What if the presidential candidates really mean it? Think about it. What if all those things they promise really do happen? Can it happen? What is possible? Let me ask that another way: What is truly impossible, and not simply impossible by decree, or impossible because of fear, selfishness, or lack of hope?

Well, we try to have hope. In 1994 we filled the Congress with Republicans, not really because we believed in their Contract With America or had strong feelings about any particular promise they made, but because when they talked the talk, they seemed to actually mean it.

We always want to believe them, but like the judge who looks down upon some pathetic, absent father who is ignoring his responsibilities and is filled with more excuses and empty vows, our patience is wearing thin. I think they do mean it, but so does the run around father when he tells you how much he loves you.

The IRS has too many powers; the tax code is too complex; the government takes too much of the money we earn and doesn't spend it very wisely.

Entitlements such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security are in danger of going bankrupt or becoming an exceptional burden.

The National Debt and the yearly deficits which add to it threaten the long term stability of the economy.

Many activities run by the government, despite the best of intentions, are out of date, ineffective, or worse: public education, welfare, the war on drugs, even air traffic control.

It makes me tired. I want to feel excited and hopeful, and to believe that this time, if they really mean it, if we all really mean it, we will begin to put our country in good order, financially, morally, and with strength and honor. We all sit as judge, hearing their case, examining the evidence, waiting for November when we shall render our verdict.

To an American, freedom and liberty are not simply our legacy; they are our trust, and we know intrinsically that many of the things our government is doing can severely threaten that trust. They tell us they want to unshackle the economy from Big Government. They remind us that it is our money that they're taking, that we need tax cuts for middle class families, and that they intend to curb spending, reform the system, and cut unemployment. They ask you to put your money, your freedom, the sacred trust of our American legacy onto the betting table and accept their long shot odds that this time it's going to work. This time they really mean it and Something Big is going to happen if you just keep them at the helm.

Bill Clinton will urge us to continue on his steady path of incremental reforms as he reinvents government . He'll remind us that the big deficits came from supply side economics and that the opposition is playing last- minute games, trying to disrupt the steady course toward his vision of a balanced budget, even though that vision includes an 80 per cent income tax bracket ten years from now.

Bob Dole will reassure us that supply side works when you get both the surge of economic growth and the spending control, but he shies away from making any type of deep, substantial cuts. In fact, his party consistently brags that they're not actually cutting spending, but only reducing the rate of increase.

Both sides blame the other for the deficits of the 80's, but blaming doesn't make it go away and we are left shaking our heads, rolling our eyes, and wondering how much longer it will take before we see some actual results. My generation, thirty five and under, knows all too well that it's a fight we're going to have to finish. Go ahead and keep talking. I just hope you mean it, because we most certainly do. It may be some kind of game for the Keynesians and Reganites, but we don't want to play. As a joke on us, it's about as funny as a miscarriage.

They all want to tinker, to tug a little here, trim a little there, like giving a gorilla a haircut, or maybe even a perm, but the problem isn't all that hair. It's the gorilla.

Again I wonder, is it even possible?

How would you solve the problems of our modern world? Great minds have been wondering about that for a long time now. More or less, they are all trying to solve the problems within the scope of the current system, but many of these problems are coming from the system itself and not from any particular application of it.

We are approaching a systemic breakdown as we try to force our grandparent's model of government into the new world. The original idea, some two hundred years ago, was to empower the people and, at most, the states to govern a new and changing world. Very soon after that, however, the Civil War brought us a crisis of national unity, and when we emerged from that still whole, and then found ourselves at war around the world for whole decades at a time, it was natural, even necessary, to think and act nationally.

This brought us a coast to coast highway system, modern airports, victory in the wars, a moon landing, and hydro-electric dams, just to name a few, but is it really appropriate to use that same national strength of will and conviction to argue about the content of school lunches, the number of bits allowed in encryption keys, or features of a television set? These political, prime-time, television induced non-issues are replacing true, intelligent discourse. There's a reason for that.

As we grow more and more connected, integrated, and complex, we place greater strain on the ability of politicians and committees to be responsible for the minutia of everybody's business. This is taking place at the very time that it is easier for the average citizen to explore alternatives, understand the consequences, and be overall better informed than anyone in Congress. Senators and Representatives simply don't have the time to be expert in every field that falls under their control, and often they don't even read or really understand what is in the legislation they argue about and vote for.

Isn't there something wrong with that?

We have this history of pride in our national solutions, bred in the victories of the World Wars and the industrial successes of the forties and fifties, but today it seems as if we're driving nails with steam rollers instead of with hammers. Our enthusiasm to build a better world led to all those heavy entitlement programs, commissions, committees, agencies, and regulations that are now causing us so much worry and debt, and which threaten our sacred freedom.

