Reality Slate

Please Follow us to our new website

2009-04-24T21:57:00.004-06:00

We are launching a new website, so if you do not come to use through our url http://www.realityslate.com then please follow us and check out or new website. We are constantly updating this new website so please check back often and find our new features and feel free to sign up for an account or to subscribe to one of our blogs.

Rhants History

2009-04-18T00:44:00.023-06:00

I wanted to give you the reader and listener some insight on my perspective and where my political philosophy was formed and how this philosophy comes through in podcast and the blog.

Political Awareness (fist look)

My political awareness starts before my teenage years. Mom spent nearly every year at the November polls. Dad was an idealist. He was deeply religious, charitable and deeply mistrustful of government. I remember in one of the small towns where I grew up, there was a machine shop with the large sign on the upper wall which read "Get Us Out Of The United Nations." There was a massive union steel plant in town where nearly everyone's dad, except mine, worked. This was an environment steeped in politics, from the far right, to populist protectionism.

I was a child of the late 80's and early 90's. High School and junior high was a time of tremendous change, both nationally and internationally. G.W. Bush crushed Dukakis in the '88 election. I remember that we had voting booths in my middle school and while people were voting a kid walking through halls screamed "vote socialist." I learned more about the many different direction that people wanted to see the country go.

One direction that many wanted the country to go was in victim classification. The American Disability Act (ADA) was past through Congress and made law. The was significant to me because I was in a car accident as a young child and to this day have only partial use of my right arm. The ADA was designed, to a small extent, for people like me. The odd thing about it was that while there was so much effort being put to victim classification, I was blessed to have the parents that I did, (my father isn't still with us). My parents never let me take the road of the disabled kid. So this 'benevolent' new program designed to protect me, was condescending.

Victim classification was also made plain in the Rodney King riots. I had a teacher tell the class the morning that the riots broke out that we, the white kids in the class, bore a special responsibility for the 'unjust' verdict of the case. He also defended the actions of the rioters while screaming to the class that we were all 'Racists.' Later that day I found myself debating with another young man about rioting being what I saw as a silly way to make a point. It also seemed a little contradictory to me, that my teacher and this young man, were defending the actions of people destroying their own neighborhoods, but they called me a 'Racist.' It was then that I started to realize that victim classification is to absolve the victim of any personal responsibility.

Some time later there were large protests in front of the Utah Governors mansion in Salt Lake City because of capital punishment case, deemed the 'Hi-Fi Killers.' In this case, two Caribbean men had robbed a Hi-Fi store in northern Utah. During the robbery the two men had tortured, raped and killed some of the innocent people caught in the store during the robbery. The protesters were calling the death penalty against these two men racist. This incident showed me that racism could be code for anything that protesters disagreed with.

The Middle East Awareness (first look)

This was the time of the Rushdie book "Satanic Verses." In my government class, in high school, there was an Iranian born girl, who stood in front of the class to defend her religion. She made no mention of the death warrant that had been put out on Rushdie by the Grand Ayatollah Khomeini, but I was exited to see her defend her faith in front of a room full of adolescent Christians and nonreligious students. This was also the time of the end of the ten year war, between Iran and Iraq, and the first U.S. 'Gulf War.' The Middle East was becoming less distant every day. This hit home when I saw my own brother ship off to war in "Operation Desert Storm," the official name of the first 'Gulf War.'

Later I had friends from Iraq who were Kurdish and Shi'a. I learned that the Middle East was, and is, a place of many different voices and perspectives. I did find however that there were many among the Middle Eastern immigrants who bought into conspiracy theories. I recall a news article from a Middle Eastern newspaper that one of my friends had, showed Bill Clinton, Yasser Arafat, and Yitchak Rabin and the headline read, "Negotiations to Perpetuate the Occupation." Other Middle Eastern friends were eager to tell me that King Hussein of Jordan was a U.S. spy for the C.I.A. or that U.S. policy was run from Tel Aviv.

Much later, after Sept. 11, 2001, many of my friends from the Middle East had begun to question the conspiracies that they had been taught and so many of them believed. Some asked how the United States who had given them so much freedom and opportunity, could be the same country that they had been taught to hate their whole lives. Many of them began to resent the religious hierarchy that had taught them to hate the United States. Another friend, started to learn about multi-tiered government, checks and balances and other distinctive parts of a republican democracy, which caused him to wonder why real republican democracies don't exist in the Middle East. His indignation towards those who defended the broken mentalities and broken governments started to come to a head when he would ask things like, "why is it that Arab leaders kill their own people and the leaders of the United States and Israel do not kill their own people?" Then he would add, partially to upset the Middle Easterner he was talking to, "perhaps we would be better off in Iraq under Sharon." Sharon, of course, being the Prime Minister of Israel at the time. I learned from the bravery of this friend, what Thomas Jefferson meant when he said, "When given a choice between despotism and liberty, free people will always choose the latter."

Idealism versus Maturity.

As most people did in the 1990's, I was bombarded with idealistic and left wing ideas. "Truths" were chanted at me as if those of us at that time had no idea how to discern truth. We heard television ads telling us it was our selfish need to give birth to babies that was destroying the planet; others said, car exhaust was poisoning us. I even had a girl once tell me that breaking Styrofoam cups was destroying the ozone layer. All of this nonsense was the "truth" of the day. Luckily, I had been taught to look objectively for the truth by my parents and older siblings. It occurred to me that if things like the ads on television starting in the 80's told us that Brazil was cutting down the amount of trees the size of Connecticut every month, that now by the early 90's, Brazil must have no more forest. Any time I looked at the "truth" of the day, I found that it's blatant hypocrisy was as transparent as the Clinton administrations claim that 1991 had the worst economic crisis in 50 years.

It was time to grow up. All the propaganda that had been pounded down our throats, it was all fitting for a preadolescent idealism. Once I had a job, had to pay bills, had to raise kids, none of that 1960's like mentality made any sense any more.

Why Reality Slate?

I grew up in the time of Rush Limbaugh; I idealized Michael Medved, Dennis Praeger, and I always wanted to be like one of these guys. I always admired the way they, specifically Praeger and Medved, have a calm and intellectual perspective on the issues of the day. There are so many others in talk radio, however, who get caught up in conspiracy theory, emotional arguments or "anti-establishment" talk that they resemble the coffee shop ranters of the early 90's, rather than real political observers.

When I finally had a group of people who shared my passion for independent thought and Conservative values, without the muddy water of emotional fluff, it was time for Reality Slate to come about.

A President for the 'Sixties-Kid's.'

