Crazy. Angry. Libertarian.

© 2016 by Jim Bouchard Booking for speaking, corporate training and media appearances available through Black Belt Mindset Productions.

Call 800-786-8502 ThatBlackBeltGuy.com Cover & book design by Diego Designs

All rights reserved. No portion of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording or scanning, or otherwise without written permission of the author and publisher––except for brief quotations in critical reviews or articles.

Published in the United States of America by San Chi Publishing

First printing: June 2016 ISBN-13: 978-1534659995 ISBN-10: 1534659994

Proceeds from the sale of this book support the Jim Bouchard for Congress Campaign Committee. Following the 2016 election, a portion of proceeds will benefit the Libertarian Party and the Libertarian Party of Maine.

To Alexandra Armstrong–– Another crazy adventure, eh?

To Chris Lyons & Jorge Maderal–– And all the members of the Libertarian Party of Maine!

Thank You for welcoming me into your community and allowing me to join the fight for Minimum Government and Maximum Freedom!

To Tam Veilleux & Real Castonguay Your dedication and support is humbling and is an honor beyond what I can express in words.

To Linda & Ed Pritchard With greatest appreciation for your continual support and encouragement and with gratitude for the hours of discussion and debate that both inspired and informed this journey.

To Fred Boyes So it isn’t the Senate, but I’m sure you’re proud of us just the same!

Contents Introduction: Not middle ground––higher ground 1 Running for Congress––seriously? 9 Crazy. 13 Angry. 23 Libertarian. 29 Not One. Penny. More. 37 No more spending. 45 No more debt. 55 No more taxes. 69 No more war? 77 No more pork. No more hiding. 87 No more War on Drugs. 91 No more government theft. 97 No more welfare. No more minimum wage. 107 No more “illegal” immigration. 121 But wait! There’s more! 129 So go ahead! Throw away your vote! 143 I can’t win this race. WE can. 149

“Any fool cAn criticize, condemn And complAin… And most fools do.”

~BenjAmin frAnklin

IntroductIon: not mIddle ground––hIgher ground.

Ever since I announced my candidacy I’ve been trying to explain what a “Libertarian” is.

One classic response is that a Libertarian is someone who is fiscally conservative, but socially liberal. That works to a degree––but that doesn’t do the libertarian mindset justice.

To a degree “fiscally conservative, but socially liberal” describes most of America––more than half of us by recent polls anyway. We generally recognize a need for fiscal responsibility as an individual and as a nation. We generally don’t want to interfere too much in the lives of others––though where we draw that line is subject to interpretation.

The problem with the classic response is that is describes a “middle ground,” an average if you will. The libertarian ideal is anything but average.

I believe we can transcend the hyper-partisan gridlock that paralyzes our government and pits the American people into two armed camps––red and blue. I believe we can rise above this constant war for control and learn to respect one another 1

Jim Bouchard as individuals again, without threatening our own autonomy.

I believe we can address all of our concerns, needs and desires without sacrificing individual freedom and liberty.

That’s what I believe libertarianism is all about. It’s not middle ground––it’s higher ground where we have a clear view of everyone’s passions and interests. From this higher ground we can see beyond our differences and see that we are better when we work together––as we honor, respect and defend our differences.

IT TAKES SOME WORK TO GET TO THIS HIGHER GROUND. I make my living as an author, speaker and trainer on the subject of leadership. My philosophy of leadership evolved mostly from my experiences as a martial artist.

I’ve been practicing martial arts for more than 30 years.

I’ve been a professional martial artist for more than 20. More most of us, being a professional martial artist usually involves teaching and leading your own organization––some large, some small.

It also involves the study of conflict. Not just how to fight, but rather, how to resolve conflict both externally and within your Self. We see this resolution of conflict as a continual struggle––not as a single victory or defeat.

Conflict in some form is the natural condition of human life. We struggle to survive. We struggle toward success. We struggle to understand ourselves and the world we live in.

2

Crazy. Angry. Libertarian.

We struggle to live with others as we each struggle to survive and succeed…

And that struggle we call, “politics.” Ambrose Bierce offered us this definition:

“politics: A strife of interests mAsquerAding As A contest of principles.

the conduct of puBlic AffAirs for privAte AdvAntAge.” It’s a bit snarky, but there’s a lot truth there! Like it or not, we’re involved in a constant struggle of competing self-interests. Because of our great experiment in self-governance, we take this struggle to the streets––and to the chamber of Congress, our state houses and town halls.

Each of us is trying to work out what’s best––for me. And sometimes what’s best for me and what’s best for you are simply not the same. Politics is the process of working out these differences.

Some people think that today’s politics have reached new lows, that we’ve devolved into tribalism and that we’ve reached complete political deadlock. I happen to be one of those people––but I see a way out.

The problems of self-governance we face today aren’t new. We’ve gone through these cycles countless times since Thomas Jefferson and his colleagues declared that “All men are created equal…” The problem isn’t in the creation––it’s in what happens after that!

Self-governance is messy. It can be complicated. It involves conflicting interests from any number of factions and 3

Jim Bouchard it sometimes leaves people behind. Those people get angry.

We’ve reached a particularly low point in the political cycle. A lot of people are feeling left behind and left out. Their response is to drop out: As of 2016 more than 40% of American voters identify as “independent.”

Just slightly higher than 50% of Americans of age turn out to vote in Presidential elections––even fewer in other years.

We haven’t seen 60% turnout since 1968.

It seems they have their reasons. According to Gallup polls, favorability ratings for all three branches of the federal government have fallen consistently since 1991 and they’re at all time lows today. Even more telling, favorability ratings and measures of trustworthiness and confidence in leadership ability have reached record lows for both presumptive major party candidates for the upcoming 2016 elections.

I hope that by the time some of you are reading this book, these trends have reversed!

WHAT’S THE BIG PROBLEM? WHY CAN’T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG? I was going to save this topic for the “issues” part of the book, but I’d rather share it here to set the table–– The biggest problem in government today is that control has become more important than power. Conventional wisdom would have you believe that power is the problem–– that power corrupts and so on. Not so. Not if we understand power properly.

4

Crazy. Angry. Libertarian.

As I told you, I make my living teaching leadership. As a martial artist I learned that power is the key to effectiveness. As a student of leadership I came to the realization that leadership is, at its fundamental level, all about power. You simply can’t be an effective leader without power.

Let me define power…

power is your ABility or cApAcity to Act or perform effectively.

That’s it. That’s all it is. And if you want to be an effective leader, you better learn how to share it.

In THE SENSEI LEADER I summarize everything I know about leadership in just a few words:

“leAdership is shAring. A leAder shAres.”

No one of us can do everything by ourselves. That truth seems to be self-evident, but especially in politics, we seem to continually separate ourselves. We build barriers between other people who could, if we’re willing to share, help us achieve much more than any of us can on our own.

The problem isn’t power. It’s control.

The more we separate from one another, the easier it is to fall into a struggle for control. In The Reunited States of America, Mark Gerzon writes:

“…the goal of politics is clear: control. It is about who will directly control the levers of our government––and indirectly control our country.”

5

Jim Bouchard That’s the legacy of the two party system. It’s like those robot battles that were so popular on TV a few years ago! Two mighty machines festooned with fierce blades, hammers and torches bashing one another, ripping one another to pieces until one limped away; damaged, but victorious.

I’m a martial artist. I enjoy a good fight as much as the next guy––but that’s not how we solve problems. Ultimately, fighting is what we do when can’t resolve our differences.

Have we really reached that point in our experiment in self-government? I don’t think so. Get past the contentious issues, many of those manufactured by those whose objective is control, and most of us want more or less the same things.

This fight for control is what has paralyzed our political process. Gerzon continues:

“The clamoring for control actually spins us out of control, usually in one of two directions. It can turn into domination on the one hand and stalemate on the other.”

Sound familiar?

“But if too much control (domination) is dangerous, so it too little (stalemate). If no one controls the steering wheel––or, more precisely, if two drivers are madly fighting for control––a vehicle will careen from left to right and potentially crash.”

We’re not there yet––but we’re sure as hell feeling the rumble strip!

Can we avoid the crash? I believe so––but only if we accept responsibility as individuals and as a nation.

6

Crazy. Angry. Libertarian.

As individuals we have to embrace the responsibility of leadership––at all levels. Each of us.

This means participating. On the most basic level it means voting––not just every four years, but in your local, county and state elections where arguably your vote has the most impact.

It also means voting your conscience. It means to stop buying what the control freaks are selling––that you’re stuck voting for “the lesser of two evils” or that voting for someone you truly believe in is somehow throwing away your vote or from their seat, “voting for the other guy.”

That’s crap.

If you’re satisfied with the status quo or you truly believe one of the major party options is the way to go––then vote that way.

If you’re voting that way because you feel powerless––you surrender the most important power you have.

Look––it’s your vote. I wouldn’t be true to my libertarian ideals if I tried to tell you who you should vote for.

Hell––I won’t even try to convince you to vote for me!

All I ask is that you truly vote your conscience, that you make a genuine effort to be informed and that you use your vote to express your genuine self-interests. Vote for the person or party that understands that it’s not up them to control you, but that it’s in our collective best interest to defend your individual power––your capacity to create your best life and share that gift with others.

I promise to do the same. That’s our responsibility to one another as individuals.

Power only expands through sharing. This means an open dialog where you can express your interests, concerns and 7

Jim Bouchard desires, where I can share mine; where we can agree on what we can work on together and just as importantly, where we should just leave on another be!

The various parties need to do the same. Instead of fighting over control, it’s time to work together to share and expand power––our ability to get things done.

If we can lead by example––If we can inspire the people in our government to embrace this same process and this level of respect––regardless of their political affiliations––we can break this log jam and truly start moving forward again…

Together.

That’s our responsibility as a nation.

That’s the higher ground.

8

runnIng for congress–– serIously?

A week ago as I write this I made my first official media announcement as a congressional candidate. I reached out to our local news/talk powerhouse, WGAN, to see if they’d like to break the news. I’d done several interviews with their morning show host Mike Violette, so I thought we had a pretty good shot.

Mike said sure!

I thought, now I’m all in. Once you expose yourself to the media there’s no turning back, right?

The morning of the interview I was about to jump in the shower––I like to be clean and fresh for radio, even when it’s a phoner. My wife had the radio on in the kitchen and just as I started the water I thought I heard my name and something about being crazy.

“Did he just call me a nut?” The “he” would be Ken Altshuler, the liberal half of “The Ken and Mike Show,” at least I thought it was Ken’s voice.

“Crazy––loony––something like that.” Alex said she was 9

Jim Bouchard only half listening. Apparently Ken said I was loony for running as a Libertarian against the entrenched incumbent, Democrat Chellie Pingree. I was even goofier for running as a write-in candidate.

Well––he was right on both counts.

I was pumped! I’d be on the air in about 5 minutes and Mr. Altshuler had just given me the perfect opening.

I AM CRAZY. AND I’M ANGRY. If the definition of sanity is the status quo, he should be damn glad someone is crazy and angry enough to step up.

To be fair to Ken, he called in while I was a guest on The John McDonald show, another WGAN program. Long story short, he said it wasn’t him! He said Mike said it!

I didn’t expect this, but Ken added, “I think you’re smart– –I like a lot of the things you stand for and I fully support your plan to run!”

Some of my supporters still swear it was Ken, but it was nice of him to call and clear the air. One of those guys said I was crazy, looney––something to that effect––and I’ll take it. I see it as a chance for more air time and we need every minute we can get.

One of the biggest problems we face as Libertarians is credibility. That’s something I’m trying to change.

The Libertarian Party has historically been painted as a group of radicals on the fringe. To many people the face of the Libertarian is the face of Vermin Supreme, a performance 10

Crazy. Angry. Libertarian. artist who emerges during every presidential race.

We’re painted as radical anarchists––and some Libertarians are just that.

We’re the kooks that want to legalize drugs, abolish the income tax, close down the Fed and stop all the wars.

Well, we are guilty on several of those charges––but we have the rationale and the moral high-ground to defend and promote those positions.

We believe in limited government.

We believe the founders were insightful geniuses and that they produced the most remarkable and practical blueprint for self-government in history––the U.S. Constitution.

We believe that the American people are citizens––not subjects.

MOST OF ALL, WE TRUST THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. We trust in our goodness, our generosity, our creativity, drive and ambition. We do believe that the solutions to our greatest challenges come from the American people, sometimes working through the American government––but not from the government dictating to the people.

We live in a time when the people’s trust in the government is at an all-time low.

The government doesn’t trust us either. We see that lack of trust in every onerous regulation, in the militarization of our civil bureaucracies, in the dictatorial application of “Executive Orders” and in the blatant revision of 11

Jim Bouchard Constitutional principles by the judicial, legislative and executive branches.

Many of simply don’t trust the government anymore. We trust the people.

Most Libertarians––and I do mean most––are intelligent, caring and extremely well informed people who believe in the simple and fundamental ideal that government is best when it’s least and that freedom is a natural right, not something allowed, granted or bestowed by the federal authority.

This slogan says it all:

“minimum government. mAximum freedom.”

And that’s where this story begins…

12

crazy.

Crazy? Absolutely!

I’ve spent the past 10 years building my speaking business. I help people become better leaders by helping leaders become better people. That’s the short way to explain that I write, speak and conduct workshops on “character disciplined leadership.”

Keeping it short––I took the lessons I learned through my career as a professional martial artist, including some of the great leadership tradition from classic Asian philosophy, and translated it for business and organization leaders and people who want to be. Leaders, that is.

These lessons are powerful. I adopted the strategies I teach to transform myself from a drug abuser and dropout to a Black Belt––from a loser to a leader. Eventually I founded Northern Chi Martial Arts Center and expanded it to, at one time, 5 centers.

Along the way I learned a lot about leadership. I helped a couple of thousand people achieve new levels in their personal and professional lives. I learned how to navigate a business and an association through tough times.

13

Jim Bouchard I enjoyed some amazing successes along the way––and I made some terrible mistakes. All lessons. All contributing to my next adventure.

I wanted to take the lessons I learned as a leader, a teacher and in my own personal journey to Black Belt and beyond and share these lessons with people who might not want to kick, punch or throw each other around the dojo!

As I said, we––my wife and business partner Alex and I–– we devoted 10 long years to developing this message and turning it into our business. About 2 years ago we cut the proverbial dingy and sold our remaining martial arts center and set out to share THE SENSEI LEADER with the world.

And here I was risking the whole thing to run for congress––as a Libertarian––as a write-in candidate.

Yup––Ken was right. Crazy.

SO LET’S TAKE A LOOK AT SANITY. Right now our national debt is at a record high. The only time we’ve approached this level of debt was as we were fighting the largest conflict in world history––World War II. Worse than the debt itself is the accelerating rate of increase. We’re borrowing more and faster than ever before in history––with no sign of slowing down. Our government is running amok like a bunch of teenagers loose in the mall with mom’s credit card.

Ever since about 1980, the last time the debt was somewhat level, we’ve been whipping out the federal credit card. Each major party starts every national election cycle with promises 14

Crazy. Angry. Libertarian. of reduced spending more fiscal responsibility.

As soon as each election is over, out comes the credit card again.

Here’s a simple analogy that paints a clear picture of where we are today…

You take out your first credit card. You’re pumped! You run to your local big box and treat yourself to all the “little things” you just couldn’t afford before. You take your first real vacation. You take a cash advance to do a few things around the house.

No problem! You’ve got a good job, plenty of money coming in and what the hell––you deserve it, right?

You’re making your payments––usually more than the minimum––then something really cool starts happening.

You start getting offers for more credit cards!

Long story short, you keep racking up the bills––not for anything frivolous, it just seems there’s always some real need and it’s tough to save cash for these little emergencies and unforeseen expenses, after all.

Suddenly there’s trouble. You get laid off.

That’s still OK––you’ve got credit and you’ve got some good prospects. You keep charging to take care of the essentials––suddenly the credit card statement is showing groceries and electric company payments––things you used to pay from your checking account.

You get a new job!

It pays a little less than the old job, but you’ll be fine. You get an ad in the mail telling you that you can erase all your unsecured debt and saving a fortune in finance charges by using the equity in your home. Great deal!

15

Jim Bouchard You take it!

But of course, you don’t cut up your credit cards––now you’re starting with a clean slate. Eventually, you’ve worked your credit balances up again, and you’re paying a second mortgage, and your income isn’t going up quite as fast as you’d projected.

If you keep going this way––what’s going to happen?

Well that’s exactly what our federal government has been doing and that’s exactly where our country is heading. We’re there right now––and you’re the one who has to pay the bill.

Unlike you, the government has a couple of other clever ways to dig the hole even deeper.

If you were the person in this story and you went to the bank for another loan, what do you suppose the response would be?

There’s an infamous YouTube video circulating that tells the story perfectly. It shows a guy in pretty close to the same predicament I just described. He’s sitting with his friendly banker asking for more credit.

“But you’re already spending more than you make,” says the loan officer.

“Yes, that’s right. I’d like to raise my credit limit.”

You get the picture. They go around and around about how there’s no way this guy can pay his bills, but the solution is always to just raise the limit––raise the “debt ceiling.”

That’s exactly what our government has been doing for the past 30 years. It doesn’t matter whether the Democrats or Republicans are holding our wallet. The “Republicrats” 16

Crazy. Angry. Libertarian. get elected, promise to pay the bill––then turn right around, charge even more and go to the bank for more credit.

Keep remembering––at some point––you’re the bank.

Sanity, right?

They’ve got one more trick up their red and blue sleeves…

Back to our original story. Wouldn’t it solve all your problems if you just had more money?

This is why people play the lottery. Money may not guarantee happiness, but it sure takes the edge off some of the misery!

If you suddenly had a pile of money––your problems would be over––at least for now. But you can’t just print money out of thin air, can you?

Ah––but the government can.

Unlike some countries, we don’t just move money from the presses to the treasury––though we may as well. The actual fiscal gymnastics they do to pay the bills with this newly minted money is a bit complicated and that complexity hides some of the effect.

That effect is ominous.

History News Network reports:

Just how much money is the U.S. government printing to meet its debts? Steven Horwitz, professor at St. Lawrence University, and co-author of The Austrian Economists blog, explains that the amount of money printed in the past few months since the October economic crisis, has been absolutely unprecedented in U.S. history. “Since September, the ‘monetary base,’ which is the measure of currency plus bank reserves, has doubled from about $850 billion to $1.7 trillion, 17

Jim Bouchard

about $600 billion of which is in the form of bank reserves,” he says.

In theory, this money is supposed to move through the hands and bank accounts of the American people in the form of loans and other instruments that we then use to buy cars, houses and send our kids to school––merrily stimulating the economy every time our fresh new dollars change hands.

Not so much. The report continues:

Increasing the money supply should theoretically increase liquidity, one of the goals of the government since the onset of the credit crunch. But the effect of the increase has been less than you might expect, Horwitz observes. Only about $300 billion has gotten into consumers’ hands.

