We have often heard it said, “You cannot trust a politician”. Did you ever stop to think is this really true, and if so, why? The people who are running for office seem so sincere and trustworthy. They listen carefully to what we say, and then represent back to us that they heard us by incorporation our concerns into their platforms and slogans. We know many of them since childhood - they go to the church next door and are highly respected in the community. There is no negative gossip – their reputation is of the highest. They have spouses and children that behave just like us and the other kids that we know. So how is it that once these people, who we all know and trust, can become a piranha overnight just because they get elected to a public office?
There is an easy answer that many people will come up with. That easy answer is, “power corrupts”. This is quite an indictment for our trusted friend who became a politician to help the community and do good deeds. Is he now a corrupted person who we no longer can trust? I don’t believe this is the right answer either. I don’t believe that we have this corruption just below our surface just waiting to come out as soon as we are elected to a public office
I believe the right answer is more like, “it’s just human nature” from which none of us is immune, unless we understand what is happening to us and take positive actions to control ourselves. And even then, it is difficult, and may not be possible. Let me explain the human nature that I am talking about. Kids are ambitious as they can be. Much of a mother’s time is spent limiting the kid’s activities because natural human tendency is to go in all directions at full speed until they encounter an obstacle. We grow up within the confines of mom’s teachings, social norms, morals, expectations, limit, laws, rules, etc, that is placed on us as we live in a particular society. An observer can notice that people behavior differently from one culture to another because of the different social constraints.
When a person is put into a political position, they are now in the position to decide, make, and change the rules that we live by. To accomplish this, most lawmakers are granted immunity by the rest of us. This new strange environment does not have the traditional constraints, so it is just a matter of time before human nature allows the politician to explore the limits of the new freedom from normal constraints.
The same phenomenon is not only true for politicians, but also true for people who rise to leadership positions in any organizational structure whether it is private of public. Often, it is a matter of degree as to how far the corruption will advance. It depends on the size of the organization, and the amount of supervision in place by governing boards and the like.
In addition to the issue of “trust” when it comes to a politician, there are other considerations to think about. We all know that as individual human beings, we all behave in our self-interest. Some may argue that “altruism” disproves my proposition that we all act in our own self-interest. Being kind to others, or being unselfish to the point of sacrifice is to some degree or the other, self-interest. Following this understanding of self-interest, one can conclude that everyone has an agenda. Whether it be malicious, benevolent, manipulative, or whatever, everyone has an agenda. Politicians included.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Sunday, June 7, 2009
“Fair Tax” is Unfair
The day after the “Fair Tax” goes into effect, I will have enough money in my savings account to purchase that 2008 Ford Truck that I have been saving for. I paid income tax on the saved money as I earned it, and now I must pay the “Fair Tax” again when I buy the truck. A friend of mine also brought a truck the day before the “Fair Tax” started. He borrowed the money and purchased a 2008 Ford Truck just like mine. He did not pay income tax on the money when he borrowed it, nor did he pay the “Fair Tax” when he used it to buy the truck.
Now, we both own similar trucks purchased a day apart – yet I paid federal taxes twice on the same money, but my friend paid no federal taxes at all. Under any value system, moral code, or just plain common sense, this situation has to be “unfair” and “unjust”. To make matter worse, my friend’s debt payments for the truck are specifically exempted from the “Fair Tax”.
This same scenario would play out for buying a house or any other major purchase. It would also be true for all routine living expenses if the money being spent comes from savings. Considering the huge dollar volume of savings in this country, this would result in a massive wealth transfer from people who are savers to people who borrow. It makes no economic sense to punish the thrifty to reward the spendthrift. If anything, savers should be rewarded.
In response, “Fair Tax” advocates argue that the profits from tax-deferred investors escape income tax if profits are taken after the “Fair Tax” starts. However, this is not a benefit because profit from untaxed invested savings after the “Fair Tax” is not taxed anyway. This rule is also deceptively touted as equal to the debtor’s benefit of a tax exemption. They also argue that the advantage of “Fair Tax” is that it drives out the hidden taxes of the old system, and that it applies equally and fairly to all across the board. All of these arguments are fallacious.
The true “Fair Tax” rate is camouflaged. People naturally equate the advocated 23% national sales tax to the state sales taxes they are familiar with. A state 5% sales tax means that one pays $1.05 at the checkout for an item priced at $1. Therefore, they assume that under the “Fair Tax, they would pay $1.23 for an item priced at $1.
In fact, the rate is not 23%, but 30%. The 23% rate is arrived at by treating the tax as if it were already part of the price instead of being on top. Thus, if a product were to sell for $1 and the “Fair Tax” added 30%, the 30-cent tax comes to 23% of $1.30. This is how a 30% rate is deceptively turned into a 23% rate.
It is obvious why this subterfuge is maintained. Polls show that support for flat-rate tax schemes falls sharply at a rate higher than 23%. Furthermore, the vast majority of taxpayers pay less than 23% in federal income taxes now, so support for the “Fair Tax” would likely evaporate if people generally understood that the rate is 30% instead of 23%.
Governments must also pay the “Fair Tax”. In order to make it seem as if a 23% rate is high enough to equal current federal revenues, the “Fair Tax” is applied to all government purchases at every level. Only education spending is exempted. In addition to the massive federal spending increase needed to pay the 30% “Fair Tax”, states will have to pay 30% more on every highway and bridge they build, local governments will have to pay 30% more for police and fire protection, and even the federal government will have to pay the tax to itself when it buys weapons and ammunition for our troops. Taxes will have to increase at all governmental levels to pay for the additional 30% government spending. However, “Fair Tax” supporters dishonestly exclude this higher spending from their calculations.
