Subject: Wealth Redistribution, By Any Other Name, Is Still
Slavery
Recently, Florida's Republican Representative, Allen West, gave a
speech in Congress
where he stated:
Our party firmly believes in the safety net. We reject the
idea of the safety net becoming a hammock.
[T]he Democratic appetite for ever-increasing redistributionary
handouts is in fact the most insidious form of slavery
remaining in the world today, and it does not promote economic
freedom.
Michael J. Hurd has written an excellent piece on West's statements
titled,
The
Self-Imposed Slavery of the Redistribution State, and I highly
recommend that everyone first listen to West's short speech and then
read Hurd's article in full. Rather than duplicate his analysis, I
will just quote a few passages:
Becoming a hammock? Rep. West, that ship has sailed.
A majority of Americans now depend on some form of government
handouts. This includes rich whites as much as anyone else.
These handouts include mortgage subsidies, farm subsidies,
essentially permanent unemployment benefits, corporate
bailouts, union favors, medical care, Medicare, Social
Security, ObamaCare and a host of other goodies as far as
the eye can see.
West is fatally wrong when he makes a distinction between the
government "safety net" rather than a hammock. Whether
government provides a "safety net" or a "hammock," in either
case it's at the expense of people who are forced to provide it.
America, once the land of the free and the home of the ruggedly
individualistic, is now a middle class, government-benefit
entitlement society. America is the land of Big Babies.
Unfortunately, Republicans like Allen West enable the problem
by engaging in the pretense that there's any difference between
a government "safety net" or "hammock."
Government can force us to make hammocks or nets for others
deemed deserving. But either way, it's still slavery.
In fact, West gets his analogy completely wrong. Redistributive
entitlements are neither a safety net, protecting us in times
of emergency, nor are they a hammock, affording us with a life
of leisure. They are more akin to a fishing net, which
indiscriminately sweep us all into its trap, robbing every person of
their freedom and independence. Those on the receiving end of the
distribution become dependent beggars (Hurd's "Big Babies")
whose survival rests in the hands of a government that supports them
in exchange for their compliance and their vote. Those on the supply
end of the chain are forcibly relieved of the product of their efforts
while their actions are severely restricted through regulations. The
concept of the autonomous individual with the liberty to pursue their
own definition of happiness, while accepting responsibility for their
own life, is nowhere to be found. The American dream is dead.
On January 22, 2010, Chris Edwards of the Cato Institute informed us
that the Federal government's "Catalog
of Federal Domestic Assistance" (CFDA) had reached the milestone of
2,000 different subsidy programs for individuals, businesses, or state
and local governments. I have previously reported on this a number of
time,
here,
here,
and
here.
However, taking another look today reveals that the number of programs
now stands at 2,199. This means that during the past two years, 100
new programs continued to be added each year — more than eight
new programs every month!
This is the means by which your wealth is being redistributed to
others. And remember, we elected a Republican majority in the House
in 2010 — the place where all spending bills originate. Yet,
there has been no decrease in government spending, no reduction in
taxes, and no slowdown in the creation of these programs. Because,
as Hurd points out in his article, the GOP is every bit as committed
to the philosophy of the welfare state as are the Democrats —
which means that Republicans are every bit as committed to our
subjugation.
We know all too well where President ("I do think at a certain
point you've made enough money") Obama stands on wealth
redistribution and entitlements. Now listen to the other GOP
candidates. With the exception of Ron Paul who advocates the
phase-out and eventual elimination of these programs, Romney,
Gingrich and Santorum are all staunch advocates of entitlements.
They may pay lip service during their campaigning to "restructuring"
or "reducing" these programs, but they are in no way advocating
that they are wrong in principle. And this means that they do not
believe, in principle, that your life is your own, to do with as
you see fit.
So every time you hear a politician speak about welfare, or
entitlements, or bailouts, or financial assistance, or the needs of
others, just stop and substitute in the word "slavery".
Because that is the unstated implication that they hope you will
never recognize. And freeing yourself from this slavery is the
most important reason for engaging in today's battle for serious
government reform.
Subject: The Straw
Back on September 17th, during his weekly radio address,
President Obama proclaimed that Americans must finally start paying
their "fair share" in order to reduce the federal deficit. Of
course this is all just verbal misdirection used to hide the fact
that what he is actually talking about is merely another run at one
of the most important goals of his administration —
wealth redistribution — from those who have earned
it to those that covet it, with the ruling government class taking
their usual handling fee in the process.
And who is it that is not paying their fair share? Of course
it is certainly not the virtuous bottom 50% of wage-earners who
contribute little to nothing in income and payroll tax. (The bottom
47% pay no income tax at all, and that is precisely what makes them
virtuous!) No, according to Obama, it's the greedy, cheating, wealthy
households and businesses — the now famous 1% — that have
been holding out on the rest of us, and justice demands that they must
finally be forced to pay up.
And how are the top 1% fleecing us? By currently carrying only 40% of
the total income and payroll tax burden (up from 18% in 1980). And if
you increase that pool to the top 1.5% of households, representing the
magic $250,000 income number, then that group pays roughly half the
total. (For more details, see this article.)
So one is forced to ask, in Obama's mind just what level of tax burden
does he deem to be fair to impose upon that small minority of
Americans? Is it sixty percent? Seventy percent? More? He never
tells us, because there is no hard and fast answer. For Obama, merely
earning more than someone else is all the evidence required to condemn
that person and justify the use of government force to confiscate their
ill gotten "surplus."
Billionaire businessman Warren Buffett seems to agree with Obama's
egalitarian philosophy, and famously issued his call to
"Stop Coddling the Super-Rich",
demanding that the government raise taxes on him and other wealthy
people. Taking up the cause, a group of twenty-four "Patriotic
Millionaires" descended upon the Capitol to demand that Congress
raise taxes on the wealthy in order to deal with the serious federal
budget deficits and growing national debt. And just how serious were
they? When confronted by reporter Michelle Fields of The Daily Caller
(video below) and offered the opportunity to use their great wealth
to make a voluntary debt reduction contribution to the Treasury
Department, they all refused. And neither can I recall Buffett
volunteering some or all of his fortune towards that end. It does
make one wonder whether these patriots are truly concerned
about the debt. Or instead, is it possible that their actual motives
are not quite so altruistic, having more to do with seeing the chains
restricting the freedom and property rights of others pulled ever
tighter, even if it ends up impacting them as well?
"Patriotic Millionaires?"
In 1957, the author and philosopher Ayn Rand published the novel
Atlas
Shrugged, depicting the consequences that inevitably result
from government intervention in the realm of economics. As that story
unfolds, we see the government exerting more and more control over
business activities. However, instead of achieving the promised
improvement, we observe conditions continuing to deteriorate at an
ever accelerating pace. As government policies tie the hands of
competent business leaders, making it increasingly difficult for them
to act on their independent judgment and in service of their own goals,
we do not find them running to the politicians and begging to be
altruistically sacrificed on the pyre of subjugation as we witnessed
with our patriotic millionaires. No. Possessing far too much
integrity to abase themselves in that way, these men and women decide
to go on strike by simply disappearing and leaving the problems of
managing economic production to those who condemn them for their
ability to successfully do so.
