Mark Levin explains why we now live in ‘post-Constitutional’ society

On radio this morning, Glenn spoke to fellow conservative author and radio personality Mark Levin about his latest book, The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Public. Much like Glenn, Mark has been making the case that the principles and values that founded this nation have unraveled. In his new book, Mark provides a thorough look at the beliefs of the Founding Fathers and the language of the Constitution itself to put forth a plan to restore the American Republic.

Today’s radio interview marked the first time Glenn and Mark had ever spoken, and they quickly found that they agree on a lot of things – mainly, there is an ever-growing need to restore America.

“Tell me about the amendments because first of all, I don't think people understand what has been taken out of our Constitution and how much we have been changed in the last hundred years,” Glenn said. “People don't even understand the czars are not Constitutional and everything that has happened. You're calling for a Constitutional Convention.”

“We live in what I call a ‘post-Constitutional' period. And you're well familiar with Woodrow Wilson and the Progressive movement. We have to accept the fact that they won. They did win and this utopian statism and Constitutional Republicanism cannot coexist. And they don't coexist,” Mark explained. And the circle of liberty around every individual is shrinking and shrinking and shrinking… So if you believe in the Constitution, then you have to believe it's time to reestablish it.”

“And the Framers gave us one way to reestablish the Constitution, should the federal government become oppressive. And that's George Mason's own words from the Constitutional Convention,” he continued. “And two days before the end of at that Convention, in Philadelphia, he stood up and he said: ‘Look, what if Congress becomes oppressive? What if this new government becomes oppressive? Short of violence, what can the people do? Congress is not going to propose amendments to the states to fix themselves.’ And so, he insisted that the states have the power to get together and propose amendments to all the states – still requiring three-fourths ratification. And so, we can talk about the culture, and you do and I do, and we can talk about aspects like that. But when we're talking about the Constitution, people say, ‘I thought Levin he revered the Constitution, now you want to change it.’ No, I want to bring it back. And the book has some of my ideas.”

With that idea in mind, Glenn and Mark went on to discuss the practicality and ramifications of undertaking such a movement.

“Pat and I've been talking about the Constitutional Convention. We talked about it for years, and Pat said, ‘No, no, no,’” Glenn concluded. “I think there's something to this case. And I think Mark just made that case.”

Watch the entire interview below:

Read a rough transcript below:

GLENN: In this last week, we have seen in Texas, and in South Carolina, the Constitution being taught in textbooks in ways that you don't even recognize the Constitution anymore. Being taught in, in ways that make the Second Amendment really only four militias and if you're trying to stop the quartering the soldiers in your home, only at peace time it's really amazing what's going on and it is prompted me this week, to say to you that I don't, I don't think you are losing your country. I think you've lost your country. I think we've lost at least one generation, perhaps two. And if we don't start immediately restoring the information and putting things back we're not going to make it.

Mark Levin is a talk show host who has the number one non fiction book now for three straight weeks. And it is called The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic. Mark how are you sir?

MARK LEVIN: I'm good nice to meet you. How are you?

GLENN: Nice to meet you I was trying to, I asked this morning if we had ever met or even spoke to each other I don't think we ever have?

MARK LEVIN: We have never.

GLENN: Well, I'm glad to have you on the program.

MARK LEVIN: And I want your audience to know you sent me a very kind letter. And you're a patriot and you're fighting like hell and this is very, very important.

GLENN: Tell me about the amendments because you have at first of all, I don't think people understand what has been taken out of our constitution and how much we have been changed in the last, in the last hundred years people don't even understand the czars are not constitutional and everything that is, has happened. You're calling for a constitutional convention.

MARK LEVIN: We live what I call a post-constitutional period. And you're well familiar with Woodrow Wilson and the Progressive movement. We have to accept the fact that they

won. They did win and this utopian statism and constitutional Republicanism cannot coexist. And they don't coexist. And the circle of liberty around every individual is shrinking and shrinking and shrinking. People think I'm prone. I can go to of movies, I can go bowling I can get my IPhone. That's not what we're talking about. You're not free to pick your toilet. You're not free to pick your light bulb, yet you're free to pick your rulers. This doesn't make any sense. And we have this pubic by at this time all powerful central government the federal government that exists today is not in the Constitution. So I start with that premise. And I start with the premise that the Supreme Court is constantly rewriting Constitution as is the President and Congress and this massive fourth branch the Government. This administrative state that's not even in the Constitution. So if you believe in the Constitution, then you have to believe it's time to reestablish it.

