FAIR SHARE vs. PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS

Posted on January 23, 2012 by

I want a “Fair Share.”  Anything less would be—by the very definition of the term—less than “Fair.”  A society where some do not receive a “Fair Share” is—again by definition—not “Fair.”  It follows from the definition itself that, because all of us want both to be “Fair” and to receive a “Fair Share” that we should vote for candidates promising a “Fair Share” to everyone.

The Declaration of Independence, however, says nothing about a “Fair Share.”  The Founding Fathers did not include that in the list—along with Life and Liberty—of rights we have been endowed with by our Creator.  In fact, they believed governments were instituted among men only to guaranty a right to the “Pursuit of Happiness.”  Pursuit means to seek after something.  Whatever share we get is the result of the pursuit.  A government seeking to guaranty the outcomes of the pursuit is one whose fundamental principles will be opposite to one seeking only to provide an environment where free people can pursue happiness.

One great benefit of limiting government’s role to encouraging the pursuit—rather than guaranteeing a “Fair Share” of the results of that pursuit—is that people have very different ideas of what happiness is.  There are some gifted athletes who consider winning an Olympic medal the proper goal for their efforts.  With great sacrifice and skill some have attained that remarkable goal.  They have been permitted to pursue happiness as they chose.  If our national goal, however, is to insure that everyone has a “Fair Share” of what is good, then it would be the government’s obligation to step in and find some way to reallocate Olympic medals so that everyone got a “Fair Share” of them.

Even if one accepted that this all-controlling role for government was proper, it is obviously impossible to achieve.  Only if there were an almost infinite number of Olympic medals, great paying jobs, nice houses, good neighborhoods, excellent schools, competent doctors, cruise ships, nursing homes, etc. could everyone have a “Fair Share” of everything.  That is not true and never will be.  Social Security is a perfect example of government trying to provide a “Fair Share.”  Would anyone freely choose to live on the meager pensions provided by Social Security?  Even at such a minimal level, Social Security is going bankrupt.  So much for a government provided “Fair Share.”

The government has an important and essential role in our society.  But it cannot provide a “Fair Share” of the good life to everyone.  Much of the good life results from the choices we make—and demand the right to make—as individuals.  Many (not all, but many) of those suffering from an obviously skimpy share of the good life can trace the cause of that not back to governmental failure, but rather to family failure.  The institution best at promoting strong families is religion.  Yet, if anything, our government seems determined to short-change its role.

To digress briefly, we need to better identify the roles we expect from the various sectors of our culture.  Corporations, for example, have one purpose: to organize and combine capital, labor and management for the purpose of producing a profit.  Companies that fail to make a profit go out of business.  The purpose of corporations is not to help the poor or maintain people in unprofitable jobs.  In fact it can be argued that it is improper for corporations to be charitable.  Rather than some board of directors giving away the profits of the company to their favored charity, the board should distribute those profits as dividends to the shareholders and let them decide who should receive charity.  Another example: churches have a completely different role from government or corporations.  They are very good at providing charity.  But they would not be good at running a car company.  For a church to be running GM would ruin both the church and GM.  Asking government to fill the roles of both corporations and churches is like using a hammer to drive in a screw.

The point is, corporations, churches, the government and other institutions have different roles and capabilities.  To demand that government guarantee an equal outcome despite all of the disparate choices people make in life is not only completely outside the intended role of our government, it is also a role government is incapable of filling.  The role of the federal government is well defined in the U.S. Constitution.  There is not a word, or a suggestion of a theory, in that document that the federal government’s job is to insure we all get a “Fair Share.”  The proposal that the federal government should do so would require a basic transformation of our country—for the worst!

Posted in Defending Freedom | Tagged , , , , , ,

REPUDIATE!

Posted on January 16, 2012 by

Rise Up, Teenagers of America!  Cast off your chains!  Escape from Debtor’s Prison!  Break off the iron band of debt your government is clasping around your necks.  Young men and women of America, wake up!  Your federal government is at war with you.  They are sacrificing your future to pay for their selfish political goals.  Your generation will be crushed under a huge national debt because the federal government is ever increasing that debt with no practical plan for paying it off.