Over the past few years more and more people have been shocked to
see in how many ways Atlas Shrugged has proved to be prophetic
in anticipating the specifics actions and consequences that have
resulted from bad political actions driven by an underlying evil
philosophy. And the idea that men of ability, when pressed too far
would choose to strike, is one literary device that has dramatically
presaged today's reality. As Rand put it in a conversation between
her characters, Francisco d'Anconia and Hank Rearden:
"If you saw Atlas, the giant who holds the world on his
shoulders, if you saw that he stood, blood running down his
chest, his knees buckling, his arms trembling but still
trying to hold the world aloft with the last of his strength,
and the greater his effort the heavier the world bore down
upon his shoulders-what would you tell him to do?"
"I . . . don't know. What . . . could he do? What would you
tell him?"
"To shrug."
Here are some examples of real-life strikers in action:
Stealing from the rich isn't an idea original to Obama; people have
been trying it ever since Ogg caught his first wild boar and Yuup
decided that he would like his "fair share" of that. But
hiring a group of thugs, called "politicians", and getting them to do
all the hard work for you was certainly a civilizing advancement! In
2008, the Maryland "Yuups" identified their "Oggs", and they were
called millionaires. Here's what happened, as reported in the
Wall
Street Journal:
Maryland couldn't balance its budget last year, so the state
tried to close the shortfall by fleecing the wealthy.
Politicians in Annapolis created a millionaire tax bracket,
raising the top marginal income-tax rate to 6.25%. And
because cities such as Baltimore and Bethesda also impose
income taxes, the state-local tax rate can go as high as
9.45%. Governor Martin O'Malley, a dedicated class warrior,
declared that these richest 0.3% of filers were "willing and
able to pay their fair share." The Baltimore Sun predicted
the rich would "grin and bear it."
One year later, nobody's grinning. One-third of the
millionaires have disappeared from Maryland tax rolls. In
2008 roughly 3,000 million-dollar income tax returns were
filed by the end of April. This year there were 2,000, which
the state comptroller's office concedes is a "substantial
decline." On those missing returns, the government collects
6.25% of nothing. Instead of the state coffers gaining the
extra $106 million the politicians predicted, millionaires
paid $100 million less in taxes than they did last year —
even at higher rates.
Push too hard on your victims, and just like Keyser Söze, "Poof,
they're gone!"
On occasion, a few of these individuals will make public the reasons
for their departure, similar to the radio address delivered by
John Galt towards
the end of Atlas Shrugged. Here are excerpts from two such
letters:
Good
Bye and Good Luck, by former Illinois state senator, Roger
Keats.
As we leave Illinois for good, I wanted to say goodbye to my
friends and wish all of you well. I am a lifelong son of the
heartland and proud of it. After 60 years, I leave Illinois
with a heavy heart. BUT enough is enough! The leaders of
Illinois refuse to see we can't continue going in the direction
we are and expect people who have options to stay here. I
remember when Illinois had 25 congressmen. In 2012 we will
have 18. Compared to the rest of the country we have lost
1/4rd [sic] of our population. ...
We live in the most corrupt big city, in the most corrupt big
county in the most corrupt state in America. I am sick and
tired of subsidizing crooks. A day rarely passes without an
article about the corruption and incompetence. Chicago even
got caught rigging the tests to hire police and fire! Our
Crook County CORPORATE property tax system is intentionally
corrupt. The Democrat State Chairman who is also the Speaker
of the Illinois House and the most senior alderman in Chicago
each make well over a million dollars a year putting the fix
in for their client's tax assessments. ...
Our home value is down 40%, our property taxes are up 20% and
our local schools have still another referendum on the ballot
to increase taxes over 20% in one year. I could go on, but
enough is enough. I feel as if we are standing on the deck of
the Titanic and I can see the icebergs right in front of us.
I will miss our friends a great deal. I have called Illinois
home for essentially my entire life. But it is time to go
where there is honest, competent and cost effective government.
We have chosen to vote with our feet and our wallets. My best
to all of you and Good luck!
Why
I'm Leaving New York, by Tom Golisano, Chairman of the
Board of Paychex, Inc.
I love New York. But how much should it cost to call New York
home? Decades of out-of-control budgets, spending increases
and relentless borrowing have made New York simply too
expensive.
Politicians like to talk about incentives — incentives
for businesses to relocate, incentives to buy local and
incentives to make smart decisions. After reviewing the 2009
budget, I have identified the most compelling incentive of all:
a major tax break immediately available to all New Yorkers. To
be eligible, you need only do one thing: move out of New York
state.
Last week I spent 90 minutes doing a couple simple things:
registering to vote, changing my driver's license, filling out
a domicile certificate and signing a homestead certificate
— in Florida. Combined with spending 184 days a year
outside New York, these simple procedures will save me over
$5 million in New York taxes annually.
That savings doesn't include that Florida has a 6 percent sales
tax, compared to New York's 8 percent or more. Florida has
lower utility taxes and lower gasoline taxes. The Florida
homestead certificate guarantees my property taxes will not
grow more than 3 percent. ...
It's not an easy decision, but I'm being forced away from my
family and friends, a pain shared by too many parents and
grandparents in this state.
I'm leaving. And by domiciling in Florida, I will personally
save $13,800 every single day. That's a pretty strong
incentive.
Like I said, I love New York, but I'm not going to pay New York
more for the waste, corruption and inefficiency that is New
York state government.
The same story has played out over and over again in
New Jersey,
New York,
Rhode Island,
Illinois
and elsewhere. And it's not just wealthy individuals, but entire
businesses which also look to relocate when the burden becomes too
great. As reported in CNN Money:
Buffeted by high taxes, strict regulations and uncertain state
budgets, a growing number of California companies are seeking
friendlier business environments outside of the Golden State.
And governors around the country, smelling blood in the water,
have stepped up their courtship of California companies.
Officials in states like Florida, Texas, Arizona and Utah are
telling California firms how business-friendly they are in
comparison.
Companies are "disinvesting" in California at a rate five
times greater than just two years ago, said Joseph Vranich, a
business relocation expert based in Irvine. This includes
leaving altogether, establishing divisions elsewhere or opting
not to set up shop in California.
Late Tuesday night, Democrats in the Illinois house and senate
rammed through Governor Pat Quinn's 67% hike in the state
income tax and a nearly 50% jump in the state corporate tax.
The increase will add $1,400 to the average family's tax bill,
and we doubt it will help job creation in a state that has lost
374,000 jobs since 2008.
New Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker immediately rolled out a
press release inviting Illinois businesses to decamp to the
Badger State, contrasting his agenda to reduce taxes and
welcome business with the Illinois increase. Indiana Governor
Mitch Daniels added: "We already had an edge on Illinois in
terms of the cost of doing business, and this is going to make
it significantly wider."
Contrary to what progressive state politicians repeatedly try to
tell themselves,
so long as alternatives are available, intelligent individuals and
businesses will not merely sit back and "take it", but will
continue to pursue what is in their best interest. When one state acts
abusively, there are 49 other possibilities to explore in order to
locate a healthier environment. However, when the federal government
gets involved in imposing its punitive taxes and regulation across the
entire country, then options become much more limited, difficult and
costly. For certain large scale industries and very wealthy
individuals, there may be the possibility of moving business or
investments offshore. But in many other cases, the problems created
by political intervention simply outweight all of the alternatives.
The tipping point is finally reached, and the most sensible path is to
simply call it quits — a phenomenon that has been accelerating
in recent years and has come to be known as "Going Galt".
In the Tri-City Herald
we here the story of Bob Bertsch:
It took Bob Bertsch 25 years to build his construction business
and just a day for it all to go away.
Bertsch, 65, said he is down-sizing because the tax burden got
too expensive to stay in business.
"I am tired of carrying all the tax load," Bertsch said. "I
renew 13 licenses here every year just so I can spend money in
this city."
Bertsch makes no attempt to conceal his frustration with the
costs government imposes on small businesses like his.
"Government is killing small business. We used to have 24
employees at our peak. Now, all of those people who used to
work here are in unemployment lines," he said.
On David McElroy's
Blog, he recounts the words of Alabama coal mine operator Ronnie
Bryant who, after having listened to two hours of business-bashing
by the public, environmentalists and politicians, had this to say:
My name's Ronnie Bryant, and I'm a mine operator. I've been
issued a [state] permit in the recent past for [waste water]
discharge, and after standing in this room today listening to
the comments being made by the people ... [pause]
Nearly every day without fail — I have a different
perspective — men stream to these [mining] operations
looking for work in Walker County. They can't pay their
mortgage. They can't pay their car note. They can't feed
their families. They don't have health insurance. And as I
stand here today, I just ... you know ... what's the use?
I got a permit to open up an underground coal mine that would
employ probably 125 people. They'd be paid wages from $50,000
to $150,000 a year. We would consume probably $50 million to
$60 million in consumables a year, putting more men to work.
And my only idea today is to go home. What's the use? I don't
know.
I mean, I see these guys — I see them with tears in
their eyes — looking for work. And if there's so much
opposition to these guys making a living, I feel like there's
no need in me putting out the effort to provide work for them.
So as I stood against the wall here today, basically what I've
decided is not to open the mine. I'm just quitting. Thank you.
Zero Hedge
posted the letter that hedge fund manager Ann Barnhardt sent to
clients, announcing the closure of her business. Excerpts follow:
Dear Clients, Industry Colleagues and Friends of Barnhardt
Capital Management,
It is with regret and unflinching moral certainty that I
announce that Barnhardt Capital Management has ceased
operations. After six years of operating as an independent
introducing brokerage, and eight years of employment as a
broker before that, I found myself, this morning, for the
first time since I was 20 years old, watching the futures and
options markets open not as a participant, but as a mere
spectator.
The reason for my decision to pull the plug was excruciatingly
simple: I could no longer tell my clients that their monies and
positions were safe in the futures and options markets —
because they are not. And this goes not just for my clients,
but for every futures and options account in the United States.
The entire system has been utterly destroyed by the MF Global
collapse. Given this sad reality, I could not in good
conscience take one more step as a commodity broker, soliciting
trades that I knew were unsafe or holding funds that I knew to
be in jeopardy. ...
Everything changed just a few short weeks ago. A firm, led by
a crony of the Obama regime, stole all of the non-margined cash
held by customers of his firm. ... What was a surprise was the
reaction of the exchanges and regulators. Their reaction has
been to take a bad situation and make it orders of magnitude
worse. Specifically, they froze customers out of their
accounts WHILE THE MARKETS CONTINUED TO TRADE, refusing to even
allow them to liquidate. This is unfathomable. The risk
exposure precedent that has been set is completely intolerable
and has destroyed the entire industry paradigm. ...
I will not, under any circumstance, consider reforming and
re-opening Barnhardt Capital Management, or any other iteration
of a brokerage business, until Barack Obama has been removed
from office AND the government of the United States has been
sufficiently reformed and repopulated so as to engender my
total and complete confidence in the government, its adherence
to and enforcement of the rule of law, and in its competent and
just regulatory oversight of any commodities markets that may
reform.
The Hazleton, PA Standard Speaker
reports that Dr. Frank C. Polidora, an orthopedic surgeon, quits:
A Hazleton doctor is resigning from the medical staff of St.
Luke's Miners' Memorial Hospital, Coaldale.
Dr. Frank C. Polidora, a longtime Hazleton orthopedic surgeon,
blames the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable
Care Act in March for his decision. He has been on the
hospital's staff since 2003.
"The Democrats' 'passage' of OBAMACARE on March 21, 2010, was
the final straw," Polidora wrote in his resignation letter to
William Crossin, chief executive officer of St. Luke's-Miners.
The resignation is effective Saturday.
Contacted Thursday, Polidora said his decision to leave had
nothing to do with the hospital, a facility he praised.
Rather, it was about following his own principles. ...
"To be a true physician, one must be moral. To be moral
requires freedom, both political and economic. The freedom of
the physician has been lost by degrees over the last 45 years,"
he wrote in his letter. "OBAMACARE has totally destroyed this
freedom, especially as it applies to a hospital practice." ...
"I fear for the future of the hospital as those in power in our
country are seeking to replace the practice of medicine, the
profession of healing, with an industry that produces health,
but who will, intentionally or not, create a process that
removes the unhealthy," Polidora said in his resignation letter.
The Wall Street Journal
discusses Thomas Depping's decision to close Main Street Bank:
Main Street Bank lends most of its money to small businesses
and is earning decent profits. But the Kingwood, Texas, bank
is about to get out of the banking business.
In an extreme example of the frustration felt by many bankers
as regulators toughen their oversight of the nation's financial
institutions, Main Street's chairman, Thomas Depping, is
expected to announce Wednesday that the 27-year-old bank will
surrender its banking charter and sell its four branches to a
nearby bank.
Mr. Depping plans to set up a new lender that will operate
beyond the reach of banking regulators — and the
deposit-insurance safety net. ... "The regulatory environment
makes it very difficult to do what we do," says Mr. Depping.
...
Bankers have long complained about their overseers, but it is
rare for a bank to basically close its doors aside from an
acquisition or failure. Mr. Depping blames the move on a
tightening regulatory noose.
In the beginning it was a dream. I would own a restaurant in
East Hampton. It would be a warm, beautiful place with great
food and wonderful service. It would become one of the most
popular restaurants in the Hamptons. ...
