Monday, July 29, 2013

Income Inequality Morally Wrong?

In President Obama’s latest speech, he promised to place all of his efforts on building, supporting, growing, helping, whatever, the “middle class.” The problem is that this president doesn’t understand how the “middle class” becomes a middle class. A quick side note: we fought to end a class system so I like to call it the “opportunity class.” But that aside, let’s look at why we in the US have more people in a position to live a comfortable life.

We are the only nation in the world that was founded on economic freedom. Individuals that created things, provided services, and followed their dreams and desires were able to interact with others without being encumbered by government. Throughout most of our early history we had what was often referred to as “Laissez Faire” economic policy. Basically, people could trade and barter between each other to create wealth. This economic freedom is the reason so many Americans had the opportunity to live a productive life rather than a life of subsistence as was, and still is, the way of most of the rest of the world.

Economic freedom within the rule of law is the reason we have an opportunity class. The people that created stuff needed people to work for them. The people working for them learned trades and craft and often went out and started something of their own to create more wealth. Millions of economic transactions between people without the meddling of government allowed for wealth to be created and therefore an opportunity class formed. It is not a stagnant class of people. People move in and out of the opportunity class.

Some people move to an ownership opportunity and amass wealth that enables them to live an even more comfortable existence often supporting charities and people who are less fortunate. Other people of the opportunity class squander their wealth and have to start over because of bad choices or circumstances. But the main point is people working in this free environment have an incentive to keep trying in order to move up or stay put.

When this president talks about a “middle class” what he sees is a class of people that are victims of circumstance. They take jobs and their opportunity is determined by some “rich capitalist.” He comes from a school that subscribes to people needing the help of government to succeed. Without the government to take the wealth created by others, these people would starve or remain in poverty. This system and this president don’t believe in the people to take care of themselves even though it is the reason we are so wealthy. So when he talks about growing the middle what he means is that by taking from the opportunity class is the only way to make it fair. To this president re-distributing income is how you grow the middle and punish those greedy capitalists. That is the exact formula for destroying opportunity for the most people.

It is why we continue after 5 years of this policy to see poverty rise and opportunity diminish. So the question to this president is how is income equality fair? Why keep growing government when what we need is more economic freedom? Government is a necessary evil. The people in government are not necessarily evil, but the function of government always ends up spreading evil. Poverty, ignorance, hunger, homelessness are the result of government intrusion in our economy. Making everyone equal in poverty is immoral…

Wednesday, July 24, 2013

Building the Economy “from the middle out”?

If you are confused by the title of this post, don’t feel bad, you should be. It is the most recent statement on economic policy by President Obama. A President that has next to nil experience in the private economy of the United States, not even a lemonade stand. He is an agitator, and a very good one. He agitates many Americans with statements like this.

Let’s look at and analyze the suggestion of “building the economy from the middle out, not the top down.” If you look at this statement from a purely political perspective, he is attempting to divide Americans by class and agitate people to blame the “top.” The top being the “rich”, the rich being the people that create the jobs. This president has no problem with the rich that donate to his campaign, and the rich people he gives our tax dollars to for businesses he supports, like solar companies, but the rest of the “rich” he despises. The people that actually create jobs from the “top down.”

“Top down” job creation is actually not top down; it is from “nothing to something” job creation. It is people that take an idea and put it into action which attracts customers to purchase that idea, and then it grows, and the person that started from nothing has something that they need help to keep growing. Whew! Did you follow that? That is where the person that took “nothing to something” now hires people and like magic you have job creation. These people are to be celebrated, not demonized or ignored as the president wants to do in his newest transformation as a job creator from “the middle out.” Creating jobs from the middle out?

How do you create a job from the middle out? In the real world the only way that happens is that a worker leaves the current company they work at and start their own company. If the person from the “middle class” steps from that job to take the risk of opening a business, they have now become the “top down.” They are the owner, entrepreneur, CEO, sole proprietor, etc…, and no longer are in the middle. Starting a business puts you at the top. That’s how I see it and how any sound business person would interpret the President’s message of “middle out”. But we would be wrong!

