I hear so much talk from Barry and his minions in Congress about doing so many good things for the collective good of the people--for society. When I start hearing politicians talking about the collective I get the heeby jeebies. Haven't we heard this before? It's like dejavu all over again.
The first thing that bothers me about this is having politicians determine what is 'good' for anyone. What that really means is what will help the politician get re-elected and line their pocket with money. Period. That's the only 'good' they know. This is why we have checks and balances and limited, enumerated powers in the Constitution. Now if we could only get them to obey those dictates. But that's a topic I have already opined on repeatedly in this blog. Something about a nation of laws, not men. Our Constitution lays out what is good for the nation. We don't need politicians trying to throw in their two cents. I really don't want or need other people deciding what is 'good' for me.
The other challenge with this is having politicians trying to define just who or what exactly is society, or the collective. Does it self-define? Is it just intuitively obvious? I think in reality politicians tend to define the collective as whatever group they are trying to pander to at the moment for, here it comes; votes and money. There really is no great amorphous, homogenous society with all the same needs and wants at the same time. We are a bubbling cauldron of individuals and various interest groups who shift and move and change and meld and dissolve and come back together again in differing forms over time with our own personal changing needs and desires. You can't really take a snapshot at one moment in time and say, aha! that is the collective society and these are its needs and so based upon that, I; beneficent politican will go forth and do 'good' for it (and maybe help me in the process).
So the 'collective' and the 'good' are really only aritifical creations of polticians at any given moment in time which in reality wind up only promoting what is best for the politician; and their wants and needs (votes and money).
When you hear politicians talking about these things, run away, run away!
Friday, December 31, 2010
The Means Justify the End?
I detect an insidious mentality permeating the federal government, particularly the Obama administration and the Congress. It is the idea that the authority to tax, granted by the 16th Amendment is an automatic authority to spend that money on anything at all. This has led to a backwards approach to government spending, i.e.; Congress decides that it wants to spend money on some program (for which there is no Article 1, Section 8 authority) and then simply justifies the decision based upon its authority to raise taxes (in their mind for any foolishness they desire). The means justifies the ends. Congress needs to understand that the power to tax means that Congress has the authority to raise taxes to fund the legitimate, constitutional functions of the federal government (Article 1, Section 8 again). It does not mean that Congress can fill a bucket with tax dollars and then spend them willy nilly on every silly thing that comes to mind. If we are to preserve, indeed save our Republic we must insist that the Congress understand that the Preamble to the Constitution is just that, a Preamble which in legal terms carries no empowering authority but is merely a statement of why the following document (which does include empowering language) is being written; that the 16th Amendment empowers the federal government to raise taxes only for its legitimate Article 1, Section powers; that their specific powers and authorities reside in Article 1, Section 8; that the Necessary and Proper Clause merely authorizes them to enact laws to carry out their legitimate, constitutional powers in Article 1, Section 8; and that the Interstate Commerce Clause is a very narrow and specific clause relating to preventing States from erecting undo burdens to commerce, not granting Congress unlimited power to do virtually anything it wants. If that were the intent of the writers, why have Article 1, Section 8? That sort of begs the question.
Short of reigning in the scope of the federal government along the lines of the preceding provisions, I see no hope of salvaging the idea of the Republic of the United States IN America and most likely the federal government will collapse under the weight of unsustainable taxation, spending, debt and entitlement.
Wake up!
Short of reigning in the scope of the federal government along the lines of the preceding provisions, I see no hope of salvaging the idea of the Republic of the United States IN America and most likely the federal government will collapse under the weight of unsustainable taxation, spending, debt and entitlement.
Wake up!
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Why Do Rich Liberals Hate Rich People?
I am convinced that there must be a logic gene in the brain and that it is most assuredly missing in liberals. How else could one explain the phenomenon of someone looking at history, be confronted with facts and then completely ignore it all and arrive at a screwball conclusion devoid of any logical explanation?
Several years ago I was chewing the fat with a liberal colleague and the discussion swung around to the topic of the progressive income tax. If you are ever in need of some cheap fun just watch a liberal try to explain the logical basis of this iconic institution and then figuratively explode at the end! Personally, I believe that if conservatives cannot win the arguement against progressive income tax rates, then we probably will never win any substantial governing majority for any length of time. To me, this is a seminal issue that separates the mindset of the two warring parties. Someone's attitude towards this seemingly minute point of policy reveals the fundamental orientation that individual's outlook and perspective on nearly every question of governance.
