How Much Is Enough?

The cure for the evils of democracy is more democracy!

H. L. Mencken, Notes on Democracy, 1926

The entirety of mass media has been focused almost entirely on the tragedy of the missing Malaysian Airlines flight. The number of hours dedicated to an issue for which there is achingly little information is staggering.

It is thus perhaps understandable that the aforementioned media has chosen not to focus its attention on more domestic issues. In this era of political gridlock and ridiculous claims of ‘unfairness’, there still remains some hard realities that must be addressed by our elected leaders.

To wit:

This nation is still far from a true economic recovery, and yet the body politic refuses to address the issues of debt, deficit and responsible budgetary restraint. There are continued cries for increasing taxes on the rich, and that more money is needed for this infrastructure or another.

In short, the electorate is bombarded daily with the message that the government requires more cash to continue fulfilling its purpose.

The reality is that government as a whole can longer manage its fiduciary mandate and as such has voluntarily relinquished its responsibility to America for no other reason that political cowardice and budgetary ineptitude.

For proof of that fact, consider this edited compendium of information from various sources relative to the budgetary madness currently in play in Washington. It should be of both deep concern and outrage on the part of the American people.

As they say, you can’t make this stuff up. The numbers do not lie.

Consider:

Inflation-adjusted federal tax revenues hit a record $1,104,947,000,000 in the first five months of fiscal 2014, but the federal government still ran a $377,379,000,000 deficit during that time, according to the Monthly Treasury Statement for February.

Each month, the Treasury publishes the government’s “total receipts,” including all revenue from individual income taxes, corporate income taxes, social insurance and retirement taxes (including Social Security and Medicare taxes), unemployment insurance taxes, excise taxes, estate and gift taxes, customs duties, and “miscellaneous receipts.”

In constant 2014 dollars, the $1,104,947,000,000 that the federal government collected from October through February in fiscal 2014 was $90,193,750,000 more than the 1,014,753,250,000 it collected in October through February in fiscal 2013.

Although the federal government brought in a record  of approximately $1,104,947,000,000 in revenue in the first five months of fiscal 2014, according to the Treasury, it also spent approximately 1,482,327,000,000—leaving a deficit of approximately 377,379, 000,000.

After the current fiscal year, the second highest federal tax intake in the first five months of a fiscal year occurred in the first five months of fiscal 2007, when the government collected 1,076,721,860,000 in 2014 dollars—or 28,225,140,000 less than in the first five months of this fiscal year.

At the beginning of 2013, Congress passed and President Obama signed “The American Taxpayer Relief Act.” While this act made permanent some of the lower tax rates enacted for ten-year periods under President George W. Bush, it also increased some tax rates.

The Congressional Research Service summary of the law said it: “Amends the Internal Revenue Code to: (1) revise income tax rates for individual taxpayers whose taxable income is at or below the $400,000 threshold amount ($450,000 for married couples filing a joint return) and increase the rate to 39.6% for taxpayers whose taxable income exceeds the threshold, (2) set the threshold for the phaseout of personal tax exemptions and itemized deductions at $250,000 for individual taxpayers ($300,000 for married couples filing a joint return), and (3) increase the top marginal estate tax rate from 35% to 40%.

The law also: “Increases the capital gains tax rate from 15% to 20% for taxpayers whose taxable income exceeds the $400,000 threshold amount.”

Ignorance

The cure for the evils of democracy is more democracy!

H. L. Mencken, Notes on Democracy, 1926

There were two unrelated news stories that came across the wires this past week that, were they not indicative of absolute ignorance on the parts of the individuals involved, would be fodder for comedians the world over.

The first article was a report on an address made by Texas Representative Sheila Jackson Lee.

Here is the edited summation of her remarks, culled and confirmed from various news sources:

“We will be answering the call of all of America because people need work and we’re not doing right by them by creating work. And I believe this caucus will put us on the right path and we’ll give President Obama a number of executive orders that he can sign with pride and strength.

In fact, I think that should be our number one agenda. Let’s write up these executive orders — draft them, of course — and ask the president to stand with us on full employment.”

Consider this for a moment. There are 435 members of the House of Representatives. Rep. Lee is a member of that body. Congress has the constitutional responsibility to create legislation. The Congress is the arm of government that the framers and founders bestowed with the power to write the laws under which the nation would live. The reasoning for doing so is extensive, but one pf the major reasons were to forbid power to be consolidated solely within the presidency. Rep. Lee, who has taken an oath to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution is gleefully expressing the hope that the president will act unilaterally, and that the Democratic caucus should help with such a Constitutional coup.