2009-04-14T03:55:00.010-06:00

All the way back to Johnson and McGovern the liberal baby-boomer generation has been waiting for their President and it seem that the, much awaited, day has come. The have been hoping for a President who shares the view of the world that the Baby-Boomer Liberals have been been talking about since the Vietnam War. In this world view the U.S. is an imperialist, evil country. In the Sixties Kid view, the U.S. ignores and exploits the poor, at home and abroad. They believe that a benevolent government can spread 'aid' to the poor, after taking the 'aid' from wealthy Americans, and after the 'aid' is distributed, we will all live in a loving world of no poor, and no war.

The Sixties Kids had a time when they felt that they could change the world. After violent riots to protest the 'evil' Vietnam war, there was a time when they believed that the world that had been moving in a direction of the unfairness of capitalism. Only an enlightened movement, espoused by the Sixties Kids, could heal the ailing earth. They the Sixties Kids have had no luck in achieving a U.S. President who can truly change the world into the utopia they had hoped for.

McGovern was the first presidential candidate who identified with the Liberal Baby-Boomer world view. There was a ground swell of excitement around the McGovern campaign. He was a man who said all the idealist rhetoric that the 'Kids' had been hoping to hear. McGovern's campaign orchestrated mass young voter registration drives at college campuses, the home for liberal idealism, and the campaign had an almost cult-like following.

McGovern, they believed, could make up the shortfalls of the Kennedy and Johnson administrations. Kennedy, of course, had been killed before he could change the world. (Liberal Baby-Boomers ignore the fact the Kennedy was a moderate who, had committed troops to Southeast Asia and was the first president to significantly cut FDR's benevolent income taxes.) Johnson had idealistic potential, with the Great Society era war on poverty. He wisely invoked nuclear war and the saving grace of the U.N. to defeat the war-monger Goldwater, but he did keep troops in Vietnam, so he could not be counted as a Sixties Kid hero.

Alas McGovern was defeated by the evil Richard Nixon, and many of the 'Kids' lamented the end of 'the era of love.'

Carter was seen by the Sixties Kid's as having the idealist world view potential. He spent a whole bunch of money on the poor; he met with world leaders, especially in the Middle East and ushered in a time of understanding. He even gave the Panama Canal to Panama. Carter pushed for higher fuel efficiency standards and sent 'aid to undeserved' and underdeveloped countries, but he pushed for the U.S. to utilize natural resources like oil reserves, Carter signed the bill to set ANWR aside for exploration , plus he was overtly religious, so his designation as a Sixties Kid hero is, at best, dubious.

Carter only served one term and then came twelve years of 'the dark times' for liberal idealism the Reagan/Bush era. This time was so dark for Sixties Kids that they saw attacks on the peaceful regime of Qaddafi in Libya, U.S. funded wars on leftists in South America, a proxy war against the Soviets in Afghanistan and sweeping tax cuts. The speaker of the house, O'neal, who should have stood up to idealist principles, working with Reagan, and that was only in the first eight years. If one then adds the first war on Saddam Hussein in Iraq, the collapse of the Soviet Union and the emergence of Talk Radio, in the next four years, the Reagan/Bush era is a time of great Sixties Kid horror. Then topped off by Reagan and Bush having landslide victories over potential Liberal Idealist heroes like Micheal Dukakis and Walter Mondale. Mondale, achieved the title of Bay-Boomer liberal icon when his V.P. pick was a woman. To this day the Sixties Kid's view the Reagan/Bush era with disdain.

Clinton was a breath of fresh air after after the 80's and early 90's with horrible Republican Presidents. Clinton had Kennedyesque charm and delicious rhetoric that caused the liberal Baby-Boomer contingent to swoon.

The problems, however, for a new day of a more Ideal world view, started quickly. Universal Health Care was defeated while Talk Radio was growing in influence. Then disaster struck, for the Sixties Kids, in 94' when Gingrich and the Republicans swept into the House of Representatives and pushed through an agenda that made the Liberal Ideal World View seem even more distant.

For the Liberal Ideal World View, the Clinton Era is a mixed bag. He did pass an Assault Weapons Ban; and spent a tremendous amount of time talking peace with Yasser Arafat and with Northern Ireland leaders. These accomplishments are great from the Sixties Kids perspective, but there was plenty of downside to the Clinton Era. A Gingrich brokered balanced budget, Welfare Reform, troops in Bosnia and Kosovo and far too cozy of a relationship with big business, causing the Liberal Baby-Boomers to pause at their reflections of the Clinton 90's.

The Bush Era spelled utter disaster to the 'Kids.' Bush's "War on Terror" is only met with Liberal Idealist hatred. For the Sixties Kids, Bush's popularity was simple exasperating. They saw a bumbling cowboy who spoke plainly about his belief in God, and a clear line of good and evil in the world. Even when Bush had more liberal plans the Baby-Boomer Liberals had nothing positive to say. For them the only bright spot in the the era of W. was when the House of Representatives was finally being controlled by a Sixty Kid Feminist in Pelosi, the first female Speaker of the house.

Now Sixties Kids Can breath a collective sigh of relief. They finally have a President that shares their Liberal Ideal World View, he is pushing for Universal Heath Care again, The "War on Terror" is in the past, corporations are finally seen as evil, as are Wall Street types, stricter laws on firearms are coming, unions could make a comeback, the Green agenda is being forced on the country and the Congress is rubber stamping anything that the administration wants.

What lessons are to be learned about past Liberal Idealist attempts at the Presidency? How did this administration finally achieved the long awaited goal of a Liberal Baby Boomer approved Presidency? The answers are many but brilliantly simple.

'The sky is falling' will get you elected. The Clinton Administration learned this but this administration was much better at getting a big spending agenda. If the administration screams that 'the sky is falling' then a bill can be passed that will repay every supporter group in the country.

Mondale actually said that he would raise the deficit to pay for his Liberal agenda. This was naive to say the least. The current administration has taught us that if the deficit will rapidly increase, you only have to deny it and say that it will be cut in half by some arbitrary date, and then blame the deficit, which your administration made worse, on the last administration.

Use simple terms. If Dukakis and Kerry taught us anything, it is that big words scare people. Little words are the way to go, preferably one syllable if possible i.e, 'Hope,' 'Change,'etc.

People like to pay fewer taxes, so tell them that they will, while the average person, will pay more in goods and services, due to higher taxes on corporations and the wealthy few. A tax credit is something that was once given to people who pay taxes, but one can rename a tax credit for money that you give to people who don't pay taxes. (This point is one that the Sixties Kids love.)

