Musings on Sports, Politics and Life in general

Latest

The Enemy Within?


The Day that Changed Everything

9-11: The Day that changed Everything

Last Friday, Anwar al-Awlaki, a leading Al Qaeda recruiter and operations planner, was bombed and killed. He had finished his breakfast in Yemen and was walking to his car when a Predator drone unleashed a Hellfire missile, killing him and several members of his entourage. These facts are not disputed by anyone. Had al-Awlaki been anyone else, the attack would have generated very little buzz. It would have been a below-the-fold story; a bottom of the newscast event.

But al-Awlaki was not just anyone. He held dual American and Pakistani citizenship. He was born in Arizona and lived the first 26 years of his life in the United States. The outcry over his killing has been astounding. It doesn’t seem anyone doubts that he was an important and active member of Al Qaeda. Nor does it seem as if anyone doubts one of Al Qaeda’s goals is to destroy the United States through terror and subversion. The problem a large segment of the population seems to have trouble grasping is that those two facts are intertwined and inseparable. An American citizen was targeted for assassination by the our armed forces.

Were that the case, I would agree that the killing was out of bounds. But here is the point I think everyone missed: al-Awlaki had renounced his US citizenship in favor of a pan-Arabic citizenship. He did not consider himself an American citizen any longer – and had, in fact, dedicated his life to destroying his former country. His killing was no different than killing any other enemy combatant on the battlefield. End of story.

What gets me particularly frustrated is that this another case of not being able to see the forest for the trees. People are focusing on the abuses of power perpetrated in the name of national security – but they aren’t focusing on the actual abuses. Warrantless searches and seizures, surveillance and a host of other violations of the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments ensconced in Section II of the Patriot Act (an Orwellian title if ever there was one) are routinely accepted by today’s society. Think about it: most Americans are well versed in some of these provisions. They are what allows a TSA agent to strip search you at an airport. But like the sheeple we’ve become, we acquiesce to these demands in the name of security. I often wonder how many Americans are aware that without a search warrant, DHS can read your email, track your internet activity, listen to your phone conversations, plant listening devices in your home and office, recover your voicemail, or track your every movement by GPS (including the one we all carry everywhere we go – our cell phones)? How many realize that the government can arrest you, withhold bail, suspend your right of habeas corpus and waive your Miranda rights – all at their whim? These are some of the extraordinary powers granted to the Executive Branch under Title II.

Do you even care that these most basic protections from government power have been circumvented? Or are you one of the millions who don’t care, as long as the government is “protecting you?”

If you’re one of the latter group, you might be best served to  remember this quote from Ben Franklin:

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Posted by  |  October 5, 2011 | Categories: Politics | Tags: , , , , , | Leave a comment

A Word About Class Warfare


This post began as a reply to a thread on Facebook. Some friends and I were debating the essence of what constitutes class warfare. At one point, one of them reiterated the ageless ism that “class warfare is painting poor people who are struggling as lazy, shiftless and hopeless.”

I do not consider people who do not have as much wealth as I as being lazy, hopeless or shiftless. Some are, but most are indeed, very hard-working individuals. Their great disadvantage is they lack certain talents that I do have. It might simply be that they lack the drive to succeed that I have – I know more than a few people who look at a “work week” as being 40 hours, maybe 50 – but the idea of working 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to make an enterprise successful isn’t what they want from life. And that’s fine, but they shouldn’t expect the same financial results as those of us who do put in that type of time and effort.

I can’t say their circumstances are a result of a lack of education. After all, I never finished grad school but have been more successful in my business career than many of my friends who have MBA’s. And people like Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak, Bill Gates and other celebrated tech purveyors don’t even have undergrad degrees. This isn’ t to knock formal education. Certainly, for most people a great formal education is a key stepping-stone to career advancement. But given the choice between hiring a Harvard MBA and a kid with no more than a CTIA+ certification and a dream to be the next Woz, I’ll hire the kid. Every time – even though I know he won’t be around long; he’s going places I can’t take him.

