by Humphrey Stevenson
Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) along with Senators Charles Schumer (D-NY), Harry Reid (D-NV), et al has introduced a new bill in the Senate to get Americans back to work. The bill is entitled “The Americans Want to Work Act” (S.3706). The bill contains three basic provisions. The first provision of the bill would provide for twenty additional weeks of unemployment compensation. (I’m sorry, but did I miss something?) The second extends and increases the HIRE Act payroll tax exemptions to businesses. Finally, the bill doubles the tax credit for businesses to hire the long term unemployed.
The bill would create a fifth tier of unemployment insurance to provide twenty additional weeks of benefits for those who have exhausted their benefits and live in states with unemployment rates of 7.5% or higher. Now that’s an interesting number. Let’s look at some of the states with significantly high unemployment rates, like California (12.3%), Florida (11.4%), Illinois (10.4%), Michigan (13.2%), Nevada (14.2%), and Ohio (10.5%). One wonders if this is a benefit specifically targeted at states the Democrats are counting on to maintain control of the House and Senate after November and are electorally rich which Obama will need in 2012.
That is twenty additional weeks of unemployment benefits on top of the ninety-nine weeks that have already been approved. It is little wonder why many have started to refer to unemployment as “funemployment.” Many of the unemployed are weighing the relaxation of going to the beach or playing golf and collecting unemployment benefits against the drudgery and pay of some job that might be available.
Obviously, the loss of a job and that income is not a welcomed occurrence. However, the replacement of that income becomes a necessity and necessity is the mother of invention as my parents used to say. These extended unemployment benefit de-incentivizes people from stretching themselves, looking for work in another field or possibly starting their own business. They certainly don’t provide much incentive to take any job that is available simply because the person needs the income. To quote John Lott in an article on the Fox News website, “You subsidize something and you get more of it.” Most people are not self-starters, regardless of what their resume’ says. They need a push. It’s simply human nature. Unfortunately, our government is subsidizing laziness.
The bill would also extend the HIRE Act through the end of 2011. This act was signed into law earlier this year and provides certain tax incentives for businesses to hire the long term unemployed. Specifically, employers are exempt from their share of a new employee’s Social Security payroll taxes. The employee must still pay their share. The employer also receives an additional $1,000 in tax credits if the employee is retained for one year. The business receives these exemptions if the employee had been unemployed for at least 60 days. Additionally, this new bill would double the tax credits if the new employee had exhausted all unemployment benefits and the employee is retained for at least one year.
Senator Stabenow stated that from February to June of this year, businesses had hired 5.6 million long term unemployed people for a “potential tax savings of $10.4 billion” as evidence that the HIRE Act was creating jobs. Once again, a Democrat fails to understand basic business principles. Companies are not in business to provide jobs. They are in business to produce and market goods and services, hopefully, at a profit. Employees are a means to that end. I’m not saying that employers would not take advantage of these tax credits if they happen to hire an eligible employee, they probably would. But the need for that employee must exist first. If a business has no need for any additional employees, they will not hire no matter how many tax incentives the government offers.
If the Democrats were truly interested in creating jobs, they would cut personal and corporate taxes period, and not tie the cuts to hiring a certain type of worker. This would incentivize the purchase and thereby the production of goods and services. Businesses would need to hire more employees to keep up with increased demand (not to mention they would not be punished for making a profit) and unemployment would fall naturally.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
The Kings of Our Age
by Humphrey Stevenson
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
This beautiful sentence begins the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence. This was a statement of what the Founders believed about mankind; that no person is created any better than any other person. We all came into the world the same way; that’s why we all have a bellybutton. Further, that all rights granted to the individual come from God not from any other person or government.
Do our leaders today really believe that they are no better than we are? They have a bloated sense of moral superiority. Their values are unattainable to the unwashed masses. They believe themselves to be superior to the Founders therefore the Constitution is an obstacle to be circumvented. They are so needed that any failings are to be disregarded. Just as kings, the elite were born to rule.
We, the surfs, are to pay the taxes the elite prescribe. We are to be told what to eat, what to drive, how to live. If sacrifice is needed, we are to suffer the lack. In the eyes of the elite, we are at best hick, hayseed boobs and at worst racist, knuckle-dragging Neanderthals.
We know that our ruling elite class believes that they can create rights. They told us they could. They say that with ObamaCare they have made health care a right. However, for one person to have a right means that no other is deprived of their rights. Rights are not transferred from one person to another. For instance, your right to life does not require that someone else die. But for person A to have a “right” to health care means that person B must pay for it, which means that person B is deprived of his right to his property. This is not a transfer of rights; it is simply a transfer of wealth. Therefore, health care is not a right no matter how many laws the elite pass.
They couldn’t have passed ObamaCare by calling it what it really was, a wealth transfer; so they declared it a human right and as long as no one understands what rights are and from where they come, the elite will keep on doing it.
The elite can take $ 26 billion of our money and pay off their friends in the teachers’ unions and public sector unions for their support in the November elections. I know, Obama said it was fully paid for by closing tax loopholes for multinational corporations. If this is true, then once again it proves the elite have no idea of the consequences of their tax policies. They obviously don’t realize that these policies will cause these multinational corporations to completely leave the U.S. and cause even more loss of jobs. Or maybe they do and it is part of the plan to create more dependency on the Federal government.