Check my math. That’s a lot less than half, isn’t it?

Where does the rest end up? We’ll explore that in detail soon.

The net effect is simple.

When more money is stuffed into circulation, the value of each individual dollar goes down. That’s because the dollar is not tied to anything solid, like gold. We abandoned that system long ago.

Our dollar’s value is “indexed” to other currencies. Here’s a pretty simple explanation from Investopedia:

Currently, this index is calculated by factoring in the exchange rates of six major world currencies: the euro, Japanese yen, Canadian dollar, British pound, Swedish krona and Swiss franc. This index started in 18

Crazy. Angry. Libertarian.

1973 with a base of 100 and is relative to this base.

This means that a value of 120 would suggest that the U.S. dollar experienced a 20% increase in value over the time period.

What our dollar is worth at any given time depends on its relationship to the currencies in these other 6 countries.

What’s important to understand is that at any given moment, when the variable in the index is that we’re putting more dollars in circulation, each dollar is worth less.

That’s why we get so pissed off at the Chinese when they flood the market with more currency. Because we all do business across the globe, that changes the relative values of the indexed currencies depending on how much money each indexed country holds at any given time from other nations.

Do you understand? Don’t worry––I don’t fully understand it either. I have some really smart people on my team who break it down for me––and it’s still difficult.

And that’s what the powers that be call sanity.

Now aren’t you glad I’m crazy?

It takes a lunatic to go up against this system. I’m not going to get into how this system got so bloated, complex and opaque. Suffice it to say that transparency and simplicity are not the best tools for making money out of money––and that’s another big part of the problem.

What’s important is that we change it.

19

Jim Bouchard

STILL CRAZY––THE WRITE-IN CAMPAIGN… Before I leave the topic of my sanity, or lack of it, I want to explain the write-in campaign.

Ken (or Mike) is absolutely right on this point––it’s loony to run a write-in campaign. It’s especially loony for a Libertarian to run a write-in campaign in a national election against an entrenched Democrat incumbent in a liberal leaning district. (And he didn’t even know yet that we were starting with NO money!)

The fault is mine. I didn’t solidify my decision to run until the Libertarian state convention in May. At that time, I was still enrolled as a Republican and the LP Is not an officially recognized party in Maine.

So––my party had no official ballot recognition and I had missed the deadline to change my party affiliation so I was not even eligible to run a petition drive to get my name on the ballot.

I had no other option.

It was run as a write-in or wait until 2018. I’ve learned long ago that if you want to make the dragon laugh, tell him your plans for tomorrow. As far as I was concerned, it was now or maybe never.

I tested the waters before I made my decision and I was overwhelmed with the response and the support––I knew I wouldn’t be going it alone. Still, there was plenty of sincere, well-intended advice from people who were quite willing to point out that this would be a daunting challenge.

And some advice from people who, for the purpose of their own agenda, were quite willing to tell me I just shouldn’t 20

Crazy. Angry. Libertarian. run––that my campaign wouldn’t be taken seriously––that I would do nothing but harm the GOP candidate.

I want to speak for just a minute to anyone thinking of running for office––and particularly anyone who decides late or for any reason can’t get on the ballot…

If you feel the call––do it.

Too many people find too many excuses not to get involved. That’s a large part of the reason our country is in so much trouble. If we want to restore government By The People––We The People have to do it.

I may be crazy, but I’m not stupid. I know what a challenge this is going to be. I’ve faced tougher obstacles in my life.

My life as a martial artist has taught me that our greatest challenges are our greatest opportunities. The warrior can only truly test his mettle in battle––and you never win a fight from ringside.

This is a great challenge, but running a write-in campaign is not a set-back––it’s an opportunity.

When you drive into Maine on U.S. Interstate 95 you see a giant welcoming sign. It says:

“mAine, the wAy life should Be!” When we had our first Campaign Committee meeting, I realized that we were practicing democracy the way it should be! Here was a small group of dedicated patriots who care about their community and their country. My friends Tam Veilleux and Real Castonguay volunteered to chair the committee––we met in their living room.

The first weapon in our campaign is a series of “Meetups,” a chance to meet face to face with the people of our district.

21

Jim Bouchard We’re meeting in kitchens, parlors, churches and pubs.

We’re meeting people in groups of 4, 6, 8, 12––to listen to their concerns, share my positions and have a real discussion about how we can work together to fix this fractured system.

I couldn’t help thinking about those farmers, lawyers, silversmiths, craftsmen and merchants meeting in small groups in parlors, pubs and churches in Boston, in Charleston, in New York and Williamsburg and Philadelphia.

We can do it this way, grassroots––or we could play the same tired game and pry our way into back room meetings, beg for funding in corporate boardrooms or simply bow to the existing major party machines.

I’d rather do it this way. I’m beholden to nobody other than the people who send me to Washington. I have no political debts to repay. I have no corporate donors expecting favors.

Crazy, eh?

Einstein is infamously quoted as saying that insanity is “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” It seems these days that the major parties have twisted Einstein’s quote as badly as they’ve twisted the Constitution––to suit their own ends.

If their definition of sanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results…

I’m glad I’m crazy.

22

angry.

This is where I tell you why I decided to run for congress.

I’m angry––hell ya. Aren’t you?

Our government is a mess. We’re broke. We’re locked in an endless hyper-partisan stalemate–– And everyone sucks!

I mean this quite literally. We’re about to narrow the field to the most hated, least trusted presidential candidates in our history.

As of May, 2016, Gallup reports the disapproval rating of congress as 78%. 78% freaking percent!

At least it’s better than the 84% disapproval they had in March––an improvement, right?

Our POTUS and SCOTUS are using the Constitution as a doormat. Our emasculated congress is deadlocked in an endless cycle of childish bickering. Together they’re driving us to bankruptcy––and nobody is willing to put on the brakes.

We’ve enabled the fortification of a professional political class. The public servant that puts your interests ahead of party loyalty and political ambition is the exception––not the rule.

I never thought I’d live to see the day when half the young 23

Jim Bouchard people in the country see socialism as more desirable than freedom, when the most important social issue on America’s campuses isn’t opposition to war or civil rights but protection from hurt feelings and when the biggest issue in America is what bathroom someone should use––or not.

HELL YA I’M ANGRY. Like you, I’ve been bitching and moaning about this situation for years. I did try to do my part for a while.

I chaired the Government Liaison Committee at my regional chamber in Midcoast Maine. In that capacity I got an inside look at the workings of our state government. I met some terrific people from the spectrum of political affiliations. This experience inspired me to take my first serious look at the possibility of running for public office.

I admit openly that the entrenched system of deal-brokering and hyper-partisanship turned me off. Long story short, I thought I might just end up punching someone out in the halls of the state capital! I didn’t think I could put up with someone trying to trade a vote with me, or a party leader strong-arming me into supporting a piece of legislation just to keep the other guys at bay.

I was honored and very grateful to work on the gubernatorial campaign of Matt Jacobson. Matt is an exceptional leader with genuine vision and insight. Unfortunately, we didn’t get him elected. I’d like to try and talk him into running once more––as a Libertarian. I believe we’d get him the job!

I stayed connected with politics through my work as a speaker and leadership trainer. I study and comment on 24

Crazy. Angry. Libertarian. political leadership as means to deeper understanding and to inform my work––but I also worked very hard not to alienate to many people with deep partisan convictions. That would be bad for business.

As our national situation grew worse––and as the lies and deceptions grew larger, so did my rage.

My hard-earned bailed out crooks and idiots while I refinanced my house to subsidize my martial arts business through the recession that never should have happened coupled with the closing of our last military air base protecting the Northeast. As soon as the ink was dry on my government encouraged fraudulent loan––the real crap hit the fan. My house was suddenly worth half what it was a year ago.

Thank you Freddie. Thank you Frannie. Thank you congress and thank you Mr. President.

Then I saw those Wall Street raiders take my money and give themselves bonuses. My dollar––and yours––bailed out criminals, frauds and reckless speculators and they bought themselves yachts and vacation homes.

At some point I realized I just couldn’t get any angrier. I also started studying the issues in more detail. I realized that there were some simple, effective answers to our problems–– that we could in fact stop this train wreck–– If we have the courage to do it.

A few months ago I tested a thought with my wife. Should I step up and practice what I preach? Should I take a real shot at public office––even if just to try and make a statement?

I’d been talking the talk. Is it time to walk the walk?

Years ago I floated the idea of running for congress with a group of close friends. I also talked about this possibility with my father-in-law. With few well-meaning exceptions, 25

Jim Bouchard and one or two not as well-meaning, everyone I talked to told me I should run…

For something!

The more I studied the opportunity, the more I came to believe that I’d be best suited to serve in congress––in “The People’s House.”

My father-in-law thought the Senate would be much better. I appreciated his confidence, but I just couldn’t wrap my head around that one. I never finished college, I wasn’t from the gentry, I had no money to burn and didn’t have the big business connections I thought I needed to run a serious Senate campaign.

I’m blue-collar, not blue-blood. No––I felt I could be most effective staying closest to The People. I could see myself in the House of Representatives.

When 2016 started I had put aside most of my thoughts of politics and running for office. My speaking business was growing. People were responding. I was on the road frequently. For the first time in a long time I could see an entirely new level of opportunity––and I didn’t want to mess it up!

I COULDN’T PUT ASIDE MY ANGER. I’m pissed that our President, our Congress and our Supreme Court are trampling all over our Constitution.

I’m pissed that congress lays down and does nothing when the President acts like the king.

I’m pissed off about government treating us like subjects instead of citizens.

I’m very pissed about armed raids on guitar factories and 26

Crazy. Angry. Libertarian. dairy farms.

I’m pissed off about the eminent domain being abused to steal property from good people to hand it to developers for profit and taxes.

I’m pissed about a store owner being ripped off by civil forfeiture––being treated like a criminal when his only transgression was being naive enough to deposit money in his bank account.

I got really pissed off when the Supreme Court decided that congress had not really intended to write what they actually passed as law.

I’M ESPECIALLY PISSED AT CONGRESS… I’m pissed that they don’t read the bills they vote on, that they stuff bills full of unrelated issues to hide pork divert funds.

I was just as pissed as you when the Speaker told us we’d have to wait for a bill to be passed to find out what was in it––and I don’t care if she said she was quoted out of context––her context should have been clear.

I’m absolutely out of my mind over the hyper-partisanship that puts party above duty and turns even well-intended public servants into cogs in the machine.

I’m pissed that they fight endlessly over meaningless wedge issues––but can’t (or won’t) do their constitutional jobs.

I’m really angry every time congressional delegates wag their self-righteous fingers in anyone’s face only to be 27

Jim Bouchard exposed as liar, cheats and thieves.

And I’m angry that they’ve completely abdicated their most serious and ominous responsibility: to express the conscience and will of the people when the time comes to wage war––or not.

Most of all I’m angry that they can’t see––and won’t stop their most dangerous and destructive worst practice: driving the U.S. economy into bankruptcy.

There are sexier causes to be sure. God knows how long we could have survived as a nation without naming the bison as our official national mammal!

There are other serious issues for sure––but like it or not, if we’re broke––we can do nothing.

Angry? Hell ya.

And that’s why I decided to run.

Like most people, I spent a lot of time bitching and moaning about the state of our country. I’m done with that.

I decided to run. I decided to run as Libertarian.

And here’s how all that happened…

28

lIbertarIan. “i wAnt to tAke over the government––to leAve everyone Alone!”

When I heard Austin Petersen say those words at the Maine Libertarian State Convention, I knew I was in the right room.

I didn’t choose to become a Libertarian. I realized I was one.

Like many Libertarians, I couldn’t find a good fit in the major parties. I’m too conservative for the Democrats. I believe in the genius of the Constitution and that government is not the answer to all our problems.

I’m too liberal for the Republicans. The government should not be in our bedrooms and for the most part, they shouldn’t be in our businesses either.

I had proudly maintained independent status until I supported the gubernatorial campaign of Matt Jacobson in Maine. I was generally in alignment with most of the GOP principles of the time, particularly as they related to business.

29

Jim Bouchard More to the point, Matt is a visionary leader and would have made one of Maine’s finest governors had we gotten him elected. In order to support him in the primary I registered as a Republican, the first time I’d ever designated a party affiliation.

Like many Republicans, I became very disappointed with the direction of the GOP and frankly, with the entire duo-party system in general. I grew sick and tired of the hyper-partisan gridlock though I have to admit that as I saw the battle between the parties grow ever more vicious, it struck me odd that the differences between them blurred to the point where I could hardly tell them apart.

Sure, the Republicans generally preached a message of limited government and fiscal restraint, but their actions spoke louder than their words.

Under the Republican watch borrowing and spending increased exponentially. Each Republican president pushed the envelope of executive authority. When the Republicans gained control of Congress they laid on their backs as Democrat presidents pushed the limits even further.

Both parties let the Supreme Court turn our Constitution into a politically expedient oracle––subject to expedient interpretation.

As the hyper-partisan divide intensified, winning power and control took absolute presidency over any semblance of service to The People.

Still I hung in there. I thought that the Republican way was at the very least a check on what I saw as a growing Democrat slide toward socialism––democratic or otherwise.

Two major events pushed me past my limits. The first was President Bush’s TARP bailouts. The second was President 30

Crazy. Angry. Libertarian.

Obama’s mandate to buy health insurance. In the first case we subsidized recklessness, stupidity and fraud––in the second we allowed ourselves to be transformed from citizen to subject for the sake of some illusion of comfort and personal safety.

The list is much longer, but I promised myself I’d make this a short book.

SUFFICE IT TO SAY THAT OVER THESE PAST FEW YEARS, I DEVELOPED A VISCERAL BI-PARTISAN DISDAIN. Sure, there were some good guys along the way. There were some lonely voices crying out from the wilderness. The ones that made the biggest impression on me were Ron Paul and later, Rand. I’d count Trey Gowdy in that number too––and most recently Thomas Massie has made a huge impression on me.

I understand their strategy, but I’d love to see some of these guys pick up the yellow banner! I believe over the next few years, that’s exactly what’s going to happen––and we can help accelerate that process.

By and large these renegades are marginalized by their party. The media either dismisses them or “disses” them.

The public too often sees them as curiosities, oddities, quixotic figures or–– Nuts.

I didn’t follow the Democrats as attentively through this period though I’d say there were a few good eggs in that basket too––but they’d get slapped down if they dared to 31

Jim Bouchard challenge the authoritarian core.

Keeping it simple, the Democrats and Republicans simply locked horns in an endless struggle for power and control–– at our expense.

One of the worst examples of just how far through the looking glass our government had wandered came when a whistle-blower named Edward Snowden blew the lid off the NSA surveillance program.

I would have been against it, but I would have understood if the American people had decided, in open and transparent debate, to give the government the authority to spy on ourselves. I’m a devoted disciple of Ben Franklin and I agree that those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither––but we are facing a new level of threat and people are scared.

Where was that debate?

You can argue whether Snowden is a hero or a traitor, but either way he exposed two truths that would have horrified Franklin and his colleagues.

The first was that there was no debate. Congress simply authorized unelected bureaucrats who crafted this strategy in complete secrecy.

The second was that every individual citizen of the United States was deprived of privacy, presumption of innocence and protection by warrant––in one clandestine stroke.

I’d been aware of the Libertarian Party since my early 20s.

I thought you were all nuts.

You certainly didn’t help your cause showing up for meetings and conventions in cos-play garb or wearing rubber boots on your heads. And back in the 70s and 80s, even as I was embarking on my misadventures with drugs, I knew 32

Crazy. Angry. Libertarian. that the average American wasn’t ready for pot-smoking radical individualists as a mainstream political movement.

It’s too bad they weren’t. We might have saved trillions of dollars and millions of lives.

Once, when I was a stoner working at the collections department for a large national retail credit card corporation, one of my colleagues invited me to a Libertarian meeting. He knew me better than I did.

I wasn’t interested. But to be fair, I wasn’t interested in politics at all at this point in my life. My time was better spent playing punk music and railing against “The Man,” who was of course responsible for every misery in my life.

Fast forward to TARP and Obamacare and the NSA spying on our phones and email, to my disappointment in the entrenched political machine and the Same Old Parties…

And I found my natural libertarian soul…

Minimum Government––Maximum Freedom.

Personal responsibility with compassion.

Trust in the citizen, healthy skepticism of the government.

Belief in the wisdom and foresight of the Constitution.

Fiscal conservatism blended with classic liberalism.

Sounds good to me. How do we make it happen?

I knew I wouldn’t be helping much just bitching and moaning about the status quo. Through a long career in the 33

Jim Bouchard fighting arts I’ve learned that nobody wins a fight from ringside.

I wanted to be a part of it.

We’ve got to get to the issues so I’m going to keep this short–– As I said earlier I’d been thinking about running for public office for some time. I knew I would not run as a Republican and certainly not as a Democrat. Nothing against Republicans or Democrats as people––it’s their parties I have an issue with.

Having said that, I tested the idea of running as an independent for a state office. For reasons I don’t have time to get into I decided against that––both running as an independent and running for a state office.

I went to the Libertarian national website and found a link for anyone interested in running for office. I had clicked that link a couple of years earlier––but had gotten no response.

This time, I got two calls back from LP headquarters in less than 4 hours.

After talking with two enthusiastic and very helpful LP officials, we agreed the best thing to do was to attend the Maine Libertarian Convention which was scheduled for the next Sunday. I told them I’d make my final decision after that.

As soon as I arrived I felt as if I’d found a home. There wasn’t a big crowd, well––by Maine Libertarian standards they were very pleased, but I have to say I don’t know that I’ve ever been in a room of more engaged, intelligent, well informed and caring people.

I met Austin Petersen. I was sincerely impressed with his warmth. He welcomed me as if I’d been part of the team from the start and spent a generous amount of time talking 34

Crazy. Angry. Libertarian. issues with me.

I met Jorge Maderal, one of the stalwarts that has kept the LP alive in Maine for years and a visionary leader who will be a force for years to come.

As the Convention got under way, I wondered what the official protocol would be. I soon found out.

The Libertarian Party has not achieved official recognition in the State of Maine. I have a strong suspicion the major parties like it that way. They’ve certainly put enough road blocks along the way, not the least of which is the requirement that independent and third party candidates generally need twice as many signatures to petition for a place on the ballot.

Eventually the call came for nominations.

As part of the ongoing battle for recognition, the Party had a court date the very next day. The strategy was to nominate a slate of candidates “by convention,” and then to push to have those candidates placed on the ballot should they win.

I should tell you they didn’t expect to––win that is. The strategy included an appeal where they thought they’d have a better chance.

When the call came I said I would like to be considered to run for Congress––1st District.

Much to my surprise there was another candidate. It was Chris Lyons––another important fixture in the Party. Chris has been a loyal and dedicated Libertarian and had run for the Senate a couple of years earlier. Today he had been elected the new Chair of the state party.

We each gave a short stump speech. I have to tell you, it was exciting. I was energized by the response from the members.