I respect what those gentlemen (and hundreds of other entrepreneurs) have accomplished as a reflection of their particular talents, abilities and willingness to take risk. Being successful isn’t a matter of being “fortunate” so much as it is the residue of effort. I think most of us agree on that point (at least, I hope we do). A friend of mine recently launched a taxi company – and he has my ultimate respect. He saw a need, took a chance, made the investments in time, energy and capital and now have something he can call his own. And I’ve no doubt that if he wanted to grow further, expanding his market and footprint, those same qualities would guarantee his success.

Certainly, there are people of great wealth who arrived at their fortunes by dumb luck. Lottery winners, trust fund babies and the like. And if they don’t work hard at maintaining those fortunes, they generally wind up destitute – without any help from anyone. Just think of the stories you read about people blowing a $100 million lottery prize in a few years or the rich kid who partied his inheritance away. Life has an interesting way of dealing with the truly lazy in our society.

Class warfare has been a symptom of our political discourse far longer than the current administration, though this one has embraced it more fully than any since FDR. In fact, what started the entire discussion thread was when I posted this blog post from Ted Leonsis. Leonsis is one of the Obama administrations biggest supporters; he admits maxing his contributions to the Obama campaign. But even this stalwart has had enough with the administration’s bashing anyone with a dollar in their wallet. As Leonsis points out, “Why do we devalue success in the US when the rest of the world is trying to emulate what we have created as an economic system?”.

In the US, we’ve never fully accepted the idea that the general citizenry should pay for their government. Originally, the federal finances would funded by a mix of tariffs and fees, along with specific taxes placed on interstate commerce. By the dawn of the 20th Century, populists such as William Jennings Bryant and Theodore Roosevelt were agitating for a more expansive role for the federal government. Then, as now, there was a general hue and cry against men of wealth and the political ethos of the day demanded a “progressive” tax system. The original formulation was such a drastic change from the nation’s founding ideals that it required the 16th amendment to the Constitution. Prior to then, taxes levied directly on the citizenry had to be apportioned according to the most recent census. The charge among progressives was that the existing system was regressive – in that everyone had to pay the same share. They first attempted to circumvent this by passing a progressive income tax in 1894, the Supreme Court (in Pollock) ruled it unconstitutional in 1895.

There is a perception that those of us with means are opposed to paying taxes. We don’t enjoy paying them (nobody I’ve ever met actually does), but we understand that some government is a necessary evil. To that extent, we realize somebody has to pay for it and in a republic, it falls on the citizens to ensure the government is funded properly. If taxation were truly fair and equitable, there would undoubtedly be less grousing. However, there are two issues that have been brought to the fore with the recent debate (and devolution into class warfare) but not addressed:

First, those of us with means are not in the habit of tossing our money down the sewer in the vain hope that it eventually comes out the drain. We’re accustomed to being able to get a full accounting of where our money is, what it’s doing and when it’s doing it. (Well, most of us, anyway. There are always Bernie Madoff types). Our current budget morass lends itself to no such accounting. In fact, quite the opposite. As just the most recent example, consider the recent flap over FEMA funding. Once it became apparent that the government was about to shut down over the relatively small pittance, the administration suddenly “found” $780 million of funding that they had misplaced. The same thing happened over the summer, when the deficit mysteriously shrunk by $400 million. When you are a nation that is taking in 20-23% of national income as taxes, it is only fair to ask where the heck all of that money is going before asking anyone for more.

Secondly, we constantly hear the refrain that “the rich don’t pay their fair share.” I’m not quite sure what that refers to, but when nearly 1/2 of the nation doesn’t pay any income tax – and the bottom 1/5 receive more in federal benefits than they pay through any form of taxation – it seems that the rich are certainly paying at least their fair share. The greatest share of the tax burden is well-known by now, but in case you missed it – the top 10% of all earners (which begins with a family of 4 earning $114,000) pay 70% of all taxes. Not just income taxes, but all federal revenues.  Those in the 11 – 50% bracket provide 22.3% of the nation’s revenue. So, once again, who isn’t paying their fair share?