And so, the framers gave us one way to reestablish the Constitution. Should the federal government become oppressive and that's George Mason's own words that the Constitutional convention. And two days before the end of at that convention, in Philadelphia, he stood up and he said, look, what if Congress becomes oppressive. What if this new government becomes oppressive. Short of violence, what can the people do? Congress is not going to propose amendments to the states to fix itself. And so, he insisted that the States have the power to get together and propose amendments to all the states. Still requiring three-fourths ratification. And so, we can talk about the culture and you do and I do and we can talk about aspects like that. But when we're talking about the Constitution, people say, I thought Levin he revered the Constitution, now you want to change it. No, I want to bring it back. And the book has some of my ideas.

GLENN: Hang on just a second. Are you talking about a constitutional convention because, I have heard people talk about a constitutional convention before.


GLENN: And that is a frightening prospect. You're talking about something entirely different.

MARK LEVIN: First of all, the Constitution doesn't talk about a constitutional convention. The article five talks about a convention of the states to propose amendments. There can't be a constitutional convention. The language that the framers in Philadelphia wrote, was two methods for amending the Constitution one led by Congress, the other led by the states. Either we believe in federalism or we don't. They did. It's the states legislatures in particular. Not the governor, not the Court, the states legislatures.

GLENN: Do we need, how many dates do we need and do they all have to show up can one state start it and say, this is what we, this is what we propose we do. And then they try to sell it to other states.

MARK LEVIN: That's the way it would work. I mean, they're not going to say, hey, guys let's have a convention and amend the Constitution. No, states are going to start, what used to happen is states would have meetings. That's what they meant by convention. And they would talk and they try and work out their differences and they come up with agreements. And then they would sends them back to the states for approval. The Constitutional convention, itself, in 1787, people wrongly state, you know they were there to amend the articles of confederation. Well I looked at the, at the commissions and that's what they recalled. That were given the delegates to the Constitutional convention and they were not there ten out of the 12 states to amend the Articles of Confederation. They were there to draft a constitution.

And so, people attack our constitution as some kind of bastardized process. There wasn't a bastardized process. And as you know Rhode Island didn't even send delegates to the convention. So, what we're talking about here, the language is limiting within article five. But we're talking about here I a convention of the states for proposing amendments and still requiring three-fourths of the states to ratify. What the --

GLENN: What's the most, where would you say you start?

MARK LEVIN: In terms of the amendment.

GLENN: That you could win? And that are you saying that you do all of them? Or are you saying we start with one and get that passed and then do another? How does this work, Mark?

MARK LEVIN: The way it works is, that the state Legislature would decide how many one, 10, three, subjects will be raised at this convention. The state legislatures picked the delegates, as many as they want. Each state gets a vote. We know this from past practice. One vote. Each state. At the, at this convention. And they can bring up multiple subjects. They can bring up one subject. The State legislatures can withdraw their delegates this their delegates are out of control and the states in the end, three-fourths of them have to decide if what comes out of this convention is acceptable or not.

GLENN: I see, I mean, the things that you spell out in the book, I happen to agree with. Term limits on Congress. Term limits the Supreme Court. The super majority can override the Supreme Court rulings. Make the U.S. senate a voice for the States again. Amen. However, you and I both know, the game that we have all been duped to some level or another, the people we thought were on our side, are not really on our side. The GOP is a nightmare. And perhaps a bigger nightmare than the Democrats, because they are, their people are awake, their people that support them are saying, no, we are electing you to do these things. And then they go in and say they're going to do them but for instance, you know, the universal health care they voted 41 times against this they say. They're not going to defund it.

MARK LEVIN: No they're not. And that's why this is the recourse. Because it by passes Congress. It by passes the GOP establishment. It bypasses the Supreme Court, the President, the bureaucracy. This is completely bottom up. The people working with state delegates and state senators, it's states legislatures.

Let's me tell you this, Glenn. In this system doesn't work,we're done. That means it's over. Because the top down system, the Progressives placed in the Constitution, with a centralized authoritarian ubiquitous government. We can't get anywhere with that. We can argue, we can win an election here and there, we may get arrested for four years or eight years.