And thus the irony: we're trying to undo the damage done by too much national focus by applying yet more national focus. We're letting the matches try to put out the fire.

No matter how pure their hearts, when we ask our Senators and Representatives to solve every little problem, their solution will not be to give up and go home, because, by definition -- in their minds -- they are the only ones with the power to really change things. What really needs to be done is the one thing that would never occur to them. If it did occur to them, it would seem immediately reckless and preposterous: Get the hell out of our way.

When we talk of the abuses of power from the IRS, isn't that what we mean? When we talk about keeping more of the money we earn, do we mean it, or are we just repeating the hypnotic resonance of political platitudes? When we complain that the government is too big, isn't that what we mean?

What good does it do to say these things and not really mean them, or to repeat them only as abstract wishes? The wishing well is deep, and it's not pennies we're throwing into it; it's three month's of paychecks, hundreds of billions of dollars. Why not hold in our mind a vision of a world where these are not just words and empty hopes, but are inevitable and obvious.

Instead, like some poor, battered wife, who complains and cries and wishes everything would be better, who wants to believe he's really sorry and it will never happen again, we go on, believing, hoping, bound by a national pride and a love that clouds our minds and prevents us from doing what clearly needs to be done.

Must we be forever limited only to the vision and capabilities of a handful of national politicians, their whims, their lobby influences, their politics, and their promises?

How long will our freedom be held hostage by the image of a poor hungry child, a child that could be helped more by churches, community organizations like The United Way and The Salvation army, by you and by me, than by life long dependence on government subsidies?

How much longer must we endure politicians telling doctors how to heal, telling insurance companies what they can and can't do, imposing more regulations, reform, and mandates to drive up the demand for and the cost of health care, and then using that cost as an excuse for more regulations and reform?

How long must we hear that only the government can protect the less fortunate from the greedy, when greed for money, position, and power is the driving force of Washington DC?

The biggest problem in accepting fundamental change is that, for many Americans, it is difficult to even imagine a world where the federal government is not responsible for taking care of everything. Could a world governed by freedom, opportunity, and liberty be so much worse than where we're at now, with failing schools, severe debt, an ineffective and overly complex tax system, and no real solution for any of them?

Why do we on one hand complain about the corruption and partisanship of the national political melodrama and then on the other hand beg them to fix everything? Is our faith in the creativity, compassion, and courage of the American People so exhausted that we must put all our faith in power hungry politicians, or are we simply such mind numbed couch potatoes that we're no longer able to see beyond the glare of CNN to view the opportunities outside our own windows in our own neighborhood?

Yes, it's a different world. That's the point. What we've got doesn't work very well because it just keeps feeding on itself. If we really mean it when we say, "cut my taxes and stop wasting my money," then we're saying we want a different world. If we beg our representatives to take care of us, give us lots of free stuff, tell us what we can and can not do, try to get them to tell other people what they can and can not do, and take care of all of today's social problems, then they will certainly try to do that. They believe themselves to hold the exclusive power to do such wonderful good. Well, where is the good? Where are the results? In our schools? In Social Security? In the welfare system? In the drive by shootings? In the civil forfeitures of innocent Americans? Somewhere lost in the national debt?

It doesn't work half way. You can't cut taxes and keep spending. This is the Republican Myth. You can't tax your way to a better world. This is the Democratic Myth. You can not solve these problems nationally, even with carefully selected and tested pilot programs. This is the Reform Party Myth.

If the federal government is too big, make is smaller. If it's taking too much taxes, make it take less. If laws are taking our freedom, repeal them. If we're afraid that children will go hungry, feed them.

Many people think that a country without all those federal regulations and programs would be cruel, leaving children to grow up in fatherless homes with families trapped in poverty. No wait - that's now.

They think it would lead to drugs overflowing our cities, with young children getting hooked, pushing and selling drugs, fighting and killing each other. No wait - that's now.

They think that we would be unable to teach our children, that they would grow into adulthood sometimes unable to read, or to reason critically, or have a some slanted, political view of history and society. No wait - that's now.

They're afraid that removing government regulations would lead to companies polluting the environment, dumping chemicals into rivers, oil into oceans, while they use their profits to buy influence and cover up their actions. No wait - that's now.

They think that without affirmative action and other government controls, people would be turned away because of their race, or judged by the color of their skin rather than by the content of their character or their abilities. No wait - that's now.

They're afraid that some people might live their lives differently than they would like, or do things that make them uncomfortable. But wait, that's all the time.

We worry about sick children not getting medicine, and let that compelling image lead us into massive, federally managed health care - medicare, medicaid, regulations, mandates - while ignoring alternate solutions.