What class warfare of this type does is inflame passions. The only reason the “progressive” wing of American politics uses it is for one reason: to shake us down, so that they can grow government even further. If you don’t think so, then consider this. In 1937, at the height of FDR’s New Deal, the federal government consumed 16% of total GDP. In 1970, as LBJ’s “Great Society” took hold, that increased to 31%.  Last year, it rose to the highest peacetime level ever at 39.55%. Now ask yourselves: Is the government really doing anything in 2011 that it didn’t do in 1937? And then ask yourselves why.

When you arrive at the answer, you’ll understand why the Obama Administration is resorting to class warfare and striving to divide us as a nation.

Posted by  |  September 28, 2011 | Categories: Economics, Politics | Tags: , , , , , | Leave a comment

Following Up: Post-Racialism


Every once in a while, a bolt from the blue comes along and provides you with instant clarity. I just had one.

Yesterday, I noted this quote from the Partisan-in-Chief: “Republican policies are an approach to government that will fundamentally cripple America.” I thought Obama was simply trying to stir up the radical left with that oddball statement. After all, Republicans may be trying to streamline government (and dragging the Democrats along, kicking and screaming) but they’re hardly out to cripple the nation.

And then I realized he made that statement at a LinkedIn open house. And followed that up over the weekend by telling the Congressional Black Caucus to “Shake it off. Stop complaining. Stop grumbling. Stop crying. We are going to press on. We’ve got work to do.”

It seems our post-partisan, post-racial President is ready to not only toss aside post-partisanship in an attempt to hold onto power. He’s now throwing away the idea that we’re one nation, ideally color blind. Yes, he’s out there riling up the black community by (1) scaring them into thinking Whitey Republican is going to take away their jobs (although, with real unemployment in the black community hovering around 37%, there aren’t that many to take and (2) Whitey Republican is going to cripple their America. You know, the one the rest of us refer to as the welfare state but the one the liberals love to think of as the “real” America. The Promised Land in the Genesis song where everything comes easy, you just hold out your hand.”

I said yesterday that this election strikes me as a battle for the soul of the United States of America. After further reflection, I think that may be the greatest bit of understatement in my life. This isn’t a battle. It is an all-out WAR.

Posted by  |  September 27, 2011 | Categories: Politics | Tags: , , , , | Leave a comment

America’s Post-Partisan President


Barack Obama, during the 2008 campaign that led to his election as President, affirmed a desire to be our nation’s first “post-racial, post-partisan” chief executive. He insisted that despite conservative fears that he was just another tax-and-spend liberal, he would be willing to reach across the aisle to confront the country’s problems. He maintained that insistence, despite the fact that over the past 2 ½ years he has never proposed any policy or legislation that even gave the hint of centrism.

There was the automotive bailout, in which taxpayers wound up footing the bill to ensure the UAW would keep its membership rolls level. Despite assurances that the bailout worked, GM is rapidly heading for bankruptcy anyway. As of this morning, share prices of the company’s stock are down 47% from their IPO, and the taxpayers still own 65% of GM stock. As things stand, the nation stands to lose around $16 billion on this boondoggle. There was the stimulus program, with its nearly $800 billion for “shovel-ready” and “green energy” jobs. The shovel ready jobs were, in the President’s own words, “not-so-shovel ready” and the green energy jobs never materialized. However, liberal campaign donors like George Kaiser loved the plan. Understandable, since taxpayers hedged his bets in an unstable solar panel company with over $500 million; Kaiser has walked away from the Solyndra debacle with his investment intact while the American people are left holding the bag. So did public employee unions, another liberal constituency, since the bulk of the money went to saving their jobs. There was a massive restructuring of the nation’s healthcare system, with the highly controversial idea of forcing people to buy products from a market that the government will assume full control over. It proved so popular that over 1400 waivers were issued as of July 31 (there is still a week left to get yours!). Unsurprisingly, the majority of those waivers went to unions or companies that donated heavily to Barack Obama in 2008. Of course, the whole point of waivers may be moot, anyway: the entire package is likely unconstitutional, with the Supreme Court likely making a final ruling on the law next Spring. The NLRB is doing its best to stymie “right-to-work” states’ attempts at job creation; while Frank-Dodd ensures enough government oversight of virtually every financial decision to effectively paralyze the business community.