The “Fair Tax” rebate program adds $600 billion to federal spending annually. “Fair Tax” supporters say the rebate is just like what we get back when tax withholding exceeds our taxes. In fact, it is more like Social Security because it comes in a monthly check instead of at the end of the year. Aside from the incredible complexity and intrusiveness of tracking every American's monthly income -- and creating a de facto national welfare program -- the “ Fair Tax” does not include the cost of this rebate in the tax rate.
Costs of monthly inventorying family size, and administratively managing the check mailings and postage costs each month to execute the rebate program are also not covered in the “Fair Tax”. Attempts to diffuse it throughout the states by mandate cannot work because the costs will still be there. There will be administrative costs for policing all the purveyors of goods and services for compliance, “used” versus “new” compliance, black marketing, bartering, etc. The current IRS multi-billion budgets, which are alleged to go away once the “Fair Tax” in implemented, will not be enough.
Over time, enforcement measures will become more draconian than they are today: especially since a massive retail sales tax would create a massive incentive to evade it. What's to stop people from bypassing retail outlets and buying their goods from producers or at wholesale, tax-free? That’s why every country that has ever tried to impose retail sales taxes this high has quickly moved to a Value Added Tax levied at every stage of production. Consumers rarely see or keep track of these taxes, and they seem to be fairly easy for governments to increase.
Trying to justify “fairness” but being untruthful and unfair turns everything on its head. This type of deceptive government action is just as tyrannically as any other governmental action that is equally bad. Many patriots might agree to tolerate and accept the penalties of the bad parts of the “Fair Tax”, just to get rid of the odious income tax, if it were not for the fact that they know that at any time, any part of the “Fair Tax” can and will be changed by congress. Historical experience with politic appetites for taxes assures that this will be the case.
A 2000 estimate by Congress's Joint Committee on Taxation found the tax-inclusive rate would have to be 36% and the tax-exclusive rate would be 57%. In 2005, the U.S. Treasury Department calculated that a tax-exclusive rate of 34% would be needed just to replace the income tax, leaving the payroll tax in place. But if evasion were high then the rate might have to rise to 49%. If the Fair Tax were only able to cover the limited sales tax base of a typical state, then a rate of 64% would be required (89% with high evasion).
Now, we both own similar trucks purchased a day apart – yet I paid federal taxes twice on the same money, but my friend paid no federal taxes at all. Under any value system, moral code, or just plain common sense, this situation has to be “unfair” and “unjust”. To make matter worse, my friend’s debt payments for the truck are specifically exempted from the “Fair Tax”.
This same scenario would play out for buying a house or any other major purchase. It would also be true for all routine living expenses if the money being spent comes from savings. Considering the huge dollar volume of savings in this country, this would result in a massive wealth transfer from people who are savers to people who borrow. It makes no economic sense to punish the thrifty to reward the spendthrift. If anything, savers should be rewarded.
In response, “Fair Tax” advocates argue that the profits from tax-deferred investors escape income tax if profits are taken after the “Fair Tax” starts. However, this is not a benefit because profit from untaxed invested savings after the “Fair Tax” is not taxed anyway. This rule is also deceptively touted as equal to the debtor’s benefit of a tax exemption. They also argue that the advantage of “Fair Tax” is that it drives out the hidden taxes of the old system, and that it applies equally and fairly to all across the board. All of these arguments are fallacious.
The true “Fair Tax” rate is camouflaged. People naturally equate the advocated 23% national sales tax to the state sales taxes they are familiar with. A state 5% sales tax means that one pays $1.05 at the checkout for an item priced at $1. Therefore, they assume that under the “Fair Tax, they would pay $1.23 for an item priced at $1.
In fact, the rate is not 23%, but 30%. The 23% rate is arrived at by treating the tax as if it were already part of the price instead of being on top. Thus, if a product were to sell for $1 and the “Fair Tax” added 30%, the 30-cent tax comes to 23% of $1.30. This is how a 30% rate is deceptively turned into a 23% rate.
It is obvious why this subterfuge is maintained. Polls show that support for flat-rate tax schemes falls sharply at a rate higher than 23%. Furthermore, the vast majority of taxpayers pay less than 23% in federal income taxes now, so support for the “Fair Tax” would likely evaporate if people generally understood that the rate is 30% instead of 23%.
Governments must also pay the “Fair Tax”. In order to make it seem as if a 23% rate is high enough to equal current federal revenues, the “Fair Tax” is applied to all government purchases at every level. Only education spending is exempted. In addition to the massive federal spending increase needed to pay the 30% “Fair Tax”, states will have to pay 30% more on every highway and bridge they build, local governments will have to pay 30% more for police and fire protection, and even the federal government will have to pay the tax to itself when it buys weapons and ammunition for our troops. Taxes will have to increase at all governmental levels to pay for the additional 30% government spending. However, “Fair Tax” supporters dishonestly exclude this higher spending from their calculations.
The “Fair Tax” rebate program adds $600 billion to federal spending annually. “Fair Tax” supporters say the rebate is just like what we get back when tax withholding exceeds our taxes. In fact, it is more like Social Security because it comes in a monthly check instead of at the end of the year. Aside from the incredible complexity and intrusiveness of tracking every American's monthly income -- and creating a de facto national welfare program -- the “ Fair Tax” does not include the cost of this rebate in the tax rate.
Costs of monthly inventorying family size, and administratively managing the check mailings and postage costs each month to execute the rebate program are also not covered in the “Fair Tax”. Attempts to diffuse it throughout the states by mandate cannot work because the costs will still be there. There will be administrative costs for policing all the purveyors of goods and services for compliance, “used” versus “new” compliance, black marketing, bartering, etc. The current IRS multi-billion budgets, which are alleged to go away once the “Fair Tax” in implemented, will not be enough.
