Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
Thomas Sowell :: Townhall.com Columnist
A dangerous obsession: Part II
by Thomas Sowell
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


The media and academic obsessions with economic "disparities" have gone international. Recent news stories proclaim that most of "the world's wealth" belongs to a small fraction of the world's people.

Let's go back to square one. Just what is "the world's wealth"?

You can check in your local phone book, surf the Internet or do genealogical research: There is no one named "The World." How can a non-existent being own wealth?

Human beings own wealth. Once we put aside lofty poetic nonsense about "the world's wealth," we at least have a fighting chance of talking sense about realities.

Who are these minority of the world's population who own a majority of the world's wealth?

They are the population of the United States, Western Europe, Japan and a few other affluent countries. How did these particular people come to possess so much more wealth than other people?

They did it the old-fashioned way. They produced the wealth that they own. You might as well ask why bees have so much more honey than other creatures.

The rhetoric of clever people can verbally collectivize all the wealth that was produced individually, and then they become aghast at the "disparities" that are magically turned into "inequities" in the distribution of "the world's wealth."

Have all the people in the world had an equal chance to produce wealth? No, nowhere close to an equal chance -- either in the world or within a given society.

Geography alone makes the chances grossly unequal. How were Eskimos supposed to grow pineapples or the bedouins of the desert learn to fish?

How were people in the Balkans supposed to have an industrial revolution like that of Western Europe, when the Balkans had neither the raw materials required by an industrial revolution nor any economically viable way of transporting raw materials from other places?

The geographic handicaps of Africa would fill a book. French historian Fernand Braudel said: "In understanding Black Africa, geography is more important than history."

What are we supposed to do about these disparities? File a class-action lawsuit against God? The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals might accept such a lawsuit but they are unlikely to be able to do much about the situation.

Geographic disparities are just the tip of the iceberg. Innumerable cultures have evolved differently in different places and among different peoples in the same places. No given individual controlled this process and each generation began with the particular culture that generations before them had created.

Some cultures proved to be more economically productive at given places and times, and other cultures proved to be more economically productive at other places and times.

In our own time, the economic effects of these cultural differences often dwarf the effects of differences in material things like natural resources.

Natural resources in Uruguay and Venezuela are worth several times as much per capita as natural resources in Japan and Switzerland. But income per capita in Japan and Switzerland is about double that of Uruguay and several times that of Venezuela.

Nobody likes to see poverty in a world where technology and economic know-how already exist that could give everyone everywhere a decent standard of living.

All you have to do is change people. But have you ever tried to do that?

The quick fix is to transfer wealth. But more than half a century of trying to do that with "foreign aid" has left a dismal record of failure and even retrogression in Third World countries.

Some countries have themselves made changes that lifted them from poverty to prosperity. Indeed, the affluent countries of today were once living in poverty.

But they didn't do it with quick fixes or by turning a dangerous power over to politicians.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of The Housing Boom and Bust.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Thomas Sowell and Townhall.com's daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
Freedom!
When William Wallace made his famous cry (duh, I know it was a movie) it would make no difference to give political freedom without economic freedom.

Thoughout history, when all the people are free economically, they have prospered. When limititations on wealth have been placed by government, poverty for the masses will follow. Mexico should be the economic star of Latin America but because it keeps wealth in the hands of a few, it off-loads some 10-20 million workers (many hard workers) on to the US.


It's Dangerous Because --
-- of the screwy laws that are passed, thanks to this obsession.

I'm sure we all can think of stuff that's more dangerous, and a lot of those things would be merely "weird" but for politician's passing laws about it.

Just as dangerous
is the notion that there is a finite amount of money in this country and those that got to it first have the most.
They must therefore be made to "give back" to the less fortunate.
This idea breeds class warfare and is the basis for many of the democrats programs in the inner city and the war on poverty...these folks believe this lie and are therefore inclined to vote for dems.

The reason it is dangerous
Is because those who want to equalize things want to use someone else's money to do it. We have become the care taker of the whole world and shouldered the responsibility for everything for everyone. It is impossible to make everything equal.