I can imagine several alternatives that would be at least as effective as what we now have, from charity supported group health care for members of a church to no-interest medical loans to free clinics run by MacDonalds and Pepsico. We are an inventive nation. Do we really think that a handful of lawyers and politicians can do better than a nation of diverse, intelligent, caring people, especially when they are left to explore those alternatives without the Washington politicians looking over their shoulder threatening to fine them if their business tax or EEOC forms aren't filled out to the letter? And before we start wondering about how little Sally's mom will pay for that expensive medication she has to take every night after supper, ask why the medicine is so expensive. If her doctor could recommend a similar product, manufactured in France or Brazil, or even China, and endorsed by a medical review board trusted by the doctor, the price of the medicine might drop ten fold.

The biggest fear of just chucking the whole gorilla is the social safety net and the regulations that pretend to keep us safe.

It is sad when, in this prosperous country, people still go hungry and don't have decent housing. There certainly is a need for charity, for programs like Habitat for Humanity, the Labor Day Telethon for Muscular Dystrophy, and The Peace Corps. With that three month's of salary that used to go into the huge, impersonal pile that gets sifted through the mill of federal processing, you could fund the charity of your choice. The money would be better spent because it's direct from you to them and because there would be direct accountability to the benefactors. If supporting the free clinic is important to you, you will have more money to do that. If you like the programs that your church runs and want to give them extra money, you can do that. If it's something you care about, put your money where your mouth is and leave my money alone. I have my own charities and priorities that I care about. What better way to vote for social programs we believe in and care about than with our money, spent by us according to our beliefs? What chance would a program like Medicaid have if it were not supported with money taken under threat of arrest?

A poor family receiving food stamps and AFDC money will go on day after day existing on the monthly checks. That same family receiving temporary help from a church or community outreach program will be accountable to try to do something about the situation, to try to gain the skills to be self sufficient, and any reasonable charity program would work on teaching those skill. How effective do you think that would be, in terms of real, measurable results, compared to a Washington run federal boondoggle?

America is a meritocracy; those with skills and capabilities succeed. Poverty is not a money problem, but an information problem. Job skills, money management skills, saving, setting priorities, using judgment, care and effective decision making are more important than money. Teach a man how to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime. We all know that, but do we mean it? The best way to learn is to do, to have to manage money, to have to learn how to take care of business instead of just taking a check to the bank.

I don't mean to paint all unfortunate families down on their luck as lazy and irresponsible. Welfare isn't even much of a drain on the budget, but we've got to stop thinking of poverty as a virtue to be rewarded with the results of other people's effort. It cuts to the very heart of the matter: Who is responsible for you, your family, your country? The federal government? The president? Me? The money I have didn't fall on me out of the sky; it comes because I get up every morning and drag myself to the office. If the factory closes, and the town dies, then whether I survive, deal with it and move on, or sit back, complain and demand that somebody else take care of me is something that is deeply within me. Nothing external can make us happy, sad, rich, or poor. You decide. Do you want to be a pawn, or a player?

This happens at all levels, not just families on food stamps: Student loans, FHA, research grants, education grants, government subsidies of businesses, they all have their price, and that is to be dependent on and subject to the whims and ideals of a handful of power elite. I only have this one life, and it belongs to me, not to them.

Children attending public schools are dependent on government money and must follow a curriculum that is filled with values set by some national standard's board rather than those of the parents. Without having to pay income tax or social security tax, a family would have much more choices about how and what their children learn.

What about the regulations that keep us safe? There are two sides to this. First is the assumption that only a large central organization can obtain and process all the information to determine the best or safest procedure or product. This is different today because information is in abundance. As we continue to connect with each other on the Web and with on-line services, each of us will have access to more, better, and more complete information about any business, policy, procedure, or alternative that we're exploring. Second is the assumption that the coercion of government makes companies behave. Politicians can be bought -- look at the favors of NAFTA and loopholes in the tax code -- whereas a disgruntled customer will quickly point out the flaws and shortcuts of a company and share his view with thousands who read the news groups and the Web.

It's about information and how it makes any type of central control less necessary, less effective, and more intrusive. Your doctor may know exactly what will help you, because he attended the conference in Switzerland and discussed the ongoing tests over email. The FDA might take several months to find out the same thing the doctor knows today, and that lag may cost lives. Insurance companies, trying to keep their own costs down, are just as good watch dogs on the safety and effectiveness of doctors as are government licensing boards. Think of this: The same type of system that runs the Department of Motor Vehicles is running your doctor.

