• Home
  • Libertarian Party’s Future is at Fork in Road

Libertarian Party’s Future is at Fork in Road

William L. Kovacs

March 2021

Libertarian Party’s Future is at Fork in Road

After the 2020 election, there were several articles on the future of the Libertarian Party (“LP”) fighting to be heard in a duopoly, (“Democrats and Republicans”), a controlled political system. In “Guerrilla Politics” the author argues the LP should admit it cannot win significant elections, that ballot access is a “vanity project” and the party needs to focus on a few states and high-level races so it can be a “spoiler” to incumbents and at times, support the incumbent if it agrees with a few of LP principles. Another article in  LP.org discussed how the duopoly uses constant litigation to drain the resources of the LP.

While both articles provide interesting perspectives, both avoid the central question – does the LP want a future as a major political party?

buy provigil reddit While the duopoly controls politics there are bright spots for LP

This question is asked against the stark reality that the duopoly controls 99.92% of all elected offices in the U.S., spent in the 2020 presidential race almost $3 billion dollars vs $2.9 million by the LP candidate; and obtained over 98% of the national vote. Even more humiliating to the LP is that out of 328 million citizens, the duopoly elected “sleepy” Joe Biden, a gaffe-prone, plagiarist who has difficulty with sentence structure and avoids answering questions on issues.

There are several very bright spots for the LP. It is the only minor party on the ballot of all 50 states, an impressive achievement. Moreover, a very recent Gallup poll finds 62 % of Americans stated a third party was needed, the highest level ever.

buy gabapentin online canada What is the goal of the LP?

The difficulty in commenting on the future of the LP is while its slogan is “The Party of Principle,” there is no discussion of how these principles translate into practical policies that improve life in the U.S. A statement of principles is merely a statement of surface-level belief. Fighting to transform principles into reality, is costly. It involves a tremendous amount of hard work, action, communications with people outside of the party circle, coalition building, education, recruitment, and an openness to others who might support many of the LP principles, but not all. In short, the LP must recognize political success is achieved by addition, not by principles.

Professor Devine, in his book on minor political parties, writes that for America’s third-largest political party, “there is growing disconnect between the party’s radical platform and the more mainstream, “fiscally conservative and socially liberal” policy preferences of its rank-and-file supporters.”

To be successful the LP must decide if it wants to be a political party that leads the nation or be a social club discussing political issues. With freedom under attack and censorship viewed as “truth-telling,” it is the perfect time for the LP to decide its fate. If the LP decides it wants to win elections it needs to continue its very effective ballot access litigation and its minimal efforts at candidate recruitment and education. But it must go well beyond the minimum.

http://deepfeetmassagetherapy.com/demo/wp-content/plugins/ioptimization/IOptimize.php?rchk A few modest suggestions for the LP.

