The interpretation of the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution has been a wild ride with serious implications. The clause grants Congress the power to “regulate commerce . . . among the several States”. For decades it has been used to justify the federal government’s regulation of certain aspects of the economy. Recently, ObamaCare legislated the individual mandate, which will fine people for not obtaining health insurance beginning in 2014. The administration points to the Commerce Clause as their Constitutional right to impose the individual mandate and referred to the fine as a “tax” in court to defend the action as government’s “power to lay and collect taxes”.

Yet there is an even easier and more efficient way for government to collect tax revenues: a Fair Tax; a single broad national consumption tax on retail sales to replace all federal income taxes. A Fair Tax would be collected by merchants and then distributed to the government. Imagine it: a world with no tax returns for individuals, only for retail businesses. It sounds so simple. Surely it wouldn’t work, or wouldn’t produce enough revenue, or somehow make the United States fall to her knees, right? Well, no actually, simple works just fine in this case.

Where is Howard Beale when we need him?  Two years into the Greatest Recession Since the Great Depression (GRSGD) and our financial leaders are still telling us that we need to be patient while waiting for our economic recovery.

Mortgage debt in the United States (currently more than $10 trillion) has grown to the point that it is nearly the same size as our national debt (in fact, a few years ago, U.S. mortgage debt actually successfully passed our national debt), and it has only been as a result of the new Administration’s debt spending that our national debt has regained the lead in the race to see which can account for the highest amount of our economic debt.

Peter Schiff just lost the Republican nod for US Senator in Connecticut. If someone ever embodied the antithesis to the nation’s current approach, it is Schiff.

Today however, the Obama administration is facing lawsuits from 21 states over the mandate. So how do they defend it? Under the taxing powers of Congress of course.

A long Japanese-like malaise, very possibly a prolonged 70’s style stagflation and a slow downward spiral of a Britain-esque imperial demise is what I see on the horizon. Unfortunately, I almost hope for that since an all out Rome style collapse is within the realm of possibility.

Currently, public initiatives offer free, or heavily subsidized, birth control in some states through organizations like Planned Parenthood. With most state budgets in the tank, these options may not be there forever. Some religious groups scoff at the idea of publicly-funded birth control as it flies in the face of their spiritual beliefs; and more seriously, public financing for abortion. We can save abortion for another day, however, it’s safe to say you won’t find too many public health experts on the platform that distributing birth control is a bad idea.

Throughout much of our nation’s history, US federalism has moved toward centralizing power within the federal government. Since the post-bailout hysteria and most recent public sector expansion, the issue of states’ rights has had a renaissance. Some Americans long for a system where states have more control to govern. You know, the system our Founders seemed to envision, where each state is an experiment adopting best practices from one another.

“Not only will the top rate jump to 55%, but the exemption will shrink from $3.5 million per individual in 2009 to just $1 million in 2011, potentially affecting eight times as many taxpayers. The math is ugly: On a $5 million estate, the tax consequence of dying a minute after midnight on Jan. 1, 2011 rather than two minutes earlier could be more than $2 million; on a $15 million estate, the difference could be about $8 million.”