35

Jim Bouchard But I also felt like I’d crashed the party––particularly when someone stood up and recommended that the convention nominate me for the congressional seat run, and that Chris focus on the very important job of State Chair––charged with growing the party and establishing official recognition.

Before the vote I went to the back of the room and formally met Chris for the first time. I said, “Chris, this is your family.

I’m the new guy. If you want to run for this seat I’ll be glad to step aside and I’ll do everything I can to help get you elected.”

In that moment I learned something about the class and character of the people I’d thrown in with––like Chris Lyons.

Chris explained that they hadn’t had a true run-off in a long time. “I’m excited! Let’s let the people vote and see what happens!”

A couple of minutes later I was the official nominee for Congress…

1st District, State of Maine…

Libertarian.

36

not one. Penny. more.

I’ve been through this process before––trying to create a “brand” that is.

I’ve been through knock-down, drag-out fights over titles and brands for books, workshops, keynotes and in my past life, bands. It’s a lot of work to come up with a word or phrase that represents what you’re putting out in the world and will stick in the minds of your target audience.

Let me quickly explain “Not One. Penny. More.” and how we got there.

In their book Wedged, Erik Fogg and Nathaniel Greene write:

“…the American political industry uses emotional marketing and political tactics to manipulate American citizens into feeling anger, fear and resentment.

These emotions increase our identity with and loyalty to both political parties and news outlets, and increase our engagement and support.”

The point of the book is that pols create or exploit key “wedge” issues––issues that divide so they can conquer.

37

Jim Bouchard Sad––but true. And we’re all too willing go along for the ride.

Fogg and Greene go on to describe what they call “The Wedge Paradox”:

“Although wedge issues get a lot of our attention and emotion, they’re not at the top of our minds when we are forced to choose our top priorities. For example, gay marriage/rights, abortion, and gun control each get between 0% and 1% of poll respondents saying they’re the most important issues facing the country.

“When we are forced to really evaluate them, it is government dysfunction, economic growth, healthcare, unemployment, terrorism and education that are our top priorities.”

If we’re going to have a “United” States again, we’ve got to focus on these top priorities––the issues most of us agree need the most attention, and the issues we should be able to solve together. In the few areas where we just can’t find common ground, let’s put those issues to the side. It’s a waste of time, money and goodwill to continue to fight over intractable positions.

Conventional wisdom tells us that when it comes to the most substantive issues, that the major parties usually agree in principle, but have radically different ideas about how to solve the problem. I’m finding quite the opposite.

The conflict usually isn’t over the solution. It’s over who gets credit.

The most obvious example is the battle over immigration reform. Cut through the crap and you’ll find that both major 38

Crazy. Angry. Libertarian. parties support some kind of worker visa. They both support some degree of amnesty for some people, especially children and workers who haven’t gotten into any legal trouble. They both agree that a healthy inflow of foreign nationals energizes our society and stimulates the economy.

Over the past 20 years or more, both parties have taken turns proposing nearly identical legislation to solve this problem––and both parties have stood in steadfast opposition when the rival party does the proposing.

It’s up to us as Libertarian to break the deadlock.

The only way we can accomplish this is to transcend this endless turf war and get to the heart of these major issues–– and at the heart of all them is…

MONEY. Like it or not, it takes money to solve problems. Contrary to what the major parties sell you, however, we have plenty of it!

Over the past three years the federal government has taken record revenues. Notice I used the word “taken,” not “produced.” The government does not produce revenue––you do. The government takes it.

I don’t have a problem with the government taking some revenue––provided we give our consent and provided they don’t flush it down the toilet.

There’s the rub.

Our government faces two enormous challenges when it comes to our money: They’re spending more than we produce and––they’re wasting too much of it.

39

Jim Bouchard Even worse than these challenges is their solution. As the government continued to spend, and as our production began to plateau––they just borrowed to cover the difference.

This is not a new problem, but since about 1980, the last time we posted a reasonable debt to GDP ratio, we’ve engaged in a constant rise in debt and borrowing. About 2008 the rocket left the pad and we’ve been in a nearly vertical climb ever since––with no real sign of leveling off.

At some point, the rocket runs out of fuel. That point is when the interest on our debt consumes our discretionary spending budget––and that point is coming fast. At some point in the not too distant future, we will spend more on interest than we do on everything else the government funds.

The sick, twisted irony in this whole mess is that you hold the note. That’s right. In the form of bonds, raided Social Security and Medicare funds and other government Ponzi schemes, the government is borrowing most of this money from you.

When it goes bust, you lose the money you paid in taxes.

You lose the money you’re supposed to get back from Social Security and Medicare and you lose even more as the dollar that was a dollar today is suddenly worth 25 cents tomorrow.

We should be able to see this impending doom like a storm building on the horizon, but the government employs two major strategies to break up the clouds.

The first is messing with interest rates. You keep hearing that money is available at record low rates. You’re told that’s a good thing––it means it’s cheaper to buy a house or a car.

That generally means you’ll buy more houses and cars, and that’s all good––right?

Congress thinks the same way. We can spend more––in 40

Crazy. Angry. Libertarian. fact we should spend more NOW––while money is cheap.

But what happens when the interest rates go up?

The appropriate government response would be, “OK, interest is up now we better stop spending! In fact––we better cut back!”

In what universe has this ever happened? Suffice it to say– –I’m skeptical.

And the government has one more booster for the fiscal rocket. They can print more money.

In a somewhat complex relationship between credit and the physical supply of currency, the U.S. Treasury and The Fed control how much money is circulation at any given time.

Here’s a quick explanation from Investopedia:

“The U.S. Treasury decides to print money in the United States as it owns and operates printing presses.

However, the Federal Reserve has control of the money supply through its power to create credit with interest rates and reserve requirements. Since credit is the largest component of the money supply by far, colloquially people talk about the Federal Reserve increasing the money supply as printing money.”

What’s important is that once in a while, they do it. Our money is no longer tied to a fixed commodity, the gold standard, but indexed in relation to other currencies. The process is pretty damn complicated but the effects are pretty damn simple…

The government prints more money––the value of the dollar drops––inflation goes up. Or in plain American English–– milk goes from $2.50 a gallon to $3.80.

41

Jim Bouchard The effect is exponential and the fluctuations that occur from these manipulations are devastating and impact the entire world. If you don’t remember odd/even gas rationing, ask some of us who do and we’ll talk about exactly what these effects are.

We can talk about education, welfare, foreign aid and social investments all we want––and we should. If we don’t have the money to cover what we spend, we’re just wasting our breath.

We just can’t kick this can down the road anymore. We can argue whether or not the federal government should be involved in social programming, and we will, but today–– right now, we’re fighting over scraps from the king’s table.

Your kid’s school budget isn’t being cut because there’s not enough revenue––it’s getting cut because we’ve maxed out the national credit cards and we’re still spending more.

And there’s one more elephant (or donkey) in the closet––I should say trillions of them. The budget of your pet project is getting slashed because of trillions––and I do mean trillions of dollars in waste, abuse, fraud and duplication.

We’ve got a lot to work on, a lot to fix and at some point we’re going to talk about cuts. If we have the courage and political will to challenge the powers that be and seriously address waste, abuse, fraud and duplication there’s no need to talk about cuts to useful or effective programs.

I will admit I’m a bit of a purist when it comes to federal involvement––we don’t need it. Not much of it anyway.

Your dollar goes a lot further the closer it stays to home. You know better how to manage your schools and regulate your natural resources than the central planners do. The scope of these issues and many more across a continental nation just 42

Crazy. Angry. Libertarian. make the job of effective and efficient central planning impossible in all but a few critical and well-defined areas.

Having said that, I also acknowledge that as passionately as I defend individual rights, freedom and liberty, we do live in a community––a large one. There are many people who feel that the federal government does have a place in social issues like assistance to the poor, disabled and elderly.

Once we turn down the heat on hyper-partisanship and once we stop the waste and abuse we can dig in to some of these other programs and see if we can help them operate more effectively and efficiently––and we can. Addressing the duplication of services will go a long way in this area.

For now––you don’t have to worry about me trying to slash your favorite social program. There’s enough to do before we get to those cuts and by the time we get there, cuts won’t be the issue. How best to serve will be the focus and I’m very confident that at that point, we’ll have a productive conversation about how a shift to state and local control will make them better.

We’ve got answers to all our problems and we can afford the solution––but only if we put on the brakes now…

No more spending.

No more debt.

No more taxes.

Not One. Penny. More.

43

no more sPendIng. Record revenues for going on three years––at the same time, our debt is breaking through the stratosphere.

How is this possible? How do we continue to break deficit and debt records as the federal government takes in more and more revenue?

Spending.

We spend more than we make. Everyone understands the consequences of that. We understand the consequences, but we’re not ready to accept them.

You could not run your home budget for long if you did it the way the federal government runs your federal budget.

You can’t print more money to cover your next shopping spree. You can’t just walk in the bank and demand more credit just because you want to buy more stuff.

But the federal government can––and it does.

And it wastes trillions. We’ll get to that in just a few minutes.

We can’t put all the blame on Congress or on many of the good people who go to Washington sincerely trying to make a difference. For some of the blame, we’ve got to look in our 45

Jim Bouchard bathroom mirrors.

A huge part of the reason our government spends too much is because we asked it to. We’ve treated our federal government like a benevolent Dad doling out privileges and allowance.

We’ve acted like children. We want our government to take care of us––and in recent years that means making our lives safe, secure and free from any pain or want.

As long as we continue to act like children, the government will continue to treat us as dependents. That’s what we’ve become––dependents.

Not 24 hours after I announced my candidacy, I had people hitting me up for what I would “bring back” to Maine if they sent me to Washington. Will I fight for every federal dollar Maine can get?

No. I won’t.

If that alone costs me the election, so be it. We can’t solve our problems by repeating the same behaviors that got us there. And––I have much more faith and trust in the people of Maine than that.

FEDERAL MONEY IS EXPENSIVE. You send a dollar to Washington. Then you pay people to move that money around, track it and account for it.

You pay to create bureaucracies that study how best to allocate that money and decide where it would be best spent–– and it’s not always were you think it would do the most good.

Then you pay people like me to go and fight to get some 46

Crazy. Angry. Libertarian. portion of your dollar back so you can put it to work here at home. If I go to Congress I then hire a staff––and you’re paying them too. That staff will then spend more money studying the issues and marketing our cause to other representatives, who are all doing the same thing by the way.

If we do business as usual, we’ll get some of our Maine money back to Maine––but that dollar might have cost us 50 cents.

How much more efficient would it have been to keep that dollar right here at home? How much money are we talking about when we apply this formula to programs that cost millions, billions or even trillions?

And there is a great disparity between states that receive more federal funding than they contribute––like Maine!

That’s right, give credit where credit is due. Our delegation has been very good over the past few years getting federal money to Maine. The problem is we take more than we give.

That’s not sustainable and without getting into the complexity of it, that’s usually more expensive in the long run too.

Dependence on federal funding puts us in a very vulnerable situation. We did this when we accepted emergency federal funding for healthcare. The sudden influx was intended to cover shortfalls caused by more stringent federal regulations. Instead, we used some of that money to pay overdue bills––that’s OK, those hospitals and healthcare providers deserved their money.

We used some of it to expand programs––which is all well and good until the federal money runs out. Then what do we do? It’s either stand on our own, cut the programs or back to the federal trough to beg for more.

Just like your household budget, the system runs best 47

Jim Bouchard when we keep our spending close to what we make and when we use our money efficiently instead of looking for get rich quick schemes.

We’ve repeated the same pattern in welfare, grants for public utilities––even cell phones.

We subsidize obsolete, failed and speculative business ventures.

We spend billions on foreign aid to nations who hate us and oppose us at every opportunity. Some even use our money to buy guns to kill our soldiers––even when we send those soldiers to protect them.

I promised to keep this simple so let’s stay focused.

Here’s a short list of the most obvious and egregious examples of how the government flushes your hard-earned down the toilet…

How about $6.1 million to send 9 male goats to Afghanistan? And reports are that the goats were either diseased, went missing or––were eaten.

From PopularMilitary.com––

“The now-defunct Task Force for Business and Stability Operations spent $638M on economic development in Afghanistan.”

“Spent” is a generous description.

“…according to inspector general, John Sopko. A yearlong investigation into Afghanistan reconstruction found that ‘widespread failure to apply lessons from Iraq’ was in part to blame for ‘upwards of $17 billion in waste.’”

48

Crazy. Angry. Libertarian.

But wait––there’s more!

“Task force members lived in private villas with security – which cost $150 Million. McKeon (principal deputy undersecretary of defense for policy Brian McKeon) told the committee that he thought those arrangements were necessary to show businesses they could ‘operate safely in Afghanistan.’ Senator Claire McCaskill (D-Mo), said the entire concept behind the villas ‘defied common sense.’ She said, ‘The need to spend millions on security just to keep employees safe couldn’t possibly entice businesses to set up shop….do you see the fallacy of the logic there?’”

I’m hoping Senator McCaskill is one of the good eggs trying to root out waste and abuse––but how do these appropriations get in there in the first place?

Many of these decisions are passed to the bureaucratic level with little or no oversight. They go without notice until something this idiotic pops up on CNN or 60 Minutes.

Another huge problem I’ll address in detail later is that billions of dollars of spending get tagged on to completely unrelated bills every year. Congress approves a piece of legislation without reading it only later to find out that they approved millions for such things as Afghan goat breeding.

How about a $43 million gas station?

“A good portion of the hearing was spent discussing the $43M controversial natural gas station which is barely being used and has few customers. The station was considered a bad idea from the start since 49

Jim Bouchard

the average Afghan would have to spend more than a year’s salary to convert their car to run on compressed gas. The Pentagon disputed the 43-million-dollar figure and says the real cost of the station was under $10 Million.”

Well, only $10 million for a gas station nobody can use.

That’s better. Right?

It’s not just overseas.

We spend billions on stuff we don’t need right here at home––and on stuff we don’t even want. At least on stuff the Pentagon doesn’t even want. Introducing the Abrams Tank.

Here’s a excerpt from a report by By Aaron Mehta and Lydia Mulvany, Center for Public Integrity:

“The Pentagon, facing smaller budgets and looking towards a new global strategy, has decided it wants to save as much as $3 billion by freezing refurbishment of the M1 from 2014 to 2017, so it can redesign the hulking, clanking vehicle from top to bottom.

“Its proposal would idle a large factory in Lima, Ohio, as well as halt work at dozens of subcontractors in Pennsylvania, Michigan and other states.

“Opposing the Pentagon’s plans is Abrams manufacturer General Dynamics, a nationwide employer that has pumped millions of dollars into congressional elections over the last decade. The tank’s supporters on Capitol Hill say they are desperate to save jobs in their districts and concerned about undermining America’s military capability.”

50

Crazy. Angry. Libertarian.

We’ll get to the pork issue later, but the point is political gamesmanship in this case has us spending $3 billion on tanks our military doesn’t want––and doesn’t need.

Ready for the punchline?

“It (The Army) already has more than 2,300 M1’s deployed with U.S. forces around the world and roughly 3,000 more sitting idle in long rows outdoors at a remote military base in California’s Sierra mountains.”

Let’s not just pick on the Pentagon––though if we could get rid of even half of this bullshit we wouldn’t be arguing over why our Navy Seals have to share rifles or why our returning veterans have to wait months or years to see a doctor.

I like to consult the Heritage Foundation’s Top 10 list for government waste and abuse. Here’s a gem:

“…unreconciled transactions are funds for which auditors cannot account: The government knows that $25 billion was spent by someone, somewhere, on something, but auditors do not know who spent it, where it was spent, or on what it was spent.”

Now what do you suppose the government’s reaction would be if you tried to deduct a hundred bucks worth of “unreconciled transactions” on your 1040?

But hell, $25 billion is a rounding error in the federal budget, right? The Heritage report adds that “The unreconciled $25 billion could have funded the entire Department of Justice for an entire year.”

No worries though…

51

Jim Bouchard

“Blaming these unreconciled transactions on the failure of federal agencies to report their expenditures adequately, the Treasury report concludes that locating the money is ‘a priority.’” (Emphasis added.)

One would hope so. How about $100 million for empty airline seats?

“A recent audit revealed that between 1997 and 2003, the Defense Department purchased and then left unused approximately 270,000 commercial airline tickets at a total cost of $100 million. Even worse, the Pentagon never bothered to get a refund for these fully refundable tickets.”

At least they spread that one out over a few years.

Sometimes the government does try to streamline things and operate a little more efficiently. Instead of piles of paperwork to reimburse employees for expenses, why not just give them some USA credit cards? Here’s why:

“A recent audit revealed that employees of the Department of Agriculture (USDA) diverted millions of dollars to personal purchases through their government-issued credit cards. Sampling 300 employees’ purchases over six months, investigators estimated that 15 percent abused their government credit cards at a cost of $5.8 million. Taxpayer-funded purchases included Ozzy Osbourne concert tickets, tattoos, lingerie, bartender school tuition, car payments, and cash advances.”

The military got in on this one too charging “$73,950 for 52

Crazy. Angry. Libertarian. exotic dance clubs and prostitutes.”

Go Navy!

Government managed healthcare is supposed to lower costs, right?

“Medicare pays as much as eight times what other federal agencies pay for the same drugs and medical supplies.[6] The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recently compared the prices paid

by Medicare and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care program for 16 types of medical equipment and supplies, which account for one-quarter of Medicare’s equipment and supplies purchases.

The evidence showed that Medicare paid an average of more than double what the VA paid for the same items. The largest difference was for saline solution, with Medicare paying $8.26 per liter compared to the $1.02 paid by the VA.” I’m getting depressed. I have to admit that I get sick to my stomach researching this stuff––and this is just the short list.

The rest of the Heritage Center’s Top 10 includes:

• Funding for college students who don’t exist.

• Manipulating data to boost budgets.

• States monkeying with Medicaid funding formulas.

• Billions in over payments in the Earned Income Tax Credit program.

53

Jim Bouchard

• Well over 500 examples of gross duplication of federal agencies and bureaus––that is agencies serving exactly the same purpose and competing for the same dollars.

I’ve been challenged because I’ve said I’m not focused on cuts––yet.

Why introduce any more conflict? Why force people to defend programs they may feel are important and necessary?

Programs that seriously affect lives?

We haven’t talked about corporate welfare and cronyism.

And oh yes––there’s plenty to talk about there. We’ve got enough to do just cleaning up this steaming pile of crap.

Let’s start there.

But how?

As I said, there’s plenty of money. The problem is what the government is doing with it––and what we’re expecting them to do with it.

We’ve got to stop acting like children begging for our own money back. It’s your money. Send people to Washington who are not beholden to major parties who are using your tax dollars to purchase your votes. Send people who have nothing to lose fighting these battles openly and fiercely.

First––no more spending.

Then we cut up the credit cards…

54

no more debt.