Right now the federal government is in debt over $15,000,000,000,000.[i]  (That’s fifteen trillion dollars!)  At the minimum wage of $7.25 per hour you (and your friends) would have to work over two trillion hours at McDonald’s to pay it off.  The national debt has increased $4 trillion dollars in the last three years under President Obama so the debt is not going up slowly—it’s skyrocketing![ii]  How much of it do you owe?  If you divide the national debt by the total population of the United States each person—every man, woman, child, illegal immigrant, etc.—would have to come up with over $48,500  to pay it off.[iii]  The real number is far worse—the amount the federal government has promised to pay but doesn’t have the money for (unfunded liabilities) is over $1,000,000 per person.[iv]

Why is the federal government so much in debt?  It is because the federal government spends far more money than it takes in.  In fact, of every dollar the government spends, 43 cents is borrowed.[v]  Why haven’t you heard about this?  It is because many of your government leaders are deceiving you.  First and foremost, they do it by silence.  Every day you will hear them anguishing over some emergency or tragedy unless the huge federal government spending level is continued—or increased.  But they rarely speak about the elephant in the room—the national debt.  It is amazing how little it is discussed by politicians seeking re-election.  All they talk about is how some group won’t get federal (your) money if they aren’t re-elected.  It is a constant chorus of how they need to spend money, but rarely a whisper about the fact that the government doesn’t have any.  Everyone admits the country is heading for a Debt Wreck but few are doing anything to prevent it. [vi]

How can the federal government keep borrowing so much money?  It is because people who lend the money to the government trust the government.  But governments gets almost all of its money by taxing.  It really means lenders expect you to pay it off.  Nothing is more obvious than that the President and Senators who make these bad decisions cannot restrain spending.  It is like a drug habit for them.  They are buying votes with your money and your future.  This is not hyperbole.  If the time came when the government couldn’t pay its debts, if others refused to constantly be loaning it money, all federal programs—including tuition grants, Medicare, Social Security, even the defense that protects us from tyrants—would be crippled.  It would be a disaster.

The government borrows money by selling bonds.  Someone with money loans it to the government and gets a bond—which is a promise to pay back what is loaned plus interest.  The largest lender to the U.S. is the government of China.[vii]  Obviously the Chinese and others wouldn’t loan money to the federal government, the debt wouldn’t keep increasing, unless the Chinese expected to get their money back in the future.  The federal government is doing nothing to even pretend they are going to come up with the money to pay it back now.  Instead they just keep borrowing more to pay off past debts when they become due, but never decreasing the amount owed.  That means one thing:  all of that debt will either have to be repaid by you or you will witness national bankruptcy first hand!  Yes, all of the foolhardy expenditures of the federal government are going to end up in your lap.  How can they get away with it?  It’s easy.  YOU DON’T VOTE.  They buy votes by giving money and benefits to people who do vote and then dump the requirement of paying off the national debt on the next generation, who can’t vote yet.  It is Taxation without Representation in its worst form.  This generation of voters is setting you up to pay huge taxes you never agreed to.  Remember the Patriots revolted because of such unfairness.

Here is what you can do.  First, make it clear to your parents that you are upset that they are being so careless about your future!  It really is outrageous.  It would be like them giving you a credit card as you went off to college, and then discovering in your first monthly statement from the bank that your parents had charged $48,500 to your account before giving you the card!  Second, demand in school that you learn about this very real threat to your future—the national debt.  They teach in school about how to respond to natural disasters: tornadoes, earthquakes, hurricanes.  You hold fire drills so you can safely escape from burning buildings.  But is anyone teaching you about the impending fiscal disaster and the total absence of any plan to save you from it?  Every State school board should require even elementary school classes to be taught about the foolhardiness of federal spending and how it will impact you when you become adults.  You’re being set up to be blindsided!

There is something real that your generation can do.  Repudiate the debt!  Refuse to pay it!  Use your cell phones and social media to agree among yourselves, even now in your youth, that you will not pay off the huge national debt incurred by your parents.  Sign pledges firmly committing that when you reach voting age you will elect only representatives and vote only for a president who will repudiate the repayment of any debt incurred before you could vote.  Publicize that intention so that the Chinese and everyone else will stop lending money you are expected to pay off.  Anyone foolish enough to loan to our government knowing that all young voters are planning to repudiate all federal loans once they reach voting age will get what they deserve—nothing.  That gives the government 18 years to pay off the national debt.