GLENN: No, if you think Mitt Romney, I was not for Mitt Romney. He was my last choice. And I'll never go down the GOP road again I'll never do it again I'm not going to listen to that argument ever, ever, ever again. And if you think that Mitt Romney would not have been going into Syria and making a similar case, I mean he was making it during the election.

GLENN: So what do we do about it?

MARK LEVIN: Well, you a, don't go down the party road and you don't listen to the GOP anymore. And I think one of the things we do, is we look at the framers. And the framers said, this sort of thing likely to happen. George Mason said it's going to happen. And he said there has to be a way out. And the way out that they provide us with, that's for some reason people fear the State legislatures. Look, I know there's dark blue states out there. There's all over the place. I don't believe in static economics and I don't believe in static politics. Things get worse and they are going to get bad. Because you can see what their fighting over. They're fighting over crumbs in Washington this government almost wrote the way it operates now, it keeps moving in one direction. At some point in some way they have spent a hundred years or more driving us over the cliff. We need to spend, 20, 25 years, some period of time, trying the process with the framers gave us. Use th Constitution to save the Constitution.

PAT: Mark, once of the arguments against the convention route has always been once you open it up you open it up to everything and they can change things like, maybe they make that, maybe they try to make the Second Amendment about militias only and not the rights of the individual. So, how do you, how do you address that concern, do you just believe that you wouldn't get 37 states to, to adopt that amendment?

MARK LEVIN: In advance, the states have to decide what the subject matter is, where they're going to go with it. I don't believe there's going to be two-thirds of the State that say, states legislatures that say let's abolish the second amount amendment. But if they do, it's over. In other words, where do we go? If that's the position of the federal government, and the position of a super majority of the State governments, it's over, isn't it?

PAT: Yeah, it would be.

MARK LEVIN: Bottom line is, if the people want to surrender to tyranny. It's over either way. If you want to surrender to tyranny, then it's tyranny they get.

GLENN: You're making a very good case here, Mark. I'm really at that points to where look if this is what you want, I'm never going to make a part of it. I'm not going do go, I won't play your game. I would go on my dying breath fight for freedom as I understand it and fighting for the Constitution of the United States of America. And I will instill it in my children. But if that's what you want to do, just let's be open and honest about it. That's what you want, that's what you're voting for, good. Go for it. Take it.

MARK LEVIN: But the thing is, the reason the left has never gone through this approach, never, and the reason they would fight this approach, is they are getting damn near everything they want tomorrow down. They've not going to wants to work bottom up. And let's keep something in mind. There are tens of millions of us who still love this country. Who still love the Constitution. Who still revere our heritage. And we're looking for ways to deal with this. And we can keep beating our heads against the wall, elect more Republicans. Well, we had six years of Bush in the House and senate and other than Obama, it was the profligate out of control periods in federal recent federal history. So we can do that. But.

GLENN: Look at all the people in the house. They have the chance to stop the universal health care. They have the chance to stop it right now. And they're not doing it. And those are Republicans.

MARK LEVIN: I'm with you, that's why I wrote this book. I'm with you.

GLENN: Yeah.

MARK LEVIN: What I'm saying is, look, here's the thing. People aren't perfect, our institutions aren't perfect. There's no absolute 100% foolproof system or proposal that can be made. Countries are not guaranteed perpetual existence. They are just not. When people say what can we do, what can we do. I rack my brain and I do what I usually do. I go back and look at our founding and I look at our history and even before then. And the framers, even though they set up this magnificent constitution, they were concerned that if would be breached. If you don't have people of virtue in these positions then you have what, over tyranny. So, this, this is the approach that they left us. I just thought it was time to remind people about it. To make the case for it. I mean -- I hear all the mights. I hear, you know, the convention can be hijacked. Hhjacked by whom. They're not going to get three-fourths of the states to abolish the Second Amendment. And as I said, if we do it's over we have to look somewhere else I guess, but that's not going to happen. Because the Legislatures decide who the delegates are. They can pull them back. And you'll always can have 13 states stop anything. Stop anything. If we can't find 13 states to stop something, do you know right now,13 states can't stop the Supreme Court. They can't stop Congress. They can't stop an imperial president. In other words, it's not like we have this magnificent constitution that's being complied with. We don't. It's not being complied with. So, what's the alternative? If somebody else has another plan, I would love to see it.