Over time, enforcement measures will become more draconian than they are today: especially since a massive retail sales tax would create a massive incentive to evade it. What's to stop people from bypassing retail outlets and buying their goods from producers or at wholesale, tax-free? That’s why every country that has ever tried to impose retail sales taxes this high has quickly moved to a Value Added Tax levied at every stage of production. Consumers rarely see or keep track of these taxes, and they seem to be fairly easy for governments to increase.
Trying to justify “fairness” but being untruthful and unfair turns everything on its head. This type of deceptive government action is just as tyrannically as any other governmental action that is equally bad. Many patriots might agree to tolerate and accept the penalties of the bad parts of the “Fair Tax”, just to get rid of the odious income tax, if it were not for the fact that they know that at any time, any part of the “Fair Tax” can and will be changed by congress. Historical experience with politic appetites for taxes assures that this will be the case.
A 2000 estimate by Congress's Joint Committee on Taxation found the tax-inclusive rate would have to be 36% and the tax-exclusive rate would be 57%. In 2005, the U.S. Treasury Department calculated that a tax-exclusive rate of 34% would be needed just to replace the income tax, leaving the payroll tax in place. But if evasion were high then the rate might have to rise to 49%. If the Fair Tax were only able to cover the limited sales tax base of a typical state, then a rate of 64% would be required (89% with high evasion).
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Reminisce of GM in My Hometown, or How Bad can It Get?
According to an article in the May 30, 2009 Huntsville Times, about 20 entrepreneurs will become owner-operators of a new Food market in the Terry Heights area in 2010. (All editorializing is mine to strip out the paper’s biased reporting, and put the issue in proper perspective)
This new private profit making business gives the owners a chance to build wealth and long-term equity from the profits they will share. Each employee owns a share in the enterprise, have one vote, and decide how the profits are distributed. It is unknown at this time whether the business will be licensed by the city, and if the private profit making business will pay taxes.
Could the Food Bank of North Alabama’s involvement in the private profit making business start-up possibly be illegal? A food bank is a non-profit organization that distributes millions of pounds of donated food and grocery products to human services agencies. Their 501 (c )(3) charter does not include starting up private profit making business. Because the Food Bank is partially funded by the taxpayers through FEMA and USDA, could there also be other conflicts of interest?
The new Food Market will be built by Huntsville Housing Development and leased to the worker-owners for an undetermined amount. It is unknown at this time if the Huntsville Housing Development, which appears to be involved with subsidized housing, is associated with the Huntsville Housing Authority, and the many taxpayers dollars of HUD that they posses.
HUD is also going to possibly pitch in $300,000 of taxpayer money to help buy freezers and startup equipment for the private profit making business owned by the employees. Could this also be illegal by its very nature?
Alabama Sustainable Agriculture Network, subsidized by the Department of Agriculture, a government agency operating 100% on taxpayer’s dollars, will also support the startup. Here again, is this a possible violation of federal regulations?
The city council approved $10 a year lease of 1.2 acres of City owned property for this private profit making business. It is unknown at this time what the land is actually worth and how much it is costing Huntsville taxpayers to help these 20 business owners get rich off the taxpayers in their new private profit making business. The new business is expected to generate nearly $1 million dollars during the first two years.
This new private profit making business gives the owners a chance to build wealth and long-term equity from the profits they will share. Each employee owns a share in the enterprise, have one vote, and decide how the profits are distributed. It is unknown at this time whether the business will be licensed by the city, and if the private profit making business will pay taxes.
Could the Food Bank of North Alabama’s involvement in the private profit making business start-up possibly be illegal? A food bank is a non-profit organization that distributes millions of pounds of donated food and grocery products to human services agencies. Their 501 (c )(3) charter does not include starting up private profit making business. Because the Food Bank is partially funded by the taxpayers through FEMA and USDA, could there also be other conflicts of interest?
The new Food Market will be built by Huntsville Housing Development and leased to the worker-owners for an undetermined amount. It is unknown at this time if the Huntsville Housing Development, which appears to be involved with subsidized housing, is associated with the Huntsville Housing Authority, and the many taxpayers dollars of HUD that they posses.
HUD is also going to possibly pitch in $300,000 of taxpayer money to help buy freezers and startup equipment for the private profit making business owned by the employees. Could this also be illegal by its very nature?
Alabama Sustainable Agriculture Network, subsidized by the Department of Agriculture, a government agency operating 100% on taxpayer’s dollars, will also support the startup. Here again, is this a possible violation of federal regulations?
The city council approved $10 a year lease of 1.2 acres of City owned property for this private profit making business. It is unknown at this time what the land is actually worth and how much it is costing Huntsville taxpayers to help these 20 business owners get rich off the taxpayers in their new private profit making business. The new business is expected to generate nearly $1 million dollars during the first two years.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
How to Defeat Obama
Instead of feeling so helpless and frustrated with Obama’s massive juggernaut of government intrusion into the free market, we have the power to stop him dead in his tracks by simply saying no. Stop buying Obama products! Boycott all the “government stores” and refuse to buy anything sold by his government companies.
Most of the so-called “bailouts” have resulted in Obama, for political reason, keeping these companies alive long after they have become obsolete. Their legacy costs, forever locked in by the unions, will never allow them to be creative, effective, or profitable. Long after the dust has settled and everyone has forgotten what happened, these companies will still be hanging around at the taxpayer's expense. History has taught us that once a subsidy gets started, it never stops.
I suggest that we cut our losses now instead of letting this drag on for generations, which will ultimately adversary affect our descendants. Take our “bailout” losses now and allow these companies to liberally crumble by our not making purchases. This is a sure fire method for fighting back. Voting with our dollars is more powerful than the polls. At the polls, it takes a majority – while less than 51% market share losses can spell ruin for most companies.