The breadth and scope of such petty political ignorance should be alarming to the American electorate.

Such stupidity must be called out before the American people.

The second article concerned a federal judge who ruled that Virginia’s law declaring that marriage is a union between one man and one woman is unconstitutional. There has been an uproar over the decision, based upon the fact that the law was enacted after a legally held statewide ballot vote. There are many on the political right who believe that a federal judge should not be able to overturn the results of a fair ballot election.

That is a fair enough argument, but that is not what immediately concerns the Madison Conservative, although this issue will indeed be discussed at a later date.

What IS of concern, and should worry the people of this judges’ jurisdiction is to be found in her written decision. (you can read the entire opinion handed down today here.:

http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/edva-ssm-opinion.pdf)

Herein is the pertinent part of Judge Arenda Wright Allen’s decision:

"Our Constitution declares that 'all men' are created equal. Surely this means all of us," Judge Allen wrote on the first page of her opinion.

A fine sentiment coming from a FEDERAL judge, invoking the words of the framers and founders in explaining her decision to vacate the will of the Virginia electorate.

The problem?

The Constitution doe NOT declare that all men are created equal, despite what the judge may believe.

The document that includes that phrase is the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE. The Declaration is to be treasured as an integral part of American democracy, but it DOES NOT have any weight in the context of delineating the protections of the people from the government.

A federal judge making such a mistake should not be sitting on the bench, and should absolutely not be deciding issues of such magnitude.

The American people must demand better, and accept nothing less than the best from our judiciary and our elected officials.

Mr. Beale - The Face of Bureaucracy ?

The cure for the evils of democracy is more democracy!

H. L. Mencken, Notes on Democracy, 1926

Amidst all of the hysteria and political hyperbole of the recent fiscal nonsense, there occurred something that neatly encapsulates why America feels as it does about those in Washington D.C. who have been entrusted with the guidance of this nation.

There are indeed issues to be discussed relative to the recent actions of Congress & the President over the partial government shutdown. Sadly, all that truly happened is a delay of the entire fiasco – it will return after the first of the year, so there is time for the Madison Conservative to address those subjects.

However, sometimes absurdity is a perfect salve for the wounds of politics.

Consider this following headline:

A former federal official refused to testify before a House committee Tuesday. Invokes Fifth Amendment right

That healine does not do justice to the story. In a time when the political class was meandering on about ‘essential’ and ‘non-essential’ government workers, there was one who was indeed ‘non-essential’. This one person in no way should be considered to encapsulate the normal government employee, but he does do a magnificent job of portraying the general belief of the American electorate about who is minding the store.

Here’s is a part of an opening speech given by the ranking Democrat on the committee, Rep. Elijah Cummings (MD). The first part of his commentary relates to how the Republicans forced the shut-down and generally are to blame for the woes of the planet, but then he got to the point. It is a classic, and would be delightfunny if it were not true.

To wit:

With that said, let me turn to today’s hearing.

I want to begin by thanking Inspector General

Elkins and his deputy, Patrick Sullivan,

In addition, I want to acknowledge the role of Administrator McCarthy in finally revealing this fraud, which lasted decades. I know we will discuss the Inspector General’s concerns about how quickly his office received a referral, but I believe the IG will agree that had it not been for Administrator McCarthy, this fraud may never have been uncovered.

Mr. Beale’s betrayal of the public trust for his own personal enrichment is truly shocking in its scope, duration, and sheer audacity.

Mr. Beale defrauded the Environmental Protection

Agency for decades—under both Republican and Democratic administrations—by claiming he was a covert operative for the CIA.

One senior EPA official during the Bush Administration actually approved Mr. Beale’s request to work offsite one day a week so he could participate in an “inter-agency, special advisory group working on a project with the Directorate of Operations at the CIA.”

This was no ordinary ruse.

In addition to lying to senior EPA officials across multiple

administrations, Mr. Beale also duped his own family members, his friends, and even his own lawyer.

Mr. Beale did not come clean to his own criminal defense attorney until investigators arranged for a meeting at CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, in order to finally confront him about his lies.

But that’s not all Mr. Beale lied about.

According to the Inspector General, Mr. Beale also lied about contracting malaria and serving in Vietnam —all to obtain a handicapped parking spot. Mr. Beale also lied on travel vouchers about where he was going and why he needed to go there so he could visit his family in California.