The Clinton Era bipartisanship didn't advance the Liberal World View enough, so rename bipartisanship to when a few in the other party agree with your agenda. There is no need to show compromise like Clinton did especially when it doesn't advance your liberal agenda.

Terms like responsibility, fiscal prudence, and toughness, are words that most conservatives like, but redefine them to meet your agenda so theses words can justify nearly anything.

The end lesson of the forty year aspiration of electing a Sixties Kid approved president, is that the candidate must mask intentions and perspectives. Only when elected can the new leader start pushing the agenda of the Ideal Liberal World View. Once the agenda is being achieved, one simply has to deny pushing it and explain that the objectives are to fix a crisis. If people do catch on to what the agenda really is, than say things like ' hey...I was elected to promote change.' (Note the use of a one syllable, nondescript word.)

Update.

2009-04-13T15:59:00.007-06:00

I started the previous post on Friday before the good news about the hostage situation ending and the U.S. captain surviving. I have just a bit to add now that things in this situation have changed.

We are still learning about what went on off the coast of Somalia, but the Navy did the right thing by killing the Terrorist Pirates. Questions remain, why did this action take so long, and why are we bringing the Terrorist scum, who survived theNavy raid, to the U.S? Add the discussion of bringing 'Gitmo' detainees to the U.S. and we are led to ask why treat terrorists with 'kid gloves.'

I would also ask if the prolonged stand-off can be placed on this administration's micro-management. If this is the case, look at what happens when the military is allowed to simply do their job.

Farewell, to 'Peace Through Strength.'

2009-04-10T09:53:00.013-06:00

Since January we, as a nation, have descended from 'Cowboy Diplomacy,' to, something I refer to as, 'Pollyanna Diplomacy,' diplomacy based on, nice words, and weapons reductions. This form of defense policy, or diplomacy, only causes our country to appear weaker while our enemies grow stronger.

Confucius once wrote that "a wise leader always prepares for war." Today, the world's only Super Power is ignoring the wisdom of the ancient Chinese Sage by giving overtures of unilateral weapons reductions, talks with aggressive regimes, and changing terms like 'War on Terror.' In the meantime, we appear helpless as North Korea launches dangerous missiles over Japan, we have U.S. citizens being held by Somali Pirates and the list continues. In each of these cases the U.S. influence shrinks while the enemies' influence grows.

Iran's growing influence.

The first sign that we may on the way to a weaker foreign standing started with Obama's Iraq War Policy. The left always hated Bush's War and during the campaign the president promised to end the war 'responsibly.' The problem is that even discussing withdrawal from
Iraq played right into Iran's hands. Most objective observers of the war saw that our large presence in Iraq, as a stab in the eye, to Iran's plans of being a regional super power. Due to the war, Iran's influence in Lebanon has been questioned and their greatest ally, Syria, has been embarrased by the clumsy killing of the pro-western Rafiq Harriri, forcing Syrian troops to leave the Baca Vally. The government of another pro-western leader, Farouk Sinioras, in Lebanon has survived constant wars with Iranian backed Hezbollah. While Iran has also directed Hezbollah and Hamas to constantly harangue Israel.

If we do withdraw from Iraq, as quickly as Obama has planned, we will see the 'Fall of Saigon,' all over again., with millions slaughtered and radical elements in the country gaining power. This time, however, we will have an aggressive neighbor, Iran, willing and able, to challenge Iraq's borders or even take the whole south. Iran will be the greatest, unchecked, threat to the region. They will harass Israel and support Shi'a uprisings in every country possible, such as the Shi'a minority in Bahrain. Iran's influence grows while ours shrinks.

Russian Influence.

Russia has received indications that the U.S. is considering dropping our plans for a missile shield in Eastern Europe so that we can 'work' with Russia on a level of mutual respect. This is the same Russia who last year attacked Georgia, a stalwart U.S. ally. Russia refuses to condemn Iran's nuclear ambitions, and have even helped in their development. Russia blocks any attempt of greater sanctions on North Korea, even after North Korea's launching of a long range missile last week.

The rug is being pulled out from under our military as Russia flexes it's muscles and Uzbekistan evicts us from a key air base in their country that has been an integral part of our campaign in Afghanistan. This is a sign that Putin and Medvedev have no interest in helping us in the expanded military campaign in Afghanistan. This campaign was a chief goal of Obama's plan to fight Al Qaida.

Russia has a strangle hold on natural gas and other important imports to Western and Northern Europe. This has been a leverage used to manipulate those countries who may be too friendly to the west. Gas has been shut off to Georgia and Ukraine during the coldest winter months, when Moscow has disapproved with certain actions taken by these countries. Russia is rarely civil and generally only works with those countries where there is a mutual power gain possible. The U.S. is the only World Super Power. Working with Russia weakens our standing. We work with the Russians at the peril of our allies with growing westernized markets, such as Poland, Georgia, and Ukraine.

The Muslim World at large.

Last week the president went to Turkey, after several stops in Europe, and stated in front of the Turkish Parliament that the U.S. 'is not at war with Islam.' He praised Muslim culture and made reference to his connection to Muslims having lived in a majority Islamic country. He also stated that the war in Iraq had damaged our standing in the Islamic world. These may appear to be benign, warm and friendly statements but as author Brigitte Gabriel, a Lebanese survivor of terrorism, eluded to in a recent interview, these words come off as unmanly and as an expression of surrender.

How has the Islamic World reacted to Obama's overtures of understanding and respect? By Somali (Muslim) pirates attacking a U.S. ship and taking the ship's captain hostage. It was widely understood that Somali Pirates would leave U.S. ships alone, due to fear of reprisal. To make this piracy matter worse, we have a large U.S. warship nearby and yet, we have sent in hostage negotiators. Brigitte Gabriel again states, that one only sits at the negotiating table to discuss terms of surrender. So these pirate, terrorists, see that we have the ability to send them to the afterlife but instead send negotiators. To add insult to injury the negotiators botched a hostage exchange and now the Somali's have a hostage and U.S. negotiators gave back the terrorist hostage to the terrorists. Now the U.S. looks weak and stupid. Somali terrorist pirates no longer have fear of reprisal, they have no fear or respect for the U.S. at all. This whole ordeal could rank with the Iranian hostage crises of the Carter era, or the Black Hawk Down debacle in the nineties.

Obama won't even use the word 'terrorist.' The war on terror which once angered enemies abroad, and Pollyanna Doves at home, is now a thing of the past. Not only will the administration not show a raised hand to the enemy, they won't even use harsh words.

...been here before?