Weird Obsession Reply
Tanabear may think Mr. Sowell's column is about a "weird obsession", but it is a fundamental problem in political and sociological circles today. By labeling it an obsession, Tanabear indicates that truth is not important - that they believe the fantasy that wealth is not connected to productivity and ability to appreciate capital. The majority of the world's poor are so because they do not have the political/legal stability required to accumulate and invest capital in ways that increase productivity. The wealthiest countries have that stability. The solution to wealth inequalities is not confiscation and distribution, but secure property rights and rule of law.

If I live where all business must be cash or barter, there is no security in my home, bribes and graft are necessary for simple and necessary government transactions, I do not or cannot own my own home and land and pass it securely on to my children, where my entire day is spent eaking a living out of what I can produce by myself - I will be poor.

If I live where I can safely save my excess income, obtain secure loans at low interest rates, own my property - including shares of businesses that I do not work for, am protected from paying bribes or buying "protection", where I have legal recourse against fraud or violence directed against me, I will be more wealthy.

If those who think, "we should take less from the unfortunate and give them 'back' some of what we took from them", would concentrate more on building stability and property rights throughout the world, we could experience a leveling of wealth differences. Not by reducing the wealth of those who are productive, but by increasing the productivity of those who have been denied the same benefits from which we ourselves derived our wealth.

Marion
If you are trying to persuade Tanabear, don't hold your breath. He is almost as thick-headed as Kimberly and will never listen to reason. He has his little mind made up and nothing is going to change it.

Venezuelan bit
The essence of this article is in his comments about Venezuela and Japan. One has natural resources, the other does not, yet the blessed nation has poverty abounding and the other abundant prosperity. Anytime people have freedom, they will prosper. The prosperity of nations serve as a barometer of their freedom, and vice versa.

Dangerous Obsession
Yes it is dangerous when you "follow the money". Our lawyer controlled country has made the playing field tilt toward our infamous lawyers. Who is really benefiting from the outrageous incomes? The government gets half thru taxes and their lawyer-agents get 10-15%. Yes there are CEO'S,atheletes and movie stars that deserve outstanding pay but let's let the market determine that level.

Our wealth
and security is because of capitalism and the accompanying freedom we have. This freedom has opened up the most wonderful thinking and enterprise that is responsible for the success of capitalism. A review of those countries having capitalism to some extent is a chronicle of wealth and comfort. To the extent that government runs the lives of citizens is the measure of how much wealth there is or is not. Another feature of successful nations is the utilization of female work and intelligence. Yes, geography is important, but it isn't enough for success. The right social and political structure is important.

Das Kapital, eh?
C A P I T A L I S M makes all the difference.

"Freedom" in human terms, translates into "Capitalism" in economic terms.

Natural resources do have an impact on the potential wealth of individuals in different regions. But, how do you explain the differences that can be seen across man-made borders, e.g. US/Mexico, North/South Korea, East/West Berlin (a few decades ago). Considering the cultural and historical similarities between Canada and the US, observe the difference in affluence on both sides of that border.

Since Africa was mentioned in Dr. Sowell's article, consider this: the climate in So. Africa is very similar to that in Holland (they are the same no of degrees away from the Equator). However, it took the industrious efforts of the Dutch settlers (backed by capital) to bring modernity to So. Africa. Except for sub-Saharan Africa, most of Africa is actually quite rich in resources.

And now for my personal peeve:

Why do most conservatives not push (I mean, really, really push) capitalism/freedom as their main argument?

Why do we get bogged down on social/cultural issues, e.g. gay marriage, abortion, religion?

I know that social issues are easier to understand - and appeal to a vote-rich constituency. But, if we were strong proponents of free-market capitalism, and could show that our continued prosperity depends on it, we would get plenty of traction from centrists who care about maintaining our standard of living.




Wealth
A great deal of the problem is with the culture. The Palestinians, for example, are some of the most backward, and sorriest, people on the planet. I think the main reason for that is because they blame the Jews for all their problems, always have. How do you fix that? Well, you don't. You can continue to give them $millions, but until they look within and decide to change themselves, they will always be poor. It's no different with the welfare blacks in the U.S., and their 70% illegitimacy.