What all of this demonstrates to people is that whatever else Obama may be, post-partisan certainly isn’t on the list. The White House portrayed him as not taking partisan sides in those battles, insisting that the divisions over these and many other policies were the result of an intransigent Republican Congress. But the issue wasn’t really the Republicans as much as it was the Tea Party “terrorists.” The issue came to a head over the summer, when the non-partisan partisan tried the oddest bit of political contortion known to modern man. Still, most Americans understood the President is indeed the nation’s partisan-in-chief, even if he insisted on deluding himself. It kind of goes hand-in-hand with the job and has for every President, save Washington. And the nation was willing to give him a pass, as long as he was simply shilling for the Democrat side of the coin.

However, it seems the President decided on dropping all pretense of being “post-partisan” over the weekend. He finally has decided to let everyone know where he stands: as firmly to the left of most Americans as Karl Marx. In his new, post-post-partisan visage, government creates jobs, the private sector destroys them, minorities are the only majority and Republicans – especially that insane Tea Party – are out to cripple the country. As he said on Saturday, conservative policies are

“an approach to government that will fundamentally cripple America.”

So, the battle lines are now officially drawn. Many of us warned as far back as 2007 that Obama was indeed a socialist in Democrat clothing and we were ridiculed for suggesting it. With Obama now proudly assuming his mantle of  Very Liberal Political Hack and abandoning all pretense of being a centrist, the 2012 campaign is officially underway. And hopefully, this time America will listen and understand that this truly is an epic battle for our country’s soul.

Posted by  |  September 26, 2011 | Categories: Politics | Tags: , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

So Much For That


President Obama’s “Son of Stimulus” (aka the American Jobs Act) is already dying the slow, tortuous death of a thousand paper cuts. And for good reason: the majority of Americans don’t buy the President’s latest smoke-and-mirrors plan. After all, stimulus was tried in 2009 and failed miserably. We were assured that spending nearly $800 billion in direct stimulus, plus billions more for “cash-for clunkers,” the automotive industry bailouts and banking industry bailouts would curb unemployment to 8% and have us under 7% by this point. More telling than the fact that was a terrible overshoot, is that nobody in the administration is willing to put any kind of number on how many jobs this latest round of stimulus would create. I doubt anyone in the White House actually believes this would really do much for the economy.

Americans intuitively understand that stimulus spending doesn’t really do much, except exacerbate the underlying cause of our economic malaise. Economists will tell you that the reason we’re in such a mess is because consumer demand – which fuels around 70% of total economic activity – is depressed. If only that were true.

The real cause for depressed sales is much more basic: people can no longer afford to buy consumer goods. They still want iPads®, flat-screen TV’s and new cell phones. But when they sit down with their bills each month, they aren’t willing to incur new debt to purchase them. After all, the debt frenzy that drove the last 20 years of economic growth met its inevitable end with the financial collapse of 2008. We’re still busy digging our way out from that mess and until the typical household reduces their debt burden, don’t expect them to begin spending again.

The same goes for government. The massive expansion of federal debt leaves Americans feeling equally queasy – after all, we just learned a valuable lesson about what happens when people and companies are over-leveraged. When public debt exceeds the total value of the economy and projected spending continues to go up, not down… Well, let’s just say we aren’t interested in finding out if an over-leveraged government can suffer the same fate as an over-leveraged household.

Posted by  |  September 14, 2011 | Categories: Economics, Politics | Tags: , , , , , , | Leave a comment

More “birther” nonsense!