GLENN: Mark, I have to tell you, there's, I think people expect that everybody's going to come up with the answer and, and you know, people I get people yelling at me all the time. Why are you doing this, why are you doing that. Well, because I play my role in the -- I don't have all the answers. I have no idea. I'm not a constitutional scholar. I'm not a attorney. I know my role. And my role is to try to effect the culture. That's where I am headed and that I think is an important piece. But we all have to understand that we each play a different role. Each of us. And you know, just like the founders, I mean, I am always, I'm always amazed at how Thomas Payne and George Washington, got together and if it wasn't for those two men, each of them, coming with their own special talents, the American experiment would've never happened. Never happened.

And yet, they died hating each other. And one's an atheist and one reveres God. They couldn't be two more different. Men that there were there. And you look at Sam Adams and, I mean all of them. Each of us play a role and I have to thank you for playing your role. Really, really good case. Really good case. And maybe you're onto the answer. Somebody needs to figure out how to fix Washington. And I certainly don't know how the hell to do it because it's a mess. Good job.

MARK LEVIN: Well thanks, Glenn. I don't know that I have the answer. I'm just trying to remind people what the framers argued for and it's certainly worth taking a look I think God bless you and your staff there.

GLENN: Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Mark Levin, the Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic. I am so busy reading other books right now, on other topics, but I don't know if that wasn't a case to read this book, I don't know what is. Pat and I've been talking about the Constitutional convention. We talked about it for years and Pat said, no, no, no. I think there's something to this case. And I think, I think Mark just made that case. It's the Liberty Amendments. Restoring the American Republic available everywhere books are sold.

Rapper Kendrick Lamar brings white fan onstage to sing with him, but here’s the catch

Matt Winkelmeyer/Getty Images for American Express

Rapper Kendrick Lamar asked a fan to come onstage and sing with him, only to condemn her when she failed to censor all of the song's frequent mentions of the “n-word" while singing along.

RELATED: You'll Never Guess Who Wrote the Racist Message Targeting Black Air Force Cadets

“I am so sorry," she apologized when Lamar pointed out that she needed to “bleep" that word. “I'm used to singing it like you wrote it." She was booed at by the crowd of people, many screaming “f*** you" after her mistake.

On Tuesday's show, Pat and Jeffy watched the clip and talked about some of the Twitter reactions.

“This is ridiculous," Pat said. “The situation with this word has become so ludicrous."

What happened?

MSNBC's Katy Tur didn't bother to hide her pro-gun control bias in an interview with Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in the wake of the Santa Fe High School killings.

RELATED: Media Are Pushing Inflated '18 School Shootings' Statistic. Here Are the Facts.

What did she ask?

As Pat pointed out while sitting in for Glenn on today's show, Tur tried to “badger" Paxton into vowing that he would push for a magical fix that will make schools “100 percent safe." She found it “just wild" that the Texas attorney general couldn't promise that schools will ever be completely, totally safe.

“Can you promise kids in Texas today that they're safe to go to school?" Tur pressured Paxton.

“I don't think there's any way to say that we're ever 100 percent safe," the attorney general responded.

What solutions did the AG offer?

“We've got a long way to go," Paxton said. He listed potential solutions to improve school safety, including installing security officers and training administrators and teachers to carry a gun.

Pat's take:

“Unbelievable," Pat said on today's show. “Nobody can promise [100 percent safety]."

Every president from George Washington to Donald Trump has issued at least one executive order (with the exception of William Harrison who died just 31 days into his presidency) and yet the U.S. Constitution doesn't even mention executive orders. So how did the use of this legislative loophole become such an accepted part of the job? Well, we can thank Franklin Roosevelt for that.

Back at the chalkboard, Glenn Beck broke down the progression of the executive order over the years and discussed which US Presidents have been the “worst offenders."

RELATED: POWER GRAB: Here's how US presidents use 'moments of crisis' to override Constitutional law

“It's hard to judge our worst presidential overreachers on sheer numbers alone," said Glenn. “However, it's not a shock that FDR issued by far the most of any president."

Our first 15 presidents issued a combined total of 143. By comparison, Franklin D. Roosevelt issued 3721, more than twice the next runner up, Woodrow Wilson, at 1803.

“Next to FDR, no other president in our history attempted to reshape so much of American life by decree, until we get to this guy: President Obama," Glenn explained. “He didn't issue 3000, or even 1800; he did 276 executive orders, but it was the power of those orders. He instituted 560 major regulations classified by the Congressional Budget Office as having 'significant economic or social impacts.' That's 50 percent more regulations than George W. Bush's presidency — and remember, everybody thought he was a fascist."