The contrarians argue that radical “anti-debt crusaders,” like me, just have it wrong. According to pundits like Ian Tarr from Brown Political Review, we’re just “touting a solution in search of a problem.”

Mr. Tarr’s academic credentials are impressive. He’s identified as a “student at Brown University where he’s listed as a “Teaching Assistant for Introduction to Computational Neuroscience.” I’m not quite sure how that qualifies him as an expert on global economics, but no doubt he’s smart.

His LinkedIn profile does show a 4 month stint as a “Data Desk Intern, Research Division, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.”

Oh––I see now.

Look––I dropped out of college––twice. But I’ve been in business for myself for over 30 years. I now work with and network with some of the top business people in the country.

I can share these simple facts learned from experience: If you borrow––someday––you’ve got to pay.

55

Jim Bouchard If you don’t pay––somebody else does.

When you borrow faster than your revenue grows––you go bust.

Been there. Done that. Won’t do it again and won’t let my country do it––if I have the opportunity to do something about it.

As of the end of 2015, our outstanding debt is 104% of our Gross Domestic Product––and rising. Yes, that means we’re borrowing more than we earn. We did that once before when we joined with the world in stopping Hitler and Tojo, but we’re not fighting a World War right now.

The current trajectory started around 2010 when we borrowed a manageable 40% of GDP. According to TradingEconomics.com using statistics from the U.S. Bureau of Public Debt (I didn’t know there was such a thing either), we’ve been borrowing more than we produce since 2012––and we’re not even slowing down.

At least one of the major party presidential candidates has a plan. The Donald says he’ll renegotiate our debt––he’ll get our lenders to settle for pennies on the dollar.

He’s done it before, successfully! From CNN.com:

“I have used the laws of this country ... the [bankruptcy] chapter laws, to do a great job for my company, for myself, for my employees, for my family…”

He is a master of buying companies on the brink and using bankruptcy to hit the reset button. It’s legal. It’s not unusual.

But is that what you want for America? Bankruptcy?

56

Crazy. Angry. Libertarian.

Like a lot of small business operators, I’ve had my share of challenges. I understand how tough business is and that sometimes good businesses get in trouble––even fail. I also understand from experience how devastating it is when business struggles impact your ability to borrow––and how tough it is to repair the damage.

The U.S. dollar is still the world’s standard currency. Anything that affects the “full faith and credit” of the United States affects the entire world.

We operate in a highly inter-dependent global economy.

What we do impacts the world––and what happens in the world impacts us. Those of us in the middle and the bottom always pay for the damage.

There are plenty of experts telling us there is no “debt bubble.” In ’06 and ’07 these same guys were telling us there was no housing bubble.

Before the 2008 meltdown, there were some really smart people who saw it coming. They bet on the collapse of the mortgage market. They were right and they got rich. Ironically, all the while some of people who stood to profit from the collapse warned the government that it was coming––the government didn’t listen.

So now there’s no debt bubble. Nothing to worry about.

Move along––nothing to see here.

I’ve been learning from some very smart economic advisers. I asked them why the government pundits are hiding the truth from us.

They tell me it’s because of “reset.” That’s right, just as The Donald pushes the reset button on businesses through bankruptcy, many of the geniuses in charge of our economy are counting on an economic reset when the proverbial poop 57

Jim Bouchard finally hits the fan.

The problem is this reset will have devastating global implications, and it will affect, once again, the middle and lower economic classes the most.

They’re running up the bill. We’ll end up paying for the wreckage.

WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO THE ACADEMICS, THE PUNDITS AND THE FINANCIAL GENIUSES––THEY’RE JUST WRONG. Too many of these guys have never run a real business that actually makes something. Too many of them have made their fortunes by inventing high-risk financial “products.”

That means they’re clever enough to invent ways to make money out of money. They’ve created complicated systems of high-stakes financial poker and because the government has decided that some of these companies are “too big too fail,” they’re playing with house money–– Your money.

Both the Republicans and the Democrats have failed.

They’ve done NOTHING to stop or even slow government borrowing and spending. They pound their chest when they create more regulations that serve as nothing but speed bumps to criminals and gamblers who outthink them and out maneuver them at every mile.

We’re not going to get the job done as long as Congress 58

Crazy. Angry. Libertarian. and the President can whip out your credit card and charge another pet program, war or crony backed corporate welfare scheme to your account.

They call hearings, conduct investigations––all of which costs more money by the way––and then wag their fingers in the air and cry out, “Something must be done!”

Ya––and the first thing that must be done is to take away the federal credit card!

As long as the account remains open––they don’t need to stop spending and borrowing.

Election after election we send representatives to Washington who promise to stop piling on the national debt. Let’s see how they’ve done–– The debt in 2000 was about $5.6 trillion––pretty bad, but still just about 50% of GDP. Ten years later the debt had ballooned to over $13.5 trillion approaching 80% of GDP. And as we already mentioned, we’re now at 104% of GDP and rising!

You see the problem? The debt keeps growing, but our production is flat––and comparing debt to GDP is generous.

Statistica.com explains:

“Gross domestic product (GDP) refers to the market value of all final goods and services produced within a country in a given period. The Real GDP is adjusted for price changes, as inflation or deflation and is chained to the U.S. dollar value of 2009.”

The “Real” GDP has been dead flat for the past 5 years. At the same time, the debt has soared to over $19 trillion and has exceeded the regular GDP––over 100%.

59

Jim Bouchard And even that isn’t the worst of it!

Notice how the government picks the ratio that provides the least damaging indication of their reckless borrow and spend policies.

Fortunately, the government does not yet confiscate all the productive output of American labor and enterprise. Unfortunately, this makes the federal debt even more dangerous.

Writing on Forbes.com, University of Georgia economics professor Jeffery Dorfman neatly explains the problem:

“The government does not have access to all the national income, only the share it collects in taxes. Looked at properly, the debt problem is much worse.”

How should we look at it if we really want to understand the scope of the problem? Dorfman offers a pretty good method all of us can understand:

“Some people hate the notion of comparing a country’s financial situation to a family, but I think it is useful in many cases with this being one of them. For a family, debt that exceeds three times your annual earnings is starting to become quite worrisome. To picture this, just take your home mortgage plus any auto, student loan, or credit card debt, then divide by how much you earn.

“If the answer is two or less, you are in great shape. If you are between two and three, you are pretty normal. Over three and you probably are feeling some financial stress with debt payments absorbing much of your paycheck.”

60

Crazy. Angry. Libertarian.

So how bad is it really? Dorfman adds that using this measure the U.S. is at “a debt to income measure of 408 percent.

If the U.S. were a family, it would be deep into the financial danger zone.”

And he’s not counting the obligation to Social Security–– though he is factoring in the revenues already collected that are supposedly in a “locked box” to protect your earned benefits.

Professor Dorfman ends his article with some sobering advice––

“Somebody needs to drag the President and Congress to a credit counselor quick to begin repairs on the government finances. Otherwise, one day sooner than we think, the creditors will be knocking on the door.”

That’s why I’m running.

We can argue all day about whose fault this is––about which of the major parties brought us to the brink of bankruptcy. Had Hillary Clinton issued this famous statement on the debt issue, it would have been far less tone deaf and much more appropriate: “At this point––what difference does it make?”

BOTH PARTIES ARE COMPLICIT. SO ARE WE. We’ve willfully become increasingly dependent on the federal government. We haven’t wanted to get involved. We haven’t wanted to really dig in to what’s been going on inside 61

Jim Bouchard the Beltway–– We had people for that!

The problem is the people we had for that job were the same people who created this catastrophe.

We kept demanding more and more from the federal government singing “something must be done” all the while ignoring the fact that it takes money to get these things done–– whatever those might be.

Putting aside the unimaginable levels of waste, fraud, abuse and duplication I covered in the last chapter, we are still spending over our heads for the things we really want or think we need.

Why are we so blind to this clear and present danger?

Well––because while present, for many people is isn’t real clear.

Do you remember how much your dinner cost the last time a friend picked up the tab?

Do you know how much your company paid for your last business trip?

Have you ever been shocked when you checked your credit card statement because you just didn’t remember spending that much on that weekend getaway?

Do you really know how much your government takes out of your paycheck every week––or do you just know the “take-home,” what’s left over?

Do you have any idea how many taxes are part of your phone bill, your health insurance premium or the price you paid for your last gallon of gas?

If you’re like most of us––probably not! You’ve got bigger things to worry about––today!

62

Crazy. Angry. Libertarian.

The more we’re removed from the pain of purchase, the less we know or are concerned about the true cost in the moment. It’s only when the bill comes due that we appreciate the full effect of our ignorance. And the bill is coming due.

Quickly.

WHEN IT COMES TO GOVERNMENT SPENDING, YOUR DOLLAR HAS A LOT MORE CLOUT CLOSE TO HOME. The plain fact is that it’s expensive to run money through Washington.

How expensive? That’s got to be one of the most closely guarded secrets in the country.

When I started doing this research, I thought one of the easiest figures to find would be how much it costs to send a dollar to D.C., then bring it back to your home state. How tough could it be to find some solid figure on the average administrative costs to run the federal government?

A lot tougher than I thought.

Fortunately, the cost of administration on some individual programs is readily available. Let’s look at one of the most controversial––Obamacare.

HealthAffairs.org looked into it. They found…

“The $273.6 billion in added insurance overhead under the ACA averages out to $1,375 per newly insured person per year, or 22.5 percent of the total federal government expenditures for the program.”

That may be a little high compared to other programs, but 63

Jim Bouchard I doubt it. I’m making an educated guess that this about average––which is why proponents of the ACA don’t see this as a real problem.

It is.

Those same watchdogs get pretty cranked up when health insurance companies report anywhere in the neighborhood of 4% profits or returns on equity near 25%.

The fact is it costs money to move money. The closer you keep it to home the lower these costs. Remember also that we’re just talking about the cost to the federal government to make sure you’re complying with their mandate to buy health insurance––and to make sure as many people as possible get into this pool. We’re not counting your health insurance bill––ya––you’ve still got to pay that.

But the ACA was supposed to lower health insurance premiums, right?

Have you gotten your notice yet? I have. My rates this year are going up another 18%. That’s on top of some 30% a year ago and about 40% the minute the ACA passed.

Let’s recap: The federal government creates a program for our own benefit that is intended to lower health insurance costs and make insurance more affordable for more people. But––in order to make insurance more affordable the government then has to subsidize a large percentage of the newly insured, plus a significant portion of the previously insured who, due to premium increases and plans made obsolete by their new policy are now priced out of the market. All the while nearly a quarter of the operating funds of said program go to 64

Crazy. Angry. Libertarian. administrative costs alone and we’re not even going to talk about the complete boondoggle that was the ACA website and enrollment process.

Was that hard to follow?

Not as hard as following a dollar as it leaves your hand and travels to Washington before you send your friendly representative to go and beg for some portion of it back again.

This is just one program. This process repeats itself again and again.

Sure, you feel great when your congressional delegation stands in front of your local TV cameras and announces a $5 million dollar federal grant to help your state build a new science building on your university campus.

How much did that $5 million cost you? How much would you have if you hadn’t laundered that money through the D.C. machine?

AND I LEFT THE BEST FOR LAST. Remember that we’re still operating at a deficit. We’re still borrowing. Every dollar we spend now comes with an added expense––interest––and we have no idea what that’s going to be.

The Fed has been keeping interest rates artificially low for the past several years. Supposedly that was to help ease us through the recession. The short version is that when these interest rates go up again, we’re on the hook for trillions of dollars in interest alone on any number of programs we’ve already obligated ourselves to over the past several years and didn’t have money to pay for.

65

Jim Bouchard Hard to follow again? Means we’re broke.

It’s just that daddy government hasn’t handed us the full bill yet. It’s just like a bookie upping the “vig” when he sees you sliding behind and still placing bets.

Democrat, Republican––what’s the difference? The first thing Paul Ryan did when he took over as the Speaker of the House was to push through another bloated deficit laden budget.

Just once more, right?

I didn’t want to be accused of “cherry picking” facts, so I’ll share the full smash from your very own Treasury.com website:

“The debt limit is the total amount of money that the United States government is authorized to borrow to meet its existing legal obligations, including Social Security and Medicare benefits, military salaries, interest on the national debt, tax refunds, and other payments.

The debt limit does not authorize new spending commitments. It simply allows the government to finance existing legal obligations that Congresses and presidents of both parties have made in the past.”

Pardon the brief interruption––but notice how neatly they adjusted reality to try and convince you that the debt is not a product of over-spending. You see, it’s not that raising the debt allows the government to spend more––now. It’s that the debt limit must be raised to cover past obligations––the over-spending they already authorized.

Of course, now that the obligations are covered, they’re free to spend again. After all––they can just raise the debt limit again. Let’s continue…

66

Crazy. Angry. Libertarian.

“Failing to increase the debt limit would have catastrophic economic consequences. It would cause the government to default on its legal obligations – an unprecedented event in American history. That would precipitate another financial crisis and threaten the jobs and savings of everyday Americans – putting the United States right back in a deep economic hole, just as the country is recovering from the recent recession.”

Sorry––couldn’t let that pass. Means if we don’t borrow more to cover our past reckless spending, it will threaten our ability to spend even more money we don’t have. Just saying.

“Congress has always acted when called upon to raise the debt limit. Since 1960, Congress has acted 78 separate times to permanently raise, temporarily extend, or revise the definition of the debt limit – 49 times under Republican presidents and 29 times under Democratic presidents. In the coming weeks, Congress must act to increase the debt limit. Congressional leaders in both parties have recognized that this is necessary. Recently, however, a number of myths about this issue have begun to surface.”

Ya––like how about the myth that we can keep this Ponzi scheme going?

Note the clever political jab––the Republicans raised the debt limit 49 times, the Democrats just 29. Well bully for them!

The point is that every time the government runs out of money it just borrows more. As you’ve seen, they often 67

Jim Bouchard justify this spending as being within a comfortable margin of GDP––problem being they’ve blown past that marker and as we’ve also seen, it’s not the most reliable indicator of our level of real debt.

No worries! Even if we assume that borrowing in relation to tax revenue is a more accurate measure of our federal credit worthiness––we can simply increase our revenue by force. That’s what happens when the government spends too much and answers by raising taxes–– The solution now being offered by both major parties. One directly––the Democrats are talking about raising the income tax and one indirectly––the Republicans prefer tariffs and duties.

Either way––you pay.

The problem is obvious and the solution is clear. Do we have the courage to face this problem and the will to do what’s necessary?

Judging by past performance, neither major party has this courage or will. The Libertarian Party does––and so do I.

No more spending.

No more debt.

Not One. Penny. More.

Now let’s talk about taxes!

68

no more taxes.

One of the craziest things you’ll hear from Libertarians is the proposition to eliminate the income tax. Now that is pretty crazy, right?

Or is it?

The Libertarian Party entertains a fairly wide range of ideas on this subject. We’re all in agreement that taxation as it stands today is theft and that you really shouldn’t be paying as much for all the shenanigans funded through Washington.

I’ve already made the case that your money is worth more when you keep it closer to home. And that supports one of the fundamental principles of freedom. As Jefferson said:

“the government closest to the people serves the people Best.”

You have little influence over the massive federal bureaucracy. You can, however, directly influence your town hall, 69

Jim Bouchard your county seat and your state legislature.

I’ll just put it this way––you are the best judge of how your money is most wisely spent. You know your local needs and your community goals. However well-intended, central planners can do nothing but impose a standard that might benefit some, but often does great harm to others.

The famed economist Milton Friedman, writing on the importance of limiting central government to assure both economic and political freedom said this:

“…government power must be dispersed. If government is to exercise power, better in the county than in the state. Better in the state than in Washington.”

The further removed you are from your tax dollar, the more opportunity for abuse, misuse and corruption.

But we do need to fund the federal government, don’t we?

And we do need some form of mandatory taxation to accomplish this, right?

On one end of the libertarian spectrum you find the “anarchists.” After listening to presidential candidate Darryl Perry at our state convention, I have to say he makes a pretty good case for eliminating all forms of compulsory taxation––at least on the federal level. I won’t bore you with the details for one reason and one reason only. I have to be honest and say that I just don’t trust people do to the right thing on the level that Perry does!

In a perfect world, people would step up and fund those things we all agree are necessary or more efficiently done together––through the organization of government. We don’t live in a perfect world and as far as people go, I learned long ago that perfection is not destination, but a never-ending process.

70

Crazy. Angry. Libertarian.

Having said that, I firmly believe that any tax on production is impractical, unethical––maybe even immoral.

Taxing production has driven business out of the country.

It’s one of the biggest causes of off-shoring American jobs.

Taxing production has turned every citizen of the United States into a presumed criminal. If you think I’m exaggerating, just take a cursory look at the incredible power we’ve vested in the IRS. What happens when the IRS suspects that you committed fraud on your tax return? Hell, they don’t even need to suspect fraud––they could just think you made an honest mistake. They can freeze your assets, seize your bank accounts and drag you through an excruciating audit process––without a shred of hard evidence that you’ve done anything wrong.

Have you ever fudged an expense on your tax return?

Padded up your business miles? Put in for a few marginally justified business lunches? Written off a little more than is probably kosher on a business trip/vacation?

Please don’t answer those questions! The important point, anyway, isn’t whether or not you did these things, but why?

You may feel justified in that the government is robbing you every day, you’re just getting back a little for you and yours. You may think that it’s your labor and your money and that it just makes sense to try and keep as much as you can in your own pocket.

I’d say you’re right on all points. It’s natural to want to keep the fruits of your labor.

Let me be clear––I’m not advocating that you break the law! I’m saying the law is broken and it’s time to fix it.

When the government taxes production, it is directly 71

Jim Bouchard confiscating your labor, your time and part of your life. We can argue over how much consent we give in this exchange–– but again, you’ve got little say in regard to federal tax policy at any given time. The fact is that we elect people and worse, they appoint other people to make up those rules and by and large we’re stuck with them.

If you don’t pay, the government is ready, willing and able to take it by force.

The worst effect of this system is the obscene amount of power production side taxation gives people in authority.

They know full well how badly you want to keep your money. In business, lobbying has become a multi-billion dollar industry as people organized as corporations trade favors with elected officials and bureaucrats in a never-ending battle to keep more of the product of their labor and industry.

TAXING IS POWER. What if we take away the biggest leverage your elected officials have? What if they couldn’t trade tax breaks, credits, deferments and subsidies?

Without this power, I’d venture a guess that they could focus much more time and energy on the business of the people instead of trying to control the people’s business.

The middle ground as far as federal taxation goes falls in two major directions––either the Flat Tax or the Fair Tax. I suppose the Flat Tax would be better than what we have now––but I still don’t like it. It still doesn’t give the power back to the people.

The Fair Tax––a complete shift to a consumption based 72

Crazy. Angry. Libertarian. taxation, allows you to choose how much tax you pay by choosing what you buy.

Before I concede to that system completely, I want to touch on a semi-radical proposition: eliminating the personal income tax.