Carter once attempted the time honored "Diplomacy of Pollyanna." In a short amount of time, Iran went from a pro-western regime to a wacky fundamentalist regime that held our embassy full of hostages for over a year. Carter stood behind the Menachem Begin and Anwar al Sadat at the signing of the Egyptian Israeli peace treaty. Both of these Middle Eastern leaders died within a short amount of time, and the U.S. received spiking gas prices. The way of the dove is often bloodier and much more expensive.

In the founding of our country we dealt with Islamic Pirates. The Barbary pirates robbed our ships, killed our crews and made trade around North Africa miserable. The continental congress sent negotiators to pay the pirates off, but the piracy did not stop. In the end, the U.S. fought back by arming ships, creating a navy and eventually attacking Tangiers. There was no peaceful, or nice way to end the problem of the pirates then and there is no gentle way to end it now.

The U.S. is best suited we when stand up for ourselves, we don't apologize for who, or what we are, and we live by the common sense maxim; "a wise leader always prepares for war."

A Letter to the President.

2009-04-03T15:20:00.003-06:00

Mr. President.

On election night in November, you claimed that, while just under half the country didn't vote for you, you would be the President of all Americans. Many of us on the right were encouraged, but leery, of this inspiring promise. What has transpired since, has been disappointing at best.

The Stimulus Package was your first opportunity to show that you would represent all of America. In that brief period, between your Inauguration and before the passage of the bill, you told us that without the bill's passage, we could be heading for disaster. You chose to criticize the Republicans who did not support the stimulus, you accused them of listening to Rush Limbaugh instead of the 'people,' which must have been code for 'you.' Your Press Secretary has repeatedly used such unifying terms as 'the party of no, and 'the party of no ideas,' when referring to the Republicans, but let's not forget my favorite of the unifying phrases, 'old habits die hard.' In the end, the stimulus package was passed in a hurry, full of pet projects, and rushed through legislation, largely unread. If there are any jobs created in the Stimulus Package, they will all be Union jobs, in sectors of the economy that are not suffering. To quote a famous economist "if you rob Peter to pay pay Paul, you can generally count on the support of Paul." The problem is that you promised to represent Peter as well as Paul.

The alienation of the half of the country who did not vote for you continues. Your Energy Department has been repealing oil and natural gas leases all over the country. A majority of the country wants us to to utilize our natural resources, including nuclear energy, but in each spending package, or Executive Act, we are getting squeezed. The promise of a Green Energy Economy, by way of massive Federal subsidy, will mean higher taxes on energy prices, and fewer jobs. Once Cap and Trade is added to the energy mix we could end up with a malaise that will leave the country reeling with; fewer jobs, higher prices, massive inflation, punitive regulation, bureaucratic red-tape and higher and higher deficits. When will you represent the views of more Americans than the left-wing special interest groups, who benefit from your initiatives?

Policy aside many of your constituents feel that the U.S. is the greatest force for good on earth. We see no reason to apologize for who we are, or what we create, or for our prosperity. To have a President go to Europe and call our country 'conceited, dismissive and often derisive,' does not represent, the views of, many of your fellow citizens, neither does getting a rousing applause, when referring to the closure of Guantanamo Bay, and declaring 'Americans do not torture.' This statement implies that we did torture before you benevolent hand ended it. This may make you popular to the adoring fans of Europe, who didn't vote for or against you, but it does not reflect many of us at home, which is the U.S, in case you forgot.

We will remain the Greatest Country on earth, but the real question is, will we remain that way, because, or in spite of your administration. Remember that punitive taxes, and allegiance to a European elite power, is what we fought to liberate ourselves from, in the U.S. Revolution.

We call on you to do as you promised, represent us who did not vote for you, stop spending us into oblivion, while blaming the Bush administration for the deficit. Stop blaming the U.S. for the other countries' financial problems. Don't tax us into stagnation. Heeding these calls would represent all Americans.

Rugged Independence

2009-03-20T15:29:00.014-06:00

It has become obvious to me that what we need is the Rugged Independence that won the west; and, most importantly, we also need the Rugged Individualism, that set the ground work for a new country.

The Great Basin States are some of the fastest growing areas of population, in the U.S, but we take for granted the fact, that someone had to tame this harsh land. People came hear looking for open land, a place where they could practice religion, unmolested. Some others came to help spread their faith.
Many lost family members on the harsh trail that led them westward, but there was no time to be victims. They had to get to work when they arrived in the new territory, because just getting to their destination, wasn't enough. The hardships would, most certainly, continue. In fact history tells us that many of the Great Basin area settlers died soon after arriving.
These Ancestors of the West were, for the most part, a hearty people. They raised families, farms, and industry where there had been none and little of the resources they were used to having.

Likewise those brave folk, who declared independence over 200 years ago, had a distinctive rugged nature. Theirs was a vision, and heartiness, which had to endure through a long war, and internal national struggle. Each founder of our country had an integral part of the early days because of a different and independent perspective.

What does Rugged Independence, or Rugged Individualism, mean and which virtues guide their lives in a modern context.

Independence.

Rugged Individualists have a distinct distrust of government, in fact they would prefer to attack any issue by themselves, or with their neighbors. They feel that success comes from hard work and the never giving up. Rugged independence does, not however, mean not being politically active, on the contrary, they vote and they know the issues both nationally and locally. They read books and 'the news.'

Charity

They feel that God gives each person talents, skills, means and family, to spread the cause of good in the name of the Creator. To not share with others in need, or not in need, would be selfish and offensive. They believe in something greater than themselves which guides them to serve others. They see charity as an act of Love; but, when faceless entities, like government (federal, state etc.) get involved in helping others, the Love part is taken away. Serving other is a gift to the server not a chore.

Individualism.

To make ones mark in the world, is not by done by being, or dressing, louder than everyone around them. Rather, they make their mark by creating, and pushing to achieve survival under great difficulty. The idea of showing individualism by getting a tattoo, or by having the nicest new stuff, is beyond unnecessary. What identifies a rugged individualist is that they needn't stick out by appearance at all. In a matter of fact, they are noticeable by their manner in speaking, their family cohesiveness, the passion by which they confront the day and their humility pertaining to them always knowing that they are servants to someone greater than they are. Perhaps by most of the world’s perspective, this explanation does not seem 'in touch,' perhaps one could even call these Individuals 'old fashion,' but a Rugged Individual never looks to 'the crowd' for guidance or acceptance.

Passion.

The reason Rugged Individualists are often successful is that they don't take their professions, or even hobbies, lightly. Like Martin Luther King Jr. said;

“If a man is called to be a street sweeper, he should sweep streets even as Michelangelo painted, or Beethoven composed music, or Shakespeare wrote poetry. He should sweep streets so well that all the hosts of heaven and earth will pause to say, here lived a great street sweeper who did his job well.”

