Pot and Paradigm Shifts

I wish to comment on a debate that seems to even have conservatives split down the middle. That is, the legalization of marijuana. Let me say straight up that I do not believe it should be legalized. I recognize, however, that this is a heated issue because on one hand you have children involved and a dangerous substance that can destroy lives and on the other hand you have principles of freedom that tell you we should all be allowed to do what we want. Where do you draw the line? At what point do you sacrifice certain freedoms in order to preserve even greater ones?

There are a lot arguments that need to be considered in this debate. One, you can argue that the health effects from marijuana are no worse the alcohol and cigarettes, and you would have a lot of medical evidence to support that. Two, you could argue the economics of the issue, saying that there is a lot of tax revenue to be gained and money to be saved by loosening the war on drugs. Three, you could argue the social aspects of the issue, that kids already have access to it anyways and the stuff they get their hands on is dirty compared to a legally manufactured kind. Finally, you could care less about any of these arguments but believe that everyone should be allowed to do whatever the heck they want, even if it is pot. All of these arguments make valid points, and I do not wish to argue economics or health. I would rather talk about our society and our children.

You have a vast spectrum to consider here. On one end you have extremism in the form of Obama trying to tell us we shouldn't even drink (a.k.a. taxing) sugar soda and on the other you have morphine available in every candy isle. I think ALL of us agree that we would not support either extreme. So, in an admittedly illogical attempt to find some sort of middle ground we have decided that we should have the right to consume certain substances but not others. We have even had to go through some trial and error (prohibition) in order to find a medium that seems to work. In truth, the line we have drawn doesn't make a lot of sense. Since marijuana is illegal, you could make an excellent argument that nicotine and alcohol should be as well. Conversely, since alcohol and nicotine are legal you could make an excellent argument that marijuana should be as well. It seems like a conundrum, and in reality it is. (cont.)

My point of all of this is that since we have drawn a line, that for decades has gone unchanged, to move that line in either direction at this point would require no less than a paradigm shift for our entire society. It would cause us to re-evaluate every other substance we have deemed illegal and one thing we have learned over time is that if you give an extremist an inch, they will take a mile. You would have to restructure our entire education programs that discourage kids from doing drugs. And soon, you will see the extremists want to shift the line a little more (and since it had already been done once, it will be even easier next time). And then again, and again. And then all of a sudden we are experiencing the absolute disaster that European countries have already experienced having traveled down this road. And that is not the America I want my children growing up in. So I say, let's leave the line where it is.

What do you think?

Founding Father quote of the day

Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure (and) which insures to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments.

Charles Carroll, signer of the Declaration of Independence

Taxes and the Taxed

Confusing title, I know. So here is the basic point I want to make (that liberals seem unable to comprehend): there is a huge difference between who gets taxed and who actually pays for the tax.

For example, a tax levied on a company never actual gets paid by the company (what?! you say). Who pays it? The consumers and the employees. You see, a company exists to make a profit. That means revenue must be greater than expenses. Taxes are considered an expense. If you increase taxes on the company, they are forced to either decrease expenses elsewhere or increase revenue. What is the easiest way to accomplish this? Either by raising the prices of the goods or services they provide or cutting back on payroll (either by layoffs, compensation reduction, or reduced benefits). So who ends up getting hurt? The very people that were told they shouldn't have to pay taxes to begin with. The very people that liberals claim to represent.

While this is the most concrete example, there are others. Suppose you want to increase taxes on luxury items. Your thinking goes like this: the rich, who buy most luxury items, can afford to pay a little more for something they don't even necessarily need. The problem is that in reality when you tax a luxury item and thus force it to become more expensive, demand goes down for that item no matter how rich the consumer is. So the rich person will find an alternative luxury item or way to spend their money. And who ends up paying the price for the tax and suffering because of it? The industries and the (non-rich) workers that make the luxury goods, the one that are supposed to benefit from this whole plan to begin with.

The pattern that begins to emerge is that no matter what, or who, you tax it is always the people on the bottom who end up paying for it. Do you see the paradox here? The very tax system that is supposed to help the little guy is the same system that keeps him little and therefore makes him dependent. And that is exactly what liberalism needs to survive. It is a catch 22. It is a sham and we need to wake up and break the cycle.

What do you think?

