Founding Father quote of the day

The foundation of national morality must be laid in private families.... How is it possible that Children can have any just Sense of the sacred Obligations of Morality or Religion if, from their earliest Infancy, they learn their Mothers live in habitual Infidelity to their fathers, and their fathers in as constant Infidelity to their Mothers?

John Adams, Diary, June 2, 1778

Boardroom vs. Bedroom policies

A classic argument between liberalism and conservatism debates the merits of the government being involved with boardroom policies vs bedroom policies, or rather, fiscal issues vs social issues. Liberals accuse conservatives of preaching individual liberty and limited government at the expense of others while actively supporting policies that impose moral restrictions and regulations on the people. Conservatives accuse liberals of meddling into the affairs of the people's rights to do what they want with their own money while letting our country slip into a moral digression that will be devastating for our country.

So who is right? Or, better asked, where do liberals go wrong? Because they fail to acknowledge the moral fromework by which this country was founded upon. Our founding fathers designed a government which would be effective in as much as the people would be morally self-governed. The liberals fail to acknowledge that this country was founded on the unwavering belief that our prosperity would always be as a direct result to God's favor and blessing. The founders believed that a man should be able to worship his God how he seemed fit, that there should be no religious dictates from the government, and that religious freedom would always be garunteed to all. But make no mistake, they never intended for this country to loose sight of the fact that the belief in God and a humble desire to follow His will would always be crucial to the success of our people.

Our founding fathers did not debate over absolute rights and wrongs. They believed that all men would have a fundamental knowledge of this and therefore drafted bills on the basis that they would protect a person's right to do the right thing. They certainly would have known that such rights would undoubtedly lead to certain abusements and even some negative consequences, but they had enough faith in the American people to believe that we would always stand up against it and prevent it from ever becoming acceptable.

So while conservatism is based in the fundamental belief that individual liberty is absolutely paramount, it also is based in the core values that our founding fathers shared. And so we believe that a man may choose to do what he will with his life, but as soon as his actions infringe on the rights of others (abortion, for example), we stand up and say no, that is not ok and we will not tolerate it. When there are behaviors or lifestyles (homesexuality) that we know will destroy the moral framework that our founding fathers built, we stand up and say no, we will not give our society's stamp of approval to that. Most importantly, when our innocent children are at jeopardy of being exposed to filthy media and corrupt messages, we stand up and say no, we will not allow society to impress upon our children that which we know will make them miserable.

What do you think?

Founding Father quotes of the day

I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country.
Nathan Hale, before being hanged by the British, September 22, 1776

An honorable Peace is and always was my first wish! I can take no delight in the effusion of human Blood; but, if this War should continue, I wish to have the most active part in it.
John Paul Jones, letter to Gouverneur Morris, Sept 2, 1782

Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
Patrick Henry, speech in the Virginia Convention, March 23, 1775

My hand trembles, but my heart does not.
Stephen Hopkins(attributed), Rhode Island delegate, at the signing of the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776

Economic Equality

I would like to mention briefly a fundamental difference I observe between liberalism and conservatism. We all like to talk about fairness and equality. We all want to make a system that is fair for everyone. I think where the two philosophies differ is the perspective and definition they use to describe economic equality.

Liberalism tends to put emphasis on equality out outcomes. For example, if Peter makes $50,000 a year and Sally makes $30,000, the obvious conclusions is that this economic situation is unfair because Peter makes more. Furthermore, the only way to make it fair would be to penalize Peter and compensate Sally until they are both making the same amount of money. The easy assumption would be to tag along the rationale that it must be unfair because Sally is a woman and has an unfair advantage.

The problem with this rationale is that it too easily makes assumptions and connections that may not necessarily be true. Are some women discriminated against? Yes, but not all are. Outcomes are easy to identify and easy to contrast. But the hard questions aren't being asked here. Did Peter invest more in his education? Does he work harder? Does he produce more? More importantly, were both Peter and Sally given the same set of opportunities and rules? If these questions aren't asked, it is easy to look at our country and view it as being so ridiculously unfair that drastic measures need to be taken. We see outcomes and we make huge assumptions because it is the easiest thing to do, but I argue that it is not the real picture.

