of society. With more than ten million words of unreadable laws and regulations related to every activity of life, it is time for a simpler, fairer, more equitable system. It has been done before. It can be done again.

The post Original 1913 IRS 4-Page Tax Form 1040 Works Just Fine appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Given the circumstances, the question anyone should be asking is, what is next? What direction should the country go? There are appear to be five main options: civil war, peaceful secession, decentralization, cultural and political homogeneity, or forced conformity. 

Civil War

This would presumably be the worst of all the options. The idea of war between the states and between the American people is unimaginable. However, there is a legitimate chance this could occur. In fact, 46% of Americans think a civil war is inevitable. None should dismiss this possibility, but if the path the United States takes is to be peaceful, there must be a serious awakening of the American people.

Peaceful Secession

As opposed to a violent civil war, peaceful secession proposes that certain parts of the country leave the jurisdiction of the United States without war and establish their own countries. The idea is gaining support, and there are movements like this on a smaller scale in Colorado and Oregon. Although this option seems unlikely, it is preferable to a violent civil war that also breaks the country apart.

Decentralization

Similar to the option of peaceful secession, decentralization is the process of distributing political power among the states and local jurisdictions rather than leaving power centralized with the federal government in Washington. In this case, decentralization is not even going outside the realm of what has been done in the United States before. 

Simply, San Francisco governs San Francisco and Knoxville governs Knoxville. In a way, decentralization is a watered down version of self-determination. Each locality or state can govern themselves while also having some accountability and responsibility on the national level. This option, while keeping the country intact, gives groups of people the ability to make their own decisions while minimizing the effect it could have on other groups. By far, this is a more satisfying and safe option.

Cultural and Political Homogeneity

Unlike decentralization, this option leaves power centralized and unifies the majority of the American people—an establishment of a new normal so to speak. In short, one of our political “sides” wins and that is the standard moving forward. An instance similar to the Reagan era where the political left had to respond with a more conservative candidate or the acceptance of the New Deal as a mainstay in American political life could serve as examples.

This new normal would at the very least end the current polarization and create a sense that the country is unified enough to continue standing. With this option however, one side would have to lose and lose gracefully at that. Under current conditions, this seems unlikely, but there is always the chance that some event or leader is capable of bringing the nation closer together, even if unwillingly. Do not be surprised if this is the chosen path of the United States in the future.

Forced Conformity

Like the option of homogeneity, forced conformity centralizes power and establishes a new normal. However, this new normal is established by whoever uses the power of the state first to put people in line. This is the creation of a totalitarian society via the means of the government gun. No longer will there be unnecessary squabbling over politics. There will be order and unity regardless if it is desired or not.

The political right likes to compare certain policies to that of George Orwell’s 1984, often incorrectly and entirely overused, but it is a legitimate possibility. With any state that has grown as large as the United States federal government, there is a real threat of it just asserting its own dominance to enforce order and control. Americans would like to think that they are immune to this totalitarian concept, but in the end humans have the aptitude to take such action. This option, along with that of civil war, should be seen as the most dangerous.

What Direction Should the United States Choose?

The scenarios above are general, and each has their own issues. However, for any average American, the prospect of violence between the people or coercion in the political sphere should be off the table. They are easily the worst options to anyone that seeks peace. 

As for the other options, it depends almost entirely on the issue of polarization. If the country is so divided that there is no chance at reconciliation, peaceful secession is the best path. If the ideological gap is serious, but not so bad that the American people cannot remain neighbors with their political opposites, decentralization seems optimal to increase everyone’s satisfaction. Should the polarization cease and a new normal is secured, the option of homogeneity is preferable. 

Regardless, the United States cannot stand as it is currently. The priority for the American people now needs to be focused on solving this crisis of country and truly becoming that shining city on a hill again.

The post Is the Future Really Dark? appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

The next morning, I awoke to a bright red banner across the top of my article informing me and my readers that the article was “under investigation or found in violations of the Medium Rules.” The graphic accompanying this article is a snippet of Medium’s post on my page. The next day, Medium’s bright red notice of violation was on all my articles.

The issue is not whether my articles appear in any specific publication. That is an irrelevant concern. The issue is about the message Medium and other social media corporations send to the public when they censor.

The communications genius, Marshall McLuhan prophetically noted in 1964, “The medium is the message.”

McLuhan asserted a communications medium is not neutral. While the medium delivers content, it also has a character that is usually overlooked. The character delivers notice of a long-term structural, social change. He gives the example of a news story about crime. McLuhan explains the story is less about crime than bringing the crime into homes to create fear and change public attitudes about crime. Since the public focuses on the content of the story, it, many times misses the subtle attitudinal changes the medium’s character is foisting upon society. As to social media, the character of its long-term message is to change public attitudes about speech it finds objectionable and to foster an acceptance of censoring such speech.

McLuhan urges us to understand the character of the messages being delivered so we notice “change in our societal…conditions” which “indicates the presence of a new message.” He views the recognition of these new conditions as an opportunity to understand the detrimental changes being delivered and to address them before harm occurs.