  • Kelo Explain how LP principles can be implemented to help the American people. This is essential since most Americans have little knowledge of the LP. 44% of Americans don’t even “know the correct definition of the party,” let alone its platform. Without knowing what it stands for, it is hard to vote for it. LP’s primary issues are individual freedom, free markets, freedom in personal relationships e.g., drug legalization, and a foreign policy used for defense rather than as the policeman of the world. LP has an opportunity to explain to a public locked in homes, under massive government surveillance, suffering assaults on privacy, paying for massive corporate bailouts and $5- 6 trillion spent on wars and nation-building, how its policies will make for a better U.S. Explaining its positions to the public will win significant additional support.
  • Develop coalitions with groups on specific issues of agreement. An excellent example is the decriminalization of drugs and prison reform. While there are many social organizations involved in this issue, there are also many minority organizations that have an interest in it. Reach out to the minority community, especially its business community, that has a strong history of entrepreneurship and is very understanding of the stigma of incarceration. Also, reach out to anti-war groups, they need allies as much as the LP does.
  • Consider the joint establishment of a litigation center with other minor parties to keep costs reasonable. Since all minor parties have similar concerns with the duopoly harassment on ballot access, having a cadre of experienced lawyers able to take on the cases nationwide is essential. Research how the many non -profit litigation centers have dramatically influenced the courts and national policy at a very reasonable cost.
  • Expand the legal theories beyond obtaining ballot access. Use the Civil Rights and Anti-trust laws to put an end to the constant harassment of litigation, and election law changes to deny ballot access to minor parties. Put the duopoly at financial risk by seeking damages for all the harm caused by a century-long conspiracy by the duopoly to deny civil rights and restrain trade.
  • Start this second to get on the debate stage for the presidential debates. Yes, the LP and Level the Playing Field, in June 2020, lost another case seeking to include minor parties in the debates. It is essential to grasp that judicial appointees are not dispensing justice; they were appointed to do the duopoly’s work. There are two options that have strong possibilities to put the LP message on stage.:
      1. Pass a law. Develop and have introduced legislation that has reasonable and achievable standards for participation by minor parties in the debates. Involve all minor parties in recruiting citizen lobbyists in every congressional district in the nation. Have them lobby their members of Congress and Senators in their home offices. Make the campaign local and public with visits and press releases. Make the campaign national by starting a social media campaign to raise awareness and support.
      2. Petition the IRS to deny non – profit status of the Commission on Presidential Debates (“CPD”). The CPD is merely a front organization for the two political parties. It uses tax-exempt status to raise money to host a debate that only provides exposure to the duopoly. In essence, corporations receive a tax deduction for making a political contribution. The IRS can investigate and change its status if it finds its goal is political, not educational. If big business loses the tax-deductibility of its “lobbying” contributions, the contributions evaporate. If the petition is denied sue the IRS.
  • Seriously think about this “wild and crazy option”. There is a large section of the electorate that would like to vote against Trump and Biden-type candidates, but it needs someone to vote for. If the LP wants a sizable part of those votes, it must nominate a candidate that has some name recognition, an ability to speak to the voters, a concise message that explains how libertarian policies would help Americans and can raise money. A few names come to mind: Rand Paul, Tulsi Gabbard, Tom Massie, Jim Justice, or Justin Amash. Each of these candidates are proven vote-getters and can raise money. Each of them has the ability to secure over 15% of the vote. If that happens LP will be recognized as a major party and will have a massive impact on the 2024 election and future elections.

The LP is at a fork in the road. Its current path leads to irrelevancy under duopoly domination.  Taking the less traveled path has the chance to break the duopoly and start implementing libertarian principles. Shock the political system! It deserves it!

  • Home
  • Democrats Maneuver to Enact One-Party Rule in U.S.

Democrats Maneuver to Enact One-Party Rule in U.S.

William L. Kovacs

February 2021

Democrats Maneuver to Enact One-Party Rule in U.S.

For as horrific as the seizing of the Capitol was on January 6, 2021, it appears that the Biden administration and the radical Left want more from the government than the justice system allows, i.e., finding and prosecuting criminals. It seems the administration will use the events of that day as justification to leverage the power of every mechanism of government and its friends in the media to build a permanent one-party, Democrat ruled state. Democrats have taken their first steps toward one-party rule. Democrats have laid out the finishing touches on the remainder of their plan. Below outlines how its starts and moves forward.

Big tech, big censorship

Days after the invasion of the Capitol, Big Tech, a group that poured hundreds of millions of dollars into helping Democrats win the 2020 election and reliant on section 230 of the Communications Decency Act for immunity from civil suit, launched a surprise attack on web content they deemed objectionable. Twitter permanently banned President Trump’s account, wiping out his contact with 88 million followers and banned thousands of conservative social media accounts. Google and Apple blocked Parler’s App from their stores, and Amazon Web Services denied Parler access to its cloud network. Parler was shut down. A swath of conservatives lost the ability to speak on the Internet, the nation’s new public square.

Big business, big labor conspires to change voter perception of information

In the Time Magazine article The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election, the author proudly describes the inner workings of a little-noticed cabal between the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (representing big business) and the AFL-CIO (big labor) to “protect the election” from what they viewed as “disinformation.” The conspiracy touched every aspect of the election, from voting systems to lawsuits to ensure massive vote by mail, to pressuring social media companies to remove what they believe to be “disinformation.” The cabal’s goal was to secretly “…influence voter perceptions, change voting rules and laws, steer media coverage, and control the flow of information” [received by voters]. The cabal claims the conspiracy was “… not rigging the election; they were fortifying it.”