Eradicating just the most obvious examples of waste, fraud, abuse and duplication––yup, that song again, would all but make the personal income tax obsolete. The plain fact is that if the government would clean up its act, they’ve got enough money to handle all the essential functions plus most of the stuff we can argue about.

Don’t get me wrong! I’m all for cutting!

I don’t believe a federal Department of Education is necessary, useful or effective. Although much smaller in scale, I could never understand why the federal government is involved in endorsing, supporting or in any way showing preference to anything related to the arts. Unless the feds have uncovered some national conspiracy among the states to destroy our environment, the EPA can go away. We’ll do just fine protecting the land we live on and the water we drink on a state level––it’s in our best interest to do so.

We could go on and on, but we don’t need to. We can save those battles for another day.

LIFE WITHOUT INCOME TAX. As I’ve been saying all along––the ticking time bomb is spending and debt. Unless we get that under control, we’re wasting our time arguing over the scraps. I’d like to see substantial cuts––but we don’t need them yet…

73

Jim Bouchard Except where we all agree the government should be cut–– and that we can accomplish by seriously digging in and ending the (cue the music), waste, fraud, abuse and duplication.

Even if we can eliminate most of the garbage, we may be a little short of our goal. Next––let’s look at the trillions of dollars we spend on endless wars, especially those propping up foreign dictators who later turn on us.

Let’s look at our senseless cycle of “bomb and build.” We knock out the infrastructure of a country to root out our enemies, then we send billions of dollars to rebuild what we wrecked. What if we just didn’t wreck it in the first place?

Then let’s take a good look at how much we spend basing our military overseas to protect allies and others who are fully capable of defending their own people and borders. Now I’m not talking about legitimate strategic deployments––it does make sense to station troops in support of joint missions and to have defensive positions overseas, but there is plenty of room to cut.

I’m not even going after the payroll tax––yet. That’s the tax on your labor you never see. That’s the additional cost of labor born by your employer to cover your earned benefits–– Social Security and Medicare.

Note that I did not use the word “entitlement.” That word has been co-opted and corrupted to describe any number of unearned benefits doled out to those in need––and too many without legitimate need who have learned how to benefit from your generosity.

I’m not attacking the payroll tax––yet, because you deserve the benefits you’ve been promised and that your labor has paid for. These are not gifts or “entitlements,” it’s your money––and the government has been a piss poor steward of it.

74

Crazy. Angry. Libertarian.

Some of us will get back some of what we paid in––many of us might not ever see a dime…

Especially if America goes bankrupt.

The mythical “average” American pays $3,500 a year in personal income tax. Of course some pay a lot more and nearly half don’t pay income tax right now anyway.

What would you do if you didn’t have to pay any federal income tax? Where would that money go?

You’d no doubt spend a lot of it!

It would go right into your local economy where it would build businesses and create jobs.

You’d contribute to charity.

You’d pay your kids’ tuition––maybe even without having to beg for federal grants or without taking out back breaking loans.

You’d help family members and neighbors avoid the terrible fall into the safety net.

You’d do whatever the hell you wanted to do with it––and that’s supposed to be what it’s all about.

Now don’t feel bad for the poor federal government.

They’d still have plenty of money to do all we require of them and unfortunately, still a lot more than that!

The folks in control of the government want you to think these solutions are a lot more complicated than they are.

The solutions are not complicated. They’re simple––not easy.

What’s complicated is the current system of fighting for control of your money, your country and your life. The power of the status quo resides in this complexity. The harder it is to understand, the harder it is to break this control.

75

Jim Bouchard As I said: Simple––not easy.

While simple, these solutions require courage. It’s never easy to challenge the status quo. There is some uncertainty involved––change always comes with uncertainty.

Certainty, however, comes with a price. We can be certain that if we keep going the way we are now, we will destroy our economy. As the economy goes––so does our freedom.

No more spending.

No more borrowing.

No more taxes.

Are we brave enough?

76

no more war?

Wouldn’t that be nice?

I want to discuss two major aspects to the issue of war.

First, how and when we use military force and second, how we treat the people who give the full measure in our defense.

Let’s clear up the misconception of the passive Libertarian…

Libertarians are not against the military––at least none of the Libertarians I know. I am certainly not. Neither am I against war. War is sometimes––regrettably, necessary.

I am against fighting without a just cause. I’m against war as tool for profiteering, conquest or ideological expansion.

The confusion stems from the Libertarian Pledge. As far as I’ve found, this is the only requirement for joining the Libertarian Party––that you must sign this simple yet powerful pledge:

“i hereBy certify thAt i do not Believe in or AdvocAte the initiAtion of force As A meAns of Achieving politicAl or sociAl goAls.” 77

Jim Bouchard Libertarians generally believe in a strong national defense.

We also believe in empowering a civilian police force to justly enforce our laws.

What we do not believe in is using force––military or civilian––to coerce others, especially when that force is used simply to advance political or ideological ends and particularly when that force is used without the consent of the American people.

That means Congress declares war––not the President.

That means we don’t go to war to impose democracy–– however prudent that might seem.

That means we don’t send SWAT teams to raid dairy farms.

That also means we don’t use the IRS to punish or harass political opponents––but we’ll save that for another day.

LET’S STICK WITH THE MILITARY… We need a strong defense. In fact, your tax dollars would be much better spent if that were the sole and primary purpose of the military. We’ve drifted quite a bit from that purpose.

About 15% of our military budget is dedicated to overseas operations. Some of that is necessary. It’s naive to think that a strong defense at home can exclude a strategic presence in other parts of the world.

Certainly some of that money can be better spent elsewhere. The bigger problem isn’t in the military budget at all.

It’s the money we commit to military operations through our foreign aid budget.

In gross terms, it might not seem like all that much.

Defenders of foreign military assistance like to say that it’s 78

Crazy. Angry. Libertarian. less than 1% of our federal budget or that it’s “only” $14 billion or so dollars. Again I ask in what universe the word “only” and “billions” of anything belong in the same sentence? Only in the universe of government!

There is also a great deal of aid and subsidized business operations that indirectly fund foreign military operations.

It’s hard to determine exactly how much, but we continually fund covert military activities and divert our resources to complex trade arrangements that end up in arms sales and trafficking––much of it illegal. It certainly would be classified illegal if you or I tried to do it.

BUT THE REAL PROBLEM IS NOT THE MONEY. IT’S THE PURPOSE. If you doubt the existence or scope of these operations, read Charlie Wilson’s War by George Crile. If you want the condensed version, watch the movie––but that doesn’t do the full operation justice.

You’ll see how a member of Congress was able to secretly divert hundreds of millions of dollars to arm and train a half-million Afghan fighters. They were trained in tactics that we have openly condemned as terroristic when used against us.

To what end?

Without the knowledge and consent of the American people, this operation was part of our ongoing proxy war against Russia. This war continued long after the collapse of the Soviet Union. In addition to this direct covert support, these fighters were given unrestricted access to abandoned 79

Jim Bouchard military hardware and munitions from our war in Iraq.

And ultimately many of these weapons were used against American troops as these Mujahideen “freedom fighters” morphed into elements of the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

Believe me I’m not advocating conflict, but if we’ve got a beef with the Russians––we should fight the Russians.

And if we’re going to fight the Russians, the American people should have a say in it through our representatives in Congress. That should be an open process––not a secret operation conducted by lone wolves far exceeding their Constitutional authority and covert governmental agencies operating in the dark.

Congress is empowered to declare war. A rogue congressman acting in secret is not…

And neither is the President.

After continual abuses of presidential authority including the secret bombing of Cambodia, Congress responded with what we know as the War Powers Act––an attempt to keep the President from conducting undeclared warfare. Here’s a helpful summary from Wikipedia:

“The War Powers Resolution requires the President notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without a Congressional authorization for use of military force or a declaration of war by the United States…

“It has been alleged that the War Powers Resolution has been violated in the past – for example, by President 80

Crazy. Angry. Libertarian.

Bill Clinton in 1999, during the bombing campaign in Kosovo.”

You think, maybe?

“Congress has disapproved all such incidents, but none has resulted in any successful legal actions being taken against the president for alleged violations.”

And there’s the rub.

Congress has continually abdicated its responsibility in declaring and conducting war. This responsibility is clearly enumerated in the Constitution.

It is generally acknowledged that the President has authority as Commander In Chief to deploy forces to repel an attack or respond to an imminent threat. But in this day and age, how long should it take before Congress convenes and does its job to express the will of the people to go to war–– Or not?

It certainly seems the 90 day window is more than adequate. I’d rather see this reduced to 45––15 days to conduct the operation in case of emergency and 30 to get out––completely––once the job is done. If we’ve got to stay longer than that, Congress better do its job.

OUR VETERANS… When we do send our men and women to war, it is our obligation to provide for their needs when they return. I won’t 81

Jim Bouchard belabor this point––the treatment of our veterans over the past several decades is nothing short of disgusting.

I witnessed this problem personally through the experiences of my best friend. Don was a Vietnam Veteran who served in combat during the heaviest use of Agent Orange.

As he approached his 60s, he was diagnosed with prostate cancer. After a long battle with the VA, his illness was officially attributed to his Agent Orange exposure. It should not have taken as long as it did.

Don’s VA benefits did give him access to treatment––and he got the best treatment possible at Dana-Farber in Boston.

Sadly, the disease eventually won and we lost a dear friend and one of the most remarkable people I’ve ever known.

Would his life have been extended had the VA acknowledged the situation earlier? I don’t believe so.

He had access to private care through his career in education, but he and other Veterans exposed to Agent Orange should not have had to fight so hard and so long for their due or for the government to accept responsibility.

These men and women accepted their responsibility when they were drafted. We simply ignored our responsibility to them for too long.

The government still denies Naval personnel from these benefits.

The VA contends that “Blue Water” sailors were not exposed to sufficient concentrations to cause harm, yet many Navy Vets are suffering from exactly the same cancers and other illnesses experienced by ground troops.

The Vets say their exposure was largely caused by the distillation of water while in port in sprayed areas. According to Propublica.org: 82

Crazy. Angry. Libertarian.

“They say that they were exposed to Agent Orange because their ships sucked in potentially contaminated water and distilled it for showering, drinking, laundry and cooking. Experts have said the distillation process could have actually concentrated the Agent Orange…”

The VA is standing fast despite a court ruling that acknowledged that many of these ships were docked or anchored in sprayed areas and that many of our Blue Water sailors may be entitled to benefits.

This is a perfect example of an issue that transcends partisanship on every level. I would gladly join with Senator Blumenthal of Connecticut in his efforts on behalf of these veterans.

U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., the ranking member of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee, criticized the VA’s decision.

“‘Rather than siding with veterans, VA is doubling down on an irrational and inconsistent policy,’ he said in a statement. ‘Young sailors risked their lives during the Vietnam War, unaware that decades later, they and their children and grandchildren would still feel the toxic effects of exposure. Veterans who served offshore and in the harbors of Vietnam were exposed and deserve the presumption of service connection for Agent Orange-related diseases.’”

And the situation isn’t any better for Veterans returning from today’s conflicts.

Responding to unconscionably long wait times at VA 83

Jim Bouchard facilities which have undeniably caused immense suffering and even loss of life, Secretary of Veterans Affairs Robert McDonald issued this obtuse, callous and now infamous statement:

“When you got to Disney, do they measure the number of hours you wait in line? Or what’s important?

What’s important is, what’s your satisfaction with the experience? And what I would like to move to, eventually, is that kind of measure.”

According to Independent Journal Review, Disney does actually pay a great deal of attention to how long people wait in their lines…

“We take wait times very seriously. We continually push the boundaries to give our guests the best experience possible. A large team of highly trained industrial engineers are tasked with improving our guest’s experiences, from transportation, to guest flow, to ride comfort and certainly wait times.”

And I don’t think there are any documented cases of people dying waiting to board Space Mountain.

It’s clear that McDonald’s greatest concern is protecting the people employed by the VA rather than the Veterans they serve. Considering the current political stalemate and the difficult climate in which the VA operates, I can understand his position. Doesn’t make it right.

What’s important is that we fix it. If we put Americans in the fight––any fight––it’s our obligation to take care of them when they come home. This is not charity. We owe them.

There are proposals in Congress to shift Veteran’s care, in 84

Crazy. Angry. Libertarian. whole or in part to the private sector. Some favor subsidies or vouchers that give Veterans access to private health insurance and care so they can make their own decisions. Other proposals talk about creating another bureaucracy to effectively separate the provider and bill paying functions of the VA into two distinct entities.

I’m not for anything that complicates the situation.

However well-intended, expanding the bureaucracy would just result in more hoops to jump through. And if past performance is any indication of what we can expect in the future, Veterans would be faced with having to navigate two competing entities that would often be working at crossed purposes.

Why not simply begin the process of dismantling the brick and mortar operations of the VA? Why not shift the care of our Veterans to existing private and public health care facilities who are, by most accounts, doing a better job?

This isn’t a dig on the VA. The VA was founded with noble intentions and for a long time performed admirably. The problem is just too big for the federal government to handle.

Combined with a voucher/subsidy program allowing Veterans to choose their insurance plans would save billions of dollars, eliminate wait times and would likely even expand available services not only to Veterans, but also to the public as health care providers would expand to handle the increased demand for services. Likewise, jobs would not be lost. They’d just shift from the public payroll to other medical facilities––some that may even target this market and employ former VA personnel based on their expertise and experience.

Instead of decommissioning the VA, it could focus on 85

Jim Bouchard Veteran advocacy by helping Vets navigate their choices, find treatment and assure that their needs are met and paid for.

Both Republicans and Democrats have proposed some form of reform for the VA. The challenge is to get them to work together to focus on the best solution––the “higher ground” type of solution I talked about earlier.

Republicans, Democrats and Libertarians may hold radically different opinions about how and when to use military force at any given time. That’s why it is vital that Congress once again accept responsibility for debating and deciding our most terrible issue––war.

None of us should differ on our responsibility to care for the men and women who fight our wars.

It’s up to us to put aside any differences, any struggle for control or credit…

And get this job done.

86

no more Pork. no more hIdIng. The reason Congress still gets away with so much pork is that despite passing legislation to restrict earmarks, they still do it anyway. They appropriate millions and billions of dollars hidden in disconnected bills. These items are added, usually at the very last minute, as payola for votes.

If that isn’t bad enough, whether it’s a legitimate appropriation or pure pork, most of the time legislators don’t even know what the hell they’re approving.

Senator Rand Paul writes in Taking A Stand:

“People sometimes like to rail against Congress for not getting enough done, that not enough bills are passing…I can tell you that’s not the biggest problem in Congress. Not even close. The problem is they do pass, and that almost no one here has read a bill before it passes.” (Emphasis added.)

If an item deserves federal funding––it deserves an open and transparent discussion. Congress certainly shouldn’t be 87

Jim Bouchard passing legislation that no one in Congress has read.

I like Senator Paul’s solution. He proposed “Read the Bill” legislation that says Congress has “to wait one day for every twenty pages of legislation…”

That should give them enough reading time––provided of course they’re not spending half their time campaigning and fundraising. (See “TERM LIMITS” in a later chapter!)

I’ll go one step further. I’d push to require that EVERY bill be published online so We The People would have full and unfettered access to every stinking word.

I would also call for strict adherence to “The Germaneness Rule.”

This is from the House of Representatives Committee on Rules training materials:

“Clause 7 of rule XVI, called the “germaneness rule,” stands for the simple proposition that an amendment must address the same subject as the matter being amended. The germaneness rule was adopted by the House in 1789 and has remained the same since it was last changed in 1822.”

It says that “No motion or proposition on a subject different than that under consideration shall be admitted under color of amendment.”

The training flyer continues:

“The purpose of the rule is to provide for the orderly consideration of amendments to bills and resolutions by requiring a relationship between the amendment and the matter being amended.”

88

Crazy. Angry. Libertarian.

I’d settle for ANY consideration of amendments––orderly or otherwise!

“The existence of this rule is one of the key procedural differences between the House and Senate.” (Again, emphasis added.)

I guess that means the Senate doesn’t have a “Germaneness Rule.” This is something we must remedy.

So how do they get away with it?

“A point of order charging that an amendment violates the germaneness rule must be made in a timely fashion, meaning that it must be made prior to the beginning of debate on the amendment.”

It’s up to one of your representatives to challenge the germaneness of a bill. That assumes that at least one representative would have read the entire bill, found the pork or unrelated item and voiced a concern before the amendment was debated––a moot point, I suppose, since most of these amendments are not debated at all.

It’s a big mess with a simple fix. As I said, make ‘em read the bill––that would likely result in much shorter bills in the first place, and in the second place, make sure we can read the bill––which would allow us to hold our representatives more accountable.

If a piece of legislation is so lousy or crooked that they don’t want us to see it––we should!

89

no more war on drugs.

As soon as I declared as a Libertarian, the “crazy, pot-head Libertarian” controversy came up. Gary Johnson promoting his cannabis business as he ran for the presidential nomination didn’t help.

Are all Libertarians pot-heads? Do we promote a culture of unchecked drug abuse?

Well––no.

We probably have our share, but I doubt we have substantially more pot smokers or drug users per capita than any other political party. And to date, no Libertarian President or congressional representative has admitted to past drug use or abuse––though that’s something we may soon change! (I hope you get the joke!)

I AM A FORMER DRUG ABUSER. It’s only by luck that I wasn’t thrown in jail or found dead several times over.

As far as I know, I’m the only candidate in my race that 91

Jim Bouchard admits to a past problem with drugs. I mentor young people in our corrections system and many of them have drug problems.

I am the last person on earth who wants to see anyone fall victim to drug abuse.

During the first week of my campaign I had the opportunity to attend a “Town Hall” on the growing heroin epidemic here in Maine and across the country hosted by WGME, one of our local TV stations.

I also had the opportunity to ask the opening question. I asked the panel if they had considered the Portuguese model for decriminalization…

Many political and law enforcement leaders in Portugal were justifiably concerned and skeptical about what decriminalizing might mean. They had real fears that this move would make drugs more accessible and make the problem even worse.

14 years after Portugal decriminalized all drugs, the results are remarkable: • The rate of deaths from drug use and overdoses has plummeted.

• HIV levels dropped dramatically.

• Continuing drug use has dropped significantly.

One of the most telling statistics to my mind is that the level of “first-time” use has also dropped. This means fewer people are trying drugs.

The fear that decriminalization would lead to a drug 92

Crazy. Angry. Libertarian. epidemic has proven to be unwarranted––the opposite is in fact happening.

THIS IS NOT DUE TO DECRIMINALIZATION ALONE. In addition to eliminating the stigma, cost and social damage associated with treating drug users as criminals, Portugal also instituted a vigorous campaign of treatment and divergence.

These are the types of results we as Libertarians expect from a similar program here in the United States.

Our stance on decriminalization or even legalization is not to encourage a culture of drug abuse, but rather to end our historic pattern of treating a behavior that ranges from a harmless vice to a serious health issue as crime.