What the president is suggesting is that we need to grow the “middle” without the “middle” stepping out and creating new companies. He is saying that the government must “invest” (tax dollar confiscation from the “top”) to add people in the “middle” without the “top” creating new jobs. The only way you can do that is to transfer wealth from some other source. There are two choices: the taxpayer and the “top.” Both of these choices creates nothing new and destroys the wealth creation you already have. The pie doesn’t grow it just gets sliced up in a different configuration. The pie actually gets smaller because the “top” leaves and finds a better country to do business or just stops doing business because they are punished for their success.

This is economics 101 and a class the President obviously failed or skipped to hang out with his fellow agitators at Harvard. Actually it is part of the left, liberal, social democratic plan to destroy the wealth of this nation and put government in control of a failing economy. It is all about power, envy, and contempt for our capitalist, constitutional republic. It is because the left despises freedom, free markets, and limited government intrusion in our lives.

This President is an economic genius for the political philosophy he embraces. He is a failure to the people that love and believe in this country. His term can’t end fast enough. I just hope our economy can absorb another three years of this president’s attempt to destroy it…

Tuesday, July 23, 2013

Detroit Reveals the Facts on Government Policies

·         Leadership: When you have a separatist Mayor (Young) people separate and take their productivity and wealth with them.

·         Taxes: When you raise them people flee.

·         Business: If you threaten them they will leave taking their jobs and tax base with them.

·         Unions: You can negotiate any contract you would like but taxpayers can decide to leave and not support the taxes needed to sustain the contracts.

·         Politics: You get the government you vote for and voting for democratic rule for over 40 straight years gets you bankruptcy.

·         Education: If you can’t read you should not be allowed to graduate. If you graduate and you can’t read you probably will not find a job. It is especially true when you have chased the business community away (see above). Education is the door to opportunity and trusting the system to government and union’s guarantees failure.

·         Crime: It must be punished or it thrives. It is the cancer of all inner cities. Justice must be blind and corrupt cops must be punished. Corrupt politicians are a cancer and must be prosecuted without exception.

·         Race: When the government focuses policy on race that race suffers. Race relations improve as economic status improves. Unless you put a fence around a city people of all races will leave based on their improved economic status if the above conditions are present.

Detroit is a preview of this nation’s future and it is being promoted by liberal democrats. Will they learn the lessons of Detroit and change their policies?

The Road Back for Detroit

Note to the NY Times: Detroit ran out of other people’s money. They deserved the government they kept electing. Detroit should serve as a lesson to our youth for future elections. If the numbers don’t add up you just can’t ignore them. People need incentives to work, not another government handout… Detroit is a sad case but predictable and it is just the beginning. The root cause of Detroit’s demise is present in most major cities in this country. Washington DC is doing the same at the national level. It is inevitable if we keep ignoring the facts. It is time to re-introduce the principles of the American Dream… A good education, hard work, and personal responsibility, makes for a good life and a prosperous nation…

It is so easy for people that are driven by emotion rather than facts to opine on the Detroit situation and pity the people living in Detroit. Pity is not what the people of Detroit need. What the people of Detroit need is the spirit and drive to improve their situation. Instead of focusing on the pension plans that were pie in the sky promises from politicians, they should be focused on improving the fundamental conditions that attract people to live in a city.

The city of Detroit has a branding problem. When people around the country hear the word Detroit they think of the once great mega of new cars, crime, bloated unions, filthy and broken down homes, and people that have no interest in improving their own living conditions. Why would anyone want to move to Detroit? Is the future so hopeless that Detroit will remain a third world environment in the former fourth largest city in the United States?

How do you re-vitalize a people and a city? The first thing is the people that live there must want to change the conditions they live in. The second thing is that the city must be perceived and truly be a safe place to be. Crime cannot be tolerated but this will take some time and will need to be proven to the outsider looking in. In the meantime efforts should be made to clean up neighborhoods, refurbish buildings and homes, and people should begin opening up businesses to support their fellow residents.

Once it appears that the people of Detroit are working on improving their own conditions they can reach out to the country, and I am not talking about politicians, I am talking about civic and church groups, to ask for a helping hand. The people of this great nation will be happy to help people that want and need the help. Habitat for Humanity, and other groups would flock to a people truly contrite in their efforts to make a better life.