Conservatism tends to put emphasis on the equality of opportunity. It looks more deeply into those questions and favors a system whereby everyone is held to the same standards and rules. This, of course, means that we need to ensure that everyone has access to the same opportunities (education, anti-discriminatory laws, etc..). Assuming that those opportunities are in place, then we look at outcomes as consequences of individual choice, and not as a result of a flawed economic infastructure.

You can't help someone that doesn't want to be helped. You can't force someone to be successful if they don't want to be. You can't change someone's values until they themselves want them to change. It is for this reason we will never see an equality of outcomes in our society, but that doesn't necessarily make out society unfair.

What do you think is more important? Equality of opportunity or equality of outcome?

Founding Father quote of the day

Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe depositories.

Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, Query 14, 1781

Founding Father quote of the day

The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, 'till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole People is sacredly obligatory upon all.

George Washington, Farewell Address, September 19, 1796

Founding Father quote of the day

Citizens by birth or choice of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of American, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism, more than any appellation derived from local discriminations.

George Washington, Farewell Address, September 19, 1796

Taxes and Pie

We often hear the economy being referred to as a pie. It makes for easy to understand analogies about how our economy works. It can also be a dangerous tool. Unfortunately, I fear too many liberals do not understand that the economy, in reality, is not a pie. Let me explain.

We typically refer to pieces of the pie as our individual portions of economic benefit. So we hear analogies about who has what size pieces, and if those pieces are "fairly" cut for everyone. We also talk about the pie shrinking or growing and how that effects every individual slice of the pie as well.

So where do liberals go wrong? If taken too literally, you would naturally deduce that no matter how big the pie is, if I were to take for myself a bigger slice, by consequence someone else must be required to give up a part of their slice. If that were true, then the opposite would also be true, that if my piece shrinks, someone else's will automatically grow. Therein lies the philosophy that if we can take away wealth from some, it will automatically be available for others.

I hate to inform those of you who are pie believers, but the economy is not a pie. In fact, I can take as large as piece as possible, and guess what? So can you. And when we do so, it turns out that their are even more slices to go around. And if I take a smaller piece? Well, it just means that part of my slice doesn't exist anymore.

So what does this mean? It means that in modern, free-market capitalism Robin Hood wouldn't be very effective. And neither would Obama's tax policies. It does no good to tax the wealthy and hope that magically that wealth will be transferred to the poor. Wealth begets wealth.

What do you think?

Founding Father quote of the day

As riches increase and accumulate in few hands, as luxury prevails in society, virtue will be in a greater degree considered as only a graceful appendage of wealth, and the tendency of things will be to depart from the republican standard. This is the real disposition of human nature; it is what neither the honorable member nor myself can correct. It is a common misfortunate that awaits our State constitution, as well as all others.

Alexander Hamilton, speech to the New York Ratifying Convention, June, 1788

Taxes and Incentives

There is an old saying that you can't reward "A" while hoping for "B". For example, I can't pay employees by the hour and hope they will maximize their time efficiency. Hourly employees are incentivized to take as much time as possible to do anything. If this is true, then it must also be true that you can't punish "A" while hoping for "A". And yet this is exactly what Obama and the liberals are proposing.

Liberals worry profusely about protecting American jobs. They abhor free trade (a topic for another day) because of the possibility that American jobs could be sent offshore. Recently Obama proposed a tax incentive for every new job created in the USA (as if it would be realistically worth creating a job that isn't needed).

And yet liberals hate the very corporations that provide the most potential for securing American jobs. Obama brags about raising the capital gains tax to levels we haven't seen since Jimmy Carter. He characterizes "Big Oil" as the source of all evil. His tax plan will literally destroy countless numbers of small businesses, and choke the life out of our economy.