The ruling elite believe that they can control the economy better than the market. Thomas DiLorenzo in an article on the Ludwig von Mises Institute website describes how similar the regulatory control the Federal government exercises over the economic life of the US today is similar to the way F.A. Hayek describes the economic control by the German government of the late 1920’s and 1930’s. Our ruling elite have set up a system in which economic control is not direct but more hidden by the myriad of regulations of the various executive branch “alphabet” Federal agencies. In Germany, the government controlled about 53 percent of the means of production. Today the Federal government controls roughly 45 percent of the means of production. As DiLorenzo said, “It may sound shocking to some, but modern-day America compares "favorably" to fascist Germany of the 1930s with regard to the degree to which the state interferes with and controls economic activity.”
The solution to the problem of our elite ruling class will not be found in the Federal government no matter how many Republicans we elect to Congress. Congress is becoming irrelevant by the power it has transferred to the executive branch. The Federal government binds the states to itself by offering the so called aid to states. We must elect state legislators and governors that will exercise financial discipline and thereby be in a position to disconnect your state from the Federal government system.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
This beautiful sentence begins the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence. This was a statement of what the Founders believed about mankind; that no person is created any better than any other person. We all came into the world the same way; that’s why we all have a bellybutton. Further, that all rights granted to the individual come from God not from any other person or government.
Do our leaders today really believe that they are no better than we are? They have a bloated sense of moral superiority. Their values are unattainable to the unwashed masses. They believe themselves to be superior to the Founders therefore the Constitution is an obstacle to be circumvented. They are so needed that any failings are to be disregarded. Just as kings, the elite were born to rule.
We, the surfs, are to pay the taxes the elite prescribe. We are to be told what to eat, what to drive, how to live. If sacrifice is needed, we are to suffer the lack. In the eyes of the elite, we are at best hick, hayseed boobs and at worst racist, knuckle-dragging Neanderthals.
We know that our ruling elite class believes that they can create rights. They told us they could. They say that with ObamaCare they have made health care a right. However, for one person to have a right means that no other is deprived of their rights. Rights are not transferred from one person to another. For instance, your right to life does not require that someone else die. But for person A to have a “right” to health care means that person B must pay for it, which means that person B is deprived of his right to his property. This is not a transfer of rights; it is simply a transfer of wealth. Therefore, health care is not a right no matter how many laws the elite pass.
They couldn’t have passed ObamaCare by calling it what it really was, a wealth transfer; so they declared it a human right and as long as no one understands what rights are and from where they come, the elite will keep on doing it.
The elite can take $ 26 billion of our money and pay off their friends in the teachers’ unions and public sector unions for their support in the November elections. I know, Obama said it was fully paid for by closing tax loopholes for multinational corporations. If this is true, then once again it proves the elite have no idea of the consequences of their tax policies. They obviously don’t realize that these policies will cause these multinational corporations to completely leave the U.S. and cause even more loss of jobs. Or maybe they do and it is part of the plan to create more dependency on the Federal government.
The ruling elite believe that they can control the economy better than the market. Thomas DiLorenzo in an article on the Ludwig von Mises Institute website describes how similar the regulatory control the Federal government exercises over the economic life of the US today is similar to the way F.A. Hayek describes the economic control by the German government of the late 1920’s and 1930’s. Our ruling elite have set up a system in which economic control is not direct but more hidden by the myriad of regulations of the various executive branch “alphabet” Federal agencies. In Germany, the government controlled about 53 percent of the means of production. Today the Federal government controls roughly 45 percent of the means of production. As DiLorenzo said, “It may sound shocking to some, but modern-day America compares "favorably" to fascist Germany of the 1930s with regard to the degree to which the state interferes with and controls economic activity.”
The solution to the problem of our elite ruling class will not be found in the Federal government no matter how many Republicans we elect to Congress. Congress is becoming irrelevant by the power it has transferred to the executive branch. The Federal government binds the states to itself by offering the so called aid to states. We must elect state legislators and governors that will exercise financial discipline and thereby be in a position to disconnect your state from the Federal government system.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
The Liberal Tea Party
by Humphrey Stevenson
The liberals figure if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em and the liberals certainly have been taking their lumps from the tea parties of late. With this in mind they are going to start themselves a Tea Party. According to an article in the Washington Post the coalition of some 170 liberal and civil rights groups will be called “One Nation.” (It would seem that “Under God” didn’t make the cut.) They are hoping to counter the Tea Parties’ power and influence and “help the progressive movement find its voice again.”
The major groups involved are the usual suspects. They include the National Council of La Raza, the Service Employees International Union, the NAACP, the AFL-CIO, and the United States Student Association.
They think that in working together they can defeat the conservative resistance. They came to feel their strength in unity when the Health Care bill passed earlier this year. They feel that they were instrumental in getting the bill passed against “heavy resistance.” Heavy resistance? The Democrats had and continue to have majorities in both Houses of Congress. All it took was bribing a few squeamish Democrat members of Congress and the bill was assured of passage.