The one thing Detroit does not need is a bailout. A bailout would be a reward for bad behavior. Using other people’s money and work ethic is what put Detroit into bankruptcy. The most difficult part of this plan is the effort it will take to change the attitude of the city from victim to victor. I don’t have a lot of faith any of this will take place in Detroit. They have been coddled for too long.

I do wish the people of Detroit the best of luck if they choose to be victorious…

Thursday, July 18, 2013

Failing our Posterity

Our youth is not being educated to appreciate this country and its undeniable role in making the world a better place for tens of millions of individuals. The critic’s knee jerk reaction to this opening sentence goes like this, “if you were a slave or Indian you may think differently about that.” I am being generous to the left here because they are usually more emotional and profane because that is easier than actual thought and analysis.

The reality is that the world was brutal, full of dictatorships, cast systems, slavery, monarchial kingdoms, regimes that had little respect for anything but their own power and survival. Along comes America and all of that changes. Do our kids get the real story or do they learn some dates about points of history? The reality is that our education system has failed, and worse, they are delinquent in teaching the American story in context of the world.

When talking about slavery it is rarely discussed that America was a catalyst for the ending of world slavery because of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. The fact that the founding of this Nation was focused on individual liberty is glazed over, and the focus is on the evil of America owning slaves. To put this into context, we will see a similar fate with the abortion “issue” one day. Abortion kills a potential human being and it has been an “accepted” practice but that is changing. Just as the practice of slavery had no moral justification, the abortion issue is similar. How can you justify killing a potential life with no justification? Time, understanding, technology, and knowledge will make future generations question our moral character on abortion. They will look back at us just like we look back at slave owners and wonder how we could have allowed it. How could the people of the world morally justify the enslavement of another human being? How could the world have allowed the killing of a potential human being?

Freedom and free markets have produced the wealthiest nation on the face of the earth. That is the result of the American experiment. The wealth prior to America was stolen by the government. Although we are moving back to that model in some ways, if our youth understood capitalism and our history, they would be supporting free markets and clamoring for smaller government. Instead they fret over recycling and worry about global warming.

This country is not perfect or is any country perfect. We are human beings after all is said and done. We are imperfect but we have been blessed with the genius of freedom and self-rule. That genius and self-rule is the current law of the land. It is embodied in the Constitution. It is embedded in a document that is currently being ignored and is no longer taught effectively in our classrooms.

We are failing our posterity and squandering their ability to have a productive and free future. And the sad thing is that so many of them don’t even know it…

Wednesday, July 10, 2013

Egypt as an Example?

The rights of Americans freedom to assemble, and the right to petition our government are engraved in the Bill of Rights. As the President acts unconstitutionally, critics ask: “what can we do?” All we have to do is look to the example of the Egyptians that have decided they are done allowing an elected official turned tyrant to remain in power. They are assembling and petitioning and have forced this individual from the government.

This is exactly what the founders intended for our country. Thomas Jefferson was adamant about the people’s right to remove an unconstitutional government. He even suggested that future Americans would be forced to take up arms against their government and he was perfectly comfortable with that sentiment. But it would not take a violent revolution to put an end to the unconstitutional practices of this President. It would simply take Americans heading to DC to petition the government.

The President has been deciding which laws or pieces of laws he will enforce. This is unconstitutional. All of the Attorney’s General under the last five presidents agree that the way this president is choosing to enforce the laws is unconstitutional. He can’t pick and choose which parts of the law he will enforce, ignore, or change. His constitutional duty is to “faithfully execute the laws of the United States.” It doesn’t say he can pick and choose which part of or which laws he must execute faithfully.

There comes a time in every situation where action is the only option. Words, lawsuits, and op-ed pieces are being completely ignored by this president. In Egypt they have no real foundation for the actions they have taken except for the fact they know this was there only course of action. It was effective in the sense that when enough people come together the government must take notice. The numbers are overwhelming when you look at it. Three hundred million Americans marching on DC could get the attention and move this government to act according to the US Constitution.

It is not enough to talk about unconstitutional practices. It is time to march and make our grievances known. It is our constitutional duty as Americans and the defenders of our Constitutional Republic.