The bottom line is that there are alternatives. Large federal government programs are no longer the only way to solve large national problems. It's a dinosaur trying to figure out how to make itself extinct. When you hear all the promises of politicians and how they're going to fix this and improve that, imagine them running into the emergency room wearing their expensive suit, white shirt, and power tie, pushing the doctors out of the way, taking over the operation, and trying to perform CPR on a man because he sat through a day of congressional hearings on emergency room procedures, ignorant of the fact that the poor patient is actually suffering from a failing gall bladder. Do we really trust them to know everything, and be more wise, compassionate, and devoted than we?

It can't be done part way. If we just cut the income tax and don't do much else, the deficit will take off again. If all we do is cut back on federal money, local property taxes will just rise to make up the difference. It's a complete package. If the programs of the federal government are not working and cost a lot of money, why would we consider doing anything but scraping them and saving the money?

Imagine an old junker car, spewing oil from its gaskets, smoking up the street, backfiring, stalling, with no brakes.

The Democrats just want to wrap duct tape around the hoses. With enough tinkering, they can cut down on the noise, make it run a little smoother, and maybe, with a coat of paint, it will last another four years.

The Republicans are more ambitious. They want a tune up, maybe some spark plugs or a distributor cap without the rubber bands. They certainly want new seats so its more comfortable for them.

The Reform party is shaking its head sadly. They know it's in bad shape so they want to fix it once and for all, replace its engine, chrome the bumpers and turn it into a smooth running, well tuned machine. It's not going to be easy, but you've got to stop the bleeding and take care of business.

Some of us would look at the car, sell it for scrap, and use the money to buy a nice bicycle, because that's all we really needed in the first place.

This is happening.

This is the trend that the nation is on. Young adults are not going to put up for much longer with the old political parties arguing about whether to start bailing the water with a thimble or a spoon. We need buckets and we need everyone helping. Freedom works.

Yes, when we say cut federal spending, we mean it. When we say fix Social Security, we mean it. When we say, we don't like tax money going to waste, we actually mean it. We might as well start doing something about it before even more damage is done.

Right now we are in a sick, codependent relationship with an addicted federal sugar daddy. It's pointless, it doesn't work, and it's not going to suddenly start working because we heard inspired speeches at the national party conventions.

If only there were someone running for president who felt the same way...

His name is Harry Browne. He's the Libertarian Party candidate, and even though most Americans haven't even heard of him, every one of them will have the chance to vote for him.

He has been all but completely ignored in the national discussion. It's understandable. The common image among the pundits and anchormen is that Libertarians are some fringe, pot smoking, radical anarchist group that wants to throw away responsible government in favor of some frenzied free for all that would threaten the safety and livelihood of all good people. They tend to think of Libertarians as just another run of the mill protest party hungry to back gimmick candidates like Howard Stern.

Part of that image is actually based on the beliefs of Libertarians, but that's mostly a perception problem. Some of the issues are quite complex but are easily distilled down to sound bites that can be readily dismissed: such as decriminalization of drugs and the complete abolition of all income taxes. The Libertarian Party also has not always behaved as a mature party should. For years they've been trying to strike it big with single, magic bullet issues, or clout from some famous backer. They spent years specifically trying to woo the fringe, and they still have a long way go to move beyond their history and to focus on applying their core beliefs rather than trying to increase their membership with radical gimmicks.

That also is changing as more people, whether they know it or not, are drifting toward the philosophical positions of the Libertarian Party. Today the party is working hard to present a viable alternative to the usual political games, and they are now the largest and best organized third party in the country.

Another reason you haven't heard much about Harry Browne is that, although he qualifies for federal matching funds, he has refused to take them. He's against government welfare, even for political candidates. I have to admire him taking the hard road. It's rare that a presidential candidate will go that far on principle, but then there's more at stake here than a flat out run to the White House like Ross Perot is making: it's about sharing ideas and gaining respect and exposure for the Party.

The primary reason that Harry Browne's campaign is currently the best kept secret in American Politics is that the reporters and journalists just can't believe that he actually means what he says. They're more comfortable with people who only half mean what they say. They can't believe that there's another world out there that would work without the five hundred or so national politicians running the whole show.

Whether you think the Libertarian Party is fringe, extreme, and a waste of time, or has reasonable positions and a viable alternate vision for this country is for you to decide. You should, however, know about them because a lot of what the other candidates are saying, a lot of what the voters are asking for, is in line with the Libertarian Party's positions. The difference is that when Harry Browne talks about taxes being too high, the federal government being too big, and when he says real solutions do exist, he really does mean it.

I'm going to vote for Harry Browne, not because I agree with everything he stands for and not because I believe he has a real chance of being president, but because I want all the pundits, the politicians, the pollsters and pompous paragons to finally get the message: Yes, I MEAN IT!

:^D