There are idiotic ramblings from both sides of the political spectrum, but there is one in particular that just simply will not die. There seems to be a hard-core group of nutcases who insist that President Obama does not meet the legal definition of citizenship and therefore, is ineligible to serve as President. They don’t realize that their infatuation with the President’s citizenship is a large part of the reason that the TEA party is looked on with disdain by nearly 70% of the country – including wide swaths of the electorate who would otherwise agree with most policy positions. But since the nutcase fringe, the people who once exiled themselves to the Jon Birch Society and the like, has taken up residence in the TEA party, it’s time the rest of us told them “Enough!” We care about the direction of the nation, not conspiracy theories.

Look, I do not care for the President’s policies. I certainly can’t stomach his approach to governance. I don’t even really much care for him as a person. As far as I can tell, the only difference between him and Richard Millhouse Nixon is that only one was actually convicted of lying. But none of that has any bearing on whether or not he is a citizen.

The latest bit of drivel contesting not only the President’s citizenship, but that of Senator Marco Rubio and Governor Bobby Jindal, comes from some hack named Joseph Farah. In a blog post that I’ve now seen passed around Facebook and Twitter like candy (not to mention had emailed to me three times), Farah demonstrates either willful ignorance or absolute disregard for the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution. Farah states, without equivocation, “To be a natural born citizen means to be the offspring of U.S. citizen parents at the time of birth.” Really? Where in the US Constitution does it say that?

The 14th Amendment states, verbatim, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

In Farah’s bird-brained opinion of Constitutional law, anyone who cannot prove their lineage to the Mayflower is ineligible for federal office. It stands to his inexorable reason that unless you can prove your parents were born to his interpretation of “natural born citizens,” that they aren’t full citizens, either – and on down the family tree you go. Fortunately or us, the Constitution only acknowledges three types of citizens:

  1. Born: pretty simple – born in the US? You’re a US Citizen.
  2. Naturalized: Not born here, but you’ve met all the requirements and sworn an oath of allegiance to the United States.
  3. Here at the nation’s founding: If you know anyone still kicking after 240 years or so, let me know. We’ve got a story.

The version of citizenship pushed by the Joe Farah’s of the world doesn’t exist anywhere except in their imaginations. I don’t like defending the President against the peevish insults of men of that ilk – it makes me feel, dirty – but denigrating a person based solely on lies and misinformation should be well behind us as a nation. That it isn’t; that so many people insist on denouncing the President’s citizenship, demonstrates a side to our nation that should give anyone with a brain and more than a 2nd grade education pause.

I’ll make this simple, so that even the bird-brained “birther” conspiracists can understand it: bring us proof that Barack Hussein Obama was born outside the USA and we’ll listen. Otherwise, let those of who truly care about the future of the nation debate the issues and policies while you spend your time taking a civics course. Or two.

Posted by  |  August 30, 2011 | Categories: Politics | Tags: , , , , , | Leave a comment

Hurricane updates: Mayor Cory Booker calls for voluntary evacuations in Newark | 7online.com


Mayor Cory A. Booker, Members of the Municipal Council, Business Administrator Julien X. Neals, Newark Emergency Management and Domestic Preparedness Director Keith Isaac, Police Director Samuel A. DeMaio, Police Chief Sheilah A. Coley, Fire Director Fateen A. Ziyad, Fire Chief John Centanni and Acting Department of Child and Family Well-Being Director LTanya Williamson are calling for voluntary evacuations by Newark residents who live in low-lying areas due to the potential for severe flooding due to Hurricane Irene.