It is quite clear that the 14,000 or so pages of federal tax code really have little to do with raising revenue and so much to do with the raw exercise of power, with control, with social engineering and with rewarding and punishing friends and political enemies. If it is only about raising revenue we could have a post-card flat tax or a sales tax and be done with it. No, the tax code is powerful tool for inciting class envy, class warfare and for buying votes.
Back to my friend. The crux of our disagreement was, of course over the concept of a system of increasing tax rates for increasing income levels. Thus, the 'progressive' income tax. The liberal argument quite simply put is that those who make more should pay more. They should give back to society. They should pay, hold your breath, their fair share. At this point I drew out the following scenario:
$10,000.00 x 10%=$1,000.00
$100,000.00 x 10%=$10,000.00
$1,000,000.00 x 10%=$100,000.00
I ask him, at a flat 10% tax rate who is paying more? Silly question. The person making a million bucks a year is paying a lot more than the person making a hundred grand and a heck of a lot more than the 'little guy' making ten grand. Isn't that progressive, isn't he giving a lot back, isn't he paying his fair share? Well, not to the liberal's satisfaction. And why not? Well the millionaire can afford to pay a higher percentage of his income, he replies. How do you know, I ask? Well, he should be able to the liberal snorts back. Why should he have to, under what Constiutional principle and more importantly who is to decide how much is enough, I shoot back? Well, the government, of course will decide. So, will it be 20%, 30%, 50%? This is where the control comes in. Whoever sets the rates controls the taxpayer. Whose money is it I ask? Well, it's his money, but he has a responsiblity to plow more of it back into society since he took so much out of society. And here is a fundmental liberal misundersting of economics. It's the idea that when someone gets more, someone else must get less. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The zero-sum pie game. What the liberal does not understand is that rich people are usually in business...the business of making more economic pies. Their business activity increases the wealth of everyone. They create jobs, they create goods and services that people want, they spend their income on houses and clothing and cars and boats that must be manufactured, thereby creating more jobs. And all of these people with jobs are paying taxes. A rishing tide does lift all boats. The liberal simply does not see or does not believe all of this and thus thinks that society must wrest some retribution from the rich by imposing every-increasing taxes on them. All that does is take more money out of their pot with which to expand their businesses and hire more people. The liberal winds up killing the golden goose and doesn't even know it.
This is all very interesting, but for me a more fundamental question is that of how we justify treating people differently in the eyes of the tax law. It's a very American tenet that all men are created equal and that all men are treated equally before the law. To not do so is to set up a class system of favoritism and thus fan the flames of class envy and hatred. The liberals are quite adroit at setting up big business and the rich as the boogey-man (you know those big businesses that give people jobs and create new medicines and make your cars and clothing and tv sets and food) and convince the masses that these people are ripping them off and the liberals must ride in to save the day and protect the 'little guy.' Somehow the liberals convince people that by sticking it to the fat cats somehow the little guys will be better off. But when rich people pay more taxes it doesn't put a single dollar in the average little guy's pocket. But he is supposed to feel better about America for some reason. So if you take the time to study the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution you find that an overarching theme is the equality of all people. We are to all be treated equally. There is no royalty or nobility by simple virtue of birth. The rights we hold to be self-evident are for all Americans equally. Lady justice is blind. It doesn't matter if you are a pauper or a President, the law looks at you the same. The law is supposed to be the great equalizer. Yet, for some strange reason when it comes to income tax law, some of us are more equal and less equal than others. The tax rates and income levels they apply to are completely arbitrary and change with the whims of changing political administrations. There is no rhymm or reason to it. And that's just the tax rates. The other 13,999 pages of tax law amounts to the exceptions and exemptions and favors and punishments that politcians dole out to their friends and enemies. Some fairness, some equality. What the politicians (mostly liberal) have done is to pit one class of society against the other; then they play the middle and keep getting re-elected. Fanning the flames of class hatred keeps them empowered. They must be there to protect the little guy from the big, bad businessman. All the while taking huge campaign contributions from the big, bad businessman trying to buy one of those exemptions. I'll take loopholes for $300 million Alex. This tap dance is divisive and runs counter to what is really in all Americans' best interests. This sort of philosophy doesn't usually end well. Think of the Bolshevik revolution in Russia. That ended of with a country that could not even feed itself and tens of millions of citizens slaughtered by their own governement.