While the Tea Parties differ on some issues, on major issues they tend to agree. This is done without some central authority to coordinate the tea parties stand on these matters. This agreement is shocking to the liberal left and has led them to undertake fruitless searches for the Tea Parties’ leadership. The Tea Parties agree on limited, decentralized government, lower taxes, the right to personal property, reverence for God, respect for the family, and maximizing liberty for the people. The left does not understand that the reason for the general agreement between the various Tea Parties is not because of some central authority. It is due to the fact that these are heartfelt, deeply held beliefs that define us as conservatives and our basic core values guide our position on issues.
With the left, every position is a political calculation. They have no core values other than maximum governmental control and they are generally a coalition of disparate groups. Therefore, they must carefully consider the effect of a particular position on one or more of their groups. Further, the central authority must make sure that any group that might get short-shifted in a position decision does not leave the fold. This must be no mean feat. For example, I have never understood why minority parents who want a better education for their children could stay so beholden to a group dead set against school vouchers out of deference to the teachers’ unions.
It seems curious why at least one of these founding groups would want anything to do something “Tea Party-ish.” The NAACP is drafting a resolution condemning racist elements in the Tea Parties. Softening the language of an earlier draft, the civil rights organization settled on, "What we take issue with is the Tea Party's continued tolerance for bigotry and bigoted statements. The time has come for them to accept the responsibility that comes with influence and make clear there is no place for racism and anti-Semitism, homophobia and other forms of bigotry in their movement.”
NAACP Chairman Benjamin Todd Jealous went further in his speech to the convention. He compared the Tea Parties to the White Citizens Council of the 1950s and ‘60s and suggested that Tea Party members routinely carry signs calling for the lynching of Barack Obama and Eric Holder. The evidence he provided was the discredited claims that Tea Partiers shouted racial epitaphs and spat upon black congressmen outside of the Capital back in April.
The first part of the second sentence of the quote points to what the NAACP really has a problem with, the Tea Parties’ influence. The Tea Parties are making a difference while the NAACP sees its own, once formidable, influence waning. So, though childish, it is understandable that the NAACP would lash out at the Tea Parties. But, can’t they come up with something more original than racism. It seems that is all they have anymore. Of course, this charge is coming from a group that supports a political party that up until a couple of weeks ago had a Senator that was a former Klansman.
Once again the left reveals that it has zero understanding of what the Tea Parties are and why they are becoming a force in resisting tyranny.
The liberals figure if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em and the liberals certainly have been taking their lumps from the tea parties of late. With this in mind they are going to start themselves a Tea Party. According to an article in the Washington Post the coalition of some 170 liberal and civil rights groups will be called “One Nation.” (It would seem that “Under God” didn’t make the cut.) They are hoping to counter the Tea Parties’ power and influence and “help the progressive movement find its voice again.”
The major groups involved are the usual suspects. They include the National Council of La Raza, the Service Employees International Union, the NAACP, the AFL-CIO, and the United States Student Association.
They think that in working together they can defeat the conservative resistance. They came to feel their strength in unity when the Health Care bill passed earlier this year. They feel that they were instrumental in getting the bill passed against “heavy resistance.” Heavy resistance? The Democrats had and continue to have majorities in both Houses of Congress. All it took was bribing a few squeamish Democrat members of Congress and the bill was assured of passage.
While the Tea Parties differ on some issues, on major issues they tend to agree. This is done without some central authority to coordinate the tea parties stand on these matters. This agreement is shocking to the liberal left and has led them to undertake fruitless searches for the Tea Parties’ leadership. The Tea Parties agree on limited, decentralized government, lower taxes, the right to personal property, reverence for God, respect for the family, and maximizing liberty for the people. The left does not understand that the reason for the general agreement between the various Tea Parties is not because of some central authority. It is due to the fact that these are heartfelt, deeply held beliefs that define us as conservatives and our basic core values guide our position on issues.
With the left, every position is a political calculation. They have no core values other than maximum governmental control and they are generally a coalition of disparate groups. Therefore, they must carefully consider the effect of a particular position on one or more of their groups. Further, the central authority must make sure that any group that might get short-shifted in a position decision does not leave the fold. This must be no mean feat. For example, I have never understood why minority parents who want a better education for their children could stay so beholden to a group dead set against school vouchers out of deference to the teachers’ unions.
It seems curious why at least one of these founding groups would want anything to do something “Tea Party-ish.” The NAACP is drafting a resolution condemning racist elements in the Tea Parties. Softening the language of an earlier draft, the civil rights organization settled on, "What we take issue with is the Tea Party's continued tolerance for bigotry and bigoted statements. The time has come for them to accept the responsibility that comes with influence and make clear there is no place for racism and anti-Semitism, homophobia and other forms of bigotry in their movement.”
NAACP Chairman Benjamin Todd Jealous went further in his speech to the convention. He compared the Tea Parties to the White Citizens Council of the 1950s and ‘60s and suggested that Tea Party members routinely carry signs calling for the lynching of Barack Obama and Eric Holder. The evidence he provided was the discredited claims that Tea Partiers shouted racial epitaphs and spat upon black congressmen outside of the Capital back in April.