If there is any political fact that is undeniable, it is that our federal government cannot restrain itself from spending your money.  There is no reasonable hope that this administration will change.  They will keep borrowing until the country goes bankrupt—at which point all debts will be repudiated.  You need to stop it.  Voters of this generation have failed you by electing and re-electing leaders who care little for your country’s fiscal future.  Let everyone know that you will not be responsible for any debts agreed to by a Congress you did not elect.  Repudiate now!  Save yourselves and save the country!

[i]  http://www.usdebtclock.org/

[ii] http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20095704-503544.html

[iii] http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

[iv] http://www.usdebtclock.org/

[vi]  The Congressional Budget Office recently reported: “Without significant changes in government policy, those factors will boost federal outlays sharply relative to GDP in coming decades under any plausible assumptions about future trends in the economy, demographics, and health care costs.”  http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/122xx/doc12212/2011_06_22_summary.pdf

[vii] http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/moneymatters/ss/How-Much-US-Debt-Does-China-Own.htm.  The government pretends that Social Security and the Federal Reserve are the largest debt holders—but that is really money it owes to itself and doesn’t have money to repay.

Posted in Defending Family, National Debt, Unfair Taxation | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

APPEASEMENT

Posted on January 9, 2012 by

Britain faced a terrible dilemma in 1938.  Nazi Germany was preparing for war, threatening all of the countries around it.  The immediate threat was that they would attack Czechoslovakia, a much smaller country bordering on Germany.  England and France wanted to protect Czechoslovakia, but it appeared to do so would mean war with Germany.  There were two roads ahead: one was to prepare for war; the second was appeasement—agree to the demands of the German government, sacrifice Czechoslovakia, and trust in German promises that it would not seek further conquests.

Congressional leaders, and the voters of America, face their own dilemma today.  The federal government is borrowing 43 percent of every dollar it spends. [i]   The national debt now exceeds the gross national product of the country.[ii]  Continuing on this road, the country will go bankrupt.  At first individual programs like student loans, Medicare and Social Security will have to be drastically reduced.  Even more threatening will be America’s inability to fund its very powerful but very expensive military defense.  The wishes of the country’s enemies will come true.  Some will argue the U.S. can avoid this by simply printing money, and paying back all of its loans with near worthless paper money.  Unfortunately as soon as those who loan to the country perceive that is our country’s strategy, future borrowing will be difficult or impossible—plunging a country that depends upon loans into bankruptcy.

We could declare war on this debt.  We could pass a constitutional amendment prohibiting Congress and the President from spending so recklessly.  We could begin a dramatic effort to cut back federal spending now and at least head in the direction of paying down the national debt.  But doing this will require serious sacrifice and cost votes.  In fact, it could cost politicians so many votes they won’t get re-elected.  Their political enemies pounce whenever anyone suggests cutting federal spending—describing the poor families that will lose their homes, the veterans who will go uncared for, the children who will be hungry—if spending is cut.  These politicians, elected by those who take money from the government but many of whom pay no taxes, care little for America’s fiscal future.

Others, more responsible, speak against the debt and were elected in the hopes that they could restrain it.  But, ultimately, they face the dilemma.  If they take strong steps to cut federal spending, they and their party may lose the next election.  Given this political reality, they choose to do what Britain did in 1938—Appease!  It is so pleasant to rely on the hope that surrender to threatening political demands now will somehow lead to a better future.

Britain’s Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, met with the leaders of Germany, France and Italy (but not Czechoslovakia!) in September 1938 just as Germany was threatening to invade that little country.  Relying on Germany’s promise of future good behavior, Chamberlain agreed to German demands, coming home to cheering crowds proclaiming: “My good friends, for the second time in our history a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour.  I believe it is peace for our time.”