We can all do without the products of General Motors, GMAC, Chrysler, because there are better alternatives in the free market place. Ford, for example, should be rewarded for their refusal to participate in Obama’s scheme to take over and ruin our free enterprise system. Exercise your power of choice and allow these parasite, Obama companies to fail as early as possible. The risk of not doing so is to permanently lose our free markets, and our freedom of choice. This should be the highest priority on our political activist lists, our family budgets, and our discussions with our friends. Shun those who are not supportive of this boycott – because so much more than just “being nice” is at stake here.
Banks like “Bank of America” and “Citigroup” too have products that we can boycott. Move your saving, checking, and loan accounts to those banks that are not on the bailout list at: http://projects.nytimes.com/creditcrisis/recipients/table
We should reward non-bailout banks for their good behavior, and their believing in and practicing fiscal responsibility
Another advantage for showing our boycott muscle is that it will deter other companies who are in trouble from seeking a government bailout. They will be afraid of winding up on our boycott list, and the same thing will happen to them that happened to the first round of bailout companies.
Most of the so-called “bailouts” have resulted in Obama, for political reason, keeping these companies alive long after they have become obsolete. Their legacy costs, forever locked in by the unions, will never allow them to be creative, effective, or profitable. Long after the dust has settled and everyone has forgotten what happened, these companies will still be hanging around at the taxpayer's expense. History has taught us that once a subsidy gets started, it never stops.
I suggest that we cut our losses now instead of letting this drag on for generations, which will ultimately adversary affect our descendants. Take our “bailout” losses now and allow these companies to liberally crumble by our not making purchases. This is a sure fire method for fighting back. Voting with our dollars is more powerful than the polls. At the polls, it takes a majority – while less than 51% market share losses can spell ruin for most companies.
We can all do without the products of General Motors, GMAC, Chrysler, because there are better alternatives in the free market place. Ford, for example, should be rewarded for their refusal to participate in Obama’s scheme to take over and ruin our free enterprise system. Exercise your power of choice and allow these parasite, Obama companies to fail as early as possible. The risk of not doing so is to permanently lose our free markets, and our freedom of choice. This should be the highest priority on our political activist lists, our family budgets, and our discussions with our friends. Shun those who are not supportive of this boycott – because so much more than just “being nice” is at stake here.
Banks like “Bank of America” and “Citigroup” too have products that we can boycott. Move your saving, checking, and loan accounts to those banks that are not on the bailout list at: http://projects.nytimes.com/creditcrisis/recipients/table
We should reward non-bailout banks for their good behavior, and their believing in and practicing fiscal responsibility
Another advantage for showing our boycott muscle is that it will deter other companies who are in trouble from seeking a government bailout. They will be afraid of winding up on our boycott list, and the same thing will happen to them that happened to the first round of bailout companies.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Tea Party Goals
For a chance of success, the goals of the Tea Party should be as bipartisan as possible, and have broad appeal and support across the political spectrum. They should be put forth in such a manner as to try to avoid ideological attacks from either conservatives, liberals, or independents. Already the Democrats have ridiculed the Tea Party as a knee-jerk reaction by a defeated Republican political party. We must rise and stay above this kind of criticism as much as possible.
The concept of core principles sounds valid, but in reality, principles can be interpreted to mean almost anything by anybody. The principles of fiscal responsibility, limited government, and free markets are fairly broad concepts, and can be a two-edged sword. For example, the principles can be interpreted to be a rehash of Republican ideology as it has been by the Democrats. Or, principles can be easily hi-jacked by charismatic politicians within any political movement and used for their own purposes during campaigns, yet mean nothing after the election.
We in the Tea Party may understand what our principles mean to us, but because they may also have a favorable emotional ring with many other voters, tyrannical politicians will stop at nothing to take advantage for their own benefit. This dilemma represents problems that we should try to avoid. Remember, the Republicans and the Democrats copied each other’s swan songs during the last election, and elections before that, which got us into this mess in the first place.
We the people, unfortunately and often unknowingly, vote for these charlatans because they sound so right. Should the Tea Party choose as goals only to influence political elections and congressional laws, we would be tinkering around the edges of an already serious problem. These kinds of goals will most likely not bring the kind of changes we want. This battle is no longer an ideological struggle of political will - it is a fight for the survival of this country. The Tea Party’s actions must be direct and decisive in order to be victorious in the long term.
I suggest that we examine the reality of the political and governmental world within which we live, and then choose a course of action that will most likely bring about the results we desire - be broadly appealing, yet remain neutral in ideology as best we can.
First, here are a few basic facts to think about. The greatest power in this country lies in the constitution because it is the national law. The Supreme Court is second in power because it basically says what the constitution means. And in some cases, this can have extraordinary effects. The Congress and the President are next in power because they make laws and issue executive orders, but they often try to circumvent the constitution, and nullify Supreme Court decisions through legislation. Further down the power chain are citizens who vote to elect the congressmen. And still further down are citizens who vote to elect state delegates who elect the president.
Because the individual citizen voter is so far removed from real power in the instances of electing congressmen and delegates, special interest funding can easily exploit this distance thereby unduly influencing citizen voting. Citizen voting then often becomes ineffective for any positions inconsistent with the desires of special interests.
So far, state legislative power has been left out of this discussion. I will now bring it in and try to demonstrate how the states have more power then either the Supreme Court, the Congress, or the President. State legislative power is second only to the constitution itself.