Quote of the day

Excerpt from "An open letter to our nation's leadership":

...Democrat, Republican, independent, libertarian. Understand this. We don't care. Political parties are meaningless to us. Patriotic Americans are willing to do right by us and our Constitution and that is all that matters to us now. We are going to fire all of you who abuse power and seek more. It is not your power. It is ours and we want it back. We entrusted you with it and you abused it. You are dishonorable. You are dishonest. As Americans we are ashamed of you. You have brought shame to us. If you are not representing the wants and needs of your constituency loudly and consistently, in spite of the objections of your party, you will be fired. Did you hear? We no longer care about your political parties. You need to be loyal to us, not to them. Because we will get you fired and they will not save you. If you do or can represent me, my issues, my views, please stand up. Make your identity known. You need to make some noise about it. Speak up. I need to know who you are. If you do not speak up, you will be herded out with the rest of the sheep and we will replace the whole damn congress if need be one by one. We are coming. Are we coming for you? Who do you represent? What do you represent? Listen. Because we are coming. We the people are coming.

Janet Contreras

Read the whole letter here.

If you agree, sign the petition here.

Progressivism and Relativism

The subtitle to this blog reads "A look into the heart of political philosophy" and that is what I would like to do. I know that not everyone looks at politics in the way I am going to outline, but I think it is important. There are deep philosophical assumptions that lay the foundations of both conservatism and liberalism. If we don't understand these roots, we won't really understand what means to be a conservative or a liberal, and furthermore we won't understand where these political philosophies will ultimately lead us.

Put as simply as I know how, liberalism is rooted in progressivism which is rooted in relativism. Relativism denies absolute truth which therefore makes it the enemy of all religion. Our founding fathers explicitly stated that religion was absolutely necessary to the success of this country. Following this train of thought, one can only conclude that liberalism, left unchecked, will ultimately destroy this country.

Let me explain. Modern liberalism is a branch of progressivism. Progressivism believes that a society can only improve by evolving and changing into something better. This has nothing to do with productivity and technology. Instead, it refers to economic policy, morality, political structure, and the definition of rights. It defines successful progress based on equality of outcome and not on equality of opportunity. It for this reason that collectivism and progressivism go hand in hand. The only way to improve our society is to make everyone equal, regardless of individual input. The individual is second to the collective, and therefore individual rights may be sacrificed for the greater good. It is easy to understand why the extreme version of liberalism is socialism. Progressivism ascertains that change is inevitably a good thing and that the "old" ways of doing things go quickly out of date and become detrimental to the development of a society.

All of these philosophies require a fundamental belief in relativism. Relativism proclaims that there is no absolute right and wrong. Instead, right and wrong must always be framed in the context of a specific perspective and in a specific time. What's right for you may not be right for me. And what was right for me yesterday may not be right for me tomorrow. The obvious danger of this is that we are all left to make up our own rules. This is why liberalism constantly challenges the moral status quo and even supports the moral decay of our society. Since everything is relative, we can't look to the past for any sort of guidance and we certainly can't encourage any one particular brand of morality. With relativism, we must simply live in the moment and tackle today's problems with whatever feels right today.

Now, it doesn't matter which religion you are associated with, if you are religious in any way, shape, or form you are immediately offended by such thinking. Our founding fathers understood that religion would be the glue that holds our society together because there is an absolute right and wrong. And even if you don't believe in any religion, there is an undeniable natural law that holds everything together. Nature teaches us that there are consequences to every action and that those consequences are universal. Gravity works the same for every person, from every perspective, and across all time. Shouldn't that mean something to us?

I believe I have sufficiently digressed into the realms of philosophical thought that it is time to sum things up in terms that relate to the real world. You see, the beauty of conservatism is that it is so simple. It is founded on principles and values that are held as self-evident and universal. It Is rooted in natural law and a belief in an absolute right and wrong. Change is not always a good thing, and progress doesn't always mean improvement. The individual will always be more important than the collective.

Conservatism is the belief that our founding fathers got it right, and that to stray from what they established will inevitably destroy what they built. I truly believe that the overwhelming majority of Americans are conservative in they way the live their lives, in the fundamental political and social philosophies that they subscribe to, and in the principles and values that they hold dear. Unfortunately, too many have been successful tricked by a power hungry government and a corrupted media.

What do you think?

Founding Father quote of the day

We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

John Adams, Address to the Military, October 11, 1798

Torture and Waterboarding

This is one hot topic. It seems like everyone wants to chime in, so of course I will too. There are so many problems with this debate that it is hard to know where to start. First, is the problem of defining torture. Second, is defining the rationale behind these interrogation techniques. Is the only question really whether or not we extracted useful information from suspected terrorists? Finally, we are seeing a fundamental debate whether or not constitutional privileges should be extended to non-US citizens. Of course, the main stream media sets the premise of the debate, as they always do, as if some of these issues are not debatable. I disagree.