The late great leader, of the Civil Rights Movement is correct, any Rugged Independent, Individualist would agree. The way we grow, in the mind of a rugged individualist, is to take pride and passion in our work, family and life. Whatever they create, or fix or write, or sell, must be the best, and can always be improved. They don't fear complication because they can innovate, streamline and improve processes. Because their livelihood is their passion, the only help they need is support of friends and their family. To accept such aid from outside their trusted circle is opposite their nature, and accepting outside, faceless, help insults their deep-seated pride, honor, and passion.

Passion for our, country is integral to the make up a Rugged Individualist. To fight and die for their country is the greatest form of national service that any person can commit. They wave the flag with pride, sing our National Anthem as if every breath relied on those words. They have great difficultly tolerating those who don't feel the same way, but they realize that freedom means tolerating those who have values they don't understand. They admire the troops, and admire anyone who fights for the freedom of the country. They see that striving to spread freedom at home and abroad is serving their own family and increasing liberty everyone we go.

Marriages are so important, to such a person, that they are made to weather difficult times. To them there is no quick answer to marital strife, because family and their, spouse compose the most important passion that anyone can have. They also realize that when we make a commitment, it must be honored, and marriage is the most important commitment that any mortal can make to another mortal.

Integrity.

To a Rugged Independent a Man's (or Woman's) word must be their bond. A handshake is worth more than signature, or a legal contract. The honesty of these people can never be in question. A society that can't count on character and integrity will crumble, and will most likely invite other nations to see the dishonest nation as vulnerable, and untrustworthy.

When we are in the presence of a person, who we know will keep their word; there is a great comfort there. If we had leaders who had this ethic of honesty, we would have much more confidence in the direction of our country.

Optimism.

One of the greatest cancers that a society can endure is pessimism. For a rugged individualist there is cause for optimism. When things were difficult in our time in the building in our country, especially in the west, these ruggedly independent people would not give up. They knew that they were building something bigger than themselves, bigger than the moments of down turns. (Don't we need this attribute now more than ever?) They had faith that they were driven to do unseen, and unaccomplished, feats. They were driven by an unchanging vision and one moment of being pessimistic could lead to a very destructive end.

Today we have issues that require these attributes but we see few of our leaders have the character of our fore fathers. Just like in those days, leadership will have to come from persons with meager influence and means as well as those with quite a bit of these. We must see that the Great Experiment, of the United States, is enduring but timeless, as well as fragile. There can be no time when we allow our country to so drastically be changed that Freedom, Rugged Independence and Rugged Individualism are no longer honored.

Perhaps we see that we have only some of these attributes. This will do, because we will find others who have the attributes that we lack and we can stand together to ensure that Capitalism, Religious Freedom, Liberty and our Civil Rights stay intact.

The least business friendly administration in our lifetimes.

2009-03-11T15:51:00.006-06:00

It seems that every day, the Obama administration has, yet another, 'plan,' which sends investors running, and job markets shrinking. One is led to ask if this administration has an ideology, that truly has disdain for free markets.

From long before the inauguration, there has been rhetoric from the Obama Administration that simply frightens the free market. As he signs his ideals into law, it seems the President's view of responsibility is to stick it to corporations and small businesses.

'Cap & Trade,' is as most observers know, not helpful to the growth of new business, or in aiding in cleaner air, or energy independence. Cap and trade has been in place, for most E.U. countries, for over a decade. Europe is dependent on the Middle East and Russia for oil, and dependent on Russia for natural gas. Aside from making utilities more expensive, many observers see that the major cities of Europe remain quite dirty and growth has stalled. The European Commission on Financial Affairs shows that actual growth peaked in 1999 and hasn't recovered, even in the larger growing years of 07, and 06' output of goods and services have followed the same pattern, and still the E.U. Parliament discusses new regulation. Still, in spite of the evidence from Europe 'Cap and Trade,' will most likely, become law and our economy will be struck by high prices for fuel, gas, and electricity.

A vast number of jobs could be created by utilizing our own resources. We have abundant, untapped supplies of resources in our country, yet the administration restricts our access to these resources, and spends gigantic amounts of funding on less efficient energy. This excludes the resource rich states, where the development of these forms of energy could create jobs. Once again Obama misses an opportunity to help the free market.

The most damaging of the new administrations proposals, is Card Check, or The Employee Free Choice act. This nefarious act, if passed, will cause untold damage to our economy. In Card Check, a union could impose itself on a company, by obtaining signatures on a card from the half the number of employees in the company plus one. Then, if the company doesn't come to an agreement, with the union, within 120 days, the company is forced into binding third party arbitration. Under existing law, once the correct number of cards have been signed, a silent ballot is the final decision maker for employees to show intention to form or not form a union. If a union is formed by the employees then the final contract of the union contract is voted on again, but both of those employee and employer protections, will evaporate if the bill is made law in it's current form. Can we not see how this could scare employers? Of the five States in the Union with the highest unemployment, four of them are heavily unionized.

One union that has egg on it's face is the United Auto Workers, or U.A.W. They have aided in the pricing of American cars right out of the market. Add stupid government regulation and you have a recipe for disaster. The administration's response is to set higher fuel efficiency standards. So this will make it more difficult for domestic car manufacturers to make a profit, when the highest profit yielding cars are the larger vehicles.

So far in the middle of the first 100 days of the Obama administration, one has to ask if the executive branch wants to further drive us into recession. Or, is the President, so beholden to left wing ideas that he and his administration, can't see the damage that their destructive ideas present. We can hope that neither of these questions are to be answered in the affirmative. We pray that there is not deliberate sabotage or negligent harm. In the meantime, businesses will stand defensively to weather this administration's storm.

The Media Matzo Ball.

2009-03-10T07:54:00.006-06:00

When we heard the phrase 'Change Has Come To America,' few of the sycophantic followers of the Obama campaign, realized what this meant. Now that the general public has started to figure out the meaning of 'Change,' eyes are starting to open, with no help from Obama's adoring Media.

Do you Remember the Seinfeld episode where George and Jerry talked about the 'big Matzo Ball hanging out there,' when George told a lady that he loved her, and she didn't respond. The media has a Matzo Ball in that, by their blind love of the President, they ignore Obama's failures and gigantic growth of government. Obama, trying to change everything without forethought is that big Matzo Ball. In our current case of the Matzo Ball, Obama is doing many radical things that frighten our economy into paralysis.

