Law Offices - Kenneth D. Sisco, Attorney - Personal Information
Available for Public Speaker Engagements
Last Updated: July 1, 2007 E-Mail -- protect@action-assetprotection-services.com
OFFSHORE PLANNING SEMINAR -- Intensive examination of offshore planning and Asset Protection Techniques. DETAILS
CLICK HERE for The Ultimate Asset Protection Tool The ultimate strategy for utilizing foreign trusts, foreign corporations, private annuities, limited partnerships and more.Reduced Fees for Foreign Planning -- If you are interested in Foreign Trusts, Foreign Corporations, or foreign planning and strategies in general, and you are in a position to take action before August 6, 2007, you will be pleased to note that I am prepared to offer substantial fee reductions for foreign planning prior to that date. Please see Announcement |
|
|
THE ROAD TO SERFDOM Why You MUST Take Steps to Protect What You HaveWilliam Bennett, author of The Book Of Virtues, was quoted as saying that President Clinton has corrupted the morals of our nation. Mr. Bennett deserves a great deal of respect, but that statement is absurd. It is like saying that O.J. Simpson corrupted our jury system. In a moral America, William Clinton could not have been elected president a first time; much less a second time. To make reference to the most recent scandal surrounding the presidency would date this article and would simply bore you; but in any event it is not necessary. There have been many scandals during this presidency and there will be many more. And yet the President's popularity continues to soar. Many continue to be mystified by this phenomenon. The answer is really quite simple. Rosalyn Carter said that "We like Ronald Reagan because he makes us feel comfortable with our prejudices." Marta Limbaugh said that "We like Bill Clinton because he makes us feel comfortable with our weaknesses." A moral America would not want to be comfortable with its weaknesses. 1994 marked the tenth anniversary of the coming and going of George Orwell's "1984." It also marked the fiftieth anniversary of Friedrich Hayak's marvelous work The Road To Serfdom. If you want to know what runs the psychology of America today, read "The Road To Serfdom." In 1984, we had not quite reached the level of the totalitarian state Oceania, described by George Orwell in 1949, but even with Ronald Reagan as president, there was no question that we were on the road to serfdom and picking up speed as we went. Governments around the world, even the so called free world, were becoming larger, more powerful and more intrusive into every aspect of the individual's life. But then, almost without warning, chinks began to become apparent in the evil empire. At first those chinks were very subtle, like the Hungarians refusing to send back seven thousand East Germans vacationing in Hungary. Then those "chinks" became more profound, like the fall of the Berlin Wall; and finally the collapse of the Soviet Union itself. It was said, facetiously of course, that if the course of events continued, the United States would be the only communist country left in the world. Almost as spectacular as the fall of the Soviet Union itself, for the first time in forty years, the Republicans swept to control of both houses of the United States Congress. But what did it all mean? Had we made a u-turn on the "road to serfdom", and headed back toward liberty and individual responsibility; or had we just pulled off the superhighway to look at a map? Conservatives were ecstatic; they were convinced that the American people had finally heeded their call for less government and were ready to return to responsibility. But was it true? Hayek wrote, "Economic control is not merely control of a sector of human life which can be separated from the rest; it is the control of the means for all our ends. And whoever has sole control of the means must also determine which ends are to be served, which values are to be rated higher and which lower --- in short, what men should believe and strive for." That is why he used the "road" as a metaphor. We weren't to become serfs over night; but as governments waived more and more "benefits" in front of us, as we traveled along the road, we would gradually forsake the principals that made free nations great, and exchange our self reliance and liberty for security. James Madison, one of the founding fathers, said "Those who would trade their liberty for security, deserve neither, and will lose both." Very few people have heard that quotation, because as we have traveled down the road, that concept and those values have been lost. Continuing with Hayek, he wrote that "the most important change which extensive government control produces is a psychological change, an alteration in the character of the people." Once that character has been gradually changed over a period of more than a hundred years, can we really expect that character to revert back in a matter of only two years, or four years? In late 1994, especially among Conservatives, the consensus seemed to be, that on November 8, 1994, the American people spoke; and the people said they want less government. But what did that mean? In 1994, at least from a conservative perspective, there was no question that government was out of control. There was no question that many, if not most, Americans bore a remarkable resemblance to serfs. The only question was whether a majority of Americans had finally thrown off their chains and decided to exit the road to serfdom. Even Bill Clinton in his state of the union message before the 1996 election, proclaimed that "the era big government is over." But is it? Had the American people exited the road to serfdom? If so, how can one explain the reelection of Bill Clinton and the events that have followed. Almost everyone says that he wants less government. Even the communists. Nikolai Lenin said that when the people have properly been instilled with the spirit of brotherhood, the state will wither away. John Kenneth Galbraith, liberal economist, interviewed on C-Span, said "I don't want any more government than we need to provide the people with what they need." But what does that mean? Susan Estrich, writing in the Los Angeles Times put this into perspective when she wrote, "The demands Americans place on government are inconsistent and conflicting. We are all for less government --- except when we need government to solve our problems. We are for less spending --- on them, not us. We are for less regulation --- of us not them. We are for lower taxes, but not for fewer benefits for our retired parents or our college-aged children." When Susan Estrich wrote those words in November, 1994, it was feared by the more pessimistic that she might be right; but now, five years later, there can be little doubt that she is right. Just after the 1994 elections, the Los Angeles Times published a national poll that carried incredibly depressing results. Keep in mind this was immediately