So why am I selling one of the most successful restaurants in
East Hampton? In 2008 I watched Barack Obama run over Hillary
Clinton to become our President. From the very first "Yes We
Can" and "Change You Can Believe In," I decided that this
country was falling in love with an attractive,
great-speechmaking hustler/socialist who, if he got into
office, was going to pursue his agenda to destroy the best
health care in the world and re-distribute wealth. Yours and
mine. I told my friends that from that moment on everything
I owned — my houses, my advertising business, my
newspaper and my restaurant — was for sale. ...
Why does this so go against my grain? Maybe it's because of
where I've come from to get to where I am. I've been broke,
so broke with a wife and kids and no job that I had to borrow
money from my parents, who didn't have it for themselves but
always managed to come up with it for me.
I got lucky and worked day and night and built a great
advertising agency. I have employed thousands of people in
my lifetime. I've been good to them and they have been good
to me.
I'm just not ready to have my wealth redistributed. I'm not
ready to pay more tax money than the next guy because I provide
jobs and because I work a 60-hour week and I earn more than
$250,000 a year.
So why am I dropping out? Read a brilliant book by Ayn Rand
called Atlas Shrugged, and you'll know.
For every newsworthy story of an individual or business that decides
to throw in the towel, there are untold others that go unreported.
Many businesses — and sometimes entire industries — are
destroyed by a burden of taxes and regulations that simply cannot be
borne in a market-driven economy. This much is at least clear to
some.
But what gets little discussion is the psychological toll that all
of this government intervention takes. What few seem to understand
is that for the small minority who are prepared to accept full
responsibility for themselves — living by their own thought,
judgment, goals and actions — each unreasonable tax is not
merely a burden, but is seen to be a gross injustice; every new
piece of legislation is another set of circus hoops through which
one is forced to jump; regulations are a leash, and every regulator
a self-appointed master with a whip in hand. For the independent man
or woman, government intervention attempts to reduce them from their
stature as fully human, to some form of caged beast under the constant
control of others.
Government intervention is the supreme demotivator!
It hammers away at passion. It undermines creativity. It erodes
drive and the will to succeed. It destroys the joy found in action
and the pride realized through success.
To put it simply, it drains the fun out of life.
In an attempt to place a monetary price tag on our economic losses,
enormous energy is invested by bureaucrats, analysts, pundits and the
media in calculating debt ratios, unemployment levels, energy costs,
borrowing fluidity, and any number of other metrics. All the while
the real price being paid — the total loss of human motive
willpower — dwarfs all of those calculations, but goes
unacknowledged. Go back and reread the stories above and look for
what they all have in common. These once productive individuals, all
of them wealth and job creators, have pulled the plug on their
endeavors. And why? Because, thanks to government intervention, they
can no longer find the joy that their work once brought them. The
rewards of hard work have been lowered while the costs have increased,
to a point where further effort is no longer justified — at
which point, it's time to shrug.
If you see the issue in this light, then you can understand why, when
Ayn Rand spoke of the struggle for our future, she did not describe it
principally in economic or political terms, but instead framed it as
something much more important: a moral battle — a fight for the
true nature and soul of mankind. At its most fundamental level, each
person must strive for their passion — their joy — their
happiness. And they must oppose anything that stands in the path of
those pursuits.
Today, the greatest obstacle standing in our way is a government that
has escaped its constitutional straitjacket and become an oppressive
monster, injecting itself into every crevice of our lives. If we are
to move forward along a path to where we once again can assert
ourselves as individuals, in full control over our own destines, then
it is imperative that each political action we take be directed
squarely at that goal. Half-hearted stop-gap measures will not solve
this problem, and are in fact, partly responsible for what led us to
this moment. It is time to apply the ultimate litmus test to every
statement uttered by every person aspiring for political office:
Does this candidate articulate a consistent set of well defined
policies that support my personal independence? If he accomplishes
the things he is proposing, will this maximize the opportunity to
pursue my life passionately, allowing me to set my own goals in
service of my own definition of happiness?
I suggest that if you cannot respond with an unreserved "Yes!",
then this is not a candidate worthy of your support. Reject him or
her and seek out another who has earned the right to represent you
by demonstrating that they fully understand and respect the right to
your personal independence.
Never compromise when extending your political support, for doing so
is simply an indirect way of compromising on your own life, your
values, and ultimately your joy. Always consider just what you
demand of yourself when pursuing your goals, and then be sure to never
settle for anything less from those in whom you are prepared to vest
with political power as your representative. This is the only strategy
that has any long range hope of correcting our current situation.
Anything less is a recipe for our continued cultural descent.
P.S. 01-06-12:
Here is a link to an article by Hungarian entrepreneur Andor Jakab,
who explains in detail precisely why he's not even considering
getting started building up a new business. The final straw can
break some before they even get out of the gate!
This
Is Why I Don't Give You A Job
Subject: An Open Letter to Politicians and Political Candidates
Dear Representative of the People:
Based upon the current activity taking place in Washington D.C.
regarding matters of regulatory reform, spending cuts, balancing the
budget and reducing the deficit, it does not look like anything truly
meaningful is going to be accomplished in the foreseeable future.
Talk about reducing spending by trillions of dollars, whether proposed
by President
Obama or by Republicans such as
Paul
Ryan—assuming that these plans were ever to actually be put
into effect—sound great until you understand that these numbers
are not for next year's budget, but are unrealistically spread over a
period of 10 to 30 years, all the while allowing actual government
spending to continue to increase year upon year. All of this is just
another example of the Big Lie once again being foisted
off on the American public.
It is clear that the current Congress is not going to enact anything
close to what is required to put this country back on a sound footing,
so I am proposing that you take some truly bold action. Instead of
continuing to dicker with your fellow politicians over budget levels
and whether you are going to use a scalpel
or a machete
to either slowly whittle away at our future or simply decapitate us in
one fell swoop, I would ask that you work to remove the decision making
from Congress and the White House altogether and place it back in the
hands of every individual citizen.
My suggestion is that you strive to create legislation that gives each
person the option of deciding whether or not they wish to remain in,
and pay for the full set of federal entitlements, including Social
Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Obamacare, along with the the other
2,177 programs listed, as of July 8th, in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance.
For those who support these programs and wish to continue to receive,
or remain in line to receive future benefits, they simply register
their choice and continue to participate. Other individuals who would
prefer to opt out of receiving all future government benefits would be
allowed to register that choice as well. In exchange for their
willingness to walk away from all past contributions to these programs,
and agreeing to never receive any future pay out or aid, they would
stop having entitlement payments deducted from their earnings and have
their taxes permanently reduced by an appropriate amount. They would
then be free to use these funds to manage their own insurance, medical
and retirement needs.