The first part of the second sentence of the quote points to what the NAACP really has a problem with, the Tea Parties’ influence. The Tea Parties are making a difference while the NAACP sees its own, once formidable, influence waning. So, though childish, it is understandable that the NAACP would lash out at the Tea Parties. But, can’t they come up with something more original than racism. It seems that is all they have anymore. Of course, this charge is coming from a group that supports a political party that up until a couple of weeks ago had a Senator that was a former Klansman.
Once again the left reveals that it has zero understanding of what the Tea Parties are and why they are becoming a force in resisting tyranny.
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
The Dirtiest Word
by Humphrey Stevenson
The late comedian George Carlin used to do a bit about the seven words you can’t say on television, the seven dirtiest words. However, I think Mr. Carlin forgot one. He probably overlooked it because you can say this word on television; it is no “four letter word.” In fact, it is held up as possibly the greatest of words and it only has two letters. It is nonetheless the dirtiest (or at least the most damaging) word in the English language. The word is “we.”
I love our Constitution but I question the opening phrase of it. I’m not the only person who has a problem with the phrase that opens our Constitution. No less than Patrick Henry questioned the phrase in 1788 during the Virginia Ratification Debate when he said, “My political curiosity, exclusive of my anxious solicitude for the public welfare, leads me to ask who authorized them to speak the language of ‘We, the People,’ instead of ‘We, the States’?”
Patrick Henry was pointing out two facts. One, the states were being asked to ratify the Constitution and thereby join the Union, not the people and two; our Union is a union of free and independent states and not a nation of people. The people are citizens of their state. Henry thought of himself as a Virginian much more than an American.
Back during the Barack Obama campaign for President, there were mindless chants of “Yes, we can!” That phrase did not mean “Yes, this group of free thinking individuals can!” It meant “Yes, the collective can!” or “Yes, the State can!”
When used in this way, “we” destroys individual responsibility and thereby individual rights and freedoms. In the mind of the collectivist there are no individual rights, only collective rights. The needs, wants and desires are of the individual no relevance. They are to be subjugated to the good of collective.
My father, a World War II veteran, once told me that when the bullets start flying, you’re not fighting for your country anymore; you’re fighting for yourself, for survival. General George Patton expressed a similar sentiment when he said, “The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his.”
My dad and General Patton’s wisdom has application to undertakings other than war. You don’t improve your country by giving up your personal ambitions for the collective. You improve it by unapologetically working toward your own accomplishments and success.
You think Henry Ford developed the assembly line because he was altruistic and just wanted to provide good paying jobs to thousands of unskilled workers? Maybe he did it so he could make the automobile affordable to the common man and improve the lives of millions of average citizens. No, these laudable results of Mr. Ford’s work were incidental to his actual motivation; to sell cars at a profit and become filthy rich. You want solar energy? Great, figure out a way someone can get rich off of it and you will have it.
There is nothing wrong with that motivation. However, the collectivist has no regard for individual accomplishment. He would agree with “the Scholars” in Ayn Rand’s great novel Anthem when they said, “What is not done collectively cannot be good.” To a collectivist, all must be done by “we.” It matters not how long it takes or how much it cost or how shoddy it is once done. What is accomplished by the individual is fraught with danger or greed or racism or any other manner of evil but that which is done by “we” is pure and good and right and when it fails you are not to question the results, only praise the intentions.
I have great faith, not in the American people (as harsh as that may sound) but in the American person, the individual. I believe that individuals pursuing the betterment of their own lives, unencumbered by the burdens of the collective, results not only in the improvement of the individual, but society as well.
On that final day, when you stand before the Judge of the Universe, you will stand there alone. You will answer for your actions as an individual. He will care little (and maybe not at all) about the collective.
The late comedian George Carlin used to do a bit about the seven words you can’t say on television, the seven dirtiest words. However, I think Mr. Carlin forgot one. He probably overlooked it because you can say this word on television; it is no “four letter word.” In fact, it is held up as possibly the greatest of words and it only has two letters. It is nonetheless the dirtiest (or at least the most damaging) word in the English language. The word is “we.”
I love our Constitution but I question the opening phrase of it. I’m not the only person who has a problem with the phrase that opens our Constitution. No less than Patrick Henry questioned the phrase in 1788 during the Virginia Ratification Debate when he said, “My political curiosity, exclusive of my anxious solicitude for the public welfare, leads me to ask who authorized them to speak the language of ‘We, the People,’ instead of ‘We, the States’?”
Patrick Henry was pointing out two facts. One, the states were being asked to ratify the Constitution and thereby join the Union, not the people and two; our Union is a union of free and independent states and not a nation of people. The people are citizens of their state. Henry thought of himself as a Virginian much more than an American.
Back during the Barack Obama campaign for President, there were mindless chants of “Yes, we can!” That phrase did not mean “Yes, this group of free thinking individuals can!” It meant “Yes, the collective can!” or “Yes, the State can!”
When used in this way, “we” destroys individual responsibility and thereby individual rights and freedoms. In the mind of the collectivist there are no individual rights, only collective rights. The needs, wants and desires are of the individual no relevance. They are to be subjugated to the good of collective.
My father, a World War II veteran, once told me that when the bullets start flying, you’re not fighting for your country anymore; you’re fighting for yourself, for survival. General George Patton expressed a similar sentiment when he said, “The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his.”