after the Republican Revolution. What political figure do you suppose had the highest rating? Newt Gingrich? No. His rating was only 26%. Bob Dole?; who Newt Gingrich described as the tax collector for the bureaucracy, and then went on to become the Republican nominee for president in 1996? No, he got 41%, but still not the highest. Bill Clinton himself, came in with a 54% approval rating. Hillery got a 47% rating. What kind of revolution was this? In February, 1998 his approval rating was 79%! But the results were even more disturbing when the poll focused on the issues themselves. Remember, this was right after the 1994 elections. When asked what direction the country was headed, 55% answered "the wrong direction"; only 35% said we are headed in the right direction. And of those that believed then, that we were headed in the right direction, only 19% believed the GOP congress was the reason. When asked if the "Contract With America" is a realistic set of goals, 54% said no; only 31% said yes. Fifty-three percent opposed the balanced budget amendment; only 40% supported it. In another part of the poll, people polled were given contrasting approaches for different problem areas and asked to choose between the Clinton approach and the Republican approach; but they weren't told which was which. In four out of five instances, the people polled chose the Clinton approach. How can this be explained? Americans have become what this writer's college economics professor described as "Capibuts." "Well, of course, I believe in capitalism, that's what made America great – BUT----. We don't want to go to extremes. Naturally, we have to force people to contribute to Social Security, if we didn't – too many of them might choose their own private program. Naturally, we can't allow restaurant owners to decide whether to allow their customers to smoke or not. And naturally, we can't allow people to go around disconnecting their airbags. But of course I believe in capitalism." Conservatives take heart in the fact that "Well, but these are only polls. Pollsters can make a poll come out any way they want to." But think. The American people reelected Bill Clinton. Conservatives take heart in the belief that Bill Clinton has lied to the American people. If only we can find a candidate that is capable of showing the American people how Bill Clinton is misleading them, then they will see the light and all will be well with America. Here is a flash for Conservatives; the American people know Bill Clinton is lying to them– and they don't care!! They want the benefits that they think big government has to offer them. Do you really suppose that on November 8th, 1994, only two years after electing Bill Clinton president the first time, a majority of the people of America, woke up and said "Hey, government stinks, it just doesn't work. I want the opportunity to make it on my own." It just doesn't seem so. So what does it all mean? Five years ago, this writer went out on a limb and told anyone that would listen, that there were only three scenarios that could come to be; and two of them were bad. First, it was at least possible, that the Republicans would be wildly successful. They might have succeeded in reducing government and its control over our lives; and the American people would love them for it. The second scenario, was that the Republicans would be wildly successful; they might have succeeded in reducing government and its control over our lives; and the people would hate them for it. They would hate them for destroying the welfare state that they have grown to depend on over the last 100 years. Or third, this writer's personal prediction, it would be business as usual with government continuing to become bigger and bigger. If there is any doubt that this third scenario is the scenario with which we live, simply review the State of the Union address of January, 1998, and the American people's response to it. If more proof is needed, consider that our heros, the Republican "Revolutionaries", took the Clinton recommended budget, and increased it by 5 Billion dollars. In 1992 the issue was not between Bush and Clinton. In 1994, with a very few notable exceptions, the issue was not between the Democrats and Republicans. In 1996 the issue was not be between Clinton and Dole; nor was the issue between the Democrats and Republicans in 1998. What we have to look at is the political process itself. All socialists and liberals, and even most conservatives, seek to use the state and its coercive powers. They each have their noble causes to promote -- but they all believe that it is perfectly all right to use the power of the state to achieve those noble causes. They are all prepared to force their good cause on every individual, whether that individual agrees with the noble cause or not. In other words, because of their chosen profession, the politicians, all of them, regardless of party, have cast their lot with the state. It doesn't matter who gets the most votes, the state wins, the FDA wins, the EPA wins and the IRS wins. Those people who don't want to be controlled by the state, have no place on the ballot to mark. It is up to each of us as individuals to protect ourselves and do what we can to protect what we have. If you believe that all we have to do to turn this thing around is mobilize the good people of this nation and elect someone like George Bush,and his compassionate conservatism, in my view you are in for a lot of disappointment. In 1980, when Reagan was elected, many of us thought that finally, excessive government would be absolutely dismantled; it didn't happen. Clinton has proclaimed that the era of big government is over. Do you believe it? Even if George Bush or Steve Forbes is elected, do you believe it? I don't know if it's true or not, but they say that if you throw a frog into a boiling pot of water, he will jump out; but if you put him into a pot of cold water and slowly turn up the heat, he will stay there until he cooks. If you like what's happening, you have no problem. Some like it hot. But if you don't like what is happening, I hate to be the one to tell you, but we are like a bunch of frogs swimming around in a hot pot telling each other--whew! This isn't so bad is it? Thank God we have the right to vote. Well we do have the right to vote and we elected Bill Clinton; twice!! In 1994, we elected the Republicans; but did it make a significant difference? In my view, one of the best quotes that came out of the Republican convention four years ago, was one attributed to Gerald Ford, who some years ago said, "a government big enough to give me everything I want is going to be big enough to take everything I've got." We are coming very close to having a government that can give us everything we want. Don't unbuckle your seat belts folks; we are still on that road to serfdom. Copyright ©1999 |
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Call or E-Mail for Free Consultation 714 832-2390 |