Our jails are filled with casual users who violated a threestrike policy, petty dealers who are simply exploiting available black markets in economically depressed areas and addicts who are in real and immediate need of medical treatment.

The panel WGME assembled for this event was remarkable.

I was extremely impressed with the insights and responses from each of these experts. I was particularly struck by the response of Michael Sauschuck, Chief of Police in Portland, our largest city. He said something I did not expect to hear:

“I’ll start by saying the war on drugs has been a miserable failure. Period.”

I worked with law enforcement for years through my 93

Jim Bouchard martial arts program. I understand their frustrations and challenges in dealing with this issue. I also understand the pressures they face from people in the community who genuinely and rightfully fear the intrusion of illegal drug activity and all it’s resulting effects.

Chief Sauschuck offered real hope as he shared an evolving mindset in law enforcement:

“The words of the day are diversion, deferred disposition when we’re talking about the court system. It is about a ‘tripod,’ or three way approach around prevention, treatment and enforcement.”

If Chief Sauschuck is representative of the evolving attitudes of law enforcement in Maine, and I believe he is, Maine is moving in the right direction.

I fully understand the fears associated with legalization or decriminalization. These fears are real and I’ll make no attempt to discredit them.

THE BEST ANECDOTE TO FEAR IS EDUCATION. Much of the crime in our communities is the direct result of our War On Drugs. For the most part I believe this war with best intentions––out of genuine fear of the destructive potential of drugs, especially on young people throughout the 60s and 70s. The unintended consequences were far more devastating. Instead of stopping the proliferation of drug abuse, we unintentionally created a thriving industry operated by a violent criminal underground.

94

Crazy. Angry. Libertarian.

This enterprise is internationally in scope and power. It controls the entire economies of some third world nations and diverts and destroys a significant portion of ours.

We also created a system where people who would otherwise lead productive lives either by using drugs responsibly or by leaving them behind are now condemned to a life of social, if not chemical dependency. The plain fact we made criminals out of casual users and petty retailers––and it’s tough to get a job and create a decent life with a criminal record.

Can we decriminalize?

Can we produce the same results as Portugal?

What fears do you have in regard to decriminalization and how can these fears best be addressed?

Before I wrap this up, I just want to add that drugs are often considered an individual problem. At the same time, the problems associated with trying to control this problem belong to all of us.

We all feel the effects of drug related crime. We all know someone affected by addiction––too often tragically.

This points to one of our strongest ideals as Libertarians.

It’s not up to me to tell you what you should or should not be ingesting into your body. It’s just plain wrong to intrude on the rights of the individual––until or unless one’s actions threaten or harm others.

And anyway––does the government really prohibit drugs?

95

Jim Bouchard Or does it just decide which drugs are legal an which aren’t?

Isn’t one of our biggest drug problems centered on the abuse of legal prescriptions?

Is marijuana any more or less harmful than tobacco or alcohol?

We tried Prohibition. You are probably familiar with the results.

Instead of controlling, or attempting to control the behavior of the individual, why not give that individual support to help them make a more productive choice––for one’s self and for society?

I can tell you from personal experience that nobody wakes up, takes out the to-do-list and pencils in “Today: Get hooked on drugs.”

I can also tell you from experience that more people would turn away from addiction––from legal as well as illegal drugs, if we focused our attention and our resources on treatment rather than punishment.

If we can overcome our fears, I believe this is one of the strongest areas where we can find common ground across party lines.

We’ve waged a fierce “War On Drugs” and we’ve failed.

It’s time to try something new.

96

no more government theft.

Eminent Domain and Civil Forfeiture.

The way these policies are practiced today is nothing short of criminal. These are the greatest offensives to personal liberty and freedom since slavery.

The iconic case of Eminent Domain abuse is Kelo vs. New London. Iconic, but hardly isolated.

The nuts and bolts are that the City of New London, Connecticut decided that redeveloping an established neighborhood would increase the tax revenue of the city. In its estimation, that meant that Eminent Domain could be applied to take the private property of the residents in that area to improve the quality of life for the community.

The residents had other ideas. Many of them simply didn’t want to sell. For some, their homes were their dreams. This is where they wanted to live for the rest of their lives.

The Institute for Justice tells the story of Susette Kelo, whose name would be forever associated with this case:

“Susette Kelo dreamed of owning a home that looked out over the water. She purchased and lovingly restored 97

Jim Bouchard

her little pink house where the Thames River meets the Long Island Sound in 1997, and had enjoyed the great view from its windows. The Dery family, up the street from Susette, had lived in Fort Trumbull since 1895; Matt Dery and his family lived next door to his mother and father. Matt’s mother was born in her house in 1918 and had never lived anywhere else.

The richness and vibrancy of this neighborhood reflected the American ideal of community and the dream of homeownership.

“Tragically, the City of New London turned that dream into a nightmare.”

Kelo took her case all the way to the Supreme Court. Here’s a terrific––or rather terrifying summary from Heritage.org:

“In a 5-4 opinion by Justice Stevens, the Supreme Court ruled that the ‘public use’ requirement of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment permitted the City of New London to exercise its eminent domain power in taking property from homeowners and transferring it to another private owner as part of an economic development plan. Following precedent from previous cases, the Court broadly interpreted the ‘public use’ requirement to mean ‘public purpose’—the city was not intending to open the condemned land for ‘use’ by the general public, but a public ‘purpose’ would be served through the benefits that the economic development plan would have on the community.”

Private property is the foundation of individual freedom.

98

Crazy. Angry. Libertarian.

The fastest path to tyranny is to deprive the citizen of private property. Without property the citizen is simply a commodity serving the needs of the state.

Think I’m exaggerating? Think Soviet Union. Think Communist China. Think Cuba. Think Venezuela.

As you read, Susette Kelo lost her case. The city took her home and destroyed it along with acres of private property owned by other citizens.

Sure, the city paid. We can certainly argue over whether they were justly compensated and frankly, that’s beside the point. They didn’t want to sell.

The “Takings Clause” is part of our compact as American citizens. We accept the possibility that our land, home or business may be taken for public use. We assume we’ll be offered fair market price.

We should never have to worry that our property would be surrendered to profit another private citizen.

Judge Andrew Napolitano put it succinctly when he said the only proper application of Eminent Domain is for “public use––not public benefit.”

Rubbing salt into the wounds, not a single shovel ever went in the ground to start the “Fort Trumbull Project.”

The Institute for Justice article highlights the epilogue of the Kelo story:

“Meanwhile, in New London, the Fort Trumbull project has been a dismal failure. After spending close to 80 million in taxpayer money, there has been no new construction whatsoever and the neighborhood is now a barren field. In 2009, Pfizer, the lynchpin of the 99

Jim Bouchard

disastrous economic development plan, announced that it was leaving New London for good, just as its tax breaks are set to expire.”

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote this in her dissent:

“The specter of condemnation hangs over all property.

Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory.”

One of the current presidential candidates thinks Eminent Domain is fantastic and that taking for public benefit––or the benefit of another private citizen is just fine. It shouldn’t surprise you that said candidate is the real estate developer, Donald Trump.

Heritage.com continues:

“The Takings Clause in the Fifth Amendment was enacted to prevent the government from infringing on the private property rights of citizens, a right which was fundamental to the American Founding. Thus the words ‘public use’ limited the government’s power to the taking of private property only when the land desired would be used by the general public. Roads, schools, or libraries would be permissible grounds for public takings under this original understanding. The Court abused precedent, reinforcing grave errors by extending the misinterpretation of ‘public use’ as being the equivalent of ‘public purpose,’ which not only displaces the language of the Clause, but invites limitless infringement on one of our most fundamental rights.”

100

Crazy. Angry. Libertarian.

And Justice O’Connor provides the punctuation:

“Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded—i.e., given to an owner who will use it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the public—in the process.”

This abuse of Eminent Domain must be stopped immediately. Thankfully, many states and municipalities have responded with strict limitations on Eminent Domain as a result of the Kelo case. However––their laws may not block a taking by the federal government.

THE FIX. I’m am a strict “Minarchist” when it comes to federal regulation. But what the federal government screws up, the federal government must fix.

I advocate for an immediate and absolute restoration of the original intent of Eminent Domain in clear and contemporary language:

“The taking of private property must only take place for strict public use. Such property must not be transferred or made available to any person, corporation or other entity who will profit directly or indirectly from that transfer. The burden of proof for such use rests with the taking authority.”

This can be achieved by legislation or Constitutional 101

Jim Bouchard amendment––but it must be done.

I’ll quote Judge Napolitano once more:

“If we truly are free––then our property is truly our own.

And we can exclude anyone from it––including the government.”

WITHOUT DUE PROCESS… The other great act of overt thievery by the government is called “Civil Forfeiture.”

Listverse.com shares this story:

“After saving up enough money to pursue a career in the music industry, Joseph Rivers, 22, bought a oneway train ticket to Los Angeles. For DEA agents, that act alone—along with the fact that he was traveling with such a large amount of cash—was enough to suspect that Rivers was involved in drug trafficking or some other ‘narcotic activity.’

“Other passengers traveling on the Amtrak train noted that Rivers, a young African-American man, was the only passenger to be singled out by the DEA. His attorney, Michael Pancer, suggested Rivers’s race may have played a role, as he was the only black passenger on his section of the train.

“During the search and subsequent seizure of his cash, Rivers has said that he was completely cooperative 102

Crazy. Angry. Libertarian.

and even allowed the DEA agents to contact his mother to corroborate his story. Rivers pleaded with agents that he would be penniless upon his arrival in California with no means of survival and no way of returning home. According to Rivers, ‘[The DEA agents] informed me that it was my responsibility to figure out how I was going to do that.’

“Rivers was not charged with any crime, and there is no indication that he ever will be, but the DEA was still able to legally seize all of the $16,000 he carried. The DEA’s explanation for the seizure was particularly troubling: “We don’t have to prove that the person is guilty. It’s that the money is presumed to be guilty.”

This type of activity is going on all over the country––and it’s turned into a lottery game for law enforcement.

Reason.com reports on another story from Massachusetts:

“Columnist George Will wrote earlier this year of a case in Massachusetts, where law enforcement is attempting to take the motel owned by a family because of allegations that some visitors there dealt drugs from their rooms. ‘The U.S. Department of Justice intends to seize it, sell it for perhaps $1.5 million and give up to 80 percent of that to the Tewksbury Police Department, whose budget is just $5.5 million. The Caswells have not been charged with, let alone convicted of, a crime.’”

103

Jim Bouchard What do police do with this money?

Some is spent on reasonable things like patrol cars and such. But an article from BusinessInsider.com shows that some of this money is used for very questionable purposes like military grade heavy equipment:

“The military gear includes an armored personnel carrier costing $227,000 in Douglasville, Ga. as well as a $1 million mobile command bus in Prince George’s County, Maryland and a $5 million helicopter for Los Angeles cops.

“Then there the more frivolous things civil forfeiture cash buys, like a $637 coffee maker for cops in Amarillo, Texas and $5,300 worth of ‘challenge coin’ medallions in Brunswick County, North Carolina.”

The point is that the government, from local to state to federal should not be allowed to seize your property without due process. The original intent of the law was to stop drug traffickers who might have large quantities of ill-gotten cash, might be driving cars involved in crimes or may be using their homes for illegal activities.

The technicality written into the law is that while there must be probable cause to arrest a person, property can be taken with a much lower standard of suspicion.

Some states have enacted stricter guidelines, but the workaround is a federal program administered by the Justice Department called “Equitable Sharing.” In short, this means that if the local or state authorities are walking the thin line, they can invoke federal statutes, turn the cash or property over to the feds who then in turn kick-back up to 80% to the 104

Crazy. Angry. Libertarian. arresting department.

I already made the argument that we’re turning casual drug users into felons, but in this case, we’re taking innocent citizens and treating them like criminals with no due process.

The argument is that Civil Forfeiture helps take dangerous drug dealers off the streets. As with many of these egregious policies, the proof is in the performance––or lack of it.

Business Insider wraps it up:

“This isn’t just a matter of police being fiscally irresponsible. They’re being irresponsible with cash that may very well have been seized from innocent people.

“The Washington Post examined 43,000 reports on asset seizures dating back to 2008, which reported $2.5 billion in spending from these seizures. According to the Post’s analysis, 81% of that spending came from seizures in which the property or cash owners were never indicted.”

I’ve got no problem taking the assets of convicted felons after due process. I’ve got a big problem knowing that if I’m pulled over with $1,000 cash in my pocket that my money or car can be taken, whether I’ve committed a crime or not, with NO due process.

HERE AT HOME. I want to help the people of Maine feel a little better.

105

Jim Bouchard Our state ranks among the lowest in Civil Forfeiture seizure. Knowing a lot of law enforcement officers here, I feel pretty comfortable that we’re in good hands.

But you don’t just drive in Maine. You probably vacation or do business across the country.

The abuse of Eminent Domain and Civil Forfeiture are national problems that threaten the freedom and liberty of every American citizen.

And it’s got to be stopped.

106

no more welfare. no more mInImum wage.

The answer to welfare is “workfare.” Instead of subsidizing people for doing nothing, let’s support those who are willing to improve their condition. For all who are able, let’s connect assistance with work.

The true minimum wage is “zero.”

Allowing for best intentions, few examples of government intervention have been as damaging or put more people out of work than establishing an arbitrary minimum price of labor.

Nobody should settle for a minimum––anything.

It’s time to eliminate the minimum wage, replace welfare with “workfare” and shift our focus to preparing our workers for the next great opportunities in the global economy.

Welfare and minimum wage are joined at the hip.

It’s a fundamental assumption in economics that you get more of what you subsidize, and less of what you tax.

Welfare, in its current condition, subsidizes personal defeat. Too many people make the rational decision to stay out 107

Jim Bouchard of the workforce to avoid dramatic cuts in public benefits.

In 2013 the Cato Institute published a controversial study that showed that staying on welfare paid better than going to work for many people in many states. That ignited some heated debates, but by and large these debates were geniuses arguing over the details, each in attempt to spin the data to support their confirmation bias.

As that study came to light, Michael Tanner of the New York Post wrote:

“…someone in New York would have to earn more than $21 per hour to be better off than they would be on welfare. That’s more than the average statewide entry-level salary for a teacher.”

The fact that anyone, anywhere can now consider welfare over work as a rational option should be terrifying enough to all of us. How long can we sustain this? I don’t think I’m way out of line to say––not long.

The results are devastating. Welfare has literally destroyed the family in our poorest communities. Writing in National Affairs, Peter Ferrara quotes Robert Rector:

“Welfare has converted the low-income working husband from a necessary breadwinner into a net financial handicap. It has transformed marriage from a legal institution designed to protect and nurture children into an institution which financially penalizes nearly all low-income parents who practice it.”

One encouraging trend is tying welfare benefits to work.

When we help people get back to work we’re doing amazing things for the community––and for those people. Maine has 108

Crazy. Angry. Libertarian. been a leader in this area and I support that trend. I’d take it even further and especially to divert and eventually reduce the amount of federal money that goes into these programs–– money that could be applied more efficiently close to home.

Ferrara continues in his article:

“I propose a system by which the welfare office provides a job to anyone willing to follow the rules. Those who report to their local welfare office before 9 A.M. would be guaranteed a work assignment somewhere paying the minimum wage in cash for a day’s work, eight hours.”

Now this isn’t all the public dime…

“A private job assignment would be the top priority. If one is not available for a given applicant on a given day, the applicant would be assigned to some government-directed activity, serving the community in some way, whether it is through the city, county or state government.”

This fits nicely into the idea of weaning people off assistance as the private sector employs them. I’ll get into more of how that works and the relationship to the minimum wage in a couple of minutes.

“Under the proposed system, there would be nothing to be gained by not working. Rather, the incentive would be to take whatever private-sector job became available, since the able-bodied will have to work to support themselves in any event, and in the private sector the worker will gain skills, raises, promotions, 109

Jim Bouchard

and new opportunities over time.”

The idea is that if we’re going to subsidize anything, and those subsidies should be tightly limited, let’s subsidize work instead of welfare.

“Instead of taxpayers paying the bottom 20% of income earners a trillion dollars a year not to work, employers would be paying them much more to work and contribute to economic growth.”

Work begets work. Put another way, the longer someone is out of work, the tougher it is to get a job––especially a good one. Work provides the opportunity to gain experience, learn new skills and most of all, prove performance. The key to a better job is doing a great jot at whatever job you have now.

But first you’ve got to have one!

Now how does this all relate to the minimum wage?

First of all, despite the political capital gained by supporting minimum wage––it just doesn’t work.

Thomas Sowell writing in National Review:

“It is not a breakthrough on the frontiers of knowledge that minimum-wage laws reduce employment opportunities for the young and the unskilled of any age. It has been happening around the world, for generation after generation, and in the most diverse countries.

“It is not just the young who are affected when minimum-wage rates are set according to the fashionable notions of third parties, with little or no regard for whether everyone is productive enough to be worth 110

Crazy. Angry. Libertarian.

paying the minimum wage they set.

“You can check this out for yourself. Go to your local public library and pick up a copy of the distinguished British magazine The Economist.

“Whether it is the current issue or a back issue doesn’t matter. Spain, Greece, and South Africa will be easy to locate in the table near the back, which lists data for various countries. Just look down the unemployment column for countries with unemployment rates around 25 percent. Spain, Greece, and South Africa are always there, whether or not there is a recession. Why? Because they have very generous minimum-wage laws.”

But why would we trust the free market to set a fair price for labor? Because it works. Sowell continues:

“While you are there, you can look up the unemployment rate for Switzerland, which has no minimum-wage law at all. Over the years, I have never seen the unemployment rate in Switzerland reach as high as 4 percent. Back in 2003, The Economist reported: ‘Switzerland’s unemployment neared a five-year high of 3.9% in February.’”

I studied several reports comparing standard of living and quality of life. Switzerland lands in the top 5 on all of them, and they’re number 1 in most.

They must be doing something right.

111

Jim Bouchard

NO MINIMUM WAGE. Expanding on what I said earlier, the actual minimum wage is a constant: Zero.

That’s the terrible secret very few politicians have the courage to talk about. There is a lot of political capital invested in fighting for those hard-working people who are not getting their due.

The traditional argument is that moving the minimum wage up has little impact on the economy. First of all, impact is easy to describe as minimal when that impact is happening to someone else. The fact is that some jobs are always lost when the minimum is raised. Some businesses close. Some people suffer.

But the vast majority are better off, right? Well––only when the statute minimum is equal to or lower than the market price of labor. And through the years politicians have been very clever. They win votes by raising the minimum, but they make sure the minimum doesn’t exceed the base market wage so they’re not really killing business.

The $15 minimum is a bigger gamble. But even this push toward the $15 minimum contains a hedge. The $15 minimum, where it has been enacted, is phased in over the course of from 3 to 5 years. What will the true market minimum be by the time the $15 is in full force?

The simple answer is: more.