Granted, there are places in the world where it is extremely difficult to succeed, but there is simply no excuse for failure in the USA, if you are physically and mentally healthy. If you live here and are poor, it's because you have made the wrong choices in life. Not everyone can be rich, but there is no excuse for being poor. If you can't make it here, there's no hope for you anywhere, and I resent being taxed to death to compensate for your failures.

Mexico versus the USA
Why has Mexico lagged so far behind the US ?

Crossing the southern border can be cultural shock.

How come ?

Little Red Hen
As a wee tyke, I received a strong impression from a children's story called "The Little Red Hen" which primed me for later readings of real economists such as Milton Friedman, Robert Heilbroner (gotta have a little "balance") and the inestimable Dr. Thomas Sowell.

The Little Red Hen is an industrious sort who asks for help from her barnyard compatriots as she prepares a meal. One by one, they decline to help until the work is all done. Then they want to crowd around the table and help her eat "their share."

Redistributionist economics is much like that. Grittier types dig the ore, smelt the steel, build the refrigerators, stock 'em with food and when all the dirty work is done, suddenly hordes of layabouts show up to demand their share of "the wealth."

People sometimes forget that there is no such thing as "wealth" without the prior ingenuity to turn raw materials into something people can use. "Rich" soil is only dirt until it is tilled. Until sheep are shorn and the wool is made into three piece suits for lawyers to overawe juries, or woven into rugs that can grace parlors, sheep are merely stupid, filthy animals who graze too aggressively. Copper begins as greenish rock; silicon chips as sand. Oil is horrid, sticky goo until it is refined into fuels, lubricants and polymers; iron ore is annoying red dust; elephant tusks are cumbersome, useless curiosities until they are hewn into piano keys, billiard balls and knicknacks.

Even when it comes to saving endangered and charismatic species -- which I happen to favor strongly for various reasons -- ingenuity is indispensible. There are now better materials for piano keys and billiard balls, thanks to the wonders of chemistry. Picnic tables can be made of lesser woods and protected with paint, so that more redwoods can be left alone.

When do-gooders bleat about the industrial world "stealing" wealth elsewhere, people might remember where wealth really comes from -- the human mind.

Foreign Aid
It is like the old story about giving a man a fish and teaching a man how to fish. Only thing, we never do get around to teaching how to fish. We just keep giving the fish away. Pretty soon our pond will be empty.

**Of course, we taught Japan how to fish...rather well, I'd say. Just wish they'd quit fishing in OUR pond.**

Sawdust
AMEN!!

Librty B
You are correct sir! What we are doing half-arsed in iraq would do wonders on the african continent. Instead we hand the corrupt cheiftans money to help the poor, and they do what arafat did with his foreign aid.

Take as much money as you can OUT of political control and these contries will prosper with freedom and democracy.

As Mr. Sowell usually does; points out SIMPLY what the cause/problem is.

11h

Tomgee
Amen to that!

fish story
Buck:

That proverb about teaching a man to fish is semi-obsolete, I'm sorry to say. Nowadays, you teach a man to fish and he scours the entire oceans clean of life with techniques that resemble mining more than harvesting.

In the Martha's Vineyard annual swordfish tournament a couple of years ago, somebody caught a swordfish larger than 150 pounds for the first time in something like fifteen years and the entire island erupted in celebration. A generation ago, 600 pounders were common. In the famous book and movie "The Perfect Storm," the reason the longliner Andrea Gail was 1100 miles out at sea looking for swordfish is that the inshore waters have been overfished for decades. The reason only one fishing boat was lost in that storm -- other than improved forecasting, radar and engines -- is that the fleet is much smaller, due to depletion of oceanic fisheries.

The overfishing story has been repeated almost everywhere.

I saw a statistic recently claiming that Japan consumes around 1/3 of all oceanic seafood in the world. However healthy that is for a diet (Japan also has the longest life expectancy) obviously there aren't enough "good fish in the sea" for everybody.