Simply put, Mr. Beale was a con artist, and the American taxpayers were his mark.

As public servants, we must always remember that we serve the people.

Mr. Beale flouted one of the most basic tenets of government service — it’s not your money, it’s the taxpayers’ money.

Mr. Beale’s actions are an insult to the thousands of hardworking and dedicated public servants across the country and an insult to our CIA agents around the world.

While Mr. Beale was claiming to work at Langley and pretending to go on secret missions overseas, real intelligence agents were hunting down Osama bin Laden and battling al Qaeda in the most dangerous places in the world.

Mr. Beale’s impersonation of a CIA agent forced our nation’s law enforcement and intelligence officials to spend their scarce time and resources uncovering his fraud instead of combating real threats around the globe.

This is truly reprehensible.

I am gratified that justice has been served and that Mr. Beale will pay for his fraud.

Article II, Section 2.

The cure for the evils of democracy is more democracy!

H. L. Mencken, Notes on Democracy, 1926

There is always strong talk from the political class of all persuasions, and this administration in particular, regarding the support the nation has for the military, and the families of the military. The presentation of unabashed pride is what the American people have come to, and should, expect from the government, especially given the shameful treatment given to the Vietnam-era veterans.

No matter what the discussion on foreign policy, invariably support for the troops makes its way into the debate.

This is right and proper and the use of our military should never be an afterthought, or disregarded within the framework of the larger debate.

It is with that understanding that it is of concern President Obama has chosen to forgo his responsibility as commander in chief and use the military as a bargaining chip in the budget debate.

First, it is critical to note the constitutional position the president has in regards to the military.

Article 2 - Section 2

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States

That is unambiguous in its wording, and no matter the politics, has been held as a sacred responsibility since this nation’s inception.

It is therefore incomprehensible that the President chose to make the following remarks this week.

To wit:

“It’s hurting our military. I made it clear that your veteran’s benefits are exempt from this year’s sequester,” the president said t at the Disabled American Veterans' convention in Orlando, Fla. “But I want to tell you going forward the best way to protect the VA care you have earned is to get rid of this sequester altogether.”

Does the President, his party, or even the media sycophants actually believe threatening the benefits of our veterans is an acceptable bargaining position? The administration has made sport of closing the People’s House to tours due to the Sequester.

The President seems to have continuing bouts of amnesia to the fact that he instituted the concept and implementation of the Sequester.

That salient point, while specifically germane to the political argument in Washington amongst the body politic, is indeed shameful to use said memory loss of convenience and political expediency to manipulate the veterans who on one hand he so emphatically praises, while plotting and scheming to use their benefits as a cynical ploy to gain short term advantage in a fight with Congress.

The Madison Conservative implores the President, Congress and the American electorate to reassess their acceptance of childish gamesmanship with respect to our military, and for the President specifically to refresh his memory of Article II, Section 2.

The nation has serious fiscal issues facing it; the solutions should not be made by reneging on the sacred social contracts with our veterans. They did not accept the responsibilities of their service conditionally. We must honor our commitments in a similarly respectful manner.

The President should be ashamed.

An Open Letter to Attorney General Eric Holder

The cure for the evils of democracy is more democracy!

H. L. Mencken, Notes on Democracy, 1926

Mr. Attorney General,

It has been an eventful week for the administration, and for you specifically.

Given the range of issues and the responses from yourself and the spokespeople for the administration, there is a groundswell of opinion that the president must either fire you, or that you must resign.

The Madison Conservative urges you to resist these cries for your dismissal and provide the American people with true leadership.

The four major issues at hand can be addressed by you in a voice that carries substantial weight. We are a nation of laws, and you are the chief law enforcement of this nation.

As such, you can provide legal clarity to the following:

Benghazi – Please determine who first included the notion of a video no one had ever seen as being the impetus for the assassination of four Americans. Inquire as to exactly where the President of the United States was during the critical hours of the assault on the diplomatic compound. Please provide former Secretary Clinton with the answer to her question – “what difference does it make now?”. I am sure you understand the need to school Mrs. Clinton on the realities of her question and the answer. Lastly, who gave the order for the troops who might have made a difference to stand down?

The HHS Secretary – Please investigate why Secretary Sebelius is soliciting funds from the organizations most directly affected by the Affordable Care Act to promote said legislation. Initial answers that there is nothing illegal about it do not seem sufficient and the ethics of such actions must be properly adjudicated.