Every day brings yet another Obama Matzo Ball initiative. One day we have to have an Economic Stimulus Package, the next day Embryonic Stem Cell Research is vital. Now we are hearing how the Education Department will grow by 60%, when there has been a steady decline, in quality of education since the creation, of the Education Department. Meanwhile, there is wide spread panic in the Banking, Auto, Energy, and nearly every other Industry, while Obama increases regulation on nearly all of these industries. While we have a negative savings rate, the message from the White House is; don't hide money in your mattress. This is the same message that we have been hearing, in difficult financial times, since 2001. When Bush said, basically, the same thing, he was widely discounted for being out of touch. We can't count on the Evening News to connect these dots.

More Matzo Balls come in the midst of today's hard times, we were told that we would have a financial team, that would tackle these difficulties head on. Secretary Geithner has really said nothing to calm market nerves. In a time when we really need a financial team that would give us something to hope for, instead we have empty words. Obama has said that he doesn't pay attention to the Market Indexes. Where is the mainstream media on this issue? Nearly every day the Stock Market drops. We are seeing the greatest 'sell-off' in history. Obama's reaction is blank at best and summed up in 'well....I inherited this economy.' Bush's financial team had a Banking and Market solution, if misguided. Most conservatives saw the 'Paulsen Plan' as Nationalization of our banking sector. The Obama solution, as best as can be deciphered, is simply the 'Paulsen Plan' on steroids. The previous administration claimed that the money being lent out would be paid back. The effect on banking was negligible and yet the market dropped. Obama talks of salary caps, and holding lenders 'accountable,' so far that has translated to making an example of those executives who stay in nice hotels. So, not only are executives not allowed to treat their customers, but the Hotel Industry suffers as well. The banking sector, and corporations as a whole, is terrified of more Federal Government intervention. The markets show it. 'The Press' doesn't make the connection.

Most reporters loved the Stimulus Plan. The Obama 'Stimulus Plan' is huge compared to the plan from last summer. The difference is instead of getting money to consumers, as Bush attempted to do, this plan creates massive debt to work on 'infrastructure projects,' many of which won't start for a year or so. Many wonder if this plan will stimulate the economy when so much of the plan has to do with things like; 40$ billion to increase Broadband Technology to rural areas, or 50 million to salaries in the Farm Service Agency, or 300 million for fuel efficient vehicles for federal employees. Most people would be right to question spending like this. Especially in an age when we were supposed to have more transparent and responsible governance. Yet, the media doesn't pay any attention.

The crashing sound of Obama's Foreign Affairs is yet another example of the Matzo. In under two months this administration has; insulted the U.K, compromised our position of strength with the Russians and committed 900 million dollars to Hamas (a Terrorist Organization). The Matzo Ball that the Big Media has, is that they aren't holding this administration to account. They spend too much print on The First Lady's style, or the parties that are being thrown at the White House. They ignore the burning house that is our nations financial state, and what strength we still hold internationally. Is it any wonder that Print Media is dying. The same media that loved Senator Obama, without question, now loves President Obama without question.

Where will this Matzo Ball lead us as a country? More alternative news sources, more Print Media death. In the next few years we may see that leadership won't come from the executive branch, or even from Washington. We could see that House Representatives, Governors, Mayors, Radio Talk Hosts, and Bloggers may be the leaders of the future. Leaders who show common sense, leaders who are accountable. We the citizens, of this Great Country, could take the Media's Matzo Ball and make Matzo Ball Soup.

Is 'Red-State' America under represented, in the House of Representatives?

2009-03-02T15:11:00.007-07:00

Last weeks Senate Vote to give D.C. and Utah each a house seat, which could be held up in court for years, reminds us of how the growth in the Conservative West is being ignored, by the more liberal Beltway Eastern States, and the Left Coast.

The Senate voted last week 60-37, to give Washington D.C. a Seat in the House of Representatives. Utah is to get one more seat, so that there will be one Republican and one Democrat, seated at the same time. The vote has been criticized by some Republicans in Utah who would most certainly gain one more party seat in the house. Bob Bennet (R,UT) called the bill unconstitutional. Why? Because Utah has been fighting for this seat for over 10 years and has been ignored. The District of Columbia is, on the other, hand not a state. The Capital has no Senate representation, nor should it. So the D.C. seat in the house will not be realized for years, due to court challenges. So While Washington's seat is not a reality, neither is Utah's.

This is the second time that this silly, one for one, seat sharing idea has been brought up for Utah and D.C. The vote was blocked in 2002 due to fears of court challenges. Now we are trying the same stupid idea, but this time it's law. Next year is a census year. Utah has been the fastest growing state, by percentage, for the last couple years. So when the census is completed the growth in population will show that Utah, again, is due for another seat. The Beehive State won't get it because the Senate Already voted to give it another seat. When the vote from last week is stuck in court Utah will remain one representative short. If the law from last week is found unconstitutional then Utah simply loses out.

Is it just Utah that is in this predicament? No, in fact, many Mountain West states are getting the Representative shaft. Arizona is the second fastest growing state, by percentage, and the fifth by population. Still, Arizona is significantly under represented. Colorado is in the same boat, along with Montana and Idaho. Not all of these states are all red states but Conservatives would be much better represented if the Representative seating were to be apportioned by population as they should be. Incidentally, the area of the country where the the conservative seats are properly divvied up is the old 'Grain Belt' i.e, Oklahoma, Kansas and Nebraska. These states have not seen the growth of the Mountain West.

The following chart shows how many Mountain West states are largely under represented. I also took the liberty of coloring the states Red or Blue showing how those states voted in the 2008 Election. Each population number shown is from the Census Bureau site as of 2007.

Click here to see our breakdown of Reps. per state

Perhaps the only way that all states can have adequate seating in the House of Representatives is to consider more seats. No state would like to see seats taken from one state to be given to another. Most Governors, and I would hope that all in that state, would fight ruthlessly to see their respective seats left alone.

The seating system, as it stands, is simply disproportionate. In the case of Utah, Montana, and Nevada, House Seats have been over due since the last Official Census nearly 10 years ago. Can there be any doubt that the Mountain States are greatly in need of Congressional Seats. When the Official Census comes up next year these states have to be represented.

Beyond the states in the Rocky's or their bordering states, Texas has 1 rep. to every 750,000. Delaware also deserves better representation. So, not all seats would be conservative. Not all of the seats would be in the west, but every one of these states deserves a voice in our Republic. If we are attempting to expand the house beyond the states to Washington's D.C's 588,000 citizens then we had better make sure that all states are properly represented at the Republic's table. If this poor representation continues, then we will be imposing the very thing from which our Founding Father's fought to liberate us; Taxation without Representation.