When you imagine some of the most horrific means of torture human beings have been subjected to, ask yourself these questions- is it possible to to endure any of them without long-term physical repercussions? It it possible to endure any of them repeatedly without dying? Most probably the answer is no.

Encarta dictionary defines torture as the "infliction of extreme physical pain." The issue with waterboarding, and other similar techniques, is that there is no extreme physical pain nor lasting damage. They are, in fact, means of inflicting psychological pain rather than physical pain. Reports of suspected terrorists being waterboarded several times a day for weeks on end (and living to tell about it) proves that it really isn't dangerous nor fall under the text book definition of torture. I argue, therefore, that waterboarding is not torture in the terms that were enunciated by our founding fathers. Surely, having tasted the brutality of the British Empire, they understood real torture in a way that we can only imagine. I even think they would laugh at the idea of waterboarding being torture.

The FBI and the CIA seem to contradict each other in terms of the effectiveness of waterboarding. The question of whether or not we are getting good information through the implication of these techniques is important and should be asked. I argue, however, that we should be asking more. Every manager knows that sometimes you have to fire an employee for even a small infraction in order to send an important message to his/her organization. What type of message do we want to send to people all over the world who would seek to destroy us? These people would kill our friends, our spouses, and even our children if they had the chance. When they watch us debate over whether or not splashing water in their faces is OK, I think they too must be laughing at us. They wouldn't hesitate for a second to cut our heads off if they could. And they have, at least to our brave soldiers.

Finally, are we obligated to offer constitutional privileges to every human being on the planet? I don't think so. Here is my reasoning. The United States stands as a beacon of hope to the world and an example to all other nations. Since this country was formed, we have extended welcoming arms to people everywhere. We ask very little from those who seek our country to provide a better life for their families. We ask that they learn English, that they be prepared to work hard and embrace our values, and that they enter this country legally. And by doing so we seek to extend our constitutional privileges to everyone, but those privileges have always come with a price. What rights do those who have done nothing to earn those privileges, and in fact seek to destroy those very privileges for the rest of have? None. It seems to me that those who believe that breaking the law is the same as trying to destroy the institution that creates the law are very naive.

In short, I don't have a problem with waterboarding. I know there are those who think we should all experience it before we say that, but here is the thing: I am not a suspected terrorist involved with evil organizations. Have we ever asked those who support capital punishment to experience it themselves? Do we force supporters of new prisons to spend a few years in jail? No! So don't be ridiculous. It is so easy for some to stand up and proclaim moral superiority by attacking the people who try to make us safe, but when that day comes that we have legitimate evidence that the next September 11 is on the verge of happening and we have in custody someone with suspected information, what wouldn't you do to get that information? It's time we start using some common sense.

Founding Father quote of the day

The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained.

George Washington, First Inaugural Address, April 30, 1789

Debate and Respect

What type of country are we turning America into when we refuse to civilly tolerate disagreeing opinions? How long can we give any validation to people who claim to fight for what they perceive as tolerance when they openly and spitefully hate those with opposing viewpoints? The notion that you can fight intolerance with intolerance is about a juvenile as Kindergarten.

What the media has allowed to happen to Miss California is so amazingly appalling that I have been left literally speechless. And that does not happen very often. The sad thing of it all is that they so completely misunderstand why Miss California (and the majority of Americans) believe in traditional marriage. For those of us who believe that marriage should be between a man and women, it has everything to do with principle. It is about preserving the institution of marriage and the sanctity thereof, and has absolutely nothing to do with gay people. It isn't about hating anyone or denying anyone rights. In fact, we don't believe that marriage is a right at all, rather that it is a supreme privilege.

Of course, those who disagree turn it completely personal. To them, it all about hate, bigotry, and some type of vendetta. And because they refuse to meet us on the same intellectual playing field, they will never understand why we believe what we believe. So while they preach tolerance out of one corner of their mouths, they spit hate out of the other. Of course, the main stream media plays right along and intentionally lets them misrepresent our position. Oh, and is there any wonder that so many main stream news sources are tanking right now?

I don't have a problem with people disagreeing with me, and from what Miss California has said neither does she. What I do have a problem with is when other people establish inaccurate premises which put forth untrue assumptions about what I believe, think, or feel. These types of debates are pointless and destructive. Americans have to rise above this. Our founding fathers fought tooth and nail against one another, but they understood that they were fighting on the same side. Their debates were intellectual, intelligent, and philosophical. They weren't personal, slanderous, and petty.