My dad and General Patton’s wisdom has application to undertakings other than war. You don’t improve your country by giving up your personal ambitions for the collective. You improve it by unapologetically working toward your own accomplishments and success.
You think Henry Ford developed the assembly line because he was altruistic and just wanted to provide good paying jobs to thousands of unskilled workers? Maybe he did it so he could make the automobile affordable to the common man and improve the lives of millions of average citizens. No, these laudable results of Mr. Ford’s work were incidental to his actual motivation; to sell cars at a profit and become filthy rich. You want solar energy? Great, figure out a way someone can get rich off of it and you will have it.
There is nothing wrong with that motivation. However, the collectivist has no regard for individual accomplishment. He would agree with “the Scholars” in Ayn Rand’s great novel Anthem when they said, “What is not done collectively cannot be good.” To a collectivist, all must be done by “we.” It matters not how long it takes or how much it cost or how shoddy it is once done. What is accomplished by the individual is fraught with danger or greed or racism or any other manner of evil but that which is done by “we” is pure and good and right and when it fails you are not to question the results, only praise the intentions.
I have great faith, not in the American people (as harsh as that may sound) but in the American person, the individual. I believe that individuals pursuing the betterment of their own lives, unencumbered by the burdens of the collective, results not only in the improvement of the individual, but society as well.
On that final day, when you stand before the Judge of the Universe, you will stand there alone. You will answer for your actions as an individual. He will care little (and maybe not at all) about the collective.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Forced Charity
by Humphrey Stevenson
This past Sunday morning, I was perusing my local newspaper when I ran across a story about a local food bank requesting volunteers to help pack boxes. I thought, “That’s nice. A local charity has so much food they need help getting it out.” But then I made the mistake of actually reading the story and I felt the back of my neck take on the temperature of my coffee. The reason the food bank had 60 tractor-trailer loads of food and household items was that they had proudly received a $2 million Federal grant.
My objection is not the giving of funds to a food bank to help the needy, it who’s doing the “giving.” I encourage people to give to the charitable organizations of their choice. But here we have the Federal government using taxpayer money (or worse, money borrowed from the Chinese) to fund a charity.
This is not an isolated incident. According to a paper prepared by the Cato Institute during the Bush administration, overall charities receive nearly one third of their funding from Federal grants. Charities even employ persons skilled in writing grant applications in order to better their chance at receiving the government funding. They become dependent on this source of funding.
So why would the Federal government provide funds to charities instead of relying on the famous generosity of the American people? For the same reason it owns car companies, banks, mortgage providers, student loan providers, etc. In this way the Federal government, and not the individual giver, will decide which charities receive funding and which will not. In order to receive the Federal money, the organization must abide by the regulations set forth by the Federal government. This can turn charities into quasi-governmental agencies.
Many times the Federal government uses its control of these funds to force organizations to take certain actions. A few years ago the Federal government threatened to withhold Federal Highway Funds to States that did not raise their legal drinking age to 21. Whatever you or I may think the legal drinking age should be, can we agree that this is something a State is capable of determining without the supervision of Big Brother? It may be my latent Libertarianism surfacing but I think if someone is old enough to join the military and be sent to a foreign land and possibly lose their life, they’re old enough to have a beer.
A city applies to the Federal government for funding for some project. Think about the route the money takes to get there. A person in a city is taxed by the Federal government so that the Federal government can send that money back to that city to fund the project. Even worse, the same person is taxed by the Federal government who then sends the money to another city halfway across the country.
A spokesperson for the food bank was quoted as saying, “We’re grateful for the money we received to purchase food this summer, a time when food donations are typically down and the need increases because children don’t have access to their free or reduced-price school meals.”
Is this why we have these government indoctrination centers, to provide free meals to children? Don’t these children have parents? Where are they and what about their parental responsibility? Sorry, but I digress.
Maybe it’s not a digression because it’s all related to the same thing. Once again, it’s the Federal government encouraging individuals and organizations to give up their responsibility, whether that is parents feeding their kids, states building their roads, cities paying their cops or charitable organizations raising their own money, to become dependent on the benevolence of the Federal government. As dependence on the Federal government grows it becomes more indispensable. As it becomes more indispensable, it becomes more powerful.
Does it really matter? Isn’t the most important thing helping the poor? That’s the thing about big government people; they have a soft spot for the poor. That is as long as they can handle the money in transit.
Americans are the most generous people on the planet. Charity need not be forcibly extracted from the people by the IRS. When it is it cannot truly be called charity. Also, it gives people a reason not to be charitable. If a taxpayer feels they are funding these organizations through their taxes, they have less incentive to give.
This past Sunday morning, I was perusing my local newspaper when I ran across a story about a local food bank requesting volunteers to help pack boxes. I thought, “That’s nice. A local charity has so much food they need help getting it out.” But then I made the mistake of actually reading the story and I felt the back of my neck take on the temperature of my coffee. The reason the food bank had 60 tractor-trailer loads of food and household items was that they had proudly received a $2 million Federal grant.
My objection is not the giving of funds to a food bank to help the needy, it who’s doing the “giving.” I encourage people to give to the charitable organizations of their choice. But here we have the Federal government using taxpayer money (or worse, money borrowed from the Chinese) to fund a charity.