President Obama blamed an obstructionist Congress for forcing him to bypass the legislative process. By executive order, President Obama decreed the U.S. join the Paris Climate Accord, DACA, the Clean Power Plan and transgender restrooms. He also authorized spying in US citizens through section 702 of FISA, used the IRS to target political opponents and ordered military action in Libya without Congressional permission.

All of these changes were accepted by the very people who now condemn President Trump for his use of executive orders — many of which were issued to annul President Obama's executive orders, just as President Obama annulled President Bush's executive orders when he took office … and therein lies the rub with executive orders.

“That's not the way it's supposed to work, nor would we ever want it to be," said Glenn. “We have to have the Constitution and laws need to originate in Congress."

Watch the video above to find out more.

Six months ago, I alerted readers to the very attractive benefits that the TreasuryDirect program offers to investors who are defensively sitting on cash right now.

Since then, those benefits have continued to improve. Substantially.

Back in November, by holding extremely conservative short-term (i.e., 6-months or less) Treasury bills, TreasuryDirect participants were receiving over 16x more in interest payments vs keeping their cash in a standard bank savings account.

Today, they're now receiving over 30 times more. Without having to worry about the risk of a bank "bail-in" or failure.

So if you're holding cash right now and NOT participating in the TreasuryDirect program, do yourself a favor and read on. If you're going to pass on this opportunity, at least make it an 'eyes-wide-open' decision.

Holding Cash (In Treasurys) Now Beats The Market

There are many prudent reasons to hold cash in today's dangerously overvalued financial markets, as we've frequently touted here at

Well, there's now one more good reason to add to the list: holding cash in short-term Treasurys is now meeting/beating the dividend returns offered by the stock market:

"Cash Is King" Again - 3-Month Bills Yield More Than Stocks (Zero Hedge)
'Reaching for yield' just got a lot easier...
For the first time since February 2008, three-month Treasury bills now have a yield advantage over the S&P; 500 dividend yield (and dramatically lower risk).
Investors can earn a guaranteed 1.90% by holding the 3-month bills or a risky 1.89% holding the S&P; 500...

The longest period of financial repression in history is coming to an end...

And it would appear TINA is dead as there is now an alternative.

And when you look at the total return (dividends + appreciation) of the market since the start of 2018, stocks have returned only marginally better than 3-month Treasurys. Plus, those scant few extra S&P; points have come with a LOT more risk.

Why take it under such dangerously overvalued conditions?

If You Can't Beat 'Em, Join 'Em

In my June report Less Than Zero: How The Fed Killed Saving, I explained how the Federal Reserve's policy of holding interest rates at record lows has decimated savers. Those who simply want to park money somewhere "safe" can't do so without losing money in real terms.

To drive this point home: back in November, the average interest rate being offered in a US bank savings account was an insutling 0.06%. Six months later, nothing has changed:


That's virtually the same as getting paid 0%. But it's actually worse than that, because once you take inflation into account, the real return on your savings is markedly negative.

And to really get your blood boiling, note that the Federal Reserve has rasied the federal funds rate it pays banks from 1.16% in November to 1.69% in April. Banks are now making nearly 50% more money on the excess reserves they park at the Fed -- but are they passing any of that free profit along to their depositors? No....

This is why knowing about the TreasuryDirect program is so important. It's a way for individual investors savvy enough to understand the game being played to bend some of its rules to their favor and limit the damage they suffer.

Below is an updated version (using today's rates) of my recap of TreasuryDirect, which enables you to get over 30x more interest on your cash savings than your bank will pay you, with lower risk.


For those not already familiar with it, TreasuryDirect is a service offered by the United States Department of the Treasury that allows individual investors to purchase Treasury securities such as T-Bills, notes and bonds directly from the U.S. government.

You purchase these Treasury securities by linking a TreasuryDirect account to your personal bank account. Once linked, you use your cash savings to purchase T-bills, etc from the US Treasury. When the Treasury securities you've purchased mature or are sold, the proceeds are deposited back into your bank account.