Pessimism is the only true death of Conservatism.

2009-02-27T23:02:00.000-07:00

We are in a time, that many have labeled as dark. This is not difficult to explain. There are no conservatives in real position of leadership, on the national scene. We see that we may well be in danger of rising and restrictive taxes, the loss of public voices who are allowed to disagree and few on our side of the aisle get any positive press. It is not, however, time to despair. It is most certainly not time to waste our good energy on conspiracies. We must not be resigned to the place of having yesterdays ideas.

In watching the President, in his many speeches, we have little doubt that he has plans to take the country in a more 'France-like' direction. He has, in a month, out spent any previous administration, in a comparable amount of time. He talks of heavy regulation, higher taxes, higher levels of entitlement and more interference in banking and health care. Pretty grim.

In fact, few have spent this much money in their entire term as president, and with the placation of the three senate 'Milk-Duds,' there doesn't seem to be a away to stop the 'left-wing' train. The picture seems even bleaker, with the real possibility of Norm Coleman's seat in the Senate, going to Al Franken. We also seem to have a wave of new young voters who vote on the left. Now it's time to scream, right?

So what do we as conservatives do about these grim omens. We can first start by looking locally. This would be a forward looking and positive solution. 'Off Year' Elections are, more often than not, known for low turn out. If we want to change the future it starts with; City Councils, Mayors, State Legislatures, and County Representation. In Salt Lake City they have had liberal mayors for the last 35 years. The hideous part is that the mayor doesn't represent the population. Conservatives don't show up to vote. Worse yet, over the last 10 years, the city population has shrunk by about 4 thousand. Many of these people are saying that the city is too liberal. These facts show the root of the problem all over the country. Conservatives don't show up to vote, then they get angry that the people, who they didn't vote for are too liberal. The conservatives quit. Hence the growth of liberalism in metropolitan areas all over the country.

Along with population shift: staying home, 'third-party' voting, and 'write-ins,' hurt our cause even more. Indulge me again to mention a local voting trend. In Salt Lake County (which has about 1 million people) we have seen a rise in liberal voting, to the point of there being no conservative leadership in our state legislature from the largest county in the state. What happened? A mix of pessimistic voting apathy, thousands didn't vote, as well as thousands of conservatives who moved out of the county. Another important fact that the rise of liberal representation was that many conservatives voted for silly 'third-party' candidates and wrote in other candidates. Had conservatives voted for the the front running conservative candidates in the county, there would not have been a loss of representative leadership.

Pessimism manifests in 'third-party candidates and 'write-ins' and staying home, effect things nationally as well, in precincts all over the country. In Minnesota, had people voted for one of the two candidates, instead of some third party, the election would be decided. Minnesota would have two senators instead of one. In Salt Lake County in the general Presidential Election the county went to Obama because just over one thousand voters wrote in another candidate who wasn't running. Hundreds of other votes went to 'third-party's.' Had these two goofy voting anomalies not happened the county would have gone to McCain. In 1992 20% percent of the national vote went to Ross Perot (10% percent in 96). If one were to add Perot's percentage with that of the ' third-party' candidates, Bush would have won in 92 (Dole in 96) instead of Clinton. Perhaps McCain, and Bush, aren't ideal conservatives. Perhaps Colman hasn't been perfect in Minnesota. The alternatives, however, are much worse, much more liberal. In each case pessimistic Conservative tendencies, to not vote, or vote for some other candidate, have been total disasters.

Pessimism is not an effective political strategy. Especially in the case of conspiracy theory. I was having conversation with someone the other day. This individual brought up that they had heard a popular radio talk host discussing President Obama's Birth Certificate, and questioning if the president is a natural born citizen. This same talk show host voiced that, other talk show hosts, lack the 'gut's' or 'chootbah' to address this 'important' subject. As one in a team on a talk show I will address this subject, Barack Obama is the president. His legitimacy has been certified by the 50 State Attorney's General. He will be president for at least four years. I hope that he is only President for one term, but he won't be removed by silly, juvenile, and time wasting discussions like these. It is perfectly legitimate to question his leadership, his plans, his fiscal policy, his appointments, his view on guns, unions, education, banking,..the list goes on and on. It is not realistic to think that our country will be at all better off by wasting energy on, whether or not Obama's citizenship is valid, whether he is the "Anti-Christ, he is Malcolm X's son or if he is a secret Muslim. (If anyone knows even the smallest bit of Islamic culture being a 'Secret Muslim' doesn't really fit the Five Pillars.)

New and more ridiculous stories come up every day. More conspiracies. Each more distracting, to the real work, than the next. The real work of looking forward with realistic hope. The work of holding our officials accountable, only gets muted, when real work has to compete with mush. Ben Franklin printed his Ideas, he printed Paines' Common Sense. He didn't help to father the new nation, with Adams, Jefferson and Washington, by wasting his time with silly rumors. These men had real work to do. They were optimists.

Pessimism and cynicism are what lead to these propensities of destructive behavior. We as conservatives have too much love for our country to waste more time on 'Third-Party's,' Conspiracy Theories and these other points. Each of the pessimistic behaviors show that many are giving up, or giving in, to the forces with which we sincerely disagree.

We are in a time of a perfect storm. A storm that, I believe, will bring a sprouting of conservatism. Pessimism, conspiracy theories and watering down our message, are what will be our greatest stumbling blocks; they distract us from this most profound opportunity. We can point out the innate falsehoods of the welfare state and the nanny state. We can stop the spread of feminizing all aspects of our young boys lives, and instill a true sense of honor in our young girls. Truly a free society with Men as Men and Women as Women is the true identity of America. We are a society that that has succeeded on Liberty. A society where failure is the strengthening doorway to success. We can herald the coming of a new age, but only if we as conservatives can embrace this time of setbacks as a time to educate ourselves and others. We have the American solutions of liberty and freedom, and these are the only solutions for our country.

California misses the point again!

2009-02-23T22:00:00.000-07:00

California clamors to fix their broken budget by, still holding to the same old 'nanny state' and anti-development ideas that put them in a perpetual state of catch-up.

In a state that won't tap it own resources, then overspends, borrows to make up for overspending, when California misses the point on so many levels we all pay for it.

San Fransisco Chronicle reported that after days of wrangling California's legislature, a budget was passed that would avoid what Barbara Boxer referred to as a"crisis of a lifetime." California faced a projected $41 billion budget shortfall. What's on tap for this new budget? $11.4 billion in borrowing, $12.8 billion in increased taxes and the obligatory 2 billion in federal stimulus. Spending makes things harder on businesses in the state and eventually every body suffers.