What will it take? How do we assemble under one banner? How do we convince our fellow Americans it is the right thing to do? How do we begin? What will be the 21st century equivalent of the “shot heard around the world?”

Tuesday, July 9, 2013

Today’s Legislators Vs. The Founders

Words mean things. That was true in the days of our founding but does it still apply to today’s legislators? The latest legislation being pushed by congress is “Immigration Reform” at a mere 1000 pages. The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) exceeded 2500 pages (379,894 words) of details that fundamentally transform every aspect of private sector healthcare. The US Constitution was a mere 4543 WORDS. The founders created the greatest framework for the most successful Constitutional Republic in a brilliantly judicious use of words. “Less is more” comes to mind.

The founders spent much of their effort on the use of words, placement of commas, and deliberate phrases to ensure the proper intent to develop our governing document. They did have to add the Bill of Rights but even after adding those words (1436) we have a whopping total of 5979 words as guidelines to run our entire federal government.

The founders knew the most effective government was a limited government as close to the people as possible. That is why they were so adamant about keeping the central government in check. They knew from their study of history that governments were prone to grow and limit freedom of the people being governed. They turned that accepted paradigm on its head by placing the individual at the center of power.

Today we have a federal government completely out of control. Legislators spend their time figuring our legislation that they profess to be helpful but truly steal our liberties. Every word our federal legislators write is in one way or another is an infringement of someone’s liberties. Smoking, drinking, licensing, regulation after regulation about everything from work rules to exhaust to gas mileage is beyond the scope our Constitution but has been accepted by the people as an accepted function of the central government. The argument is not whether we should pollute less or not drink when we drive, the argument is whether or not that is a function of a central government. Where does it end?

I suspect the founders would have written none of the legislation we currently have allowed the federal government to write. But if they did write a law they would be more concise.

The problem today is that legislation is full of goodies, loopholes, favors, exemptions for friends and donors. With 535 legislators and thousands of lobbyists in Washington DC it is no wonder the federal government is out of control.

Every law should be limited to 250 words. If you can’t explain it within that parameter it is probably unconstitutional or unnecessary.

Can you imagine a private sector company creating a 1000 or 2500 page strategic plan for the company? Of course not. It would be impossible to understand and implement. Why do we think laws of this length would be any different?


Tuesday, July 2, 2013

How Do You Know Your US Constitution?

How do you know when someone knows nothing about the US Constitution or our Constitutional Republic?

They use these phrases and arguments:

“It is a living document”: The US Constitution is about as living as the rules of poker. Rules of poker? Professor Walter E Williams of George Mason University explains so eloquently why the “living document” argument doesn’t work. He asks the question: “would you play a high stakes poker game ($10,000 ante) with me if at any time during the game I could change or interpret the rules? Say I had a pair of 2’s and you had a royal flush, if the rules were living I could change them to say 2 – 2’s beats a royal flush now.” You see, the US Constitution are the rules of the game and cannot be changed. If you want to change the rules you have to go through a process. That’s called the amendment process. It is not easy to do which is exactly what the founders intended. The mob mentality based on high emotion can create an environment to make changes that in the future could be misused. The amendment process takes time and effort which dissipates the emotion over time and allows for critical thinking and debate on any issue. Brilliant!

They reference the “Supremacy Clause”: And these people believe anything the federal government does trump the states and people. If the supremacy clause was intended to trump every state law it would render the tenth amendment meaningless. If the federal government laws were intended to be supreme, why would the founders have argued endlessly on how the constitution is a limitation on the federal government? The supremacy clause is simply the tie breaker when there are two conflicting laws on an issue constitutionally granted to the federal government. If the state has a law on immigration and the federal government has a law on immigration the federal law is supreme because it is a responsibility held at the federal government. This was really important at the founding because the states were independent and had addressed many federal issues already in their constitutions. There was bound to be conflicts. This was a way to address these conflicts. Diplomacy and treaties was expressly mentioned in the constitution. Trade was one of the main reasons for this and the commerce clause.