It is clear that a sizable segment of the U.S. population is currently
prepared to assume responsibility for their own lives, and would
willingly opt out of these programs. By doing so, this would
immediately and drastically reduce the future debt obligation of the
federal government and go a long way towards addressing the fiscal
crisis. For those who choose to remain in these programs, they would
continue to pay in as necessary to keep the programs alive. To account
for the shortfall that would occur in meeting current obligation with
a reduced tax base, other less important areas of federal spending
would be identified and eliminated, and the funding shifted over to
these programs as necessary in order to keep them solvent.
In addition to our fiscal problems, this country is also currently
facing great social instability. While there are, of course, many
sub-groups within the following simplified designations, our society
has become polarized into two broad factions: the fiscal conservatives
and the social progressives. Whereas people of diverse viewpoints
once coexisted peacefully together, as government has grown in size
and scope, imposing its control in ever expanding areas, many people
have justifiably come to feel that they are losing command over the
direction and purpose of their own lives, resulting in greater levels
of anxiety, dissatisfaction and unhappiness. In a country originally
built upon the proud virtues of industriousness and self-reliance, we
have now constructed massive institutions designed to foster
helplessness and dependence. Where we could once act freely and
independently in addressing our own problems and needs, the heavy hand
of government regulation has eliminated many if not most of those
options, requiring us to now come, hat-in-hand, begging for permission
to pursue our dreams, ideas and professions in ever more restricted
ways.
As government has assumed more and more control, individuals, groups
and businesses have sought to curry favor with politicians and
persuade them to wield government force in service of their particular
needs. This has led to waring factions vying for the limited resource
of favored political status, and it is this that ultimately creates the
polarization of our society that we observe today. As each group tries
desperately to have their particular values and goals imposed upon
all others, resentment grows into anger and finally transforms into
outright hatred for those who are seen as mortal enemies, bent upon
denying us the ability to live in the way that we each judge to be
best.
The only solution to this problem is to reduce government control over
the lives of all citizens and allow them greater freedom to make their
own decisions as to how best to live their lives. This is the second
important benefit to be realized by giving each person in this country
the ability to decide for themselves whether they wish to participate
in government run entitlement programs, or prefer to take personal
responsibility for their own future.
So I ask any politician or political candidate who is serious about
actually addressing the problems faced by the Unites States, and who
has the the confidence and courage to step beyond the ineffectual
norms of Washington, D.C. politics in order to explore truly creative
solutions, to give this proposal some serious thought and see if
something along these lines does not, in fact, offer a realistic path
to achieving meaningful immediate and long-term benefits.
Subject: Balancing The Federal Budget: A Simple Proposal
Take a look at the following chart:
See any possible problems there? From 1940 and for thirty years
thereafter, although the the national debt was increasing, it did
so at a fairly slow rate. However, by the 1970s the rate of increase
starts to accelerate as indicated by the steepening curve, until the
rate begins to go asymptotic around 2007, indicating that the the
factors controlling the debt have gotten completely out of control.
Now, examing the annual level of federal spending in constant,
inflation-adjusted dollars.
Here we see a fairly constant year-after-year increase in federal
spending, indicating the steady growth in the overall size of
government. Let's break this down by decade.
Decade
Average Annual Spending in Constant 2005 Dollars
(Billions)
Spending Increase From Previous Decade
(Percent)
Ratio of 2011 Govmt. Spending to Decade Average
1940s
$502.4
–
7.6x
1950s
$569.7
13.4%
6.7x
1960s
$788.4
38.4%
4.8x
1970s
$1,115.2
41.5%
3.4x
1980s
$1,549.9
40.0%
2.5x
1990s
$1,893.1
22.1%
2.0x
2000s*
$2,597.6
37.2%
1.5x
* 12 year average: 2000-2011
Even if we assume that the 2011 expenditures is an anomaly and consider
decade averages only, these figures show that government size in the
2000s is over five times larger than it was during the 1940s.
And if we average the expenditures for the thirty year period from
1940-1969, our current federal government has still increased more than
four times over that historical level.
Now, let's take a look at the revenue side of the picture.
As with expenditures, we observe a steady increase in revenue, every
penny of which comes from American citizens, either directly or
indirectly. Breaking this data down by decade reveals the following:
Decade
Average Annual Revenues in Constant 2005 Dollars
(Billions)
Revenue Increase From Previous Decade
(Percent)
Ratio of 2011 Govmt. Revenue to Decade Average
1940s
$313.2
–
6.9x
1950s
$556.5
77.7%
3.9x
1960s
$754.2
35.5%
2.9x
1970s
$999.3
32.5%
2.2x
1980s
$1,275.9
27.7%
1.7x
1990s
$1,711.3
34.1%
1.3x
2000s*
$2,139.4
25.0%
1.0x
* 12 year average: 2000-2011
Note the steady and very substantial decade-after-decade increase
in the amount of wealth extracted from productive individuals and
businesses. Examining just the period from 2000-2011, the total
revenue (in 2005 dollars) was $25.7 trillion. If government spending
had been held to the 1980s average of $1.55 trillion/year for a
total expenditure of $18.6 trillion over the same 12 year period,
then there would have been a net surplus of $7.1 trillion,
which would have allowed for the complete elimination of the $5.6
trillion debt that existed in 2000, with a $1.5 trillion cushion
remaining.
Stop and think about that. With a steadily increasing revenue stream
that not only could meet all existing expenses, but would have allowed
the entire national debt to be retired in just over a decade, what
happened? And how instead, did the debt almost triple in such a short
period of time?
This chart tells the story:
The national debt continues to rise, because, no matter how much
revenue is at their disposal, and no matter how significantly it
increases, the Congress and the President work diligently to spend
every available nickel, and then go into debt in order to spend
even more — lots more! As this chart shows, the government
has run a deficit 28 out of the last 32 years, or 88% of the
time.
And a review of the historical
data reveals that since 1940, there have been deficits 60 out of
the past 72 years!
During that 72 year period, while both the Republican and the
Democratic parties have held the presidency in equal measure (36 years
each), together, they have managed to balance the budget less than 17%
of the time (five times under Republicans and seven times under
Democrats). And of those 12 budget surpluses, only six were used to
slightly reduce the debt, the last time being 42 years ago in 1969.
During the past seven decades, the current $14.3 trillion debt
has been ratcheted back by just $25.5 billion, or less than 0.2% of
the current total!
For 2011, our $3.82
trillion budget
includes an estimated $1.65
trillion deficit, which pushes total federal debt well
beyond the current $14.3
trillion spending cap. At currently projected spending levels,
the debt is estimated to be rapidly approaching
$20 trillion
by 2015.
In 2010 alone, the United States paid $414 billion simply to
finance the debt burden. And since 2000, interest payments exceed
$4.4
trillion. That is money that has been removed from productive
use by individuals and businesses in the U.S. economy and sent
primarily to foreign
creditors, including: China, Japan, UK, Brazil, Taiwan, Russia, and
so on.