The example with Miss California simply highlights one of the most hypocritical hallmarks of liberalism. With liberals, you can believe in whatever you want, but if you disagree with them then you are immediately a hateful bigot (and probably insane). You can say whatever you want, but if you aren't politically correct then you are an insensitive pig. You can do whatever you want, but if you aren't environmentally conscious, then you are an irresponsible killer. Being bi-partisan means agreeing with them and being tolerant means accepting their viewpoints. They tote democracy, but leave no room for any debate.

There seems to be a serious lack of respect in this country, and the truth is that it comes primarily from the left. Go listen to what Miss California said. She said she glad she lived in a country where we can have our own opinions, she asked for forgiveness from those who would be offended by her opinion, and she honestly and sincerely stated what she personally believed. There was no hate, no intolerance, and no evil in her answer to that question. Now, go listen to Perez Hilton and others call her a stupid b***, degrade her physical appearance, and say other things that are so offensive that I won't even elude to them. The only good thing to come from this is that these hateful gay activists are shooting themselves in the foot. No one feels any sort of sympathy for them or their cause after hearing their terrible comments. And quite frankly, no one should.

What do you think?

Founding Father quote of the day

We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.

Benjamin Franklin (attributed), at the signing of the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776

Health Care and Nationalization

With the dangerous swine flu causing a lot of unrest around the globe, it can be assured that health care will take a front row seat in the minds of the people and the government. As the Obama administration pretends to look for solutions, while masking their true power-trip agenda, they will no doubt continue to push harder and harder for some type of nationalized health care. They will push for said plan by masquerading the idea that health care is a universal right, that it is unacceptable that not every American have access to treatments, doctors, prescriptions, etc... It will sound noble, descent, and desirable. But there is a grave problem with this philosophical notion. Here I attempt to argue against the nationalization of health care on the basis that health care is, quite frankly, not a right. Furthermore, by declaring it as a right and subsequently nationalizing the industry, we end up sacrificing an incredible amount of liberty.

Some argue that health care should be no different than fire or police departments. Here is the problem. Fire departments and police departments help protect us from situations that are beyond our control, usually caused by the actions or decisions of others. Our rights our violated when a burglar enters our home, and there is little we can do to prevent our neighbors from letting their home go up in flames (and risk having those flames jump over to our property). When it comes to our health, however, much of it has to do with the choices that we make. Of course their are genetic diseases that have very little to do with our own choices, and we all catch the cold every once in a while, but it there is no way to completely diagnose any health related problem as being a function of lifestyle or any other variable.

So we come to fat Albert. Fat Albert wants nothing more than to live out his life eating potato chips, smoking cigs, and downing cheap beer. Is it a lifestyle that he has the right to live? Of course. Is it healthy? Of course not. So what happens when his liver starts failing, he develops lung cancer, and his heart starts giving out? In a free society, with private health care, he must pay the consequences for his own actions. He can either pay for the costs himself, or sadly, die young. The point is that you and I aren't forced to pay for his medical bill.

But if we are to declare that health care is a universal right, than by necessity he should get all the treatment available, at our expense. Bypass surgery, lung and liver transplants, all on our tab. But no one is going to want to do that. It would outrage even the most extreme liberal. So what would happen? We would start being told how to live our lives. Regulations and government interventions would seek to do everything possible to force us to adopt certain, "approved" lifestyles. No longer would we have the freedom to eat potato chips and sit on our couch all day long. Now, don't misunderstand me, I am not praising that type of lifestyle, but I am defending the right to live it if one should decide that it fulfills their pursuit of happiness.

You see, health care is a privilege, not a right. Because it is a privilege, it must be something we work for and the consequences thereof must be our own to endure. Can you even imagine the wreckless abuse that will take place if you convince people that health care is a fundamental right on par with the freedom of speech and religion? Chaos would ensue and American health care would begin a long spiral downwards towards the failure that has become of other countries that have nationalized their own health care industries.

Long lines, overworked doctors, sub-par equipment, and inadequate treatments would only be the beginning. Important decisions regarding treatment would be made by bureaucrats, not doctors. And those who worked hard and who could afford top quality health care? Sure, they would be taxed to high heaven, but they would be ushered to the back of the long lines like everyone else. And that doesn't even begin to describe the enormous deficit increases that would befall an inefficient and irresponsible government trying to manage something that they literally have no idea how to do.