This isn't to say that my aforementioned "ingenuity" couldn't help with a remedy. Native Americans didn't starve after they ate all the mastodons; they've even adjusted to the near-elimination of the buffalo. Most of the world has kissed goodbye the hunting & gathering of which commercial fishing is a mere vestige.

What we have to teach people now is to think farther ahead.

Bagwell
Mexico is neither democratic, or entirely free. But the largest hurdle is that their government has too much control of the making of money. Oh, and er, the corruption thing too!

11h

Little Red Hen is not the model
I think this analogy misses the real point. What motivation is there to work to raise grain when your farm can be seized at whim? Why bother milling it when it can be claimed by others? It may be a kindness to share what you have with others but for them to just take it is theft. If you are not secure in your possessions, they have much less value. So you have less reason to work for them.

The horrific famines we have seen in Africa are largely the result of taking the land of productive farmers by the State. Until the government changes the problems will remain.

Again!
He hits the mark! Mr. Sowell is a genious in writing articles that stimulate the mind. His articulation on such economic matters always generate the utmost thought and "comments" from his readers.

It amazes me that he does not have a greater impact in the black community, where so many would benefit from his intellect. Why do so many in these communities, even the educated, follow the likes of Jackson, Rangel and Sharpton?
Why do we not hear the comments made by Mr. Sowell expressed in the media more oftern?

I saw Thomas Sowell on the Fox Channel and have been hooked ever since. What a loss to the black community that the left wing media finds it more in their interest not to present his truths.

OBQuiet
The points you make about incentives, property rights & confiscation are crucial and I agree with them. That's why I'm glad I moved up from children's stories to real economics books. Part of my point was that it seems redistributionists often fail to move up.

Flying Fin:

Dr. Sowell is too brilliant to be pigeonholed as a spokesman for blacks. He is there for all of us, thank goodness. There is no reason he should be limited by his skin color, no matter whether the intentions are good or bad. And I wouldn't assume that "even the educated" hew strictly to the likes of Jackson, Rangel and Sharpton. Your impression in that regard might be a result of MSM anxious to keep blacks pigeonholed on the liberal plantation.

Plenty of thinkers of all colors, besides Dr. Sowell, have been able to transcend pigeonholing. We might be thankful for the progress.

Sowell's Message
Sowell preaches self-reliance, the value of work and responsibility for one's own actions.
5000 years ago Moses told the Israelites "Pack up your picks and shovels, load up your camels and mount your assas, we're going to the promised land". Today Jackson/Sharpton tell their constituents "Throw down your picks and shovels, sit on your asses and light up a Camel, this is the promised land." Guess which message is more popular.
Wealth is nothing more than an expression of value added, thus the supply is potentially infinite. The error made by most left leaners is that wealth is a finite commodity, meaning the only way I can get more is to take yours away from you. This is clearly wrong.

re: Mexico -
11hotel

"Bagwell
Mexico is neither democratic, or entirely free. But the largest hurdle is that their government has too much control of the making of money. Oh, and er, the corruption thing too!"

How is Mexico not as "democratic" as the US ? How are Mexicans not as "free" as people in the US ? How do the countries differ in "control of making money" ?

Some say the voting system is better in Mexico and the "party system" is similar and Mexico has its share of Billionaires (In US Dollars). Corruption in some Asian countries has not dampened progress as much.

There has to be some other MAJOR reason for the difference. I still wonder what it is.

Sawdust
Sorry this is late but Amen to what you said. Has anybody wondered why, in 50+ years, the Israelis have hewn an entire country with parks, cities, etc, from rock and sand while the "Palestinians" continue to live in refugee camps? Why haven't they gotten off of their arses and improved their cities and situation? Too lazy, inept or stupid? Or is it to demonstrate their "desperate plight" to the entire world on an ongoing basis? We should cut every dollar of aid to the PA and give it to our taxpayers!

Laugh your Antlers off.
Dr. Sowell trod so lightly! Think of these examples:
>Zimbabwe, where it used to be the "breadbasket" of Africa. The dictator expelled the white farmers from their property, collectivized and divided the property among his chosen few, and now has starving millions.
>Iran, sitting on huge oil deposits, is RUNNING OUT OF OIL since 1) they have nobody to explore and won't let Western people with the knowledge in to do the exploration and 2) is already a net IMPORTER of gasoline since they don't have the knowledge to build refineries and are also afraid to let outsiders in.
>Mexico - PeMex plays it close to the vest. See #1, about Iran, above. Mexico would be a rich country except for the total corruption rampant throughout the entire structure of the place.