While a number of intellectuals in the political and financial spheres
have, for many years, been sounding alarm bells about the pending
disaster being created by a ballooning debt, rising interest payments,
and the unfunded
liabilities resulting from Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid,
it wasn't until early in 2009 that a large segment of the general
public awoke to the imminent economic danger presented by unsustainable
government expansion, coupled with the the rise of a totalitarian
political class, leveraging America's cultural shift away from
self-reliance and personal responsibility and towards a helpless
entitlement mentality. The rise of the Tea Party movement was the
political response to these new realizations.
In the 2010 elections, the clear message sent was that past political
behavior was no longer going to be tolerated by the public. The budget
was to be balanced, the debt paid down, earmarks eliminated, taxes
reduced, federal spending slashed, and the size and regulatory burden
of government was to be significantly decreased. In general, Democrats
ignored this outcry and were resoundingly defeated by Republicans who
at least paid lip service to these demands. However, after returning
to D.C. following the elections, the overall performance by the new
congressional members has been extremely disappointing. Republicans
who once spoke of slashing spending, balancing the budget, repealing
Obamacare, significantly reducing the size of government, and
returning to a rule of law in strictly proscribed areas, as dictated
by the Constitution, have failed to even take a firm stand on these
issues, let alone deliver meaningful results on their promises.
For example, prior to the 2011 budget negotiations, Republicans promised
a rather anemic $100 billion (2.6%) reduction against Obama's huge
$3.82 trillion budget and $1.65 trillion deficit. However, by the
time the budget was finalized in April, they had capitulated to a
mere $38.5 billion (1%) reduction, which then turned out to actually
be a true savings of only $352
million (0.01%), leaving the Democrats laughing all the way to
the printing presses.
Or consider Paul Ryan's much touted "Path to Prosperity", which
the Republicans offer as their alternative for addressing entitlement
liabilities while cutting spending by $6.2 trillion over the next 10
years. Well that sounds pretty good until you look a bit closer. Did
you think that current spending levels were going to be reduced by
$6.2 trillion? Well fuggedaboutit. This is just the Republicans using
the standard political trick of misdirection, as the following chart
reveals:
Ryan's plan has no intention of balancing the budget in the foreseeable
future. He has government spending increasing year by year, just not
quite as fast as Obama's own proposal. His $6.2 trillion is not a
real savings, but just some imaginary gap between his fantasy
projection for the future and that of the current administration, both
of which are unrealistic because, as with almost every past budget,
they significantly overestimate future revenue while underestimating
future outlays, giving us an 88% change of continuing deficits and an
ever growing debt.
It is all a form of political theater and wish fulfillment that runs
through every thread of government, best illustrated by the recently
released Changes
in CBO's Baseline Projections Since January 2001, which reports:
Each year, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) issues
baseline projections of federal spending and revenues for the
following 10 years. Those projections are not intended as a
forecast of future outcomes; rather, they are estimates of
spending and revenues under the laws that are in effect at
that time and are designed to provide a benchmark against which
to measure future policy changes.
In January 2001, CBO's baseline projections showed a cumulative
surplus of $5.6 trillion for the 2002-2011 period. The actual
results have differed from those projections because of
subsequent policy changes, economic developments that differed
from CBO's forecast, and other factors. As a result, the
federal government actually ran deficits from 2002 through 2010
and will incur a deficit in 2011 as well. The cumulative
deficit over the 10-year period will amount to $6.2 trillion,
CBO estimates—a swing of $11.8 trillion from the January
2001 projections.
How many times do you think the CBO has been off $11.8 trillion
dollars in the other direction?
My simple (and unrealistic) proposal:
Having observer the new Congress unsuccessfully tackle issues such
as the 2011 budget, it seems clear that, as things stand, nothing of
real substance can be expected to be accomplished. So long as Congress
retains the ability to both set the level of spending as well as
determine where that spending is to be allocated, there remains little
hope that they will ever exercise any real fiscal restraint and make
the difficult choices that are required. And we taxpayers are the ones
left on the hook for the tab they continue to accumulate.
The unrealistic part of my proposal — something that would
require a change to the Constitution — is that the ability
to set the overall annual spending level must be removed from the
hands of government completely. In the long run, there are a number
of ways that these levels could be determined, but I believe that
the best would be to simply establish some very reasonable but fixed
dollar amount that would be the sum total available for all normal
government operations, with a provision for automatic adjustment
to account for inflation/deflation. This would then be coupled with
a balanced budget amendment that would require that the government
maintain its spending strictly within this limit. Emergency
situations such as declared wars, would be precisely defined, and
funding for these activities would be handled by other means, but
the overall size and nominal cost of government functions would be
strictly proscribed and fully understood by all citizens.
Given a known annual budget, it would then be up to Congress to
determine how to allocate these dollars. They could fund government
payroll, pensions and insurance. They would be responsible for
facility rent, new construction and maintenance. They would apportion
funds between agencies such as the CIA, FBI, the Armed Services and
others. They could fund entitlement programs, or promote initiatives
like cash-for-clunkers or home window replacement for energy
conservation. They could send aid to foreign countries, support the
UN or invest in promising new technologies. Money could be spent on
pure research or used to build and launch rockets. Some funds might
go to help the poor obtain health insurance or purchase prescription
drugs, while others could be used to build bridges to nowhere or
monuments to past presidents or fight the "war" on drugs. The sky's
the limit. The only condition would be that should they wish to
allocate some funds to one area, for example, to set up a presidential
cell phone emergency alert system, then these dollars would have to
come from or at the expense of something else. Citizens would elect
representatives that promised to promote things of agreed importance,
and then it would be up to those representatives to work with other
congressional member to devise the best allocation strategy —
just an families and businesses routinely do every day as a matter of
course. One huge consequence of this approach is that it would very
quickly be determined what the real priorities were for all of the
possible expenditures. It would soon become evident how entitlements
for the needy weighed in relation to immigration reform, illegal drug
use, energy policy, and so on.
To implement this plan would also require addressing the problem of
getting from here to there. Right now our deficit is $1.65 trillion
in relation to a budget of $3.82 trillion, making the deficit a
whopping 43% of the total! My proposal would be to immediately
start cutting the existing budget across the board by 10%, or $382
billion for each of the next five years: 2012-2016. By declaring that
these cuts apply equally to all areas of government — from the
military to entitlement programs to salaries to regulatory agencies
— it eliminates the grid lock we currently see where each party
jockeys to fund their pet programs while defunding those of the
opposition. Since they are unable to do it themselves, we will make
all of the hard decisions for them.
This would reduce the 2016 budget down to $1.9 trillion, or about the
same level of spending as in 1989 (in equivalent dollars), while fully
eliminating the deficit and yielding a small surplus. From 2017
onward, continue to reduce the budget by 5% each year, applying all
surplus to retiring the outstanding debt. Maintain this process until
the desired spending target level is reached and then freeze it. Once
the deficit is eliminated, begin reducing or restructuring taxes to
produce an ongoing revenue with a slight surplus, which is banked
strictly for use against future revenue short falls and nothing else.