There are a couple of ways to change the constitution. The constitution says: (1) Constitutional changes can be proposed by convention of 2/3 of the states, and ratified by state convention or legislatures of ¾ of the states. This means that state legislatures both propose and ratify constitutional changes, and Congress only calls the convention. ((2) Congress can initiate a process to change the constitution but can not do it alone. They must yield to the power of the states to ratify their proposals. The President has no say in changing the constitution.
We have the constitution that we need – it just needs a few tweaks to redeem its original identity. Because the states have the power, the states should be the ones who make the changes, and not the Congress who is responsible for most deviations from it in the first place. The Tea Party activities should not be an attempt to scare congress and the president to do the right thing – our actions must be a genuine effort by citizens to regain power and be in charge of our our destiny.
Further, it seems foolish to try to forge personnel changes in Congress and the President through the invariable influences of special interests with no assurance of what the results will be. The best chance for us voters to regain our freedom is to try to influence and control state legislators because they are close to home, and they have the yet unused power to make the changes we want.
The specific goal of the Tea Parties should be to get 2/3 of the state legislatures to propose a constitutional convention that proposes the following three constitutional amendments (more than three becomes complicated, and less does not do the job - three is the magic number for marketing):
1. Clarify the commerce clause of the constitution to end most federal control of states. About 90% of all Federal laws that affect individual freedoms are claimed to be applicable to state citizens through the interpretation of Art 1, Section 8, Commerce Clause by the Supreme Court. Most all the growing federal departments in Washington depend on this clause for their authority and edicts, which justifies their ever increasing budgets and interference with the private sector of our economy. This amendment rewrite will limit the size of government to only those functions spelled out in the constitution which does not include earmarks and tampering with the free market.
2. A balanced budget amendment with a pay-as-you-go tax increase to fund wars. Taxing instead of borrowing prevents us from engaging in unnecessary, sustained wars.
3. Better define the role of the Supreme Court to only interpret the law – not make law.
Other proposed amendments such as term limits would no longer matter because Congress will no longer be doing pork redistribution, but making tough decision under a much limited charter and balancing a budget. This would definitely change the character of Congress as we know it.
These proposals should have wide appeal because voters of all political stripes rage against Supreme Court decisions, want to reduce the expansion of government, and want to get rid of indebtedness. These amendments should not appear radical to most voters because they only cause the federal government to do what most states are already doing anyway. Given the circumstances, we do not have much choice, and we have to act now.
Therefore, the mission of the Tea Party should be to bring about the political will amongst the common people of the several states to see these changes through.
The concept of core principles sounds valid, but in reality, principles can be interpreted to mean almost anything by anybody. The principles of fiscal responsibility, limited government, and free markets are fairly broad concepts, and can be a two-edged sword. For example, the principles can be interpreted to be a rehash of Republican ideology as it has been by the Democrats. Or, principles can be easily hi-jacked by charismatic politicians within any political movement and used for their own purposes during campaigns, yet mean nothing after the election.
We in the Tea Party may understand what our principles mean to us, but because they may also have a favorable emotional ring with many other voters, tyrannical politicians will stop at nothing to take advantage for their own benefit. This dilemma represents problems that we should try to avoid. Remember, the Republicans and the Democrats copied each other’s swan songs during the last election, and elections before that, which got us into this mess in the first place.
We the people, unfortunately and often unknowingly, vote for these charlatans because they sound so right. Should the Tea Party choose as goals only to influence political elections and congressional laws, we would be tinkering around the edges of an already serious problem. These kinds of goals will most likely not bring the kind of changes we want. This battle is no longer an ideological struggle of political will - it is a fight for the survival of this country. The Tea Party’s actions must be direct and decisive in order to be victorious in the long term.
I suggest that we examine the reality of the political and governmental world within which we live, and then choose a course of action that will most likely bring about the results we desire - be broadly appealing, yet remain neutral in ideology as best we can.
First, here are a few basic facts to think about. The greatest power in this country lies in the constitution because it is the national law. The Supreme Court is second in power because it basically says what the constitution means. And in some cases, this can have extraordinary effects. The Congress and the President are next in power because they make laws and issue executive orders, but they often try to circumvent the constitution, and nullify Supreme Court decisions through legislation. Further down the power chain are citizens who vote to elect the congressmen. And still further down are citizens who vote to elect state delegates who elect the president.
Because the individual citizen voter is so far removed from real power in the instances of electing congressmen and delegates, special interest funding can easily exploit this distance thereby unduly influencing citizen voting. Citizen voting then often becomes ineffective for any positions inconsistent with the desires of special interests.
So far, state legislative power has been left out of this discussion. I will now bring it in and try to demonstrate how the states have more power then either the Supreme Court, the Congress, or the President. State legislative power is second only to the constitution itself.
There are a couple of ways to change the constitution. The constitution says: (1) Constitutional changes can be proposed by convention of 2/3 of the states, and ratified by state convention or legislatures of ¾ of the states. This means that state legislatures both propose and ratify constitutional changes, and Congress only calls the convention. ((2) Congress can initiate a process to change the constitution but can not do it alone. They must yield to the power of the states to ratify their proposals. The President has no say in changing the constitution.
We have the constitution that we need – it just needs a few tweaks to redeem its original identity. Because the states have the power, the states should be the ones who make the changes, and not the Congress who is responsible for most deviations from it in the first place. The Tea Party activities should not be an attempt to scare congress and the president to do the right thing – our actions must be a genuine effort by citizens to regain power and be in charge of our our destiny.
Further, it seems foolish to try to forge personnel changes in Congress and the President through the invariable influences of special interests with no assurance of what the results will be. The best chance for us voters to regain our freedom is to try to influence and control state legislators because they are close to home, and they have the yet unused power to make the changes we want.