This is not an isolated incident. According to a paper prepared by the Cato Institute during the Bush administration, overall charities receive nearly one third of their funding from Federal grants. Charities even employ persons skilled in writing grant applications in order to better their chance at receiving the government funding. They become dependent on this source of funding.
So why would the Federal government provide funds to charities instead of relying on the famous generosity of the American people? For the same reason it owns car companies, banks, mortgage providers, student loan providers, etc. In this way the Federal government, and not the individual giver, will decide which charities receive funding and which will not. In order to receive the Federal money, the organization must abide by the regulations set forth by the Federal government. This can turn charities into quasi-governmental agencies.
Many times the Federal government uses its control of these funds to force organizations to take certain actions. A few years ago the Federal government threatened to withhold Federal Highway Funds to States that did not raise their legal drinking age to 21. Whatever you or I may think the legal drinking age should be, can we agree that this is something a State is capable of determining without the supervision of Big Brother? It may be my latent Libertarianism surfacing but I think if someone is old enough to join the military and be sent to a foreign land and possibly lose their life, they’re old enough to have a beer.
A city applies to the Federal government for funding for some project. Think about the route the money takes to get there. A person in a city is taxed by the Federal government so that the Federal government can send that money back to that city to fund the project. Even worse, the same person is taxed by the Federal government who then sends the money to another city halfway across the country.
A spokesperson for the food bank was quoted as saying, “We’re grateful for the money we received to purchase food this summer, a time when food donations are typically down and the need increases because children don’t have access to their free or reduced-price school meals.”
Is this why we have these government indoctrination centers, to provide free meals to children? Don’t these children have parents? Where are they and what about their parental responsibility? Sorry, but I digress.
Maybe it’s not a digression because it’s all related to the same thing. Once again, it’s the Federal government encouraging individuals and organizations to give up their responsibility, whether that is parents feeding their kids, states building their roads, cities paying their cops or charitable organizations raising their own money, to become dependent on the benevolence of the Federal government. As dependence on the Federal government grows it becomes more indispensable. As it becomes more indispensable, it becomes more powerful.
Does it really matter? Isn’t the most important thing helping the poor? That’s the thing about big government people; they have a soft spot for the poor. That is as long as they can handle the money in transit.
Americans are the most generous people on the planet. Charity need not be forcibly extracted from the people by the IRS. When it is it cannot truly be called charity. Also, it gives people a reason not to be charitable. If a taxpayer feels they are funding these organizations through their taxes, they have less incentive to give.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Phony versus True Conservatism
by Humphrey Stevenson
The other day I was on my way home from the gym and found myself behind a car with a Gingrich/Romney 2012 bumper sticker. My immediate reaction was, “Please, not those two.” They strike me as “phony conservatives.” Oh, not that they don’t believe what they say, just that what they say isn’t true conservatism. Their philosophy seems to be our Federal government will be fine once we change who’s in charge.
For instance, Romney instituted a health care plan for Massachusetts. Constitutionally that’s fine; if a State wants to institute a health care plan for its citizens OK, but it’s not philosophically conservative. There are many on the Right that think it is foolish to go into the elections with “Repeal Obamacare” as our mantra. They feel it must be “Repeal and Replace.” They say, “We must have a plan of our own.” If you ask a phony conservative to describe their health care plan for our country he will argue specific points of health care. If you ask the same of a true conservative, he will say, “I don’t have one.” That may sound simplistic but it’s not that, it’s a different philosophy, “Who is he that he should plan your health care for you?” The true conservative wants you to be free to choose the health care services that make sense to you, based on the free market.
The true conservative understands personal responsibility and its relationship to personal liberty. You can’t have one without the other. If you have no responsibility, you have no liberty. However, personal responsibility is difficult and the Federal government says, Oh, don’t worry about that, we’ll handle that responsibility for you. You just enjoy the ‘liberty’.” What you didn’t realize was they took your responsibility because it was necessary in order to take your liberty, which is really what they wanted in the first place.
This same conservative concept is true for the States as well. The idea of State sovereignty is nice but it’s meaningless unless a State is taking responsibility for itself and its citizens. However, our States have become far too dependent on the Federal government … and it has been by design. Federal funds to a State are one of the greatest scams in history. Think about how it works. The Federal government takes your money through taxes. Then launders it through some Federal program or other and uses the money (your money) to procure your State’s dependence.
We must return to the Federalism as outlined in our Constitution. I love this quote from Bruce Fein, Former Associate Deputy Attorney General. “Federalism creates competition in good government. If a state does something stupid, people can pick up, they leave, businesses go, and they’ve got to reform.” However, “When the Congress acts, everybody’s saddled with the same burden.” So if Congress does something stupid, we are all burdened under the same stupidity.
Is there anything this Federal government does well? I know your answer; the military. But if that is true then someone explain to me what we are doing in Afghanistan. If we’re fighting the Taliban, then let’s attack the enemy, kill the enemy, break its equipment and bring our men and women home. This is how we fought World War II; all out. We would accept nothing less than unconditional surrender. Anything less is unfair to the people who have committed their lives to the defense of our nation. Some say we’re “nation building,” whatever that means. This government is destroying its own nation at home, is this truly the government that should be building other nations?