The IRS – Given the ability of the IRS to intimidate, harass and harangue the American people on a whim, surely in this instance laws were broken. Please investigate why the President was not aware of anything until, as he has stated publicly, he saw it on the news. This strains credibility to the breaking point. You must stand against the tide and pursue this matter. The American people cannot be allowed to be in fear of a government that was established for, by and of the people. The claim by the political left that the IRS is somehow an autonomous entity is obfuscation at its best – are they unaware that the IRS is under the Department of the Treasury? You must pursue this to wherever it leads, and if you do so, I guarantee the American people will have your back.

The AP – Please explain to the American people two critical points on this matter. First, exactly why was it necessary to illegally obtain phone records from a media source? Surely, the freedoms of speech and of the press were infringed upon, and those responsible must be held accountable. Secondly, why exactly did you recuse yourself? Placing responsibility on an underling is inappropriate. You must take the reins of the investigation and present to the American people the facts, however and wherever you find them.

In short, Mr. Attorney General, DO YOUR JOB!

Given the cowardly assaults on personal freedoms by this administration, and your decision to acquiesce to such choices, you cannot expect to be taken seriously.

I am aware that some taxpayer funded lowlife will find this letter to you and attempt to take retribution.

No need. As an American, you know where to find me.

I dare you.

Tax Day

The cure for the evils of democracy is more democracy!

H. L. Mencken, Notes on Democracy, 1926

In facetious ‘honor’ of this being the week that federal law mandates the submission of income tax filings, the Madison Conservative is presenting an abbreviated version of the blog this week to provide some insight into the current realities of income tax law and the hypocrisy of the Obama administration in its continued histrionics relative to ‘tax fairness’.  The President has been continually haranguing the electorate that those who can afford to pay more in taxes should do so, in order to demonstrate their patriotism.

Consider these facts about the tax system in this nation and the incredulity of the two most powerful men in the world with regard to the tax ‘fairness’ issue.

First, here is the idea of taxation as intended by the framers and founders of this country:

The United States Constitution, Article I, Section 9:

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken

Concisely and specifically written; to demonstrate the dangers of a Congress acting ‘in the best interests of fairness to the nation', consider the sixteenth amendment to our august governing document:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

A direct reversal of the founders’ intent, and one that has become a blight and a plague upon the freedom of the American people.

There is also this fact to confirm the belief of the American people that they are in fact being taxed too much and that indeed this nation does not have a taxation problem, it has a definite spending problem – (please note the dates provided – they occur AFTER Tax Day):

April 18 will be Tax Freedom Day, the day when Americans have worked enough to pay all of their federal and state taxes for 2013 – a round total of $4.22 trillion, according to an analysis done by the Tax Foundation.

That's five days later than in 2012.

Americans will pay more than $2.76 trillion in federal taxes and $1.45 trillion in state taxes for 2013 -- for a total of $4.22 trillion in taxes, or 29.4 percent of income. (Figures are rounded.)

April 18 is the 108th day of the year, or 29.4 percent of the calendar year.

Mitt Romney was chastised mercilessly by the political left when it was revealed that his tax rate was a shade over 15%. He was accused of squirreling money away in off shore accounts, and the point was raised about his ‘economic patriotism’ for having such a low rate. The mass media went apoplectic that his rate was not closer to the accepted ‘fair’ rate of 39%, the intended target of “tax equity’, so that the middle class would not have to pay for ‘tax cuts for the rich’.

In that context, consider this official government release:

President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama paid $112,214 in federal income taxes in 2012 on adjusted gross income of $608,611, an effective rate of 18.4%, the White House said Friday.

Finally, a favorite of the Madison Conservative. There are many terms to describe this type of arrogance and outright theft. It is a fitting encapsulation of exactly what is wrong with the political class, the tax system and the mindset of a bloated and ineffective government.

To wit:

Vice President Joe Biden and his wife, Dr. Jill Biden, took in $26,400 in 2012 by renting a cottage on the property of their Delaware home to the Secret Service, tax records released by the White House revealed.

They netted $17,944 of that rental money.

The namesake of this blog would be appalled.

The tax-paying electorate of America should be equally outraged and figuratively take pitchforks in hand and storm the castle.

Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security - part one

This past week has provided more than sufficient evidence that there is a fundamental disconnect between the two political parties and specifically their presumptive nominees on the issue of funding Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid.

For reasons that escape the majority of the electorate, there is being presented two absolutely diametrically opposed realities of the financial health of these programs, both short term and for the future, despite the universally bipartisan accepted  truth that all of the programs are facing imminent financial distress.