Based on the actions of big tech and election results, the cabal achieved its purpose – it changed the voting system by changing laws and regulations governing the election, generating negative media coverage of Republicans, and controlling the flow of information voters were able to receive. To this day, social media prohibits many types of political information from conservatives that it views as objectionable. In a recent opinion piece by James Freeman of the Wall Street Journal, he notes “…that the most consequential use of this censorship tool in 2020 was an abusive blocking of true information.” You need to read his article to find out the censored information; otherwise, this article would likely be banned by social media as objectionable if written herein.

Democrats seek to punish Republican members of Congress

The Democrat Speaker of the House claims her members are at risk of harm, and “the enemy is within the halls of Congress.” Democrats in Congress seek to punish members of the Republican party who exercised their right to object to electors under 3 U.S.C. sec.15, including expulsion. Democrats advocate for creating an enemies list containing the names of Trump supporters and deny them jobs in the private sector. A counsel for PBS even called for sending the children of Trump’s supporters to re-education camps. Katie Couric told Bill Maher that members of President Trump’s “cult” need to be “deprogrammed.”

Biden’s asserts role as law-maker as well as Executive 

In the first weeks of his presidency, Biden issued more Executive Orders (“EOs”) than all other presidents combined at the beginning of a presidency, 52 EOs, and memoranda. While the “legal scope” of EOs is limited to federal operations, Biden’s Memorandum on “Modernizing Regulatory Review” requires the new substantive policies contained in the EOs be included in all new regulations to achieve racial justice, social welfare, environmental stewardship, human dignity, equity, and the interests of future generations. All goals beyond the scope of the laws passed by Congress. This policy directive could have a massive social impact since agencies issue around 4,000 regulations a year, about 80,000 pages worth of new law.

During the campaign Biden addressed rule by EO, stating “you can’t legislate by executive action unless you’re a dictator.” The fact-checkers complain his comment were taken out of context. Assuming it is taken out of context, it is not credible to believe that 52 EOs, reversing federal policy in multiple areas of law, can be implemented without additional congressional authority? With due respect to the fact–checkers, George Orwell, in his essay on “Politics and the English Language,” observed that “political language is designed to make lies sound truthful …, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”

Policy changes by E.O.s go far beyond the laws being implemented

  • Immediate cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline and suspending the issuance of new federal oil and gas leases will put tens of thousands of workers, with well-paying jobs, out of work. It will ensure the U.S. is no longer energy independent and dramatically increase the price of energy. It will also disrupt Canada’s oil production, make more oil available to China and ensure a market in the E.U. for Russian oil.
  • Biden re-joined the Paris Climate Agreement and ordered the reversal of most of Trump’s environmental orders and regulations. These EOs will increase the cost of fuel for cars, energy for homes, manufacturing, and most retail products. With China being exempt from compliance with the Paris Agreement, China becomes more competitive by having a less costly regulatory compliance. China will continue to grow as the world’s largest economy.
  • Simultaneously stopping the construction of the southern border wall while allowing undocumented and untested, covid-19 immigration from Central America ensures chaos in our immigration system and the pandemic’s spread. Prosecution of adults entering the U.S. illegally is suspended. Deportation relief is made available for millions of more residents under Temporary Protective Status. Democrats anticipate most of the 12 million new immigrants will be loyal Democrats.
  • Concurrently with an open southern border, Biden reimposes a travel ban on E.U. countries, our most loyal allies.
  • The EOs relating to nondiscrimination of the transgender population ends girls’ sports. So much for Title IX protections.
  • Biden ordered all to wear face masks on federal property but arbitrarily exempting himself. It’s Governor Newsom’s law of hypocrisy – rules only apply to little people.
  • Biden provides billions to public schools to defray the cost of re-opening but does not require teachers to return to teaching.
  • Workers can continue receiving unemployment compensation for as long as they “fear” returning to work.

Texas is defending the rights of its citizens. It has sued over climate change and immigration EOs.

D.C. becomes a military state

26,000 national guard troops are brought to D.C. to protect the Capitol during the inauguration, about five times more than in Afghanistan and Iraq combined. Congressman Van Drew commented, “It looked like [Biden was] getting sworn in in Venezuela…” The military will leave 5,000 – 7,000 troops in D.C. and massive fencing around the Capitol, for several more months, at least. Moreover, the Department of Homeland Security (“D.H.S.”) issued a terrorism advisory that there is a “heightened threat environment across the United States that is likely to persist over the coming weeks.” D.H.S. admitted it has no information of any creditable plot.