People may as well keep their picket signs, torches and pitch forks at the ready. No doubt in 5 years they can paint 112

Crazy. Angry. Libertarian.

25 over the 15 and go at it again.

As much as they’ve tried to kick the can down the road on this issue, some effects are already being felt. And the problem is those effects most hurt the people these laws are intended to protect.

Another dark secret of minimum wage law is that the original intent was not an act of social compassion. It was an act of cronyism and dare I say? Racism. Once more from Professor Sowell:

“Low-income minorities are often hardest hit by the unemployment that follows in the wake of minimum-wage laws. The last year when the black unemployment rate was lower than the white unemployment rate was 1930, the last year before there was a federal minimum-wage law.

“The following year, the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931 was passed, requiring minimum wages in the construction industry. This was in response to complaints that construction companies with non-union black construction workers were able to underbid construction companies with unionized white workers (whose unions would not admit blacks).”

Another huge factor affecting the price of labor is that technology is responding to demand faster than the government can keep up. As minimums are pushed up, businesses that can replace labor with technology are doing so––and rapidly.

Restaurants and retailers are rapidly replacing low-skill service workers with automated kiosks. One worker can service several kiosks––putting several people out of work.

113

Jim Bouchard The math on this is simple. Go to your local Wal-Mart. Here you’ll typically see 2 workers servicing about 6 automated checkout stations. That means that for every 3 machines, you need 1 worker.

Wal-Mart currently pays an average of about $9 an hour.

Before the kiosks, they would have to pay 3 workers about $27 an hour to handle 3 checkout lines. With the self-service machines, they can now pay 1 person $15 to do the same work.

Wal-Mart wins. They save 12 bucks an hour.

One worker wins. That person got a $6 raise.

Two workers lost––their jobs. They went from $9 an hour to zero.

As we should have learned from the Soviet Union, Cuba, China and other socialist countries, you can’t control the price of labor without also controlling the supply. That’s why socialist countries choose your job for you. They determine where the needs are greatest and assign a specified number of people to work there. They also subsidize employers to force them to accept more workers than they need.

The results are usually that you have a lot of workers doing very little and a lot of workers doing stupid jobs that machines could handle much more efficiently and effectively.

That in turn destroys innovation and stifles the ambition and progress of the people––once again the people most stifled are those these programs are intended to “help.”

Another unintended consequence is that the price of the 114

Crazy. Angry. Libertarian. end product goes up. It is more expensive to the society as a whole when labor costs are kept artificially high and production costs are artificially subsidized.

At the very least, which is far from the best, the minimum wage should be determined by on a state or even local level with no federal minimum. First of all, that’s where your voice is loudest––where you can influence that decision most directly.

This would allow for fair competition between states and regions. Places that need to attract more labor may in fact raise wages. Other places where the demand for low-skill labor is high, like the farms of California and the deep south, may in fact put more people to work––at lower wages.

Employers are always free to pay wages above market averages to attract the best workers. Costco proudly promotes that their wages are far above Wal-Mart’s. Many people believe that the better paid workers at Costco provide a much higher level of customer service.

By raising the minimum to above market averages, you hurt the company that has acted more responsibly in the minds of the culture warriors. Costco can’t just move their wages up because the floor has suddenly risen. They may react later, as prices inevitably climb, but for the time being the higher minimum destroys their competitive advantage in the labor market.

The effects of current minimum wage laws are devastating. If you don’t notice those effects it’s because you don’t live where they do the most damage.

You likely live where the actual market value of labor is above the minimum wage. I know where I live in midcoast Maine, it’s tough to find good help at $10 an hour. The current 115

Jim Bouchard state minimum is $7.50.

If, however, you live in the poorest communities of Detroit, New Orleans or West Virginia, the true market value of labor may be in the neighborhood of $4 or even less. This means that for most jobs, especially highly productive rather than low-skill service jobs, most businesses simply can’t operate where they have to pay more than they can recover in hourly wages for their workers.

But it wouldn’t be “fair” to pay workers $4 an hour–– would it?

Now keep remembering what the true minimum is––zero.

The fear of course is that unregulated, evil corporations would simply flood to these areas, pay $4 an hour or less and effectively enslave entire populations of desperate people.

There are many other factors involved, but even allowing for this worst case scenario it would still be better than what we have now. First of all, assuming the competitive forces at work––as more work became available and these businesses became productive and profitable and begin to expand, the demand for labor would rise. As demand rises, so do prices.

People would, over time, make more.

BUT THE PUBLIC PICKS UP THE TAB–– RIGHT? The other big argument centers on how the social safety net fills the gap created by exploitive employers paying low wages. That happens even with current minimums, and is likely to continue even as we raise the minimum. Minimum is, after all, still minimum.

116

Crazy. Angry. Libertarian.

One important question is too often left unasked. Well, economists ask this question––politicians usually don’t.

And the question is…

WHAT EFFECT DOES PUBLIC ASSISTANCE HAVE ON THE TRUE MARKET PRICE OF LABOR? Let’s go back to our Wal-Mart example. Let’s assume, for people earning minimum wage, that the public is making up the difference in some form of assistance between the minimum wage and the ever popular “living” wage––which is at the heart of the $15 NOW movement. That leaves a gap of around $6.50 here in Maine.

Now for most people, we’re probably not filing that entire gap––but as we saw in the figures for welfare earlier, for some it may be much more.

With every new automated checkout machine, we’re putting 2 people out of work. Potentially 2 more people on public assistance. Now we have to fill the entire gap. After all, we can’t expect people to subsist on just $6.50, that’s worse than minimum, right?

And we already do that to a large extent. It’s exactly this phenomenon that tips the scales for many people who opt out of the labor market and on to public assistance. Some people can actually make more staying out of work than they can in the low-skill job market.

Let’s not lose sight of the net effect. At current minimums, the employer would pay $7.50, the public makes up all or part of the $6.50 gap. For every person the higher minimum 117

Jim Bouchard takes off the payroll, the public pays the full $15, assuming that’s what we feel good about, and the employer has saved the same.

While far from perfect, the net effect of even our current messed up system is that the employer and the public share the costs of labor in depressed markets.

Even if you lower the minimum, you’re better off. Better that someone makes $4 an hour and the public subsidizes $11 than that same person earning the true minimum––zero–– and the public is on the hook for the full $15.

SO WHAT’S THE ANSWER? OK, so we just spent a lot of time discussing the problem. It’s a complex problem! The solution, however, is simple.

There are two major reasons for the wage stagnation in our country. One is the effect of government intervention in the price of labor, but the second is probably even more damaging.

We used to train people to compete for tomorrow’s jobs.

Now we’re either training them for yesterday’s needs––or we’re not training them at all.

Minimum wage jobs require minimal skills. That’s OK–– they’re not meant to provide a career for most people. If you’re happy flipping burgers––wonderful! I’m not judging.

I’ve done it myself––I’ll do it again if I have to. There should always be pride in honest work.

You have more control over your level of income than the government––provided you train yourself for the types of work that have more value in the market. The opportunities 118

Crazy. Angry. Libertarian. for this training have never been better––yet we have to beg people to embrace these opportunities.

People lament the rather recent problem of college graduates flipping burgers and clerking in convenience stores. It’s our own damn fault! We’ve sold kids on the idea that the only path to happiness and prosperity runs through the hallowed halls of our nation’s institutions for higher learning.

WE’VE FLOODED THE JOB MARKET WITH OVERQUALIFIED FAST-FOOD EMPLOYEES! At the same time––we can’t find enough qualified carpenters, plumbers, electricians and welders. No wonder! We’ve relegated these highly skilled crafts to the same level as flipping burgers and mopping floors. You didn’t want your kids to have to get their hands dirty!

Trade crafts don’t require less learning, smarts and training than most college tracks like business management or accounting––they require different learning, smarts and training.

And both are equally valuable and necessary to the prosperity and success of our community and our nation.

As we evolve into a knowledge and data driven economy, there are even more opportunities. Of course, the value of some skills changes over time. When I was in high school, someone going into computer science was on a fast track to fame and fortune. Now they work the Genius Desk at the Apple Store.

But that same level of skill and talent can be applied in 119

Jim Bouchard cutting edge occupations that pay much higher wages.

Nobody should settle for minimum. But you have to ask a fundamental question…

Do you want your government to protect your right to seek your highest level of performance and reward––or do you want your government to guarantee your minimum?

Let’s get government out of the way so we can all get back to work!

120

no more “Illegal” ImmIgratIon. A growing sentiment in the Libertarian Party is to just plain open the borders.

OpenBorders.info summarizes this position nicely:

“The right to migrate can be considered a corollary of the libertarian view that people should be free to do what they please (individually or collectively) unless it violates the rights of others. Migration is just one of many things that people should be free to do.”

I understand! But this is one issue where I part from many of my fellow Libertarians.

I do not see “open borders” as a realistic, manageable or desirable policy. At least––not yet. There are a lot of other issues that need to be addressed before we can expect a wide general acceptance of an open border policy.

On immigration, I sing in harmony with our 2016 presidential candidate, Gary Johnson. As former governor of New Mexico, Johnson has an intimate understanding of the issue 121

Jim Bouchard and some very practical solutions. On a recent FOX News interview he said:

“We should make it as easy as possible for someone who wants to come into this country and work to be able to get a work visa. A work visa should entail a background check and a Social Security card so that taxes get paid.”

When you get past the hyper-partisan rhetoric and look at what most Americans think about the issue, you might find most Americans look at the question the same way it’s stated on the Libertarian Party website. There you’ll find an article from Daniel Griswold, Director of the Cato Institute’s Center for Trade Policy Studies:

“The fundamental choice before us is whether we redouble our efforts to enforce existing immigration law, whatever the cost, or whether we change the law to match the reality of a dynamic society and labor market.”

The current debate centers on how to update our response to people who can and want to come here to work, how many immigrants we can handle in any specified period, how to both assimilate them and respect their native heritage and especially––how to deal with those who are already here illegally though might not otherwise be criminals.

Unfortunately, this debate is heavily fertilized with fear and political propaganda.

It is the job of the federal government to secure and protect our borders. In today’s world, it is not prudent to allow an unchecked flow of foreign nationals or refugees.

122

Crazy. Angry. Libertarian.

Despite what some people believe, the threat of terrorists and criminals entering the country is real. It is simply irresponsible to the citizens of the United States to say the federal government has no role in protecting them from this threat.

The argument, and I see some merit in this position, is that if we weren’t invading other countries and doing them harm, people wouldn’t be coming here to blow us up. I wish that were the entire picture.

These threats are not limited to a direct response to our military and political interventions––there is an ideological war going on with radical fundamentalists who are murdering their own people and destroying their own regions as well as bringing their fight to us.

The greatest part of our immigration problem is not, however, the threat of terrorism or even criminal cartels. The criminal immigration problem is largely the result of the illegal drug industry, and I’ve already offered solutions for that.

The biggest part of the problem is the inflow of economic and political refugees––a growing number from Africa and the Middle East, but most from Mexico and Central America.

Let’s take a quick look at what we won’t do and what according to polls, most of us don’t want to do: We won’t suddenly deport some estimated 15 million people.

We don’t want to send children and families back to war zones.

We don’t want to separate children from their parents.

123

Jim Bouchard At the same time many people feel that providing unlimited services to illegal immigrants is inherently unfair to tax paying, law abiding citizens and that continuing to provide this aid is destroying the economic base of many communities and even states.

Others fear that many of our cities are being overrun by immigrants, legal and illegal, who refuse to assimilate but rather demand accommodation and that accommodation often threatens American traditions and even law.

And despite the fact that few terrorists have come across the border using “Trojan Horse” tactics, this fear is real and predicated on past experience. Many if not most people agree that even a few can do a lot of damage.

These are all legitimate feelings and fears––but they don’t get us closer to a solution. Addressing our fears in a rational and logical manner leads us to a practical answer that benefits all of us––including the people who want to come to America to better their lives and truly become a part of American society.

Griswold continues:

“We’ve faced this choice on immigration before. In the early 1950s, federal agents were making a million arrests a year along the Mexican border. In response, Congress ramped up enforcement, but it also dramatically increased the number of visas available through the Bracero guest worker program. As a result, apprehensions at the border dropped 95 percent. By changing the law, we transformed an illegal inflow of workers into a legal flow.”

Once again the major parties, competing for command 124

Crazy. Angry. Libertarian. and control, have alternately proposed and opposed nearly identical policies over the past 40 years. They’ve even passed some meaningful reforms, but in the fray and their endless fight over semantics, credit and blame they left some important work undone…

“The fatal flaw of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act was not that it offered legal status to workers already here but that it made no provision for future workers to enter legally.”

At the core, the problem is actually quite simple. People want to come here. We need people to come here. We want to welcome people who want to make their lives and ours better. We want to stop people who want to come here to blow up our buildings and kill us.

Again I’ll join forces with Governor Johnson…

In his 2016 presidential campaign Johnson proposed a 3 point plan: • Streamline the legal immigration process to reduce illegal immigration and allow the U.S. to know who enters the country and for what reasons.

• Enforce a “one strike, you’re out” rule for immigrants who circumvent the streamlined work visa process.

• Impose and enforce sanctions on employers for noncompliance with immigration laws.

The only provision I’d add would be a “one strike” rule for other criminal activity as well. If you break any law above and beyond coming across the border illegally, “you’re out.” If you rob a convenience store, mug, rape or assault 125

Jim Bouchard someone––if you drive drunk or high or drive without a license, you’re on the next bus back to the border.

I support the Governor’s current position as published on his 2016 campaign website:

“Governor Johnson has long advocated a simplified and secure system of work visas by which willing workers and willing employers can meet in a robust labor marketplace efficiently and economically. Aspiring immigrants would undergo a background check, pay taxes and provide proof of employment.

“Making it simpler and efficient to enter the U.S. legally will provide the greatest security possible, allowing law enforcement to focus its time and resources on the criminals and bad actors who are, in reality, a relatively small portion of those who are today entering the country illegally.”

Where I part a little from Governor Johnson is on the point of quotas. In the FOX interview I referenced earlier, Johnson advocated for “no quotas.” His feeling is that they’re just not needed.

While streamlining the process and getting migrant workers fully on the tax roles would help alleviate the burden of assimilation somewhat, there will still likely be a gap in resources for social services, particularly early in the process and for workers who are coming for low-skill, low-wage jobs.

While it is the responsibility of the federal government to secure and regulate the borders, it is not the right of the federal government to compel any particular state to accept 126

Crazy. Angry. Libertarian. immigrants. That’s exactly what’s been going on.

Neither is it right for one state to bus its immigrant burden to another when things get tight.

There are states that are begging people to come and work.

There are other states that can’t currently afford or support the inflow.

I favor letting the states determine how many immigrants they can settle at any given time. As long as we still have federal social assistance, states could negotiate among themselves to settle more or fewer immigrants and documented workers and receive assistance in proportion to their willingness to accept these people.

Even as the thought of any federal control of such a program jabs at my more orthodox libertarian sensibilities, I cannot imagine a fairer way to distribute limited federal resources.

I know! It bothers me too! But–– This problem is not going away by itself. The current system is a great threat to our national security and an enormous drain on our economy.

Can we fix it?

Yes––but as I said, one of the biggest obstacles is the endless ping pong match over who gets credit for the solution.

Third party influence may provide the “higher ground” solution that makes our borders safe and free.

127

but waIt! there’s more!

I could keep writing for a year and not run out of issues. I’ve highlighted some of the biggest and I hope I’ve made it clear that unless we take care of spending and debt––we won’t have the chance to worry about the rest.

Here are my thoughts on a few other issues important to us all so you’ll have a clear understanding of how I would represent you in Congress. If you disagree with me––please let me know!

HEALTHCARE A big problem with a simple solution.

The federal government has just proven beyond any reasonable doubt that they cannot manage health care costs.

Obamacare is a horrific failure and we haven’t even begun to see the full effects on our economy.

Repeal the ACA immediately––but do not replace it.

Enforce the Commerce Clause as intended––not to restrict your ability to purchase insurance across state lines but to 129

Jim Bouchard assure that right.

Advocates for universal health care have long pointed to the failure of the private market. How far back in history do we have to go to find a true private market in health care and insurance?

Health care and health insurance are some of the most heavily regulated industries in America. Federal and state regulations all but choked the private market to death long before the ACA passed. Let market forces restore some sense of sanity to the market. Put the power to regulate this market back where it belongs––in the hands of consumers.

If we’re still dealing with onerous taxes, another logical step is to expand deductions for taking care of your own health. This means expanding deductions for Health Savings Accounts and other medical expenses.

We already have federal and state programs to provide health coverage. As much as I’d hate to see this, if we still have a need to protect people in genuine need, let’s do this through existing programs. However––at the same time we’ve got to again break the partisan divide and do a serious and meaningful clean-up of Medicare and Medicaid.

SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE There shouldn’t be a problem, should there? We were promised a “lock box” where our contributions would be safe and ready for our eventual use.

Not so much.

There are no lock boxes in Washington. Funds have been leveraged, borrowed and re-allocated. Benefits have been 130

Crazy. Angry. Libertarian. expanded well beyond the original intent of these programs.

Getting SSDI benefits has become a thriving industry.

Once we get spending and borrowing under control, then we can revisit Social Security and Medicare reform. The most rational solution is to stop using these programs as ever expanding charities and to adjust the age thresholds to better match current life expectancies.

As our population ages and fewer workers support more beneficiaries, there are no other reasonable solutions.

Remember, however, that for most Americans these are not “entitlements” as the word is now used. These are earned benefits.

If you paid in, you should expect your benefits. The government owes you at least that.

BALANCED BUDGET Once we stop the bleeding, we pass a real Balanced Budget Amendment––one that operates on the zero-based budget principle.

GOVERNMENT REGULATION If you want to create a financial product out of thin air––so be it. If you can figure out a way to make money from money––go for it.

But you suffer the consequences.

The SEC could not stop Bernie Madoff. The government 131

Jim Bouchard turned a deaf ear to those who warned about the Housing Bubble and the impending derivative market disaster. And when the proverbial crap hit the fan––they turned to you to bail out reckless speculators and criminals.

Free markets depend on a destructive cycle. Nobody is “too big to fail.”

It’s not about a futile attempt to prevent disaster or control risk. Risk is part of the equation too––risk is the key to innovation and progress––responsible risk.

Madoff, Enron, Freddie and Fannie, the sub-prime mortgage market––the problem wasn’t risk. It was outright fraud.

It’s time to prosecute fraud––not subsidize it.

Over-regulation is crippling to small business and entrepreneurship. We’ve turned the Agriculture Department and the EPA into armed SWAT units. We conduct military style raids on guitar factories and dairy farms. We impose licensing on kitchen hair stylists and shade tree mechanics…

A family in Wyoming builds a pond on their private land–– after getting all the necessary permits––only to have the EPA go after them for $37,500 a day in fines. In the end, the EPA was proven wrong. The pond was built properly and the citizen was in the right.