President Obama claims that he has secured the future for the foreseeable future without changing the benefits provided for anyone.

Mr. Romney and Representative Ryan are presenting that their vision includes not changing it for today’s’ recipients, but if enacted, their policies will provide secure benefit options for all future recipients.

To clarify – both candidates claim that their respective solutions leave the present unaffected but the future secure and that their opponents are intent on throwing the elderly off of cliffs, under buses and generally leaving them destitute in the street.

This is not possible; both versions cannot be true.

One party is obfuscating the facts to a much greater degree than the other.

In short, someone is lying to the American electorate.

The principle charge against the President is that he has taken some seven hundred billion dollars from Medicare to fund the needs of the Affordable care Act, principally we are told by employing the granddaddy of all canards – “cutting waste fraud and abuse”.

The fact is that many a federal budget has been created by promising revenue from that particular source: this nation currently has a fourteen billion dollar debt with expectations of adding to that debt by one trillion dollars a year for the foreseeable future.

There cannot have been sufficient amounts of ‘waste, fraud and abuse’ in the history of man to provide sufficient revenue to address that level of fiduciary malfeasance.

Mr. Romney and congressman Ryan are presenting a scenario wherein those currently in the Social Security and Medicare programs will remain unencumbered by any changes, for they and those over the age of 55 are exempt from their plan. Those Americans aged 54 and under will have the option to remain in the programs as they exist or choose from a new slate of options, currently proposed to include the health care options afforded to all government employees. Their plan also calls for the repeal of the Affordable care Act and to return the seven hundred plus billions of dollars to Medicare that the President has accounted for in his plan.

As these two opposing concepts cannot coexist as a solution to the pressing issues, the Madison Conservative will attempt to provide factual context for both plans in upcoming blog posts.

As a matter of stated principle, the Madison Conservative is a proponent of smaller government, in the model envisioned for America by the framers and the founders, so it can be anticipated that there will be an objection based upon the supposition that ours will be a biased presentation of the two plans.

It is our intent to provide as much factual information as possible before providing an assessment of which plans adheres to the American sensibility of  freedom.

The Madison Conservative Platform - Part 3

The continuation of the Madison Conservative platform now turns it attention to those for whom the platform is being constructed. Previous blog posts have discussed the need for campaign finance reform and the debate on term limits. It is now time to thrash out who will be able to utilize these particular reforms.

There has been much bluster and blather centering on what is cynically referred to by the full political spectrum as ‘voters’ rights’. In the wake of President Obama’s choice to circumvent the Constitution and Congress by unilaterally deciding to legislate by executive fiat, the need to clarify voting eligibility is more critical than ever, given the need to flex democratic self-rule muscle in the voting booth before such freedoms are expunged by a singular political will.

{It is critical to note that is was during the 2010 election cycle that a democratic governor (Beverly Perdue, D-NC) suggested bypassing elections so that the congress could act and vote without fear of electoral consequence.}

The question thus becomes clear – who may vote and how, and what, if any, identification should be considered viable for entering the voting booth.

The important distinction is that this particular plank of the platform will only encompass federal elections; the rights for individual states to regulate their own electoral processes must be respected under the tenth amendment.

First, the constitution stipulates that only those citizens who have attained the age of eighteen may vote.

The intriguing question then becomes what constitutes a ‘citizen’. Felons may not vote; their convictions make them ineligible The Constitution is absent a description on this point, and the Articles of Confederation speak only of ‘free citizens’, excepting ‘vagabonds, paupers and felons’.

It thus then falls to the electorate as a whole by way of our elected officials to make the determination in a country of over 300 million inhabitants who may be classified a citizen eligible to vote, and who does not hold that specific status.

We may look to elective office requirements as a guide, but it must be remembered that the Constitution provides that only natural born citizens may hold the office of President, yet naturalized citizens may still vote.

It is with an eye to that particular ambiguity that the Madison Conservative proposes specific legislation to address this murky issue. It may be attained solely through legislation; a constitutional amendment is not a thoughtful option for this issue.

The law would proceed with language somewhat as follows:

Any individual who has attained the age of eighteen and has not been convicted of a felony is hereby eligible to vote in any and all federal elections. Furthermore, any individual who would be qualified to attain United States citizenship may be considered eligible to vote in any and all federal elections.

That would address the specifics of who is eligible to vote.