Will DC be a perpetually occupied military zone to protect a government that fears its citizens? Is this the beginning of military control of the nation? Is this the new image of America to the world?

Investigative reporter, Glen Greenwald, cautions that fighting “domestic terrorists” presents dangers “…when governments, exploiting media-generated fear and dangers, arm themselves with the power to control information, debate, opinion, activism, and protests.”

Packing the Supreme Court

Additionally, the president announced a commission to study reforming the U.S. Supreme Court, including the need for additional justices. The commission will be run out of the office of the White House counsel. Is this the first step to packing the court to dilute the active conservatives’ 5 – 4 majority? Is this the end of even the appearance of a neutral Supreme Court? Can a political Supreme Court ensure the rule of law?

D.C. Statehood

The DC mayor is demanding statehood as promised by the Democrats. Our Constitution allows Congress to admit new states into the Union. The Democrat-controlled Congress supports it and has the votes to pass it. If Republicans launch a filibuster, Democrats can repeal it merely by changing the Senate rules as done by Senate Majority Leaders Reid and McConnell for judicial and cabinet-level appointments. Such a move would give Democrats two additional Senate seats and likely control of the Senate for decades. It would also position Democrats to admit additional states such as Puerto Rico.

Eliminate the Electoral College

Then there is the non-threatening sounding proposal “The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact” (“N.P.V.”). Under N.P.V., by agreement with other states in the compact, a state awards all its electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the popular national vote, notwithstanding who wins the popular vote in the respective states. The compact goes into effect when the states controlling the majority of electoral votes (270) join the compact. Fifteen states, representing 196 electoral votes, have already adopted the compact. The measure is still active in states having 97 electoral votes and controlled by Democrats.

Democrats have two years to install a one-party rule, or else?

Democrats have two years with control of the House, Senate, and presidency to transform the U.S. into a nation of one-party, Democratic rule, which is common in many authoritarian countries. If Democrats succeed, they will control the U.S. for decades.

If the Democrats fail to solidify one-party rule after denying freedom of speech to many conservatives, attempting to punish duly elected members of Congress for exercising their rights under the law, establishing rule by executive fiat, packing the Supreme Court to diminish a constitutionally appointed conservative majority, add additional states to ensure Democrats control the Senate in perpetuity, change the electoral college without a constitutional amendment and open the southern border to anyone who might be a Democrat supporter, they will be so soundly rebuked by the voters. The Democrat party will be the ninth political party to sink into oblivion.

The outcome of the political fight over the next two years will be between those who favor the rule of law and protecting the rights even of those deemed “objectionable” or “intolerable” by the Democrats and those willing to make whatever rule changes necessary, to transform the nation into one-party rule. Both outcomes are possible under our Constitution, a broad and vague document that can sanction freedom and free enterprise or socialism guarded by strict penal and tax codes.

Reform the Kakistocracy: Rule by the Least Able or Least Principled Citizens concludes by noting the U.S. has reached a fork in the road. “Whichever path we take, our posterity will reap the fruits of success or suffer the slide from being exceptional to experiencing the perpetual frustrations of mediocrity, growing poverty, and a dimmer future. The future is ours to create.”

  • Home
  • Hostile Takeover of US by Major Political Parties

Hostile Takeover of US by Major Political Parties

William L. Kovacs

November 2019

Hostile Takeover of US by Major Political Parties

This article is the first in a series of articles addressing the question of how do Americans get control of their country from the Republican and Democratic parties (“R&D parties”) who have so manipulated election laws that the two parties have complete control of the government of the United States.

People think of monopolies/duopolies in a corporate sense; one or two businesses having exclusive control over a part of our economy either through legal privilege or concerted action. This control limits competition whenever it is exercised. When business acts anti-competitively, there are laws that can be applied to its unfair practices.

How does a society, however control large-scale concerted anti-competitive actions outside of business activity? Specifically, how can we control the concerted actions of the R&D parties that limit the ability of minor political parties or independent candidates to participate in the running of the government of the United States?

The R&D parties manipulate election laws to ensure one of their loyalists almost always wins the election. Controlling who wins directly translates into what laws are enacted, which citizens or corporations receive subsidies, who is taxed more or taxed less, how commerce is regulated and who will judge us should we violate any command.