So what's the problem? We've been here before. After the recall we were supposed to see new and responsible leadership, but with a budget shortfall almost $3 billion larger than the one that led to the recall, observers are left searching for the point of the recall. Let's go back to October 2003. Newly re-elected Gov. Gray Davis had been recalled. The new popular Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger assumed the office vowing to fix the broken budget. California was said at the time to have a deficit larger than every other state in the union put together $38.2 billion. He went on national television pushing a bill that would 'temporarily' borrow to help on the path to fiscal responsibility. Since then Schwarzenegger has occasionally cut taxes, but for the greater part of time in power he has done nothing to really build California's resource base, or truly reform the out of control entitlement programs that plague the states budget. His time as executive is hardly distinguishable from the previous Davis administration. Oh, and the legislative branch helped both administrations put holes in the boat.

With the help of the left-wing legislature, the pre-recall spending continued after the recall. The last six years under Arnold, and his cohorts, has brought much discussion about alternate energy sources. Wind Farms and Solar Panels are neat ideas but their implementation, while popular amongst the environmental crowd, come at a massive cost. These forms of energy only address part of part of the energy 'point.' They don't really produce enough energy for the 36 million inhabitants. The great western coast-line of California has vast deposits of Natural Gas and (I know that this is a bad word) Oil. The revenues from utilizing these resources could help the state budget and create vast amounts of jobs (imagine if nuclear energy were on the table) this discussion would be closer to 'the point.' Most of these vast resources will however remain untapped and the high populous state will continue importing much of it's energy and eventually the utility purchasers of P.G.&E will get stung.

The inhabitants of California get an added bonus. There is discussion of decriminalizing of marijuana for the purpose of taxation. Another plan would release one third of the sizable California prison population. These Ideas are an example of how The Golden State perhaps thinks that it is the only state in the union. Both of these plans help the budget, in theory, to the detriment the citizens of California, as well as those of the states around them. Can you say 'miss the point?' Imagine thousands of newly released criminals within a short drive of Las Vegas or Reno after they have made their own state unlivable. I wager the thank you letter from the Nevada Commission on Tourism is in the mail.

As in the case of Nevada these decision don't just stay in the Coastal Paradise. California is really a microcosm of U.S. in many ways. The farming areas are more conservative. The large coastal cities have more people and much more liberal perspectives on the role that government should take. The more agricultural areas produce goods that help all of us, but they are under-represented, due to their lower populations. The capitals are closer vicinity to elitist metro areas. In the capitals they attempt to solve blatant miss-management by passing bills that raise taxes and don't starve the spending 'beast.' Legislatures also claim to 'fix' budget problems by borrowing money to keep 'the beast' fed. Out of the capital Sacramento come Nanny State ideas like Sensitivity Training, Clean Air Acts, and Helmet Laws that infest the surrounding western states like an Influenza Virus. The Golden State misses 'the point again and again.

Why does it matter if they miss the point so often? California composes more than 10% of the U.S. population, and the worlds 8th largest economy. The nations Food, Shipping, Banking, Construction and Tourism Industries, with countless others, are all disproportionately represented in this one state. When California misses 'the point.' The nation, as a whole, feels it.

2009-02-16T10:15:00.000-07:00

A Return to Stagflation. Feb,16.2009
We have been told repeatedly that we are in the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.' We have recently heard that "it is only government that can break this vicious cycle." (President Obama referring to unemployment and consumer skittishness in his news conference Feb. 10th.) Is it however, more appropriate to compare our current situation, to stagflation in the the 1970's or even Japan's lost decade of the 1990's. Right now we don't have inflation, yet. But like in the 70's, we are trying to to address unemployment by government (federal) spending, and as in the the Ford and Carter administration 'Big Government' action will largely have little positive effect (the 'little effect' is from the State Department's own web-site.) We will however, have a another parallel with the Ford/Carter malaise in that we will at some time have spiking interest rates to attempt to combat inflation, which will be difficult to avoid with Obama's "Unprecedented Action" i.e 800 billion dollars. The potential interest rate spike will panic the stock market and we will end up where we started which is climbing unemployment.
What about Japan's lesson to us in history? Google CEO Eric Schmidt was on the Sunday talk show circuit squawking about the need for yet more stimulus saying that the lesson of Japan's lost decade, was that it took too long for the money to be spent. One might ask, however, did borrow, borrow, borrow, really help the Japanese economy? There was plenty of "Unprecedented Action." The equivalent of billions of dollars were spent to 're-stimulate' banking as well as their economy at large, but even after corporate and banking bail-outs banks collasped in spectacular fashion and even to this day many corporate firms are saddled with massive debt. To sweeten the pot a bit more, Japan has only four banks left. Now that Japan is on the verge of another economic crises they are ill-equipped to take more "Unprecedented Action" when after the last series of "bold actions" left them with zero percent interest and money still difficult to borrow. To top off the whole picture as a nation, they are still heavily indebted to foreign banks. One cultural fact that may have kept them from utter economic failure, is that Japanese people have a inherent tendency to save money. We as a nation however, actually have a negative savings trend. We spend both individually and legislatively more money than we have.
The bottom line in the case of Japan, is that in the process of attempting to fix their economic problems after having an economic system based on real-estate and other lending bubbles, they weakened their economy of more lending, by way of federal action.
So, we either keep interest rates low and in-effect weaken our economy, as Japan did; or interest rates rise again and we get stuck in malaise, while attempting to spend our way out of it. We are told that tax-cuts are not the only answer and doing nothing is not an option. We are also told that de-regulation is what caused our current crises. When the answer was the 80's era of fewer regulation and taxes that brought us to nearly twenty years of unprecedented growth (from 1985-2005) in the mean time surviving two recessions and a major domestic terrorist attack. What if during that twenty year period we as a country had saved, or perhaps not jumped from the 'Manufacturing Bubble' to the 'Tech-Bubble' then finally to the 'Construction-and Housing bubble.' What if we had focused on making a product rather than money. What if the Federal Reserve could have kept it's meddling fingers off our economy and allowed certain industries to die a healthy death.
For the first time there is serious discussion that the 'Fed' simply chases the bubbles while creating new ones ,all of which pop. Such radio talk show hosts as Glenn Beck and Michael Medved have had serious discussions on their shows about the steady but gradual dissolution of the 'Fed.' Perhaps, we are to simply look back to the words "government is not the solution, it's the problem," or even more poignantly "government that governs least governs best."