This government has the reverse-Midas tough, everything it touches turns to excrement. It can’t execute its Constitutional responsibilities with any degree of proficiency. In spite of this, they want more; more power, more money. This is going to be the battle of our time. For example, Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) told a group of young Democrats, “Give us more authority and ability.” Yes, you read that right Barney Frank thinks that this Federal megalith of absolute incompetence should have more authority not less.
This Federal government is a living, breathing beast. It preys on individual liberty and private property. Progressives (now called Democrats) have been on a hundred year mission to feed and grow this beast. There is no middle ground now; you either favor the beast or you stand against it. The only solution to save individual liberty and private property is true conservatives committed to the destruction of the beast.
The other day I was on my way home from the gym and found myself behind a car with a Gingrich/Romney 2012 bumper sticker. My immediate reaction was, “Please, not those two.” They strike me as “phony conservatives.” Oh, not that they don’t believe what they say, just that what they say isn’t true conservatism. Their philosophy seems to be our Federal government will be fine once we change who’s in charge.
For instance, Romney instituted a health care plan for Massachusetts. Constitutionally that’s fine; if a State wants to institute a health care plan for its citizens OK, but it’s not philosophically conservative. There are many on the Right that think it is foolish to go into the elections with “Repeal Obamacare” as our mantra. They feel it must be “Repeal and Replace.” They say, “We must have a plan of our own.” If you ask a phony conservative to describe their health care plan for our country he will argue specific points of health care. If you ask the same of a true conservative, he will say, “I don’t have one.” That may sound simplistic but it’s not that, it’s a different philosophy, “Who is he that he should plan your health care for you?” The true conservative wants you to be free to choose the health care services that make sense to you, based on the free market.
The true conservative understands personal responsibility and its relationship to personal liberty. You can’t have one without the other. If you have no responsibility, you have no liberty. However, personal responsibility is difficult and the Federal government says, Oh, don’t worry about that, we’ll handle that responsibility for you. You just enjoy the ‘liberty’.” What you didn’t realize was they took your responsibility because it was necessary in order to take your liberty, which is really what they wanted in the first place.
This same conservative concept is true for the States as well. The idea of State sovereignty is nice but it’s meaningless unless a State is taking responsibility for itself and its citizens. However, our States have become far too dependent on the Federal government … and it has been by design. Federal funds to a State are one of the greatest scams in history. Think about how it works. The Federal government takes your money through taxes. Then launders it through some Federal program or other and uses the money (your money) to procure your State’s dependence.
We must return to the Federalism as outlined in our Constitution. I love this quote from Bruce Fein, Former Associate Deputy Attorney General. “Federalism creates competition in good government. If a state does something stupid, people can pick up, they leave, businesses go, and they’ve got to reform.” However, “When the Congress acts, everybody’s saddled with the same burden.” So if Congress does something stupid, we are all burdened under the same stupidity.
Is there anything this Federal government does well? I know your answer; the military. But if that is true then someone explain to me what we are doing in Afghanistan. If we’re fighting the Taliban, then let’s attack the enemy, kill the enemy, break its equipment and bring our men and women home. This is how we fought World War II; all out. We would accept nothing less than unconditional surrender. Anything less is unfair to the people who have committed their lives to the defense of our nation. Some say we’re “nation building,” whatever that means. This government is destroying its own nation at home, is this truly the government that should be building other nations?
This government has the reverse-Midas tough, everything it touches turns to excrement. It can’t execute its Constitutional responsibilities with any degree of proficiency. In spite of this, they want more; more power, more money. This is going to be the battle of our time. For example, Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) told a group of young Democrats, “Give us more authority and ability.” Yes, you read that right Barney Frank thinks that this Federal megalith of absolute incompetence should have more authority not less.
This Federal government is a living, breathing beast. It preys on individual liberty and private property. Progressives (now called Democrats) have been on a hundred year mission to feed and grow this beast. There is no middle ground now; you either favor the beast or you stand against it. The only solution to save individual liberty and private property is true conservatives committed to the destruction of the beast.
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Let’s Get a Grip on Our Oil
by Humphrey Stevenson
The Deepwater Horizon accident and the resultant oil spill have brought to the forefront our dependence on crude oil. There are many saying we must find an alternative to crude oil. But think for a moment of all the things that we take for granted that are derived from crude oil. It’s not just the gasoline in your car’s fuel tank and the oil in your car’s engine. Look around you; all of the plastics, paints, home heating oil, fuel for many power plants, synthetic fibers (polyester, nylon, etc.), countless chemical compounds. I could go on and on. In our modern world, saying lets find an alternative to crude oil is like saying let’s find an alternative to water. It’s just not practical. Crude oil is necessary and there is no getting around that fact.
Also, there is nothing unnatural about crude oil. It is just as much a part of the earth as soil or rocks. It has been here for millions of years and for nearly that long the oil has been seeping through the ocean floor into the water. I recently read a story about a now-extinct group of American Indians called the Karankawas that inhabited the south Texas coastal areas until the mid-1800’s. The Karankawas would collect the tar balls that washed up onto the south Texas shore and use the material to line their baskets and pottery to make them waterproof.