They reference the “separation of church and state”: There is no mention in the constitution of a “separation of church and state.” People that don’t know the constitution often reference this. To have some fun ask them the next time you hear it to tell you where it says that? Don’t let them get away with “the first amendment.”  Ask them to reference the sentence in the document? The first amendment specifically prohibits the congress from making any law to establish a religion or keep people from practicing theirs. Remember they came from England where they had a state church and our pilgrims came to this land to practice their religion. This foundation of people was determined to make sure religion was not forced or kept from them. The separation of church and state came from a letter written by Jefferson. The founders talked about how our form of government needed a moral and God fearing people to succeed.

They reference the term “General Welfare”: In the pre-amble it has no legislative power and only a descriptor of intent. In the section of the Constitution where it resides it is talking about the taxing powers of the federal government in context with its enumerated powers. Madison and Jefferson were clear in their letters that this power was tied closely to the activities enumerated and not a separate or general power to spend on anything the federal government wanted. It would negate all other enumerated powers. These guys were way too smart to want that.  

They reference only the “Militia” in the second amendment: The second amendment was always intended and argued to be the best way to maintain the freedom and liberty over tyranny. The “Militia” was a local group of citizens that would be a defense against both foreign and domestic enemies. The amendment specifically points out a right of the people to bear arms. The amendment shows the concern of tyranny against both the state and the individual and makes sense since most states and individuals were extremely distrustful of any central authority. There was an understanding of a right to self-defense in our country prior to independence as well as after. Any reading on the subject and a casual look at our recent history shows the absolute understanding of the need and right to self-defense. The Wild West comes to mind.

They reference the “age” of the document: “How can a document written 237 years ago be relevant today?” This is probably the most ignorant statement of all. The document is based on the history of human civilization and behavior which doesn’t change. The founders were students of history and politics and used their understanding to protect against the bad habits of groups of men governing over men. Free speech is free speech no matter what the medium; print, pamphlet, or iPhone. Same goes for the right to privacy.

They reference Slavery: “The founders were slave owners.” Any study of the Constitution quickly brings to light the conflict of the “all men are created equal” and slavery. The founders struggled with the contradiction but if we look at the context of the world at the time; slavery was a common practice. It was repulsive but also an intricate part of the economics of both the South and the world. A fair look back will help most conclude that the US Constitution set in motion the debate of the legitimacy of slavery throughout the world. Slavery was ended and conflicted with all the beliefs we hold to be self-evident.

They reference “old white dead men”: This is always used by angry liberals and usually means they are not worth talking to on this or any other subject.


Monday, July 1, 2013

July 4th 2013

It has been 237 years since the initial Declaration of Independence. It is a miracle we are still free from tyranny but that has only happened because a few good men and woman make it their mission to protect our liberty.

The natural human condition has always been to be ruled by a handful of kings, tyrants, and despots. It seems like a long time ago but it really isn’t. The declaration our founders made was not only an act of courage, it was an act that had not occurred anywhere throughout history in an effort to pronounce individual liberty as the natural state of the human condition. Up until 1776, the individual was seen as a ward of the state, subject of a kingdom, the cog in a society to be used as needed for the good of the ruling class.

Even today, England still holds on to a class structure that assigns future hopes to the status of which you are born; heredity. Even today, the opportunity to move through classes is limited and not likely to happen. The world is still full of places that do not live by the rights we hold to be self-evident. It is where our concept of “exceptionalism” comes from, and rightfully so.

Unfortunately our current President doesn’t understand why the United States is exceptional. We are exceptional because we value the individual over the government, we believe that are rights come from God, and we never turn our backs on people that want to be free. We have spilled more blood and treasure on behalf of others than any other nation. That is why we are exceptional. Not because we are rich in treasure, but because we are rich in spirit, honor, and faith in God. We do not worship man, we are skeptical of the will of man. That is why the US Constitution that evolved out of the Declaration of Independence and our founding fathers is relished by so many and considered a miracle.

Our country was founded by a small group of visionary leaders that succeeded in convincing a majority of people that the individual believing in faith and God was the key to a prosperous and meaningful future. At times they must have felt isolated as so many of us do now. But they persevered over the most difficult odds. They knew what they were offering was worth their lives and sacred honor.

On July 4th 2013 we must remember that the US Constitution was a miracle and can only endure if we continue to respect and defend it. We must defend it with all the gusto our founders defended her with. It is the least we can do to protect the last best hope on earth…

God Bless America.