There are no doubt problems with our current health care situation. There are unfortunate tragedies that befall good, hard working individuals who simply cannot afford the right treatments. Health care is too tied up with corporate benefits, and at times even those who can afford it are still denied by unscrupulous health care companies. But nationalization is not the answer. Fortunately, we do have government subsidized health care programs for those who truly need it. Unfortunately, even those programs get abused far too much. In the end, I believe the difference between people believing that health care is a privilege that must be earned and a right that can be abused will make a tremendous difference in the effectiveness of any plan to improve our current situation.

What do you think?

Founding Father quote of the day

As on the one hand, the necessity for borrowing in particular emergencies cannot be doubted, so on the other, it is equally evident that to be able to borrow upon good terms, it is essential that the credit of a nation should be well established.

Alexander Hamilton, Report on Public Credit, January 9, 1790

Founding Father quote of the day

But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.

John Adams, letter to Abigail Adams, July 17, 1775

Liberty and Sacrifice

Why is personal freedom such a big deal? Those of us born in this country have grown up with it our entire lives and sometimes I believe we take it for granted more than almost anything else. It doesn't mean as much to us as it should because we don't understand life without it. I am taking a world history class this semester and my eyes have been open to the incredibly rare treasure that is individual liberty.

The fraction of human beings that have ever enjoyed the liberties that we enjoy in this country is incomprehensibly small. Why is this? Why were so many governments incapable of realizing the prosperity that comes with this freedom? Why?? I think because of one, corrupt and selfish men, and two, that it was literally considered absolutely crazy. History teaches us that governments never trusted their own people. They never believed they were capable of self motivated productivity. Because they are inherently lazy, stupid, and selfish they could never be left to their own devices.

There is a reason why history books sometimes call our country a great experiment. The freedoms we fought for were never before granted in such abundance to any other people to ever have lived. How could such a society possibly survive? Well, as we know, it didn't just survive, it thrived. It became the largest super power the world has ever known. A beacon for hope to all other nations. The promised land. And all of this because of one simple principle- individual liberty.

It is because I value individual liberty so much that I revile liberalism so much. Liberalism seeks to limit our personal freedom, and does so through propaganda and taxation. Most of the time, people don't even realize it. Liberalism believes that adopting a superior moral conscience is more important than preserving individual liberty. The collective is more important than the individual. That is why you are told what you should do all the time by them. Don't turn on the A/C, don't drive SUVs, and don't even think about trying to make too much money. Oh, and of course you are "free" to do whatever you want, but if we don't like what you are doing we will just tax the heck out of it. What kind of liberty is this?

The propaganda machine put in place by our White House seeks to convince us that all of this is done under the noble principle of sacrifice. We have to sacrifice or wants, our lifestyles, and our freedom for the greater good. I reject this. It is as un-American as socialism. It is an insult to our constitution and to our founding fathers. It scares me to death to think about what possible roads this thinking can lead to. No one seems to even flinch when our President roles out the most massive spending plan ever conceived and then tells us that we will need to make sacrifices. Wake up, people!

How is this happening? Because of fear. That is why anyone ever gives up any amount of liberty. We have been successfully convinced that we are incapable of solving our own problems (remember the whole lazy, stupid, and selfish thing?). What choice are we then left with but to surrender our liberty to the The Federal Government so as to save ourselves? From bailouts to regulations to taxation, it all boils down to the principle that Obama and his liberal gang subscribe to and live by- that this country would be better if they had more power and we had less.

I don't think we fully realize the terrible, and actual, sacrifice we are making by surrendering our liberty to them. Forcing people to do what you think is correct is never worth the cost of them losing their liberty. I don't care if you want a Prius, don't drink from plastic water bottles, don't drive SUVs, refuse to participate in capitalism, and want to give all your money to the government. But as soon as you think that I should be forced to do any of those things, either by law or by taxation, then you and I have a serious problem. We are blind to what is happening because we still think of bondage in terms of chains and whips. Yet, unchecked, the type of bondage we are willingly (even gleefully) submitting ourselves to now could lead to much worse. As for me, give me liberty or give me death.

Founding Father quote of the day

Individual liberty is individual power, and as the power of a community is a mass compounded of individual powers, the nation which enjoys the most freedom must necessarily be in proportion to its numbers the most powerful nation.

John Quincy Adams

Charity and Welfare

I write today something that I am extremely passionate about, something that goes to the very core of political philosophy and fundamentally divides liberalism from conservatism. I think that it is safe to say that all Americans want those in need to be provided the necessities of life. We don't want anyone to go hungry or homeless. We are a compassionate people. I would even argue that we are the most compassionate people on the planet.