As the budget reductions went into effect, it would be left to Congress
to start reallocating the remaining funds to support areas of greater
importance while defunding those of less utility. This would require
that every aspect of current government operation be brought up for
discussion and a detailed review, a process which, as previously
discussed, does wonders to focus the mind on one's priorities.
If something along these lines is not enacted, and if we simply
continue along our present course, spending our way into oblivion while
maintaining a regulatory environment that is crippling the economy with
uncertainty, then it will not be too long before the U.S. reached
it's own tipping point, and then, like Greece, Portugal, Ireland and
others, we will no longer possess the ability to recover on our own.
And no one is waiting in the wings to bail us out.
A few brave Tea Party-backed candidates have made it to Washington
with the resolve to fight the system and work to effect real change.
However, there are as yet too few of them to wield real clout. Over
the course of the next few election cycles, I believe that there is an
opportunity to replace many more of these liberal Democrats and RINOs
(Republicans In Name Only) with true fiscal conservatives who could
work together to accomplish the goals that have been promised, but
which are being evaded by the current Congress. Let us hope that they
arrive in time, and when they do, that they will be prepared to take
bold action, similar to what I outline here, allowing the necessary
corrections to occur as quickly as possible, so that our economy can
begin to expand and thrive, once again, assuming its rightful
leadership position in the world.
Subject: The U.S. Tax System Explained With Beer
This little story† has been
floating around the internet for quite some time, and the author is
unknown to me. It makes a very important point quite forcefully!
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all
ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes,
it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing:
$0
The fifth man would pay:
$1
The sixth man would pay:
$3
The seventh man would pay:
$7
The eighth man would pay:
$12
The ninth man would pay:
$18
The tenth man (the richest) would pay:
$59
So, that's what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite
happy‡ with the arrangement,
until one day, the owner threw them a curve.
"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going
to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20." Drinks for the ten
now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so
the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.
But what about the other six men — the paying customers?
How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his
"fair share?"
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted
that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would
each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested
that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by a progressive
amount, and he proceeded to work out how much each should pay, as
follows:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing
(100% savings)
The sixth man now paid $2 instead of $3
(33% savings)
The seventh man now paid $5 instead of $7
(28% savings)
The eighth man now paid $9 instead of $12
(25% savings)
The ninth man now paid $14 instead of $18
(22% savings)
The tenth man now paid $50 instead of $59
(15% savings)
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four
continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the
men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man.
He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $9!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved
a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got nine times more than I did!"
"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get
$9 back then I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We
didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat
down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill,
they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money
between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how
our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the
most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them
for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact,
they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat
friendlier.
As David
R. Kamerschen, Ph.D., a professor of economics at the University of
Georgia put it:
"For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible."
†I reworked the numbers in the
story slightly because they did not properly add up in the versions
that I saw. It doesn't make a very convincing economics example if
you can't add properly!‡"Seemed" is the
operative word here. Just because a taxpayer doesn't spend every
waking moment of their life complaining bitterly, do not assume that
that means that they are "quite happy" with the system and how
they are being treated!
Addendum: [01-05-10]
I thought it would be instructive to show the actual percentage of
taxes paid by various income groups. The following chart
comes from
The Heritage Foundation and is for the year 2007, showing the
percentage of taxes paid by different segments of the wage-earning
populace.
According to
Wikipedia, in 2007 the U.S. government collected over
$1.97 trillion in income and payroll taxes, indicating that:
Wage Earners
by Group
Paid % of
All Taxes
Total $ Paid
by Group
Accumulating
% of All Taxes
Accumulating Total
$ Paid by Group
Top 1%
40.42%
$796 million
40.42%
$796 million
2% - 5%
20.21%
$398 million
60.63%
$1,305 million
6% - 10%
10.59%
$209 million
71.22%
$1,402 million
11% - 25%
15.37%
$303 million
86.59%
$1,705 million
26% - 50%
10.52%
$207 million
97.11%
$1,912 million
Bottom 50%
2.89%
$57 million
100%
$1,970 million
In 2010, the Associated
Press reported that just under one half of all U.S. households
would pay no federal income taxes for 2009, stating:
In recent years, credits for low- and middle-income families
have grown so much that a family of four making as much as
$50,000 will owe no federal income tax for 2009, as long as
there are two children younger than 17, according to a
separate analysis by the consulting firm Deloitte Tax.
[...]
The result is a tax system that exempts almost half the country
from paying for programs that benefit everyone, including
national defense, public safety, infrastructure and education.
It is a system in which the top 10 percent of earners —
households making an average of $366,400 in 2006 — paid
about 73 percent of the income taxes collected by the federal
government.
The bottom 40 percent, on average, make a profit from the
federal income tax, meaning they get more money in tax credits
than they would otherwise owe in taxes. For those people, the
government sends them a payment.
[...]
But income tax rates were lowered at every income level. The
changes made it relatively easy for families of four making
$50,000 to eliminate their income tax liability.
Here's how they did it, according to Deloitte Tax:
The family was entitled to a standard deduction of $11,400
and four personal exemptions of $3,650 apiece, leaving a
taxable income of $24,000. The federal income tax on
$24,000 is $2,769.
With two children younger than 17, the family qualified for two
$1,000 child tax credits. Its Making Work Pay credit was
$800 because the parents were married filing jointly.
The $2,800 in credits exceeds the $2,769 in taxes, so the
family makes a $31 profit from the federal income tax. That
ought to take the sting out of April 15.
That ought to take the sting out of April 15! Really? Not for the
suckers forced to pick up the tab!
Subject: How to Solve the Housing Crisis - Government Style
Well, take a look at this article in the Spokesman Review titled,
Health law's heavy impact"
for a review of some of the taxes you will soon be experiencing as a
result of that legislation. Of particular note is the new 3.8% tax
on real estate transactions. This means that if you buy/sell a
$300,000 home, you will pay a tax of $11,400, and if the home goes
for $750,000, the tax will be $28,500. And remember, this is on
top of all the current real estate taxes that are already being
imposed. If you are young and mobile in your career, this is a tax
that will hit you every time you relocate.
Or maybe you are older and were thinking of retiring to a new
location. Open up your wallet, because all real estate throughout
the country will immediately increase in cost by about 4%. Or
possibly you are in business and are thinking about expanding your
growing practice by moving into a new facility that will cost
$30 million. You new tax would then be a whopping $1,140,000.
Yes, that ought to make you think twice about that move.
Given our current housing crisis, with an oversupply of homes that
is killing the entire construction industry, can you think of a
worse idea for addressing these problems than to increase the cost
of all homes by a huge amount, pricing more people out of the housing
market and further reducing demand. As Cloud Downey also noted, the
immediate impact will be to further flood the market with home sales,
as owners attempt to sell before the tax kicks in. And reviewing the
overall state of the economy, with so many businesses struggling to
stay afloat, consider how damaging a new tax of this magnitude will
be, making capital investment that much more difficult and retarding
any latent recovery.