His political opponent, Winston Churchill, had a more accurate view:

“We have suffered a total and unmitigated defeat…you will find that in a period of time which may be measured by years, but may be measured by months, Czechoslovakia will be engulfed in the Nazi régime. We are in the presence of a disaster of the first magnitude…we have sustained a defeat without a war, the consequences of which will travel far with us along our road…we have passed an awful milestone in our history, when . . . the terrible words have for the time being been pronounced against the Western democracies: “Thou art weighed in the balance and found wanting”. And do not suppose that this is the end. This is only the beginning of the reckoning. This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time.”

The cost of appeasement was great.  German officers, who would have overthrown Hitler, backed down.  Russia, realizing how undependable Western leaders were, aligned itself with Germany, which in turn led to Germany’s invasion of Poland and World War II.[iii]  British public opinion turned bitterly against the appeasers.  Germany’s leaders despised them.  They have been vilified for generations.  Bowing in appeasement to the unreasonable and unsustainable demands of your enemies only strengthens them and weakens you.  It does not prevent the war.  There will be a political war over the national debt.  All of the talk, all of the promises, all of the baseless hopes that the big spenders now in charge in Washington will somehow relent in their rush to Debt Wreck are worthless.  Vote for those who are willing to fight now!

[ii]  http://www.usdebtclock.org/

[iii] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement

Posted in National Debt | Tagged , , , , ,

SILENT SOVEREIGN

Posted on January 2, 2012 by

Louis the XIV is claimed to have said: “L’Etat, c’est moi” (“I am the state”).[i]  The loyalty of his subjects was owed to him personally.  King Henry the VIII’s unfortunate fifth wife, Catherine Howard, was beheaded—not for adultery, which she was guilty of, but for treason.[ii]  These kings, and so many caesars, czars, emperors and potentates were “sovereigns”— “possessing supreme or ultimate power.”  This is still reflected today in the oath that British military officers take: “I, (name), do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law.  So help me God.”[iii]  Reportedly Chinese officers take an oath of allegiance to the Communist Party, not to the country.  Given that army’s practice of massacring Chinese citizens who express opposition to the party, it is an appropriate oath.[iv]

The United States of America is different.  Our military officers “do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; . . . so help me God.”[v]  In the United States the Constitution is sovereign.  It is the only and ultimate source of federal authority.  It is the ultimate object of national loyalty.  Laws found to be in opposition to the Constitution are struck down as null and void.  The Constitution overrules Congress.  Even blatantly guilty criminals are freed if the methods involved in their arrest or trial are deemed to be unconstitutional.  The Constitution overrules the Executive.  Such awesome power, equal to that claimed by the supreme rulers of past empires and kingdoms, is dangerous.

The Constitution, however, is not a person with weaknesses and irrational whims.  It is a piece of paper containing a list of powers granted and denied to the government.  The piece of paper, however, cannot speak or interpret what is written on it.  That must be left to others.  The United States Supreme Court arrogated that power to itself in Marbury v. Madison.[vi]  The Supreme Court, acting as spokesman and interpreter of the Constitution, thus endowed itself with many of the elements of sovereignty.

It is much like having an all-powerful, but reclusive, sovereign living in his royal palace.  Trusting only a tiny group of nine men and women to be admitted into his presence and to relay his instructions to waiting ministers and generals, that tiny group would soon be substituted, in all practical ways, for the sovereign.  What they reported the sovereign said would be the will of the sovereign and would govern all affairs of the kingdom, overruling any opposition.  The devotion and loyalty the people had for the king would, perhaps unwittingly, be transferred to the pronouncements of the tiny group.  We have seen the same effect in our history.  When the immensely popular President Franklin D. Roosevelt sought to undercut the authority of the Supreme Court by appointing additional justices, he was forced by public opinion to back down.  His attack on the make-up of the Court was viewed as an attack on the Constitution.[vii]

Because the Constitution is only a document, there must be someone to interpret it.  Having the Supreme Court do so has been accepted and approved by generations of Americans.  One reason may be that, given the immense power involved in that task, it is best to leave it to a small, politically isolated, group of nine.  They are not elected.  They are appointed by the President with the consent of the Senate.  Their salaries cannot be diminished.  They can only be removed by impeachment which requires a majority vote in the House of Representatives to impeach (indict) and a two-thirds majority vote in the Senate to actually remove.  In the entire history of the country, only one justice has been impeached and he was not removed because many Republican senators crossed party lines to vote with their Federalist colleagues against his removal.[viii]