Is this where we're headed all over the concept of 'the fair share?' The problem with the fair share is that it really is not fair by any logical deduction and someone must arbitrarily decide what it is. When someone gets to decide what someone else's fair share is there will never be peace and there will certainly never be fairness or equality. The Constitution provides no guidance on how to treat people unfairly and unequally. It's, well; un-American. Perhaps we should not even try.
So now, my liberal friend is just about to the point of exploding. He still thinks that the rich should pay more than their fair share, well just because, um, well, just because. It just seems right to him, besides they can afford it. Oy, here we go again.
Several years ago I was chewing the fat with a liberal colleague and the discussion swung around to the topic of the progressive income tax. If you are ever in need of some cheap fun just watch a liberal try to explain the logical basis of this iconic institution and then figuratively explode at the end! Personally, I believe that if conservatives cannot win the arguement against progressive income tax rates, then we probably will never win any substantial governing majority for any length of time. To me, this is a seminal issue that separates the mindset of the two warring parties. Someone's attitude towards this seemingly minute point of policy reveals the fundamental orientation that individual's outlook and perspective on nearly every question of governance.
It is quite clear that the 14,000 or so pages of federal tax code really have little to do with raising revenue and so much to do with the raw exercise of power, with control, with social engineering and with rewarding and punishing friends and political enemies. If it is only about raising revenue we could have a post-card flat tax or a sales tax and be done with it. No, the tax code is powerful tool for inciting class envy, class warfare and for buying votes.
Back to my friend. The crux of our disagreement was, of course over the concept of a system of increasing tax rates for increasing income levels. Thus, the 'progressive' income tax. The liberal argument quite simply put is that those who make more should pay more. They should give back to society. They should pay, hold your breath, their fair share. At this point I drew out the following scenario:
$10,000.00 x 10%=$1,000.00
$100,000.00 x 10%=$10,000.00
$1,000,000.00 x 10%=$100,000.00
I ask him, at a flat 10% tax rate who is paying more? Silly question. The person making a million bucks a year is paying a lot more than the person making a hundred grand and a heck of a lot more than the 'little guy' making ten grand. Isn't that progressive, isn't he giving a lot back, isn't he paying his fair share? Well, not to the liberal's satisfaction. And why not? Well the millionaire can afford to pay a higher percentage of his income, he replies. How do you know, I ask? Well, he should be able to the liberal snorts back. Why should he have to, under what Constiutional principle and more importantly who is to decide how much is enough, I shoot back? Well, the government, of course will decide. So, will it be 20%, 30%, 50%? This is where the control comes in. Whoever sets the rates controls the taxpayer. Whose money is it I ask? Well, it's his money, but he has a responsiblity to plow more of it back into society since he took so much out of society. And here is a fundmental liberal misundersting of economics. It's the idea that when someone gets more, someone else must get less. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The zero-sum pie game. What the liberal does not understand is that rich people are usually in business...the business of making more economic pies. Their business activity increases the wealth of everyone. They create jobs, they create goods and services that people want, they spend their income on houses and clothing and cars and boats that must be manufactured, thereby creating more jobs. And all of these people with jobs are paying taxes. A rishing tide does lift all boats. The liberal simply does not see or does not believe all of this and thus thinks that society must wrest some retribution from the rich by imposing every-increasing taxes on them. All that does is take more money out of their pot with which to expand their businesses and hire more people. The liberal winds up killing the golden goose and doesn't even know it.
This is all very interesting, but for me a more fundamental question is that of how we justify treating people differently in the eyes of the tax law. It's a very American tenet that all men are created equal and that all men are treated equally before the law. To not do so is to set up a class system of favoritism and thus fan the flames of class envy and hatred. The liberals are quite adroit at setting up big business and the rich as the boogey-man (you know those big businesses that give people jobs and create new medicines and make your cars and clothing and tv sets and food) and convince the masses that these people are ripping them off and the liberals must ride in to save the day and protect the 'little guy.' Somehow the liberals convince people that by sticking it to the fat cats somehow the little guys will be better off. But when rich people pay more taxes it doesn't put a single dollar in the average little guy's pocket. But he is supposed to feel better about America for some reason. So if you take the time to study the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution you find that an overarching theme is the equality of all people. We are to all be treated equally. There is no royalty or nobility by simple virtue of birth. The rights we hold to be self-evident are for all Americans equally. Lady justice is blind. It doesn't matter if you are a pauper or a President, the law looks at you the same. The law is supposed to be the great equalizer. Yet, for some strange reason when it comes to income tax law, some of us are more equal and less equal than others. The tax rates and income levels they apply to are completely arbitrary and change with the whims of changing political administrations. There is no rhymm or reason to it. And that's just the tax rates. The other 13,999 pages of tax law amounts to the exceptions and exemptions and favors and punishments that politcians dole out to their friends and enemies. Some fairness, some equality. What the politicians (mostly liberal) have done is to pit one class of society against the other; then they play the middle and keep getting re-elected. Fanning the flames of class hatred keeps them empowered. They must be there to protect the little guy from the big, bad businessman. All the while taking huge campaign contributions from the big, bad businessman trying to buy one of those exemptions. I'll take loopholes for $300 million Alex. This tap dance is divisive and runs counter to what is really in all Americans' best interests. This sort of philosophy doesn't usually end well. Think of the Bolshevik revolution in Russia. That ended of with a country that could not even feed itself and tens of millions of citizens slaughtered by their own governement.