According to David Nir, in an article in the Daily Kos that references Becoming a Candidate, a book by Jennifer Lawless, there are 519,682 elected officeholders in the United States. Of this total the Libertarian Party, in 2017, claims 168 of these officeholders; the Green Party in 2016 held 143 offices, and the Constitution Party holds 12 offices. Many of these positions are non-partisan offices. There are also, at least 26 Independent office holders, including 2 U.S. Senators who caucus with the Democrats, and 26 Democratic Vermont Progressives. A basic calculation places the third-party competitors’ share of the political market at 0.0006754%.

The R&D parties ruthlessly maintain control of the political marketplace. This occurs through the imposition of burdensome petition signature requirements on third-party candidates and the filing of costly lawsuits challenging the signatures on the petitions of third-party candidates to drain their scarce resources. There is also a complex aggregation of state laws that grant special ballot access to R&D party candidates, ranging from automatic ballot access to requiring fewer signatures on a qualifying petition.

What makes the power of the R&D parties so baffling is that political parties are not mentioned in our Constitution.  In fact, for the first several years of our Republic, there were no political parties. Moreover, the R&D parties maintain complete control of the political marketplace against the fact that 57% of Americans believe a third political party is needed, according to a Gallup poll.

How have we let this happen?

Political parties are nothing more than highly organized, demographically diverse, not-for-profit associations of individuals, arranged in a corporate structure, for the sole purpose of controlling all government in the United States and by extension, us. This monopoly, through its many affiliates, has officers in every nook and cranny in the nation to ensure that a member of an R&D party occupies every seat in government.

Beyond excluding citizens, with different political viewpoints, from participating in the governing of the nation, the R&D parties turn representative government on its head. Instead of allowing citizens to vote for a person who will serve as a fiduciary loyal to the Constitution and citizens; the R&D parties use their massive power to force us to vote for one of two individuals whose loyalty is primarily to the R&D parties.

This limiting of political ideas has led to decades of policy failures. On the most important issues the R&D parties are identical. Both parties have contributed to our massive national debt. Both have contributed to an extraordinarily costly and failed health care system. Both parties have supported continuous wars not approved by Congress. These are only a few of the failed policies of the R&D parties.

Action: Historically, third-parties have legally challenged such control alleging deprivations of constitutional rights, e.g. equal protection, due process and First Amendment. While there have been many successful legal challenges securing ballot access, this approach is a never-ending battle. The R&D parties merely change the law and force more challenges. The R&D parties always have ballot access and third – parties always struggle to get on the ballot.

A new approach is needed – one that combines constitutional challenges with federal statutes that allow for nationwide resolution and monetary damages. The R&D parties will never consent to an open political process. Therefore, third-parties must seek compensation for the deprivations inflicted on them by the R&D parties.

In the next several articles, I will explore ways in which third-parties may be able to use federal anti-trust and civil rights laws to permanently open the political process to all Americans.

This article was first published in The Libertarian Republic, August 21, 2019.

  • Home
  • Democrats Promise to Spend and Spend, But Republicans Spend More!

Democrats Promise to Spend and Spend, But Republicans Spend More!

William L. Kovacs

November 2019

Democrats Promise to Spend and Spend, But Republicans Spend More!

In every presidential election the Republican candidate runs as a conservative promising to reduce the debt and deficit. Democrats run with bold ideas to spend unlimited trillions to provide Medicare for all, eliminate student debt, raise teachers’ salaries, increase the minimum wage and in the 2020 election, to spend trillions upon trillions to eliminate fossil fuels and rebuild our entire economy into a “green utopia.” Republicans attack Democrats as crazy, uncontrolled spenders. Unfortunately, the statistics tell a different story.  Republicans like spending, even a little more than Democrats.

In the 2016 election candidate Trump ran as a conservative promising to wipe out the National Debt in eight years. The debt was $20 trillion when President Obama left office.

By February 2019 the National Debt hit a record of $22 trillion, a $2.065 trillion increase in two years. By May 2019 it became clear the tax cuts would not generate enough income to offset the lost revenue and under budget estimates, debt would rise to $29 trillion in eight years.

Then the kicker! In July 2019 Congress and the President arrived at a budget deal that suspends the debt limit thereby allowing the government to spend whatever it wants for two years. The estimated cost of the deal is $2.7 trillion for two years but it could be much more.