To Revisit A Point
Dr. Sowell, you touched on an important element of the global economic condition - time. What exists today in terms of wealth distribution did not exist 500 years ago and will likely not exist 500 years from now. Much of the problen, as I see it, is that there are those who want to:

1. Control all the wealth, and
2. Decide how to redistribute it.

And they want this RIGHT NOW.

I am reminded of nothing so much as an angry child in front of a candy counter, unable to understand and unwilling to admit that it does not absolutely control the universe, pitching a tantrum because it can't have what it wants RIGHT NOW. The principle difference is only that the former group resemble adults.

Make that "problem"
The fickle finger struck...

Another good question...
upon hearing liberals moaning about this disparity in posession of the world's wealth I generally am only podering one thing: who cares. I guess it's obvious that 'they' do but in the grand scheme of things I don't really think it is important unless this "minority" has acquired their wealth by illegal or nefarious means. Assuming they have not, then, why does it matter? I like to use this analogy to liberal friends. I live in Boston, a cold and bitter place in the winter. When faced with homeless people in the winter and the questions about "what should be done" for/ with them I always say the same thing. They should start walking south. If I was homeless I would use the warm months to begin hitchhiking and walking southward so as to avoid the cold entirely. Unless someone is crippled there is literally no reason why they can't have done this. But, then again, that would sort of play along with the whole survival of the fittest thing. If you're too stupid or lazy to walk south before cold weather comes then I feel no obligation to help you out when it eventually arrives. You're also then too stupid to pass on your stupid genes to future generations. God helps those who help themselves.

Sowell's Solution
Perhaps for some of our left leaning friends the solution would be for all the wealthy nations to give their wealth to the United Nations for redistribution to the rest of the world as that body saw fit.

CVN65
Check out Leon Uris' book "The Haj".

I'm surprised that Muslim imams did not issue a fatwa on him.

He examines at length, from an Arab boy's view, of how the Jews bought land from the Arabs in 46-48, were cheated by the Arabs for it, and then proceeded to create Gardens of Eden where the Arabs had let the land lay follow for a 1000 years. Also gives a good look at the Palestinian sit.

Collectivist socialism or liberty?
I think this is the basis of Dr. Sowell's article.

Self-ownership and private property are the central tenets of liberty. Private property includes that which an individual produces and what the individual owns as a result of what is produced.

Socialism specifically chooses to 'collectivise' that which individuals produce, making it public property to be re-distributed at the whim of some higher power. Bastiat calls the process of using the law to redistribute wealth "legal plunder".

One particular failure of "legal plunder" - socialism - is that only those in power gain anything, and those who produce have no incentive to do so.

A second failure of "legal plunder" - socialism - is that compassion is removed from the heart of the individual. In fact, all compassion is removed entirely from society and placed in the hands of government.
How can government, which has no heart at all, have compassion? Who, of any of us, is wise or beneficient enough to equitably distribute that which is stolen from the pockets of others? It is easy, indeed, to have false compassion WITH SOMEONE ELSES' MONEY! The hard part is convincing everyone else that YOU are the person to do it. Is that compassion? - NO! - That is an evil lust for power to do what you desire with someone elses' property.

Genuine-ly compassionate charity can only come when an individual redistributes that which the individual produces and owns. Let those who desire to redistribute wealth do so with their own property, not that of others.

Remove the fetters of society that bind property to state and restore the liberty - and responsibility - of private ownership.

Well said, Tomgee ..
Wealth has to be created, before it can be looted (redistributed).

And, all wealth is a product of Man's mind.

kendak, be careful what you wish for...
A world tax may be right around the corner. How else will the UN justify its existence?

WEALTH & POVERTY
Countries, like people, are poor typically not because of what someone has done to them, but because of what they haven't done for themselves.