The next concern is how to maintain the integrity of Election Day itself. The political parties have in essence conspired to help muddy the basic electoral process by promoting various and sundry electoral schemes. Early elections, mail –in elections, same day registrations and their ilk have done nothing but to distill the inherent responsibility of every citizen to have their voice heard. By diminishing the solemnity of the vote, it has lost much of its significance and allowed mischievous political theater. Many need only to recall the imbecility and outright stupidity of American election officials attempting to discern the intent of any given voter by the interpretations of ‘chads’.

The American example of democratic self-rule should never be subjected to such folly ever again. The Madison Conservative thus believes that there should be an encompassing national methodology for casting federal election votes, even it be nothing more than putting an “X” in a box.

The most sensitive point in this particular debate centers on the legality of requiring photo identification in order to vote.

The voices against such a requirement point out correctly that the right to vote is a constitutional right and the only specifically delineated constitutional right that would require such a manner of photo identification in order to authenticate the identity of the voter; in other words it would be the only right that mandates identification. The claim is made that on that point alone requiring a photo ID is somehow an infringement and an unnecessary burden on the voter.

The specious nature of that argument is clear to those on the opposing side. There is little activity that today does not require a valid photo ID, be it to board an aircraft, cash a check or gain admittance to an arena hosting a speech by the President. The omnipotent nature of ID’s makes the burden argument fallacious on its face. The maxim held that it would be better for one hundred guilty men go free than for one innocent man be wrongly imprisoned.

This is the hard fact of voting in the twenty-first century. The ability for political mischief when a simple photo ID can solve much of the potential problems is a requirement in an era when voting has been made more accessible, albeit more so in a manner that almost mandates a security back up.

In other words, it would be better to inconvenience one hundred voters to produce an ID than for one voter to have his vote negated by any manner or cause.

It is that simple.

The Madison Conservative Platform - part 2

The founders and the framers were wary of providing a default governing class when they designed the Constitution as the governing document of their fledgling new democratic republic.

The specifically delineated the duration of each elected term of office for each member of the trilateral government they were espousing. The president, congressmen, senators and jurists all have clearly defined terms of office.

In a previous post, the Madison Conservative discussed the need to amend the Constitution to address the pervasive, corrupting influence of unregulated financial support for the entire spectrum of the political class. That post was presented as the first plank in the Madison Conservative platform because the need to return the electoral process to the American voter is paramount to the successful growth of democratic self-rule.

The subsequent point that needs to be addressed then is the re-clarification of the terms of office for our elected officials.

Many voices in the public debate on cleaning up the governmental process genuinely believe that the Constitution must be amended to include term limits on our elected leaders. The opposing voices claim with equal earnest that such restrictions should be implemented only at the state level.

Before espousing its position, the Madison Conservative believes a quick recap of the history on the constitutional construct on terms of office is in order.

There were no term limits written into the Constitution. The reasoning was simple; the framers believed that the American people would make the necessary choices with respect to choosing their elected leaders.

President Washington, in his wisdom and foresight decided that two terms was sufficient; in addition to being tired, he genuinely believed that serving any longer would set the precedent of a default monarchy, with a president for life serving in place of an outright king. Subsequent presidents did not see a need to break with that precedent, and those who tried, i.e. Theodore Roosevelt, were soundly defeated by the electorate who felt that George Washington had it right.

In the midst of World War II, the American people opted to return Franklin Roosevelt to office for a third and then a fourth term. His death in office was the argument made that the office of the presidency was too strenuous for a man to endure for longer than two terms. The Congress thus amended the Constitution to restrict the term of office for the president to two terms; Harry S. Truman would have been the last man to serve longer than eight years had he opted to do so.

The Congress did not believe its own responsibilities required extensive vigor and so voted only to restrict the term of office for the executive branch; the cowardice involved in hoping for short term political advantage by so amending the Constitution should be of note to the contemporary body politic.

This explains why senators have served for thirty and forty years, apparently believing that their electorate cannot be properly represented by any other qualified citizen.

After careful consideration, the Madison Conservative has decided to incorporate into its platform the wisdom of the founders and the framers. The twenty second amendment to the United States Constitution should be repealed.

The American electorate is much more sophisticated given its access to information in the internet age. The Madison Conservative believes that the recent trends of the 2010 congressional elections and the failed attempt to recall the Wisconsin governor show that the American electorate is more than capable of fulfilling the belief of the founders and framers of getting it right.

The intelligent control of campaign finance coupled with unfettered choices are the best available tools the body politic can employ to insure that democratic self-rule continues to thrive for ourselves and our posterity.