Our country was established on the principles of limited government and personal freedom. Our founding father's believed that we as a people would take care of ourselves and reach out to those in need. And so a tradition began that turned into the largest force of private charities the world has ever seen. Both domestic and abroad, no other country is home to so many non-profit organizations. I believe it is one our core values as a people and as country to be charitable.

Two nights ago, President Obama confirmed that he will be lowering the percent of charitable donations that can be deducted from taxes for the top income brackets. This decision sent a message to all America, a message that says private charities are not as important as government welfare. It comes with an assumption that liberalism holds about our very nature, that we as Americans are unable to take care of our own, that only through massive government social programs can these people be helped.

Now, of course most people will still give just as much to charity as they ever have. But not all will, because not all will be able to afford it. And more than anything it is a huge slap in the face to all our wonderful non-profit organizations. President Obama is telling them that they aren't as important anymore. President Obama is wrong. Compared to government welfare programs, charities are exponentially more efficient at allocating donations directly to the people who need them. They are much better at ensuring responsible use of the donations, so that they are not abused and wasted like so much of our government welfare is. In short, they represent everything that is great about our country and everything that conservatism stands for- the people.

Private charities exemplify the idea of personal freedom. With private charities I have the freedom to choose who I give to and how much I give. If I don't like the way they are using my hard earned money, I can simply stop giving to them and find another worthy cause. Government welfare affords no such freedom. They don't care if I don't like the way my money is spent and I don't have a choice about how much I give. That ability to choose is so important. It makes us feel like we are in control of our money and that empowers us to give even more. And American want to give, of this I am sure.

This is simply a strategic move by the Obama administration to find reason and reason again to expand government and take power which it has no right to have. By forcing charitable donations to decline through manipulation of our tax code, they are creating more need for welfare and more justification for the implementation of unnecessary programs. Why liberals think so poorly of the American people I do not understand. But they are wrong about us. We can take care of one another, if only the government would get out of our way and let us prosper.

What do you think?

Founding Father quote of the day

"I now make it my earnest prayer the God would have you and the State over which you preside, in His holy protection, that he would incline the hearts of the citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination and obedience to government; to entertain a brotherly affection and love for one another, for their fellow citizens of the United States at large, and particularly for their brethren who have served in the field; and, finally, that he would be most graciously pleased to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that charity, humility, and pacific temper of mind, which were the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed religion, and without an humble imitation of whose example in these things we can never hope to be a happy nation."

George Washington, June 8, 1783 in a letter to the governors of the states on disbanding the army.

Symptoms and Wrong Questions

Is it just me, or are we constantly seeing the wrong questions being asked? How great can an answer really be if the premise of the question upon which it is predicated is flawed? How beautiful can rhetoric be praised when it answers an entirely irrelevant question to begin with? I am frustrated by the the complete incompetency of our mainstream media to ask the real questions, the ones that get to the heart of all the problems to begin with. I am frustrated with our government which keeps coming out with "solutions" to symptoms instead of problems.

Take AIG for example. The public is outraged with the millions in bonuses being paid to poorly performing executives. That is understandable, I think. So the immediate questions asked and echoed by our congress are: how can we fix the bonus problem? How can we punish them and get back the money? Meanwhile, reports are coming out that these payouts were known for some time. No one seems to be asking the right questions: why are we bailing out failed institutions, again? Should we really have expected anything different when allowing the government to stick its hands into the private sector? The truth is that the millions in bonuses pail in comparison to the billions in bailouts. The biggest question that needs to be asked is why the bailouts are failing to help.

I watched an annoying interview with President Obama yesterday. As seems to be the case lately, reporters tend to give the President rather difficult and thoughtful questions, which is great. The problem is that they all allow the President to mumble whatever incoherent answer he wants and get away with it. Why doesn't anyone say wait a minute! that doesn't make sense, what about...? For example, the interviewer made a very important observation that the financial industry is very concerned about losing their best people who will want to go to industries where they can make more than 250k a year. Obama's response? Well, they should just go to poor, dumpy North Dakota and get a little appreciation for how much 250k is.

Are you kidding me?? And the interviewer let it slide and moved on. Why didn't he point out that it doesn't matter how much 250k is, as long as there is a way to make more, these people will find a way? Why didn't he ask whether or not President Obama thought it was OK for sports athletes and actors to make millions? Why didn't he ask the right questions?