The specific goal of the Tea Parties should be to get 2/3 of the state legislatures to propose a constitutional convention that proposes the following three constitutional amendments (more than three becomes complicated, and less does not do the job - three is the magic number for marketing):
1. Clarify the commerce clause of the constitution to end most federal control of states. About 90% of all Federal laws that affect individual freedoms are claimed to be applicable to state citizens through the interpretation of Art 1, Section 8, Commerce Clause by the Supreme Court. Most all the growing federal departments in Washington depend on this clause for their authority and edicts, which justifies their ever increasing budgets and interference with the private sector of our economy. This amendment rewrite will limit the size of government to only those functions spelled out in the constitution which does not include earmarks and tampering with the free market.
2. A balanced budget amendment with a pay-as-you-go tax increase to fund wars. Taxing instead of borrowing prevents us from engaging in unnecessary, sustained wars.
3. Better define the role of the Supreme Court to only interpret the law – not make law.
Other proposed amendments such as term limits would no longer matter because Congress will no longer be doing pork redistribution, but making tough decision under a much limited charter and balancing a budget. This would definitely change the character of Congress as we know it.
These proposals should have wide appeal because voters of all political stripes rage against Supreme Court decisions, want to reduce the expansion of government, and want to get rid of indebtedness. These amendments should not appear radical to most voters because they only cause the federal government to do what most states are already doing anyway. Given the circumstances, we do not have much choice, and we have to act now.
Therefore, the mission of the Tea Party should be to bring about the political will amongst the common people of the several states to see these changes through.
Monday, April 27, 2009
To Water Board or Not
How can someone arbitrarily say that water boarding is torture, and that it is morally wrong? And further - that it does not work anyway. These opinions are nearly always put forth without regard to the contextual nature or the circumstances within which these acts occur. What has context got to do with it anyway - torture is torture no matter the circumstances? Right!
Maybe not. The same declarative statement about torture can analogously be made about killing another human being. The universal norms of behavior that define killing usually cast killing to be more serious than torture. Yet, we sanction killing in certain circumstances. For example, self-defense. It is a justified killing under a given set of circumstances. Saving the life of another is another reason to kill someone – the SEALs taking out the pirates come to mind. As a matter of fact, we not only tolerate it as a necessary burden – we praise and treat the SEALs as national heroes. We also kill others during war under different rules based on circumstances. Sometimes we kill only when fired upon first. At other times, we declare “free fire zones” when it is known that a zone is hostile, and we can shoot to kill almost indiscriminately. All of the killings are judged to be either right or wrong within a context. So, a context does matter.
All of these reasons for killing are available to everyone to use as appropriate under the proper circumstances, and only a very few would argue that we should ban these reasons for killing just to deny them to others. That’s what we are doing when we argue that we should not do water boarding to keep the adversary from doing the same to us. This is not a logical construct. Asserting that the chose of what adversaries choose to do is dependent on what we do is not borne out by either reason or experience. Our recent adversaries weren’t interested in reciprocity – they seemed to delight in amputating heads.
Until recently, torture has been viewed by most as real torture where splinters are driven under fingernails, eyeballs are plucked out, bodily limbs and appendages are amputated with jagged instruments, and the like. The UN Convention Against Torture, Article #1, defines torture as any act by which severe physical or mental pain or suffering is intentionally inflicted on a person to gain information. This act’s definition of torture is rather broad, so much so that it could easily be inclusive of many martial relationships. That is it’s biggest fault, it is too subjective; but in any case, it does falls short of taking someone’s life. This loose definition may be the reason that so many of our non-analytical thinkers seize upon it politically, and use it in such arbitrary and unreasonable ways.
It is not even certain that the article really applies to US employees following orders. Article 1 also says that it does not include pain and suffering arising from lawful sanctions. It also explains that this article is without prejudice to any national legislation that may contain provisions of wider application. This latter statement is clearly interpretable as allowing us to inflict severe pain and suffering under any circumstance if proper authority properly promulgates it. In which case, it doesn’t matter if water boarding is torture or not if a proper authority legally sanctions it.
So back to the question about why should water boarding (if it is torture) be exempted from being contextual dependent while killing is not? It should not be exempted, especially in cases such as “the war on terror” and other “war engagements”. None of the anti-torture advocates have even attempted to explain rationally why torture should be constrained more severely that killing, even thought killing is a much more serious aggression against the human rights of mankind. It would appear that these arguments have a political motive and not a legal or moral motive.
The gaping hole in the anti-torture argument that reveals its political motivation becomes obvious when reading Article 2. It clearly states that an order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture. In this case the President cannot arbitrarily excuse the individuals carrying out the task of water boarding. Yet, he publicly excused them. If water boarding is truly torture, and we want to consciously follow the UN sanctions, than not only the top political operatives have be punished as the President is contemplating, but all the individuals carrying out the tasks must also be punished. Unfortunately, the President’s motive is so politically driven that his own action, in and of itself, violates the UN charted when he contradicts Article 2. Should he be punished?
And there is the remaining question - does torture work? Of course it does. Nonbelievers often argue that we have no way of knowing if the adversary is telling the truth or not, and that there may be other ways to find out the information without resorting to water boarding. The chance of finding a nickel hidden under one of a million pebbles on a given beach in a timely manner is mathematically improbably. The water-boarding adversary knows where the nickel is and tells to avoid the stress of his challenge. After obtaining the information, turn over the referenced pebble and see if the nickel is there. If it is, the adversary is telling the truth. If it is not, the adversary is lying which is often the case in any interrogation technique.
And, if information is available through other means, use the other means to verify the adversary’s information. Or visa versa, the adversary’s comments may be used to verify other sources. This whole argument about torture effectiveness is based on incorrect assumptions about interrogator’s skills and talents and borders on silliness. It serves as no more than a diversionary distraction from the political agenda alluded to previously.