You tell me––is it time to clean up the books? I think so.

TERM LIMITS & CONGRESSIONAL PENSIONS Our founders feared the emergence of a professional political class––with good reason.

I support term limits for all elected and appointed officials.

132

Crazy. Angry. Libertarian.

I also support an immediate roll-back of Congressional pensions, though term limits would solve that problem.

Ours is supposed to be a citizen government. It’s time to end the reign of professional politicians.

ENVIRONMENT We all want a clean environment. We don’t need to cripple our economy to achieve this. We certainly don’t need to create a federal Ponzi scheme to protect the environment.

The market is demanding clean energy, greater efficiency, clean air and water. Let the market work.

GOVERNMENT INVESTMENT IN PRIVATE BUSINESS End it.

The government is not supposed to be deciding who you will do business with. It’s not supposed to subsidize, sponsor, endorse or mandate one business over another. Period.

Subsidies, tax exemptions, grants––these are the major causes of cronyism. These are the major contributors to corperatism, fraud and abuse in both business and government.

It’s time for business and government to get a divorce!

133

Jim Bouchard

2ND AMENDMENT I had originally written a much more moderate position on the 2nd Amendment issue.

I am a steadfast advocate for gun rights, but I also acknowledged the fears that many Americans have and proposed that outside the debate over the scope and effectiveness of background checks, the issue was largely settled––that this was simply another political wedge issue and that our rights were safe.

Literally on the day before this book was going to press, the New York Times reported this:

“A federal appeals court in San Francisco ruled Thursday that the Second Amendment of the Constitution does not guarantee the right of gun owners to carry concealed weapons in public places, upholding a California law that imposes stringent conditions on who may be granted a concealed-carry permit.”

From the ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, San Francisco:

“The right of a member of the general public to carry a concealed firearm in public is not, and never has been, protected by the Second Amendment.

Therefore, because the Second Amendment does not protect in any degree the right to carry concealed firearms in public, any prohibition or restriction a state may choose to impose on concealed carry, including a requirement of “good cause,” however defined –– is necessarily allowed by the Amendment.”

134

Crazy. Angry. Libertarian.

Really? I did not go to law school, but l can read:

“A well regulAted militiA, Being necessAry to the security of A free

stAte, the right of the people to keep And BeAr Arms, shAll not Be infringed.”

The Constitution is crafted to limit the government, not us.

The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to protect us against exactly this kind of abuse of individual liberty. This ruling, more than any previously, turns the entire idea of Constitutional protection upside down.

This court has ruled that instead of the government having to show “good cause” to deny your rights––you have the burden of proving “good cause” to exercise those rights.

Ironically, concealed weapons laws were originally enacted to provide an alternative to open carry, which many people felt presented more of a threat to people who might not feel comfortable hanging around in public with a bunch of people with guns. Better, they reasoned, not to know whether I’m armed or not.

Maine recently eliminated any requirement for permitting to carry concealed––a giant step toward recognizing what exists by natural right, not government grant. We don’t need the government’s permission to keep or carry any weapon in any fashion. Compromise on this issue is obviously not seen as an act of goodwill, but as an opening to fully extinguish our most fundamental rights.

In my original draft I wrote that “when you disarm a 135

Jim Bouchard people you deprive them of the sole means of defending their nation and themselves against tyranny.”

How about that for “good cause?”

“…the right of the people to keep And BeAr Arms, shAll not Be infringed.”

Until today I thought that was still clear enough.

ABORTION I am pro-life. I personally feel that every human being enjoys the rights we so eloquently expressed in our Declaration of Independence, the most fundamental being life itself.

As far as abortion goes, my perspective again comes from personal experience. I was involved with two abortions––I shared responsibility for one. The other was not my child; I was supporting a partner.

I can tell from experience that it is a very difficult decision (for some) and a very difficult ordeal (for most).

We don’t have a clear scientific definition for exactly when life begins. Unless and until we do, I just advocate that we err on the side of life.

Now having made my personal position clear––I believe that like the 2nd Amendment issue, abortion is largely settled.

This is another issue that inflames passions, but does little 136

Crazy. Angry. Libertarian. to move the needle one way or the other. It’s also an issue of convenience that provides cover for politicians who would rather have you frothing at the mouth over abortion rather than taking a hard look at government abuse, corruption and the race toward economic collapse.

If you want to advocate for life––have at it. Just don’t maim and kill adult human beings in your cause to defend unborn human beings.

If you’re pro-choice––have at it. Just respect the fact that others don’t share your point of view and that their position is no less valid than yours.

If we could put down our swords for awhile, we might just be able to agree on common ground that would at least reduce the need for abortion and protect the lives of many more children––born and unborn. That would be productive all the way around.

LGBTQ RIGHTS It’s one thing to debate sexuality and biology, but the argument has spilled over into what people might “feel” at any given time––gender “fluidity.”

I won’t pretend to understand the complexities of human sexuality. I do know this: our Constitution protects the rights of every individual––not the rights of preferred or “protected” groups.

There are times when we have to right wrongs. More often, however, our attempt to right wrongs by force or by restricting the rights of others leads to a proverbial slippery slope and often does much more harm than good.

137

Jim Bouchard The Libertarian Party best represents the LGBTQ community because of our intractable stand to protect individual rights.

If one individual has a particular right––every individual is entitled to that right. You only surrender your natural rights when you do harm or impose on the rights of others.

You cannot, however, effectively legislate against an offense of feelings without trampling our most fundamental rights to free speech, religious belief and commerce.

I will defend and protect your rights as an individual. I hope that’s enough––the battle is certainly tough enough!

NSA, TSA AND GOVERNMENT SPYING I understand the reason so many people supported the Patriot Act. We had just been attacked––murdered. We were scared. Something had to be done.

However, if the average American understood the full scope of the Patriot Act and the clandestine authority it gave to spy on our own people, I doubt most of us would have tolerated it. Not one bit.

They say there’s oversight––that Congress has knowledge and ultimate authority over all these activities. Really?

Then why the surprise at every congressional hearing as the people allegedly in charge of said oversight learn about the details for the first time?

That’s not oversight––that’s a response to a lack of effective oversight.

We might have the debate over whether we’ve reached a point in history where we should authorize some part of 138

Crazy. Angry. Libertarian. our government to surveil us in the background. If so, we’d better make this an open debate. And most certainly the authorization and the fact that they’re already doing shouldn’t have been a secret––shouldn’t be a secret now and everyone involved in making those decisions should be prosecuted with every available instrument.

It’s up to us, through Congress, to authorize government actions. It’s irresponsible to let a government agency operate without complete supervision. It’s immoral to allow any government agency to operate with absolute secrecy––particularly when that secrecy threatens our most fundamental rights and freedoms.

Please remember that the Constitution was crafted to restrict the government from abusing us––not to give them license to restrict our rights.

We seem to have forgotten Franklin’s famous words:

“those who would give up essentiAl liBerty, to purchAse A little temporAry sAfety, deserve neither liBerty nor sAfety.”

YOUR RIGHT TO DIE Please allow me one personal crusade…

It makes me sick to my stomach that we even have to discuss a “Right To Die.” Who else but you has the right to 139

Jim Bouchard determine the course––or the end of your own life?

Earlier, when I talked about our Veterans, I introduced you to my friend Don. Don was much more family-by-choice than friend. He was the older brother I never had, and I was the younger brother he never had.

Don’s battle with cancer was brutal. After a hopeful period of remission, his cancer attacked again on all fronts. It metastasized from his prostate to several other organs and his lymph system.

He reached the inevitable point where the treatment was worse than the disease. Massive doses of chemotherapy did nothing to slow the spread, but the sickness from the medication was excruciating and debilitating.

I spent a lot of time with Don during his last months, living with him several nights each week. Long ago I had promised to honor his wish to die in his home and a team of his friends and family members worked around the clock to make this happen.

One evening I sat on Don’s bed as he cried softly. “I just want it to be over.”

Seeing a friend suffer like this gives you an entirely different perspective. I knew exactly what he was asking for––we had actually talked about this possibility in the philosophical sense years before. We had both agreed there may be a point where living was no longer the best option––that passing with dignity would be much more preferable and practical.

It broke my heart––but I didn’t have the courage to help him. I said that what he was asking me to do would make me a criminal. The ramifications of someone finding out would be devastating, not just to me, but this would impact not only my life, but my wife’s life and the lives of all the people who 140

Crazy. Angry. Libertarian. depended on my work in my martial arts center.

It broke my heart even more that he understood.

He suffered for several more weeks. Finally, he passed and thankfully, that was a peaceful moment.

Just before he passed we had actually talked about the possibility of me running for public office some day. We talked about the “Right To Die” movement and about advocating for medically assisted suicide––as an end of life option.

Some people object on religious grounds. We lost my Mother to a long bout of cancer too. She was a devout Catholic and would never have chosen this option. She was a dear friend to Don too and she never would have stood in his way to choose his own end.

Several states have now adopted some form of medically assisted suicide. That’s a great start. There is no reason for people to suffer the way Don did.

I can’t help but see the irony in the fact that the illness that killed him was inflicted by the actions of our own government. In effect, they killed him.

They were all to willing to send him to his death in Vietnam––yet they still refused to recognize his right to end his own life on his terms.

I have to say that if I’m elected––I will advocate for federal “Right To Die” legislation similar to what has been pioneered in Oregon, Washington state, California and Vermont.

It is the Constitution that protects our individual liberty and freedom––so protecting the right to choose how one’s life should end is a federal issue.

141

Jim Bouchard

ANYTHING ELSE? I’m not hard to find.

If you an issue that concerns you please reach out. I may not have an answer––I will do my best to hear you out and together, we might just find one.

I pledge to make myself accessible.

I promise I’ll listen.

142

so go ahead! throw away your vote!

It is my sincere hope that by the time some of you read this, the idea of a potent and well-established third party is no longer just a dream. I hope it’s the standard operating procedure!

We have reached a point in history where we find little argument, even within the major parties themselves, that the two party system has reached a complete stalemate. The parties themselves are fracturing––at least two major factions in each major party are moving farther apart with every election cycle.

More people than ever before are voicing their disappointment and even disgust with the major parties. There’s a good reason…

Democrats––Republicans––They’re NOT listening to you!

As we come to the end of one of the most contentious primary periods in history leaders are trying to unite their parties––but for all the wrong reasons.

The strongest motivation for Republican unity?

143

Jim Bouchard According to party bosses––they’ve got to come together to STOP HILLARY! The strongest motivation for Democrats?

To STOP TRUMP!

WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON HERE? Instead of voting for principles, values and policies that move our nation forward––we’re locked in mortal combat over stopping the lesser of two evils.

Both presumptive major party presidential candidates are polling at record low favorability ratings. For the first time in history, both candidates have a net negative favorability going into their respective conventions.

How bad is it? According to CBS/NY Times polling, Trump is posting a net negative rating of -33, Clinton -21.

The previous low was held by the potential first “First Husband” at -17.

The major parties themselves aren’t doing any better. 66% of voters view the GOP unfavorably and 54% hold the same disdain for the Democrats.

All the while, both major parties are fighting enthusiastically against the candidates most of their enrolled voters support in the primaries. The Dems are maneuvering to crush Bernie––who has so far earned half or more of your popular support and the GOP is in revolt to deny Trump the nomination––again the candidate most of you have voted for in the primary.

They’re NOT listening to YOU! 144

Crazy. Angry. Libertarian.

It’s the same here in Maine and no doubt in many of your congressional districts.

You’ve sent Republicans and Democrats to congress for years on promises of reducing the debt, balancing the budget and letting you keep more of your tax dollar.

What have they done?

The debt bubble is about to burst, they’re burning through your money like a California wildfire and yet they’re both coming after you for more taxes––it’s just a matter of how they decide to hide them!

THEY’RE NOT LISTENING TO YOU. WE ARE. The major parties are not paying attention. Instead, they’re painting Libertarians as “fringe candidates.” They certainly don’t consider us a threat to their precious status quo.

Their mistake.

Recent polls show that un-enrolled and independents are the largest and fastest growing voting block in the country.

Democrats and Republicans are bleeding voters––the Libertarian Party is setting records for new members.

And as far as being on the “fringe?”

Sure–– Fiscal responsibility.

War as a LAST resort.

145

Jim Bouchard Individual freedom and self-determination.

Fringe ideas to be sure.

If you’re like me, you’re tired of voting “against” something. How about voting FOR something for a change?

Go ahead and “throw away your vote!”

I’m sick to death of hearing that unless you vote for one or the other major party candidate, you’re just “throwing your vote away.”

That’s crap––and that’s the attitude that keeps us locked in this mess of runaway spending, astronomical debt and government intrusion on your life.

I have to give them credit. If the Democrats and Republicans can scare you into thinking your vote could tip the election and cause the destruction of the American Way, then they’ll help get their candidates elected.

Quite the opposite is true.

We’ve had Republican presidents, Democrat presidents–– alternately some with their own party controlling Congress and some with the opposition. Every combination of Republican and Democrat you can imagine–– And what have they done?

More spending. More debt. More wars with no clear mission or goals or end in site. More regulation. More control.

Less freedom. Less certainty. Less safety and security. Less prosperity.

There is an amazing wave sweeping the nation. The time for voting for the lesser of two evils is over. You have true 146

Crazy. Angry. Libertarian. alternatives––people running for office all over the country who share your concerns, your values and your vision for a truly free and prosperous America.

We call these people “Libertarians.”

As I travel the district and talk to people all over Maine, they’re not telling me that they’re afraid to “throw their vote away.” They’re telling me they’re glad to do it!

We’ve got a shot if enough of you are willing to throw away your votes on such foolishness as…

No more spending. No more debt. No more taxes.

More government accountability.

More personal responsibility. Less government intrusion.

Fewer wars. Less foreign intervention.

Minimum Government––Maximum Freedom.

If that’s throwing away your vote than go for it! This time around…

You won’t be alone!

147

I can’t wIn thIs race. we can.

One of the great challenges in running for office is getting people to take action. Considering this crazy run as a third party write-in, this challenge is impressive to say the least.

Some of you are afraid to put your name behind a Libertarian candidate––even as you tell me how sick and tired you are of the major parties––even as you agree enthusiastically with every major position.

What’s the problem?

Some of you are afraid that publicly endorsing a Libertarian will hurt your business. I understand that––coming out as Libertarian has done some damage to mine.

Some of you fear political reprisals. I hear that––I’ve experienced that too. I’ve had sincere advisors warn me that both major parties may try to attack me personally, professionally and politically.

Courage is not the absence of fear. The absence of fear is 149

Jim Bouchard stupidity. You’re wise to weigh your fears and the possible consequences of taking a public stand. I considered them too––and I decided to face my fears.

If you are truly sick and tired of the status quo, you’ve got to find the courage to take the stand––to share the Libertarian alternative enthusiastically and openly with every opportunity.

Worse, however, are those of you who ask me what I am willing to do to get elected. After all, it’s me who “wants” to go to Congress. It’s me who “wants” to be a politician, right?

Let me clear something up. I don’t “want” to be a politician––and certainly not a professional.

I don’t want to go to Congress––I’m willing to go to Congress.

We have enough people who want to go to Washington and make a career of it. We all know where that’s gotten us!

I’m willing to be a politician, for awhile––to be part of this tremendous movement to restore the primacy of The People over the government.

What I want is a chance to defend the Constitution. I want to restore true personal liberty––put the power back in your hands and assure that we are all once more citizens and not subjects.

Congress is not the end to me––I have no political ambitions beyond this race. I see my service in Congress as a means to promote the values of libertarianism and to stop the authoritarian abuse that is destroying our republic.

If you elect me, I will be honored to serve and I will serve enthusiastically.

I will commit myself completely for whatever term I 150

Crazy. Angry. Libertarian. serve––then I’m out! I’m running for the House––The People’s House. It’s supposed to be a citizens body, not a corporation of professional politicians.

Again, I understand your fears. There were a lot of reasons I shouldn’t have started on this adventure.

I’ve been working for more than 10 years to build my speaking business. Being an ethical person, I’m quite sure I have much more earning potential with my business than with politics.

I have no experience in elected office and I’m running against several veterans of the system.

I’ve made poor decisions and plenty of mistakes in my life.

My past is wide open to scrutiny and criticism, and that will not always be easy to weather.

We’ve all got legitimate fears and reasons for not wanting to stick our neck out, especially in this bloodsport we call politics.

But if we allow our fears and trepidations to stop us, who will we have to blame for our future?

Long ago I came to the realization that the only person responsible for my life is the guy who brushes his teeth in my bathroom mirror. All I’m asking is that you take a look in your mirror too. Let’s face our fears together––and let’s share this responsibility.

Edmund Burke was absolutely right when he said:

“the only thing necessAry for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

151

Jim Bouchard Trampling of our Constitution.

Abuse of fundamental liberties and personal freedom.

Confiscation and redistribution of personal property.

Undeclared wars waged without our full consent.

Destruction of separation of powers.

Tyrannical authoritarianism.

Does this list of grievances look familiar? Thomas Jefferson warned us from the start that:

“the tree of liBerty must Be refreshed from time to time with the Blood of pAtriots And tyrAnts.”

Fortunately we’ve come a long way since then. At least for the time being we can appreciate Jefferson’s slogan as a metaphor, but in place of spilling our blood––we had better be damn willing to contribute a few buckets of sweat and tears.

I’ll say it again. I’m willing to do what I can to become the first Libertarian in Congress.

I’m willing to go to Washington and to give my full measure to restoring the ideals of individual liberty, freedom and true self-governance.

152

Crazy. Angry. Libertarian.

I’m willing to take the necessary risks. Are you willing too?

I want to close with the words of the founder I admire most. I admire Benjamin Franklin as a leader, as a patriot, a philosopher and a genuine libertarian.

Most of all I admire him as a genuine human being––as person with insight and wit and someone who was a master at cutting through the crap––and yes, they had plenty to cut through in their day too.

The legend is that as Franklin left the Constitutional Convention a woman walked up to him and asked, “Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”

He replied…

“A repuBlic, if you cAn keep it.”

We can keep it, if we’re crazy enough, angry enough and libertarian enough.

I can’t win this election. WE can.

And together, but only together–– WE can keep our Republic.

153

“A liBertAriAn society of unfettered individuAlism spreAds its Benefits to virtuAlly everyone

- not just those who

hAve the resources to seize politicAl power.� ~hArry Browne

Jim Bouchard is the 2016 Libertarian candidate for Congress from the 1st District, Maine… Jim is a professional speaker, leadership expert and author of THE SENSEI LEADER and THINK Like a BLACK BELT. He is active in community leadership and currently serves as a mentor at Long Creek Youth Development Center.

Jim was a professional martial artist for 30 years and was the founder of Northern Chi Martial Arts Centers. He lives in Brunswick, Maine with his wife Alex.

JIMFORME.ORG THATBLACKBELTGUY.COM FOR BOOKING:

BLACK BELT MINDSET PRODUCTIONS 800.786.8502