Later on in the interview, the reporter brought up the idea of just spending our way out of problems and asked a good question: is there a limit? Where is that limit? Obama answered that there was, but failed to define the limit except that we must be able to afford it. Then he started talking nonsense about treasury bonds. Again, the interviewer just moved on. I was outraged. Why didn't the interviewer clarify that we actually have NO current means of funding the spending coming out of Washington, that our deficits are going to be worse than anything during the Bush years, and the treasury bonds are NOT going to save us?

I could continue, but my point is that we have to ask more questions and we have to ask the right questions. We have to be careful about the premise of questions asked and we should never just accept the answers given to us without asking even more follow up questions. I think Washington is purposefully putting the attention on all these "symptoms" and coming up with these courageous efforts to cure them because they know if we ever shifted our attention to the actual problems, we would all realize that Washington is to blame for almost every single one.

Founding Father quote of the day

An unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, a power to destroy; because there is a limit beyond which no institution and no property can bear taxation.

John Marshall, McCullough v. Maryland, 1819

Recession and Production

There has been much debate over the past months about how an economy best recovers from a recession. It is clear that President Obama and Congress believe the answer is to simply spend our way out of it. The argument goes that by government spending money it will act as a catalyst that will ignite our economic engine once again. I reject that theory entirely. I do not believe we can spend our way out of a recession, because it has never worked before. The answer, then? We must produce our way out of a recession.

Now let me be clear. Producing our way our of a recession necessarily involves a certain amount of spending. But that spending has to a painful necessity, with a clear purpose. The spending has to be directed towards investments that are capable of growing on their own (this is important), and add to the utility of the people. For example, investing in alternative energy is a terrible idea, because none of these industries have reached the point to be self sustained without government subsidies. You are simply adding debt to more debt. The gleeful notion that we just need to spend and spend and everything will get better is ridiculous. History has taught us this.

The great depression was a terrible time in our country's history. Text books teach us that it was a heroic President Roosevelt and his life saving New Deal that finally pulled us out of our slump, thus proving that government intervention and massive spending works. Even Obama stated that this was inarguable. The facts, however, tell another story. The New Deal began in in 1933 and four years later the economy actually got worse! From 1933 to 1939 the federal expenditure tripled. And employment did not recover until into 1940. According to wikipedia, there is still widespread debate about whether or not the New Deal actually lengthened and deepened the depression.

That is the equivalent of saying that the economy will still be as bad in 2017, but yet somehow Obama's policies are working. Are you kidding me? And a look into history shows us that the real catalyst to our recovery from the Great Depression was World War II. We produced our way out the depression, and the war provided the means whereby we could do so. Of course, it required a responsible investment, but it wasn't the spending, the government intervention, or the massive regulations that saved us. It was the ability for our country to find a way to increase productivity.

Flash forward to the 1980s. Again, American found itself in a serious recession. This time President Reagan inherited the problem and was faced with tough decisions about how to help put the economy back on track. Massive spending? Tax the rich? See, this is the dirty little secret that you will never hear from a liberal. Reagan did neither. And it worked. In fact, he cut taxes from a staggering 70% to a reasonable 28% over 7 years for top personal tax bracket. He did not expand domestic government or churn out massive spending bills and regulations. Why? Because he understood that it was only the productivity of the people that would reverse the economic trends. He knew that he needed to foster an environment where that could happen. He believed in free market principles and in the American people.

After 7 years, the results speak for themselves. The GDP almost immediately began to grow at an annual rate of 3.4%, unemployment tumbled, and 16 million net jobs were added to the economy. What an incredible contrast to the 7 years following the new deal. So, why aren't we being taught this? Because liberalism owns our government and our media. Because the goal of liberalism is power, not prosperity. We must reject this notion that spending our way out of a recession is the only way. It has never, and will never work.

Founding Father quote of the day

A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicity.

Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address.

More common sense and Americans

More news today that Americana are on the path to awakening. The WSJ published an intriguing article, that I am sure you wont see in any of the main stream media. The article showed how polling numbers indicate that Americans are growing increasingly disatisifed with President Obama and his wreckless spending. From the article:

"Overall, Rasmussen Reports shows a 56%-43% approval, with a third strongly disapproving of the president's performance. This is a substantial degree of polarization so early in the administration. Mr. Obama has lost virtually all of his Republican support and a good part of his Independent support, and the trend is decidedly negative.

A detailed examination of presidential popularity after 50 days on the job similarly demonstrates a substantial drop in presidential approval relative to other elected presidents in the 20th and 21st centuries. The reason for this decline most likely has to do with doubts about the administration's policies and their impact on peoples' lives."