What must be done is to be sure that the crude is extracted in the safest and least environmentally disruptive manner possible. To do this, oil rigs must be located in such a way that when accidents happen our equipment and expertise is not outstripped by the hostility of the environment in which they are located.
The problem with the Deepwater Horizon accident was not the accident itself, although it was tragic due to the eleven lives that were lost. What turned this into an environmental disaster was the location, forty-eight miles offshore and in nearly one mile of water. These conditions greatly reduce the resources that can be used to battle the leak. I recently spoke with a friend of mine that has over 30 years experience in this industry and he told me that if this same accident happened onshore or near-shore, in a few hundred feet of water, the well would have been capped within three days and the environmental impact would have been negligible.
So our Federal government’s response to the Deepwater Horizon accident was a moratorium on further oil exploration. This is akin to shutting down the entire airline industry because of one plane crash. A plane crash is a tragedy, but it is also an accident. We seem to have accepted that as long as we have these huge mechanical birds flying around and the law of gravity is in force, there will occasionally be a an accident. Despite our best efforts, it’s a fact of life.
Unfortunately, we have very little experience or equipment useful with an oil well rupture located one mile underwater. My friend described the response to the spill as playing “Mr. Wizard” in the kitchen sink. Only in this case the kitchen sink is the Gulf of Mexico.
But this is not the fault of BP or the oil industry in general. They have been forced into this situation because we have allowed the extremists in our society to dictate our energy and environmental policy. These extremist do not want any exploration or development domestic sources of energy and they use the environment as an excuse. As a result, we get extreme policies; policies that close off areas where oil could be extracted easily and safely with minimal disruption to the environment.
The reason these environmental extremist have gained this power is that we, the American voter, elect politicians beholden to these extremists, either because they are kindred spirits or because the politician depends on the extremists for campaign cash. We must become a more educated voter. We must make sure that these candidates understand the necessity of safe, domestic oil production. Then we must hold their feet to the fire and make sure they follow through with legislation to open up easily accessible areas for domestic oil development. As we can now see, our oil industry can drill in extreme areas but when something goes wrong, the problems are just as extreme.
The Deepwater Horizon accident and the resultant oil spill have brought to the forefront our dependence on crude oil. There are many saying we must find an alternative to crude oil. But think for a moment of all the things that we take for granted that are derived from crude oil. It’s not just the gasoline in your car’s fuel tank and the oil in your car’s engine. Look around you; all of the plastics, paints, home heating oil, fuel for many power plants, synthetic fibers (polyester, nylon, etc.), countless chemical compounds. I could go on and on. In our modern world, saying lets find an alternative to crude oil is like saying let’s find an alternative to water. It’s just not practical. Crude oil is necessary and there is no getting around that fact.
Also, there is nothing unnatural about crude oil. It is just as much a part of the earth as soil or rocks. It has been here for millions of years and for nearly that long the oil has been seeping through the ocean floor into the water. I recently read a story about a now-extinct group of American Indians called the Karankawas that inhabited the south Texas coastal areas until the mid-1800’s. The Karankawas would collect the tar balls that washed up onto the south Texas shore and use the material to line their baskets and pottery to make them waterproof.
What must be done is to be sure that the crude is extracted in the safest and least environmentally disruptive manner possible. To do this, oil rigs must be located in such a way that when accidents happen our equipment and expertise is not outstripped by the hostility of the environment in which they are located.
The problem with the Deepwater Horizon accident was not the accident itself, although it was tragic due to the eleven lives that were lost. What turned this into an environmental disaster was the location, forty-eight miles offshore and in nearly one mile of water. These conditions greatly reduce the resources that can be used to battle the leak. I recently spoke with a friend of mine that has over 30 years experience in this industry and he told me that if this same accident happened onshore or near-shore, in a few hundred feet of water, the well would have been capped within three days and the environmental impact would have been negligible.
So our Federal government’s response to the Deepwater Horizon accident was a moratorium on further oil exploration. This is akin to shutting down the entire airline industry because of one plane crash. A plane crash is a tragedy, but it is also an accident. We seem to have accepted that as long as we have these huge mechanical birds flying around and the law of gravity is in force, there will occasionally be a an accident. Despite our best efforts, it’s a fact of life.
Unfortunately, we have very little experience or equipment useful with an oil well rupture located one mile underwater. My friend described the response to the spill as playing “Mr. Wizard” in the kitchen sink. Only in this case the kitchen sink is the Gulf of Mexico.
But this is not the fault of BP or the oil industry in general. They have been forced into this situation because we have allowed the extremists in our society to dictate our energy and environmental policy. These extremist do not want any exploration or development domestic sources of energy and they use the environment as an excuse. As a result, we get extreme policies; policies that close off areas where oil could be extracted easily and safely with minimal disruption to the environment.
The reason these environmental extremist have gained this power is that we, the American voter, elect politicians beholden to these extremists, either because they are kindred spirits or because the politician depends on the extremists for campaign cash. We must become a more educated voter. We must make sure that these candidates understand the necessity of safe, domestic oil production. Then we must hold their feet to the fire and make sure they follow through with legislation to open up easily accessible areas for domestic oil development. As we can now see, our oil industry can drill in extreme areas but when something goes wrong, the problems are just as extreme.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)