Common sense tells us that the government's attempts to solve large problems more often create new ones. Common sense also tells us that a top-down one-size-fits-all plan will not improve the workings of a nationwide health-care system that accounts for one-sixth of our economy.

All too often government's response to social breakdown has been a classic case of 'patching' - a case of handing money out containing problems and limiting the damage but in doing so supporting - even reinforcing - dysfunctional behaviour.

I am often asked if when I was secretary I had problems with foreign men. That is not who I had problems with because I arrived in a very large plane that said United States of America. I had more problems with the men in our own government.

'Hello my name is the Republican Party and I got a problem. I'm addicted to spending and big government.' I'd like one of them just to stand up and say that.

And here's the fact: the fact is it doesn't solve the problem. First of all if you taxed these people at 100 percent basically next year you said 'Look every penny you make next year the government's going to take it from you ' it still doesn't solve the debt.

The problem is that when government controls the economy those who can influence government keep winning and everybody else just stays the same.

Indiscriminate firing by police on people is absolute barbarism. Instead of solving their problems the government is trying to suppress the people by force.

The new rage is to say that the government is the cause of all our problems and if only we had no government we'd have no problems. I can tell you that contradicts evidence history and common sense.

The problem with leaderless uprisings taking over is that you don't always know what you get at the other end. If you are not careful you could replace a bad government with one much worse!

Many people want the government to protect the consumer. A much more urgent problem is to protect the consumer from the government.