Is this where we're headed all over the concept of 'the fair share?' The problem with the fair share is that it really is not fair by any logical deduction and someone must arbitrarily decide what it is. When someone gets to decide what someone else's fair share is there will never be peace and there will certainly never be fairness or equality. The Constitution provides no guidance on how to treat people unfairly and unequally. It's, well; un-American. Perhaps we should not even try.
So now, my liberal friend is just about to the point of exploding. He still thinks that the rich should pay more than their fair share, well just because, um, well, just because. It just seems right to him, besides they can afford it. Oy, here we go again.
My New Year's Resolutions for the Federal Government
1) Abolish lame-duck sessions of Congress or seat the new Congress immediately after the election.
2) Transition to a Flat or Fair-Tax (NOT a V.A.T.); eliminate the graduated income, estate and capital gains taxes.
3) Go back on the gold standard.
4) Abolish anchor babies, seal the borders and enforce the immigration laws currently on the books.
5) Give the President the line-item veto.
6) All new bills in Congress will be one bill, one topic, one vote.
7) All bills in Congress must explicitly cite the Article 1, Section 8 authority for any new government program, spending or legislation. (Hint: ObamaScare, Social Security and Medicare; just to name a few, have none)
8) Adhere to the strict, limited and original text and meaning of the Interstate Commerce Clause.
9) Abolish the unconstitutional precedent of executive branch agencies implementing rules, fees, fines and penalties. Only Congress can make law and there is no provision in the Constitution for Congress to delegate that authority.
10) The Constitution requires that the President be a natural-born United States of America citizen, but makes no process for certifying that stipulation. Congress should enact legislation that requires prospective presidential candidates to certify their birth status by a legally recognized method to their respective party officials, to Congress, to the Supreme Court, to the State Governors and legislatures and to the people at large through the media prior to their nominating convention.
11) All legislation must treat all citizens, companies and institutions equally; no special treatment, no special punishment, no special sweetheart deals and no exceptions for anyone.
12) All members of the federal government; whether elected, appointed, contracted or hired shall be equally subject to all laws of this country. Period.
13) Audit the Federal Reserve and abolish its autonomous authority over our currency.
2) Transition to a Flat or Fair-Tax (NOT a V.A.T.); eliminate the graduated income, estate and capital gains taxes.
3) Go back on the gold standard.
4) Abolish anchor babies, seal the borders and enforce the immigration laws currently on the books.
5) Give the President the line-item veto.
6) All new bills in Congress will be one bill, one topic, one vote.
7) All bills in Congress must explicitly cite the Article 1, Section 8 authority for any new government program, spending or legislation. (Hint: ObamaScare, Social Security and Medicare; just to name a few, have none)
8) Adhere to the strict, limited and original text and meaning of the Interstate Commerce Clause.
9) Abolish the unconstitutional precedent of executive branch agencies implementing rules, fees, fines and penalties. Only Congress can make law and there is no provision in the Constitution for Congress to delegate that authority.
10) The Constitution requires that the President be a natural-born United States of America citizen, but makes no process for certifying that stipulation. Congress should enact legislation that requires prospective presidential candidates to certify their birth status by a legally recognized method to their respective party officials, to Congress, to the Supreme Court, to the State Governors and legislatures and to the people at large through the media prior to their nominating convention.
11) All legislation must treat all citizens, companies and institutions equally; no special treatment, no special punishment, no special sweetheart deals and no exceptions for anyone.
12) All members of the federal government; whether elected, appointed, contracted or hired shall be equally subject to all laws of this country. Period.
13) Audit the Federal Reserve and abolish its autonomous authority over our currency.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