It is interesting to note that President Bush had a much higher approval rating at the same point in his presidency. Read the entire article here.

Common Sense and Americans

I know I have been delinquent in my posting, which I hope to find time to change, so I bring everyone some good news. As the true socialist agendas of President Obama and Speaker Pelosi continue to emerge, it looks like Americans are beginning to wake up. Here are some statistics (from Gallup) to show a few very positive trends:

-More Americans than ever believe that the media reports of global warming is exaggerated (41%) versus those who believe it is underestimated (28%) and the rest who believe the media is accurate. In conjunction with this, a staggering 60% of Americans believe that global warming is not a threat to their lives.

-More Americans believe that the government is doing too much (47%) than too little (42%) with the rest being mixed. And more Americans think that the government has too much power (50%) than not enough (13%).

-Americans are not happy with and do not see improvements as the result of the enormous stimulus bill passed three weeks ago. The Gallup "Consumer Mood Index" has fallen 5 points this past week alone. Gallup points out that given the unprecedented effort to boost the economy, there should have been a significant boost in consumer psychology by now.

I think we are a long way from seeing Americans really start to wake up, but I believe that it starting to happen. I believe in the American people. We are smart, compassionate, and have a long history of exercising that one thing we need above anything else right now- common sense.

Founding Father quote of the day

Society in every state is a blessing, but government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer.

Thomas Paine, Common Sense, 1776

Education and Cappuccino Machines

I believe our public school system is probably the single biggest example of how the government so easily and so massively fails to do anything efficiently or effectively that the private sector could do in its place. Education is an incredibly important institution for the health and prosperity of any society, I think everyone agrees with that. We have seen a massive increase in the amount of money that is being spent per pupil in the US over the past few decades, and yet our avereage test scores are falling. What does this mean? It means that too many people don't understand the real problem. And you can't come up with solutions to a problem you don't understand.

The underlying problem, I think, with the public school system is a complete lack of proper incentives. To start with, schools and school districts don't even have to think about the way they spend money like every other private institution does. In the real world, you have sources of revenue and you have expenditures and the entire endevour of a firm is to make sure that the former is always bigger than the latter. This requires wise investment and allocation of resources. When firms malinvest, they either learn extrmemly quickly from their mistakes, or they die. When schools malinvest, they just whine and beg for more until somebody raises taxes. And malinvest they do. Just go to your local public school, walk up and down the halls and make a list of everything that seems unecessary- it might surprise you. If you get real lucky, you may even see an unused cappuccino machine. See this article for more.

Schools and school districts are simply alloted a budget and attack it like a wild dog being thrown some stray meat. They don't worry about making sure they are getting any type of a return and so they aren't incentivized to allocate their funds with the uttmost efficicency. Why would they even consider trying to spend less then their budget? But money is the problem, right? Schools are so poor they just need the funds to turn themselves around, right? Wrong. It is a fact that money spent on pupils and test scores of pupils are NOT correlated in this country. Go look up New York, Chicago, or Miami if you don't believe me.

Now, let's talk about teachers. Who would ever want to work for an institution that only rewards longevity and ignores performance? This is the 21st Century, for goodness sake. The days of firm loyalty by workers who stay with one firm their entire lives are long gone. As a student, did I ever rate a teacher based on how many years he/she worked? Never! I rated teachers based on competance, ability to teach, their passion for the subject, etc... If we want great teachers, we have to incentivize them properly. Having great teachers is not a matter of pumping more money into a flawed system, it is a matter of re-allocating the current money to the great teachers. Crazy! I know!

Finally, let's talk about students. The public school system is failing them tremendously by creating a psuedoreality that makes them belive that effort is the only thing that matters and that they are all equal and all special. No real world works like that. We are lying to our children and dilluting them if that is what we teach them. And studies have shown that the emerging generation is meeting considerable friction in the work force as they have to quickly learn that results are what matters, and people aren't equal- some poeple are going to outperform others. So whats happening? Our schools are wasting money promoting agendas that cripple students. Yikes.

I think it is extremely clear that the problem with our current school system has nothing to do with a lack of money. In my perfect world, it would be great to severe the tie between the government and the education system once and for all and let the private industry do what it does so well. In my perfect world, there still be room for government to subsidize private education, making it accessible to everyone. I know my perfect world may never exist, but can you imagine how much diffferent a school would operate if it knew that any unhappy parent could easily take their kids (and their money) to a competing school? Maybe they would rethink those cappuccino machines...

What do you think?