Here is the thing. You can't preach American job growth out of one side of your mouth and spit upon American companies out the other side. Companies will do that which makes them profitable. If that means sending work offshore or relocating to lower-tax countries, they will do it. So if we want American jobs, incentivize them! It makes no sense to raise taxes on corporations or small businesses. We need to create an economy that they can flourish under and that means low taxes.

This can easily be applied to income taxes as well. We want people to be successful, right? So why punish it? How does that encourage employees to fight for that extra raise and entrepreneurs to take much needed risks? It is foolish to punish "A" while hoping for "A". Why don't we reward "A" instead?

Founding Father quote of the day

Among the features peculiar to the political system of the United States, is the perfect equality of rights which it secures to every religious sect.

James Madison, letter to Jacob de la Motta, August 1820

Unfortunately, those rights are in jeopardy today. Check this article out.

Taxes and trickle down economics

“It’s not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance for success too. My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody … I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.” Barack Obama to Joe the plumber

Another argument that Obama and the liberals make is that trickle down economics doesn't work and that we need to employ trickle up poverty (I mean economics). That is, if we take from the rich and give to the poor, somehow the poor will end up boosting the economy more than the rich could. This is called the redistribution of wealth.

I argue that trickle down economics does work. The first problem with the redistribution of wealth is implied in the name itself. It doesn't create wealth, it simply "speads it around". It should be the goal of any economic policy to pomote economic growth. If we don't encourage growth, in the long run our economy will fail.

How is wealth created? Primarily through investments in technologies and firms and through the creation of jobs. So who is best equipped to create wealth? In order to create wealth, there must be enough disposible income to invest. The middle and lower class simply do not have the capital to create wealth, but the wealthy do. We need their disposible income to stimulate the economy, to invest in companies that will create jobs for the middle/lower classes and to promote the innovation of new technologies.

While the government can throw fish at people, only the wealthy can invest in the fishing polls, the lakes, and the training so that the rest of the population can have the opportunity to learn how to fish themselves. So why bite the hand that feeds us? Why punish them and tax them to oblivion? We need them.

If you think this is all theory and no reality, check this quote out and the corresponding link:
"In 2005, per capita personal income grew 31% faster in the 15 most economically free states than it did in the 15 states at the bottom of the list. And employment growth was a staggering 216% higher in the most free states."

What do you think?

Founding Father quote of the day

And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever.

Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, Query 18, 1781

Taxes and Value

I would like to make an observation I hear no one else making. What is the point of taxes? I would argue to provide value to society. We are constantly hearing Obama and the rest of the liberals talk about the need to make taxes even more progressive.

"The rich are plenty well off, so they should pay more taxes."
"They can afford it."
"It is their moral responsibility, and it is only fair."

I argue that while that line of thinking sounds noble, it is fundamentally flawed. That philosophical stance makes the implicit assumption that in a capitalistic, free-market economy people do not get paid in accordance to the value which they provide to a society, which in fact they do. If they didn't, it wouldn't even be capitalism.

For example, if a doctor is making $400,000 per year, that means that the doctor is providing exactly $400,000 of value to society. Which means he is doing 4x more for society then someone making $100,000 per year. If this were untrue, and the doctor were to be making "too much", then what would expect to see? A flood of new doctors coming to gobble up the opportunity! Instead, we are currently seeing a shortage in doctors.

So explain to me, why should a doctor (or any wealthy person) have to pay an even larger percentage of his/her money to the government if he/she is already providing far more value to society to begin with? Shouldn't the person making $30,000 a year have to pay more taxes since they aren't providing nearly as much value to society? Wouldn't that be the "fair" thing?

What do you think?

Founding Father quote of the day

"Another not unimportant consideration is, that the powers of the general government will be, and indeed must be, principally employed upon external objects, such as war, peace, negotiations with foreign powers, and foreign commerce. In its internal operations it can touch but few objects, except to introduce regulations beneficial to the commerce, intercourse, and other relations, between the states, and to lay taxes for the common good. The powers of the states, on the other hand, extend to all objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, and liberties, and property of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the state."
Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833

What did this say about our federal government's massive bailout proposals?