Maybe not. The same declarative statement about torture can analogously be made about killing another human being. The universal norms of behavior that define killing usually cast killing to be more serious than torture. Yet, we sanction killing in certain circumstances. For example, self-defense. It is a justified killing under a given set of circumstances. Saving the life of another is another reason to kill someone – the SEALs taking out the pirates come to mind. As a matter of fact, we not only tolerate it as a necessary burden – we praise and treat the SEALs as national heroes. We also kill others during war under different rules based on circumstances. Sometimes we kill only when fired upon first. At other times, we declare “free fire zones” when it is known that a zone is hostile, and we can shoot to kill almost indiscriminately. All of the killings are judged to be either right or wrong within a context. So, a context does matter.
All of these reasons for killing are available to everyone to use as appropriate under the proper circumstances, and only a very few would argue that we should ban these reasons for killing just to deny them to others. That’s what we are doing when we argue that we should not do water boarding to keep the adversary from doing the same to us. This is not a logical construct. Asserting that the chose of what adversaries choose to do is dependent on what we do is not borne out by either reason or experience. Our recent adversaries weren’t interested in reciprocity – they seemed to delight in amputating heads.
Until recently, torture has been viewed by most as real torture where splinters are driven under fingernails, eyeballs are plucked out, bodily limbs and appendages are amputated with jagged instruments, and the like. The UN Convention Against Torture, Article #1, defines torture as any act by which severe physical or mental pain or suffering is intentionally inflicted on a person to gain information. This act’s definition of torture is rather broad, so much so that it could easily be inclusive of many martial relationships. That is it’s biggest fault, it is too subjective; but in any case, it does falls short of taking someone’s life. This loose definition may be the reason that so many of our non-analytical thinkers seize upon it politically, and use it in such arbitrary and unreasonable ways.
It is not even certain that the article really applies to US employees following orders. Article 1 also says that it does not include pain and suffering arising from lawful sanctions. It also explains that this article is without prejudice to any national legislation that may contain provisions of wider application. This latter statement is clearly interpretable as allowing us to inflict severe pain and suffering under any circumstance if proper authority properly promulgates it. In which case, it doesn’t matter if water boarding is torture or not if a proper authority legally sanctions it.
So back to the question about why should water boarding (if it is torture) be exempted from being contextual dependent while killing is not? It should not be exempted, especially in cases such as “the war on terror” and other “war engagements”. None of the anti-torture advocates have even attempted to explain rationally why torture should be constrained more severely that killing, even thought killing is a much more serious aggression against the human rights of mankind. It would appear that these arguments have a political motive and not a legal or moral motive.
The gaping hole in the anti-torture argument that reveals its political motivation becomes obvious when reading Article 2. It clearly states that an order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture. In this case the President cannot arbitrarily excuse the individuals carrying out the task of water boarding. Yet, he publicly excused them. If water boarding is truly torture, and we want to consciously follow the UN sanctions, than not only the top political operatives have be punished as the President is contemplating, but all the individuals carrying out the tasks must also be punished. Unfortunately, the President’s motive is so politically driven that his own action, in and of itself, violates the UN charted when he contradicts Article 2. Should he be punished?
And there is the remaining question - does torture work? Of course it does. Nonbelievers often argue that we have no way of knowing if the adversary is telling the truth or not, and that there may be other ways to find out the information without resorting to water boarding. The chance of finding a nickel hidden under one of a million pebbles on a given beach in a timely manner is mathematically improbably. The water-boarding adversary knows where the nickel is and tells to avoid the stress of his challenge. After obtaining the information, turn over the referenced pebble and see if the nickel is there. If it is, the adversary is telling the truth. If it is not, the adversary is lying which is often the case in any interrogation technique.
And, if information is available through other means, use the other means to verify the adversary’s information. Or visa versa, the adversary’s comments may be used to verify other sources. This whole argument about torture effectiveness is based on incorrect assumptions about interrogator’s skills and talents and borders on silliness. It serves as no more than a diversionary distraction from the political agenda alluded to previously.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Cold Hearted CEO vs. Warm Hearted President
There is a current debate within one of our leading manufacturing companies, Boeing, as to whether to lay off employees as needed to retain profitability, or to instead freeze or reduce pay and incentives for all employees thereby avoiding layoffs. This great debate as well and many other similar debates taking place in industries and workplace throughout our nation during these difficult economic times is emblematic of a larger, deeper underlying philosophically debate occurring within the culture of the Untied States. In a microscopic way, the Boeing debate frames the contrast in thinking between capitalism and socialism, and illustrates the undesirable consequences of capitalism slowly eroding and morphing into socialism.
President Barack Obama, our nation’s leading socialist, praised, “the selflessness of workers who would rather cut their hours than see a friend lose their job” in his inaugural address last month. While Boeing’s chief executive, on the other hand, says that he prefers lay-offs, otherwise such moves would hurt the company’s ability to attract and retain high performing employees.
What rational could possibly be prompting Boeing’s chief executive to be so heartless as to want to not allow his employees to voluntarily share their financial hardships during a down cycle in the aerospace industry, especially in light of the fact that the employees are supported by the nation’s president and his multitude of faithfuls. Nearly all financially distressed state and local governments, and many businesses that have succumbed to the socialistic philsophy are also adopting this approach.
Manufacturing has slipped to 37% of the US GDP. Lou Dobbs has been preaching almost daily about the loss of manufacturing jobs for the past decade. Boeing is one of the few remaining American companies that are still globally competitive in manufacturing. The edge that the US still retains in global markets is pretty much limited to high end products such as aircraft, high tech equipment, large equipment, the type of products that other countries have not yet figured out how to manufacture as efficiently as we can.