What is the role of Supreme Court Justices?  They are, in effect, spokesman for the sovereign.  There is no review of, no appeal from, their decisions.  Their only restraint is self-restraint.  Their primary role is to determine whether or not federal legislative, executive or judicial actions fall within the strict boundaries granted under the Constitution.  They have no more right to create new constitutional rights—that is the role of the amendment process—than spokesmen for the sovereign would have to make up imaginary orders from the king.  By what criteria should we judge the Supreme Court?  By how well it keeps government within the bounds set by the sovereign Constitution.

[i]    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_XIV_of_France

[ii]   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_Howard

[iii]   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office#Oath_of_Allegiance_and_Official_Oath

[iv]  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_protests_of_1989

[v]   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Uniformed_Services_Oath_of_Office

[vi]  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison

[vii]   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bill_of_1937

[viii]   http://www.michaelariens.com/ConLaw/justices/chasesam.htm

Posted in Defending Freedom | Tagged , , , , ,

DELIBERATELY OFFENSIVE

Posted on December 26, 2011 by

As a devout believer in Christ, on this day following Christmas, my thoughts turn to the cherished Biblical story of the humble Roman Centurion.  Fearful for the life of his sick servant, he asked that the local religious leaders beseech Christ to heal him.  As Jesus proceeded to the Centurion’s home in response, the Centurion had his friends meet Christ and say to him: “Lord trouble not thyself: for I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter under my roof: Wherefore neither thought I myself worthy to come unto thee: but say in a word, and my servant shall be healed.”  This, the Centurion’s amazing reverence—for one who claimed himself to be the Son of God, the Messiah, and heir to David’s throne—was almost unique.  Most of those around Christ disbelieved, some mocked, and some plotted his death.  The Centurion’s deep humility and reverence were rewarded: “And they that were sent, returning to the house, found the servant whole that had been sick.”[i]

Christians, like Jews, Moslems, Buddhists, Hindus and other believers have great reverence and respect for the founders of their religions.  They believe blessings here and a better life hereafter are made available by these holy persons.  Because believers so devoutly reverence these central figures of their religions, it is obvious that they will be offended when those figures are subjected to vulgar abuse and ridiculed.  In America, where free speech is so prized, people have a broad right to express offensive views.  While courts have recognized that some insults are so blatant and offensive that they are “fighting words” and thus fall outside the Constitutional protection for free speech, it is a very narrow exception.[ii]  The fact that we have a right to be offensive doesn’t make it right, however, any more than the ability to commit adultery makes adultery acceptable or the right to have an abortion makes abortion normal.  Our right to disagree should not be expressed in terms that are deliberately offensive.  Disrespect for others, while possibly entertaining, ultimately lessens respect for the speaker.  It is difficult to respect those who deliberately insult the religious views of others.

Christians believe the God who created them came to earth to suffer immeasurable pain on their behalf in order to save them from their sins.  He chose to be born in the humblest of circumstances and never sought nor obtained any earthly honors.  There is the story of the young man who came to Christ, fell at his feet in worship, and asked what he must do to obtain eternal life.  Christ, “loving him”, gave the young man an answer that was very direct but difficult to achieve.  One thing that is so significant about the story is that the young man “went away grieved” because he could not bring himself to do what was asked.[iii]  There is no hint that Christ intended to force this young man, or anyone, to do anything.  Admittedly and sadly, some of the worst deeds done in human history have been motivated by religious beliefs, but Christ himself taught only that “Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.”[iv]  No one can justify the persecution of others based on what Christ taught.

May we who are Christians be more like the Centurion—genuinely feeing and expressing a deep reverence for Christ.  May we all be respectful in our expressions regarding the founders of the other great religions of our day.  And may our hopes and faith for a better world here and hereafter be realized.

[i]   King James Bible, Luke 7:2-10

[ii]   See http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=13718

[iii] King James Bible, Mark 10:17-22

[iv] King James Bible, Matthew 25:40

Posted in Freedom of Religion, Political Culture | Tagged , , ,