So why buy Treasuries rather than keep your cash savings in a bank? Two main reasons:

  • Much higher return: T-Bills are currently offering an annualized return rate between 1.66-2.04%. Notes and bonds, depending on their duration, are currently offering between 2.6% - 3.1%
  • Extremely low risk: Your bank can change the interest rate on your savings account at any time -- with Treasury bills, your rate of return is locked in at purchase. Funds in a bank are subject to risks such as a bank bail-in or the insolvency of the FDIC depositor protection program -- while at TreasuryDirect, your funds are being held with the US Treasury, the institution with the lowest default risk in the country for reasons I'll explain more in a moment.

Let's look at a quick example. If you parked $100,000 in the average bank savings account for a full year, you would earn $60 in interest. Let's compare this to the current lowest-yielding TreasuryDirect option: continuously rolling that same $100,000 into 4-week T-Bills for a year:

  1. Day 1: Funds are transferred from your bank account to TreasuryDirect to purchase $100,000 face value of 4-week T-Bills at auction yielding 1.68%
  2. Day 28: the T-Bills mature and the Treasury holds the full $100,000 proceeds in your TreasuryDirect account. Since you've set up the auto-reinvestment option, TreasuryDirect then purchases another $100,000 face value of 4-week T-Bills at the next auction.
  3. Days 29-364: the process repeats every 4 weeks
  4. Day 365: assuming the average yield for T-Bills remained at 1.68%, you will have received $1,680 in interest in total throughout the year from the US Treasury.

$1,680 vs $60. That's a 27x difference in return.

And the comparison only improves if you decide to purchase longer duration (13-week or 26-week) bills instead of the 4-week ones:

Repeating the above example for a year using 13-week bills would yield $1,925. Using 26-week bills would yield $2,085. A lot better (34x better!) than $60.

Opportunity Cost & Default Risk

So what are the downsides to using TreasuryDirect? There aren't many.

The biggest one is opportunity cost. While your money is being held in a T-Bill, it's tied up at the US Treasury. If you suddenly need access to those funds, you have to wait until the bill matures.

But T-Bill durations are short. 4 weeks is not a lot of time to have to wait. (If you think the probability is high you may to need to pull money out of savings sooner than that, you shouldn't be considering the TreasuryDirect program.)

Other than that, TreasuryDirect offers an appealing reduction in risk.

If your bank suddenly closes due to a failure, any funds invested in TreasuryDirect are not in your bank account, so are not subject to being confiscated in a bail-in.

Instead, your money is held as a T-Bill, note or bond, which is essentially an obligation of the US Treasury to pay you in full for the face amount. The US Treasury is the single last entity in the country (and quite possibly, the world) that will ever default on its obligations. Why? Because Treasurys are the mechanism by which money is created in the US. Chapter 8 from The Crash Course explains:

As a result, to preserve its ability to print the money it needs to function, the US government will bring its full force and backing to bear in order to ensure confidence in the market for Treasurys.

Meaning: the US government won't squelch on paying you back the money you lent it. If required, it will just print the money it needs to repay you.

So, How To Get Started?

Usage of TreasuryDirect is quite low among investors today. Many are unaware of the program. Others simply haven't tried it out.

And let's be real: it's crazy that we live in a world where a 1.68-2.09% return now qualifies as an exceptionally high yield on savings. A lot of folks just can't get motivated to take action by rates that low. But that doesn't mean that they shouldn't -- money left on the table is money forfeited.

So, if you're interested in learning more about the TreasuryDirect program, start by visiting their website. Like everything operated by the government, it's pretty 'no frills'; but their FAQ page addresses investors' most common questions.

Before you decide whether or not to fund an account there, be sure to discuss the decision with your professional financial advisor to make sure it fits well with your personal financial situation and goals. (If you're having difficulty finding a good one, consider scheduling a free discussion with's endorsed financial advisor -- who has considerable experience managing TreasuryDirect purchases for many of its clients).

In Part 2: A Primer On How To Use TreasuryDirect, we lay out the step-by-step process for opening, funding and transacting within a TreasuryDirect account. We've created it to be a helpful resource for those self-directed individuals potentially interested in increasing their return on their cash savings in this manner.

Yes, we savers are getting completely abused by our government's policies. So there's some poetic justice in using the government's own financing instruments to slightly lessen the sting of the whip.

Click here to read Part 2 of this report (free executive summary, enrollment required for full access)

NOTE: does not have any business relationship with the TreasuryDirect program. Nor is anything in the article above to be taken as an offer of personal financial advice. As mentioned, discuss any decision to participate in TreasuryDirect with your professional financial advisor before taking action.