Today, social media bombards us with its party-line content on specific issues; vaccine mandates, immigration, stolen elections, the January 6, 2021 “insurrection,” racism, and the list seems to be infinite. But the character the medium embeds in its messages is the need to censor what it deems objectionable speech. Social media is sending us early warning of the detrimental effects of its censorship. If we do not resist its message, the result will be the death of free speech.

Resistance can start today if each reader circulates a copy of this article and the graphic to their friends.

This is a long introduction to my article “A Scholarship for Every Student, Why Not We Pay for It Now!” which is set out in full below. Judge for yourself its content but also ask what is the character of the message being delivered by Medium and the other social media corporations about their right to censor free speech?

A Scholarship for Every Student, Why Not We Pay for It Now!

William L. Kovacs

The local, state, and federal governments already spend more, on average, on public education, than it would cost to award a scholarship to every student equal to the average cost of education in the U.S. Unfortunately, most of our taxpayer dollars just go to public schools that are very expensive, union-controlled, and do not produce results. For taxpayers to get value for their dollars, the money should follow the student and let the student and parents choose the school. If public schools want to stay in business, the motto should be “Let Them Compete for Students.” The competition will also foster much-needed creativity in the fossilized Teachers’ Unions.

The Number of Students: The Census estimates there are 53,591,620, K-12 students in the United States. The National Center for Education Statistics and the Council for American Private Education, estimates approximately 48.6 million of these students are in public schools. 5.7 million are in private school, which is comprised of Catholic (53%), nonsectarian (14.8%), conservative Christian (12%), and other religious (19.3). Since all the numbers are estimates, and school populations change yearly, the number of students does not add up as neatly as numbers on a corporate balance sheet. There is a small discrepancy in the different estimates, so for ease of calculating let’s round off the number of U.S. students to 54 million nationwide.

Cost Per Student: In constant 2019-2020 dollars, the cost per student in public education is $14,891, which includes teachers, capital expenditures, and interest payments. The total cost of public education in the U.S. is $762 billion.

The average cost per student across all of private education for its 5.7 million students is $10,740.00. This is the average of Catholic schools, $6,890; other religious schools, $8,690 and non-sectarian private schools, $21,510. Using the averages, the total annual cost of private school education is a little over $61 billion.

Total Cost of K-12 Education: The cumulative cost of educating all K-12 students in the United States is $762 billion in taxpayer funding for public education and another $61 billion in parent funding for private schools. Total funding for U.S. K-12 education is $823 billion or $15,240 per student.

Total Taxpayer Funding for Education in the U.S. that Can Be Distributed as Scholarships to Students: Taxpayers provide $762 billion to public schools and another $202 billion dollars to run the U.S. Department of Education, for a total expenditure of $964 billion. Since total K-12 education (public and private) is $ 823 billion, there is more than enough taxpayer funding for education to award a $15,240 scholarship to every K-12 student in the U.S. for use at the school of their choice and have $ 143 billion left over.

The U.S. spends more on education per student than 33 of the 36 OECD countries. Only Luxenberg, Austria, and Norway spend more, yet the U.S. ranks 28^th in math worldwide, 18^th in reading, and 22^nd in science. Clearly, the American taxpayer is not getting value for its money spent on its public school system.

Students Will Use Taxpayer Scholarships More Wisely than Government Directives: Almost every indicator on educational satisfaction finds private schools provide better-educated students, more satisfaction with teachers, happier parents, higher test scores, more advanced course of studies taken, and better and more manageable class sizes.

A Gallup poll of Americans found “Seventy-eight percent of Americans say children educated in private schools receive an excellent or good education.” It also found 69% believed parochial or religious schools provided an excellent or good quality education. Only 30% believed public schools provided an excellent or good education.

Parents of students attending private schools were substantially happier with the private school’s performance than parents of public schools, by significant margins. Private school parents had a substantially higher favorability rating for all aspects of school life than parents of public-school students. Specifically, there is a 78% to 57% public vs private favorability for teachers, 78% to 55% for academic standards, 83% to 56% for school discipline, and 81% to 56% for overall school satisfaction.

Another benefit of private school education is that students are more likely to have higher SAT scores, and attain college degrees. For private schools, the national average SAT score is Private 1230, whereas nationwide, the average test score is 1051.

The resources for providing good education to all students are available now. Students and parents will select the best school for the student; private, public, or trade. By allowing students to control their futures, rather than an authoritarian teacher’s union, out-of-touch school boards, or federal regulation writer, students will determine their educational path and career goals.

Action Items:

1. Each state and local school authority can redirect all current education funding from school districts to the students in those districts in the form of scholarships to be used for tuition at the school of their choice.
2. Congress should abolish the U.S. Department of Education. All funds presently appropriated to the U.S. Department of Education would be allocated to the states to fully fund student scholarships to the amount of $15,240 per student. The remaining $143 billion could be used by the federal government to reduce the federal deficit.

The post If the Medium is the Message, Free Speech Is Dead appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.