Is there still a person out there who can state with a straight face,
that when it comes to managing the economy and the lives of each
of us, that the government is qualified to make intelligent choices
that are in the best interest of the citizens? If there is such a
person, then my response is the same one Joe Wilson gave to Obama:
"You lie!"
[Thanks to Cloud Downey for bringing this article to my
attention.]
Subject: The Hugest Heist in History
Bradley Harrington writes another excellent open letter regarding the
problems that we face in light of the Obama administration's spending
over just one short year.
THE HUGEST HEIST IN HISTORY
By Bradley Harrington
"What is prudence in the conduct of every private family,
can scarce be folly in that of a great kingdom." —
Adam Smith, "The Wealth Of Nations," 1776–
In a commentary I wrote shortly after the 2008 presidential
election, in discussing the upcoming fiscal policies of the
soon-to-be Obama administration, I said: "You are about
to witness a government spending spree that is going to make
the meddling of FDR's 'New Deal' or LBJ's 'Great Society'
look like penny-ante poker in comparison."
I was chastised, at that time, by many for my "alarmist"
prediction. Now, over a year later, let's look at the facts:
(1) Previous spending: in our rear-view mirror, we see nothing
but bailouts—AIG, GM, Chrysler, "stimulus" spending, etc.
Price tag: well over $1 trillion.
(2) Current/projected spending: "jobs" bill just passed by
House; price tag of $154 billion; "omnibus" spending bill just
signed into law by President Obama; price tag of $447 billion;
health care "reform" proposals; price tag of $1 trillion.
"'The New Deal by today's standards involved a miniscule
amount of spending,' said Allan J. Lichtman, a professor
of political history at American University." ("Analysis:
Obama plans eclipsing New Deal spending," Tom Raum, Associated
Press, Feb. 20.)
And more:
(3) Federal budget: fiscal year ending in 2009, $3.1 trillion;
fiscal year 2010, $3.55 trillion, an increase of nearly half a
trillion.
(4) Federal budget deficits: fiscal year 2009, $1.42 trillion;
projected federal budget deficit for fiscal year 2010, $1.2
trillion. Projected federal budget deficits over the next
decade, $9.1 trillion.
(5) National debt: this stood at $9.9 trillion in 2008, and was
lifted to $12.1 trillion in February of this year. And, in
just the last few days, Congress and President Obama lifted
that ceiling again by another $290 billion (barely enough to
fund the federal government's ocean of red ink for another
piddling two months), and both intend to raise that ceiling
again come February, when it is expected to be boosted to
$14 trillion. In fiscal year 2010, this will equal 98.1% of
our GDP.
Translation: Our national debt will soon equal the entire
amount of production of the entire United States for an
entire year.
So, who pays for it all? Who provides the blank check? The
producers, who else? Money does not grow on trees, despite
what our "leaders" seem to think—if they think at all.
And don't kid yourself about how it's only the "rich" who
will pay for this: there simply aren't enough "rich" people
in this country to fund a $14 trillion bill. With a current
population of 308 million, the national debt now exceeds
$40,000 per capita; when the debt ceiling gets raised again
in the next couple of months, that figure will jump to
over $45,000 for every man, woman and child in America.
This, I submit, is an absolute looting spree, happening right
before our eyes, and, as such, constitutes the hugest heist in
all of human history. It is nothing less than an irrational,
amoral, legalized, politically-promoted plundering of the
productive assets of the United States, with no thought or
reason given to the consequences, of which there can only be
one: total, terminal economic dissolution and disintegration.
And what can we expect from such a collapse? Social
catastrophe, martial law and the final destruction of the
American Republic. What did Rome get when she fell, devastated
by taxes and control? The barbarians and the Dark Ages. What
did Germany's Weimar Republic get when she was shattered by
hyperinflation? Adolph Hitler and the Nazis.
That is the future that awaits us, should we continue our
present course: and not in some far-off, distant time, but in
the next few years. Is that the "American Dream" you'd like to
experience for yourself and your children?
And, if not, what do you intend to do about it? Sitting on
your butt, collecting a "welfare" check and voting for more
of the same is no longer an acceptable answer.
If you think it is, you might choose to ponder the words of
one of America's Founding Fathers who had a much better grasp
of the issue: "If ye love wealth better than
liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest
of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or
arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your
chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you
were our countrymen!" (Samuel Adams, Philadelphia State
House Speech, 1776.)
As for the rest of us, isn't it about time we rolled up our
sleeves?
Bradley Harrington is a former United States Marine and a
free-lance writer who lives in Cheyenne, Wyoming.
As Brad asks, "what do you intend to do about it?"
In addition to the usual actions of writing and speaking out against
the policies that are leading to the decline and fall of America, here
are some activist-oriented organizations to investigate. If you find
one that meets your requirement, join in and add your efforts to the
cause of restoring liberty to America.
If you know of other good activist organizations or actions that
you would like to recommend, please sent them to me and I will include
them on this list.
Subject: Taxpayers Fund Activists for Obamacare at United We
Serve
I just ran across a very interesting article by Dana Loesch entitled:
Taxpayer Funded Serve.gov Filtering
Activists to ACORN. What Dana found is that the
government's web site is sponsoring listings for "national service"
opportunities by ACORN. OK, that doesn't seem so strange, since
ACORN is supposed to be a "community service" organization, and that
fits right in with the mandate for that site. However, a closer
look at the list of ACORN opportunities finds one titled
"Healthcare Activist" with the following description:
"Be a health care activist! Help us get the word out about
an upcoming forum discussing the possibilities of health
care reform! Contact us at 520-623-9389. You won't regret
getting involved when you'll be able to say you played a roll
in the creation of a public health insurance plan that was of
quality and affordable to all!"
Dana points out that the question of reimbursement is unclear on this
page, but she found ACORN advertisements on places such as Craigslist
where activists were offered $90/day. Other ACORN service listings
include such things as "community organizing internship",
"neighborhood canvasser", and "tax preparer". After the recent video
exposés, we can imaging the types of "services" provided by these
volunteers.
Sinces ACORN operates with government funds, here is another shining
example of how your own tax dollars are being directly used against
you!
On a lighter note, you can go to serve.gov and type in the keywords
"John Galt" and get about sixty listings for my
Pledge initiative. It looks as though there
is a listing for just about every state including Hawaii. However, I
did notice on the Google map that they provide that Alaska is
conspicuously absent. I guess Sarah Palin is still getting under
their skins after all this time!
And by the way, with so many fantastic opportunities, why haven't any
of you signed up? It's so sad to have zero volunteers. Where's
your public spiritedness? [Yes, of course I'm kidding! :-)]
Please add me to the list to be notified of updates to this site.