Latin American economist, Hernando De Soto has written an interesting book called "The Mystery of Capital," which explains exactly what changes are needed to release prosperity from its chains in Third World nations.

Here, "crony capitalism" prevails. Outside of a handful of rigged schemes for the very rich, private property ownership as we know it is unknown. This makes the process of capital accumulation and self-advancement available to anyone in the First World well-knigh impossible.

For example, a baker might "own" his bakery and accommodation above its. This trade and property might have been in his family for 100 years. The barrier to upward financial mobility and prosperity is that his "ownership," while informally recognised withing his local community, cannot be codified outside it.

He has no formal, universally recognised, state-backed paper title deed to his property. This means he cannot go to a bank and borrow against his asset for the purposes of capital accumulation.

De Soto makes it clear that the "extra-legal" wealth held informally by individuals in Third World countries amounts to trillions of dollars. They just can't leverage this wealth to create more as we would.

What these countries actually need is MORE capitalism, not less. FREE markets, not corrupt elites favouring their own.

Overlooked
Thomas Sowell reminds us that wealth comes from societies with a well-established rule of law and private property rights. Neither politicians nor social revolutionaries of the Che Guevera type do a thing to improve the living conditions of the poor.

This is an important lesson because it suggests that "democracy" is no avenue to wealth, and often times it's an impediment. Some cultures have values that are conducive to wealth creation (English Protestant, Asian Confuican) and other cultures do not (Catholic Mexico).

This is why no one should expect Iraqi democracy to fundamentally change Iraq -- it might allow Iran's influence to penetrate Iraq, but it will not accomplish a thing with regards to "westernizing" Iraq.

If such lessons had been heeded, then maybe we wouldn't be wasting America's resources in Iraq.

democracy & capitalism
It is easy to confuse democracy and capitalism - since we (in the US) have a democracy and a more-or-less capitalist system.

However, it is not essential that capitalism ALWAYS exists in democratic countries.

Essentially democracy = mob rule!
But, if the mob picks theocracy, communism, socialism, tribal rule et al - then you have a non-capitalist but democratic society.

It is for this reason that our current policy in Iraq is misguided. Instead of exporting 'democracy', we should export capitalism.

Bagwell
Government control of making money. Mexico has vast natural resources, oil, gold, silver, agriculture, tourism. The only major difference I can imagine IS goverment!

Corruption in government wastes billions in the lack of tax collection, the innability of Jose mexican to get in on government contracts, start a company, file claims against unfair business practices-you can imagine the reach of it.

I do not however have any studies to cite, and I am making a best guess. I think it is as good as any other.

Elections do not make a democracy. Voting procedures, that is the end of the political game; I wonder what the rest of the process and its rules consist of, what power do elected officals have etc...

11h

Red Tooth
Would you please explain why you feel that Catholic Mexico is not conducive to wealth creation? Is it just Mexico or is it Catholicism that is the main part of the problem?

Palestineans
Palestinean emigres in other parts of the world are more successful than average; they are the ones who help build the oil sheikdoms and have had a high level of education and ability. Palestine in the 1920's and 1930's attracted the many of the ambitious Arabs-both Muslim and Christian from other Arab countries because of the opportunities created by Western and Israeli investment and development, and many of them are still hardworking and prosperous in Israel and the West Bank today, but are being turned off by the political and economic corruption around them. The refugee camps were built by Arab governments who could not afford to have a large alien admixture loose in their countries and cared only about a political object lesson. Palestineans both helped build up Jordan and Lebanon and almost destroyed both.
I have long thought that the most effective refugee camp would be open land, building materials, basic tools, seeds and starter flocks, and no further meddling.

NEVER FORGET
WITHOUT PROPERTY RIGHTS
THERE ARE NO HUMAN RIGHTS

Foreign Aid
Foreign aid has not been a good idea, overall. The way the world hates us, we should withdraw it for a decade or so. Then let them come groveling back to us.

SkunkWorks: never forget...
"WITHOUT PROPERTY RIGHTS
THERE ARE NO HUMAN RIGHTS"

SW, you just keep saying all the right things. Absolutely!
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.