increase of 38 percent in real output perrnman-hour from 1970 to 1993, the realrnmedian income of married familiesrnfailed to rise at all—despite the increasedrnparticipation rate of wives in the workforcern(from 40 to 59 percent). All of thernsurplus of the efforts of married familiesrnwas confiscated by government for distributionrnto its clients.rnGovernment conHnues its relentlessrngrowth, extending its control over Americanrnculture to serve its ends. Althoughrnevery vestige of traditional religion hasrnbeen ruthlessly eliminated by governmentrnfrom public education and publicrnlife, Americans have a state religion. Itsrncathedrals are the ivy towers of academia,rnand its dogma is materialistic humanism.rnIts tenets are self-gratification,rnmoral relativism, multiculturalism, andrnatheism. Government-franchised media,rnlicensed broadcasters, and newsprintrnmonopolies are its evangelists. Collegernadministrators, government regulators,rnand editorial boards are its grand inquisitors.rnAmerican citizens have sold the freernsociety that was their inheritance fromrnthe Founding Fathers for a pocketful ofrnpromises of a socialist Utopia. We are inrnthe grasp of an all-encompassing governmentrnthat takes the surplus fruits of ourrnefforts to serve the ends of those who governrn—and perverts our culture and heritage.rnWhat hope do Americans have for arncounterrevolution to restore our rights tornlife, libert}’, and the pursuit of happiness?rnFortunately, bold avenues for counterattackingrnthe citadels of big governmentrnare open.rnPublic-school choice with vouchersrnfor use at whichever school parentsrnchoose is about to become a reality. Itrnwill end the government monopol)’ onrnpublic education and the state’s claim tornprimacy in parenHng children. And itrnwill permit moral education in the traditionsrnof our American heritage.rnFundamental tax reform is gainingrnmomentum. A flat consumption taxrnmay replace income and capital taxation.rnIt would replace not only therninequitable and hopelessly complex income-rntax code, but also the most despisedrnand scofflaw agency of government,rnthe Internal Revenue Service.rnSuch tax reform would end the capitalformationrndeficit and dependency uponrnforeigners to finance growth, close therntrade deficit, and supply the necessaryrncapital to restore the earning power ofrnmiddle-class families.rnInformation technology, particularlyrnthe Internet, offers the promise of radicallyrnaltering communications and evenrnhigher education by expanding the waysrnby which knowledge and ideas are disseminated.rnThis could serve as the crucialrnmeans of circumventing the mediarnand government-controlled academia.rnSocial Security reform is gaining arnpopular consensus around the idea thatrnsaving for old age should be privatized.rnThis would be a major re’ersal for thernwelfare state.rnReduction in the scale of governmentrnand its claim on society’s resourcesrnshould be a natural consequence of a citizenryrnmade better informed throughrnmore visible taxation, traditional educationrnin citizen-run schools, and the freeingrnof communication.rnFamilv formation and child-rearingrnwithin families would be enhanced, as inrnthe 1950’s, by growing real after-tax incomes,rnthe transmission of traditionalrnvalues by citizen-run schools, and the returnrnof social welfare to families andrncommunities.rnMoral and spiritual values would bernreinforced by education and religionrnonce again. Glioice would allow the returnrnof religion to schooling. The currentrnmovement of parishioners fromrnmainline churches in the thrall of socialistsrnto commnnit}’ churches built uponrntraditional theology and neighborlinessrnwill gain momentum.rnTo what extent can government berncurtailed? Adjusted for the Cold War,rngovernment on the scale of the 1950’s —rna time of rising marriage and birth ratesrnand declining divorces, with relativelyrnfew illegitimate births —would spendrnless than half the current confiscation ofrnAmerican incomes. Perhaps someday arngovernment spending less than ten percentrnof incomes, as in 1900, will oncernagain suffice.rnThe socialist Utopias have proved to bernempty promises. Americans must radicallyrncurtail government if we are to reclaimrnthe American dream which wasrnthe legacy of the Founding Fathers.rnDavid Hartman is the chairman ofrnthe board of directors of The RockfordrnInstitute.rnTo Subscribe:rn1^800^877-5459rnHow a Court CanrnDerail a Culturernby George WardrnDaniel Patrick Moynihan and othersrnhave written volumes aboutrnhow the Great Society destroyed thernAmerican family. But the pivotal rolernplayed by Republican appointees on thernU.S. Supreme Court, in nullifying lawsrnintended to encourage the formation ofrntwo-parent families, has gone largely unremarked.rnThe lightning rod for change was arnConnecticut statute which forbade thernsale of contraceptives, even to marriedrncouples. The Court rejected a 1943rnchallenge to this statvite in Tileston v. Ullmanrnbecause the plaintiff (a doctor)rnlacked standing, and another in 1961 inrnFoe V. Ullman because, among otherrnthings, the statute was not enforced.rnStill, the dissenting opinion in Poe v.rnUllman—by President Eisenhower’s firstrnSupreme Court appointee, John Harlanrn—would drive due process jurisprudencernin the wrong direction for the nextrnthree decades.rnBy 1961, earlier disputes over thernmeaning of the Due Process Clause, as itrnrelates to the validity of a statute, had ledrnto an understanding that an allegedlyrn”arbitrary imposition or purposeless restraint”rncould be declared unconstitutional.rnWhether an imposition or restraintrnwas “arbitrary or purposeless,”rnhowever, had to be determined by an objectiverntest: Would a reasonable personrnfind that, even when viewed in its mostrnfavorable light, the imposition or restraintrnhad no tendency to advance anyrngoal of the statute?rnIn his dissent in Poe, Justice Harlan rejectedrnthe limits that this test imposedrnupon the Court, argiung that “the bestrnthat can be said” about the Due ProcessrnClause is that its “content” will be suppliedrnby the Court, and claiming for thernCourt what Justice Hugo Black, FDR’srnfirst Court appointee, would call a judicialrnveto power. “Certainly,” said Harlan,rn”Connecticut’s judgment is no morerndemonstrably correct or incorrect thanrnare the varieties of judgment, expressedrnin law, on marriage and divorce, on adultrnMAY 1999/45rnrnrn