For Boeing to retain the highly skilled workers necessary to keep this manufactory edge for the benefit of the company and the US trade balance, it must pay top salaries for its top employees. Otherwise, these employees will be gone to the highest bidder, which may be in another country; or they may decide not to work for Boeing at all.
The choice that Boeing workers and other workers face is basically between getting laid off with the chance of being hired back when the cycle improves; or not be laid off and remain part of a company that slowly demises as it loses market share. In the latter case, everybody is out of a job without a chance of being hired back. Unfortunately, most employees do not recognize this choice as being such a choice. But, this is the way that capitalism works, and is the economic system that has made this country the great nation that it is.
One of the important benefits of our national wealth is that it has allowed us to build and maintain the most powerful military in the world. Military might depends on the very best in manpower, resources, and technology that so far only occurs in capitalistic economies. Dick Chaney once said that it also works the other way around - the economy of the US depends on our powerful military. His remarks about the effect of military verses economic wealth appears antipodal, but not so.
What he meant was that the sheer presence of our military contributes to global safety and prosperity, necessitating that other countries yield to the US dollar its status as the world currency. Only when the US dollar is the world currency, will countries continue to loan us money because they know they will be repaid in US dollars. Fortunately, and also paradoxically, unfortunately, these borrowed dollars account for the protracted bubble in our standard of living. If the world currency changes because of other country’s ascending or our declining in military power, no one will loan to the US because they don’t want US dollar in return. The consequence of reduced borrowing is that the standard of living bubble bursts.
This standard of living bubble can also burst another way, and that is the socialist way. Under socialism, government activities become larger shares of the GDP, and because it is non-productive GDP, the GDP by definition shrinks. Why would it shrink? Back to Boeing – Boeing loses sales and market share because they are now globally uncompetitive with their retained yet unenthusiastic workforce. Workers denied raises and incentives do not work hard for increased productive. The government, under socialistic thinking, continues to borrow and spend to bailout and stimulate; yet philosophically they are doing so for feel-good purposes; instead of doing that which is essential for competitive purposes to strengthen and grow the economy.
Should our shrinking wealth and exhaustive borrowing continue under socialist thinking, the US may soon no be able to afford its great military power; and thereby according to Chaney, can not longer sustain a growing global competitive economy. This was exactly the path that has been followed by our European allied countries, from which we have learned nothing.
President Barack Obama, our nation’s leading socialist, praised, “the selflessness of workers who would rather cut their hours than see a friend lose their job” in his inaugural address last month. While Boeing’s chief executive, on the other hand, says that he prefers lay-offs, otherwise such moves would hurt the company’s ability to attract and retain high performing employees.
What rational could possibly be prompting Boeing’s chief executive to be so heartless as to want to not allow his employees to voluntarily share their financial hardships during a down cycle in the aerospace industry, especially in light of the fact that the employees are supported by the nation’s president and his multitude of faithfuls. Nearly all financially distressed state and local governments, and many businesses that have succumbed to the socialistic philsophy are also adopting this approach.
Manufacturing has slipped to 37% of the US GDP. Lou Dobbs has been preaching almost daily about the loss of manufacturing jobs for the past decade. Boeing is one of the few remaining American companies that are still globally competitive in manufacturing. The edge that the US still retains in global markets is pretty much limited to high end products such as aircraft, high tech equipment, large equipment, the type of products that other countries have not yet figured out how to manufacture as efficiently as we can.
For Boeing to retain the highly skilled workers necessary to keep this manufactory edge for the benefit of the company and the US trade balance, it must pay top salaries for its top employees. Otherwise, these employees will be gone to the highest bidder, which may be in another country; or they may decide not to work for Boeing at all.
The choice that Boeing workers and other workers face is basically between getting laid off with the chance of being hired back when the cycle improves; or not be laid off and remain part of a company that slowly demises as it loses market share. In the latter case, everybody is out of a job without a chance of being hired back. Unfortunately, most employees do not recognize this choice as being such a choice. But, this is the way that capitalism works, and is the economic system that has made this country the great nation that it is.
One of the important benefits of our national wealth is that it has allowed us to build and maintain the most powerful military in the world. Military might depends on the very best in manpower, resources, and technology that so far only occurs in capitalistic economies. Dick Chaney once said that it also works the other way around - the economy of the US depends on our powerful military. His remarks about the effect of military verses economic wealth appears antipodal, but not so.
What he meant was that the sheer presence of our military contributes to global safety and prosperity, necessitating that other countries yield to the US dollar its status as the world currency. Only when the US dollar is the world currency, will countries continue to loan us money because they know they will be repaid in US dollars. Fortunately, and also paradoxically, unfortunately, these borrowed dollars account for the protracted bubble in our standard of living. If the world currency changes because of other country’s ascending or our declining in military power, no one will loan to the US because they don’t want US dollar in return. The consequence of reduced borrowing is that the standard of living bubble bursts.
This standard of living bubble can also burst another way, and that is the socialist way. Under socialism, government activities become larger shares of the GDP, and because it is non-productive GDP, the GDP by definition shrinks. Why would it shrink? Back to Boeing – Boeing loses sales and market share because they are now globally uncompetitive with their retained yet unenthusiastic workforce. Workers denied raises and incentives do not work hard for increased productive. The government, under socialistic thinking, continues to borrow and spend to bailout and stimulate; yet philosophically they are doing so for feel-good purposes; instead of doing that which is essential for competitive purposes to strengthen and grow the economy.
Should our shrinking wealth and exhaustive borrowing continue under socialist thinking, the US may soon no be able to afford its great military power; and thereby according to Chaney, can not longer sustain a growing global competitive economy. This was exactly the path that has been followed by our European allied countries, from which we have learned nothing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