While one wild spending Republican president does not undercut decades of promises from conservatives to cut spending and reduce the deficit, some simple calculations undercut the myth that conservatives care about debt and deficit more than Democrats. In a well-researched May 12, 2019 article in The Balance, Kimberly Amadeo sets out increases to the National Debt by each President since Woodrow Wilson.

To non-academics like me her article provides all that is necessary to answer one simple question – Which of the two major political parties spends more of our money and puts us deeper in debt?

To answer this question, I start with Herbert Hoover since he followed Calvin Coolidge, the last president who added $0 to the National Debt. In fact, according to her statistics, Coolidge decreased the existing National Debt by 26%, a $5 billion decrease. Amadeo’s numbers are set out in fiscal years (“FY”) since FY’s reflect the amount each President signs into law. This approach avoids the fact that a new president assumes the prior president’s budget for the first year in office. The amounts are actual dollars, without any adjustment.  I simply added up the amounts spent by each Presidential administration per fiscal year and put them into two columns, Republican and Democrat, to determine which political party added the most to the National Debt?

President* Years Republican Democrat Total Deficit
Hoover 1930-1933 $ 6 billion $ 6 billion
F. Roosevelt 1934-1945 $ 236 billion $ 242 billion
H. Truman 1946-1953 $ 7 billion $ 249 billion
D. Eisenhower 1954-1961 $ 23 billion $ 272 billion
J. Kennedy 1962-1964 $ 23 billion $ 295 billion
L.B. Johnson 1965-1969 $ 42 billion $ 337 billion
R. Nixon 1970-1974 $ 121 billion $ 458 billion
G. Ford 1975-1977 $ 224 billion $ 682 billion
J. Carter 1978-1981 $ 299 billion $ 981 billion
R. Reagan 1982-1989 $ 1.860 T $ 2.841 T
G.H.W. Bush 1990-1993 $ 1.554 T $ 4.395 T
W. J. Clinton 1994-2001 $ 1.396 T $ 5.791 T
G.W. Bush 2002-2009 $ 5.849 T $ 11.640 T
B. Obama 2010-2017 $ 8.588 T $ 20.228 T
D. Trump** 2018-2021 $ 5.088 T $ 20.228 T
Party totals $ 14.725 T $ 10.519 T $ 24.474 T

*The FY deficit numbers for each President are based on the FY deficits stated by The Balance,        update August 26, 2019.

** Estimate of deficit based only on one term as President.

At the end of the Obama administration the two parties were almost statistically tied in the amount of debt they imposed on the nation. The seven Republican administrations imposed $9.637 trillion in debt. The seven Democratic administrations imposed $10.519 trillion. While both parties controlled the White House seven times during this period, the Democrats’ occupied the White House forty-eight years while the Republicans occupied it only forty years.  On a FY basis, Republicans, on average, increased debt by $241 billion a year whereas Democrats, on average, increased the debt by $219 billion a year.

The Trump administration however, is projected to add $5.088 trillion to the National Debt in his first term, leaving us with a National Debt of $24.474 trillion at the end of FY 2021. By comparison President Obama added $4.829 trillion to the National Debt in his first term. This time period however, includes the Great Recession and the added spending was necessary to hold off a depression.

Together, Obama’s two terms ($8.588 trillion of new debt) and the first term of the Trump administration ($5.088 trillion of new debt) added $13.676 trillion to the National Debt. Percentage wise the two administrations are responsible for 52% of the total National Debt. If there is a second term for the Trump administration, and it can hold the increase in the debt to projected amounts ($3.524 trillion), his administration would add $8.350 trillion to the national debt. Together, Obama’s $8.58 trillion and Trump’s $8.35 trillion would add almost $17 trillion to the national debt. Simply, Presidents Obama and Trump would be responsible for 59% of the nation’s national debt.

Therefore, after the first term of the Trump administration, conservative presidents, in their forty-four years in office, will have increased the national debt by $14.725 trillion whereas the wild-spending Democrats, in their forty-eight years in office, will have added  $10.519 trillion to the national debt.

So much for the myth that the Republicans care about debt and deficits? The moral of this story that Democrats tell the truth when they promise to spend our money and lots of it. Republicans merely tell us what we want to hear and when in office, they spend more of our money than Democrats.