Residents living in the following low-lying areas listed below should move inland with family and friends first, before relocating to one of the citys temporary emergency shelters:

Raymond Blvd to Passaic River

Lockwood, Esther, Joseph, Cornelia, Lister, Albert Avenue

Libella Court

Riverview Court

Routes 1 & 9 to Turnpike to Passaic River

” Wilson” Avenue L” Delancey St” Doremus Ave” Avenue P” Foundry St” Roanoke” Doremus Place” Rutherford St” Curry St” Hyatt Ave” Avenue K” Stockton” Avenue I” Margaretta” Mary” Thornton” Herbert” Paris” Amsterdam

via Hurricane updates: Mayor Cory Booker calls for voluntary evacuations in Newark | 7online.com.

Posted by  |  August 27, 2011 | Categories: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , | Leave a comment

Death Spiral Debt Deal


As I’m sure we’re all aware, the major political players in Washington agreed to debt ceiling deal last night. Reuters has a terrific breakdown of the final deal here. I’m not happy with this “deal” at all and if I were in Congress, would certainly vote “No” on passage.

Why? Simply put, this agreement does absolutely nothing about either the current deficit or the even larger problem of the national debt. In fact, passage guarantees that the debt will double over the next decade. And just for grins and giggles, there are also some really rosy ideas about anticipated economic growth baked into the framework – ideas that in light of last week’s GDP reports are proven to be a complete sham.

Let’s start with the sham of an idea that this deal somehow trims the deficit. The only guaranteed cuts in the whole package are for FY2012 – and they total all of $6 billion. Even if you use the overly-optimistic CBO estimate of “only” a $1.049 trillion deficit for FY2012, that amounts to about ½ of 1% of the deficit. To put this in perspective, it’s the equivalent of the average American cutting their total annual spending by $37.85, or the typical price for a dinner for two. This is every bit a dog-and-pony show, not budget cutting.

Secondly, this deal does little to curb long term spending, either. The final total of $2.4 trillion takes place over the remaining 9 years. However, the combined deficits over the next decade are forecast to equal another $13 trillion. That would bring the national debt to a total of around $28 trillion by 2020. Even if future Congresses don’t reduce that $2.4 trillion in deficit reduction (good luck with that), the federal debt will amount to $25.6 trillion in 2020. This package doesn’t do anything to actually begin reducing the debt. Only in Washington could a package that will grow the federal government’s debt obligation by 77% be considered a “debt-reduction plan.”

Finally, there’s the kabuki-theater method of arranging these “cuts.” Part of the reduction comes from presupposing that the Pentagon can find $350 billion in cost savings as a result of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan ending. The deal-makers completely ignored the fact that we recently got involved in another war in Libya and also imagine that we won’t get involved in any others before 2020. I would like to go on record now as believing in the tooth fairy and unicorns, since those are less farfetched assumptions. There is a “super committee” that’s supposed to recommend budget cuts on a straight up-or-down vote; failing that, across the board reductions in all government programs. Well, almost all – federal employee pay, Medicaid, Social Security, welfare and veteran’s benefits are excluded. Considering we’ve already had 16 deficit committees in the past 20 years, each of which has said that the principle way to reduce the debt is to transform entitlement programs – and this deal exempts most of them from automatic cuts – how successful do you suppose this one will be? Expect another political dog-and-pony show, only this one should be a spectacle that would make PT Barnum proud. After all, it’s taking place during an election year. The posturing and grandstanding over recommendations that have no chance of passing both Congressional houses will liven up campaign ads and the evening news, but mean nothing.

So, no, I can’t support this deal. It just lends further proof that Washington is run by inept morons and snake-oil salesmen.

Posted by  |  August 1, 2011 | Categories: Economics, Politics | Tags: , , , , , | Leave a comment

A failure to communicate = a failure of leadership.


Paul Newman as Cool Hand Luke

One of my favorite movies is Cool Hand Luke. In the movie, Paul Newman plays the title character, a WWII hero turned petty criminal who refuses to accept that any man has authority over him unless he grants it. His nemesis is the prison warden (“Captain”) who is determined to break Luke’s spirit. During one memorable scene, after Luke’s capture from his first prison escape, “Captain” delivers the line

“What we got here is … failure to communicate”

Lately, I’ve been getting the feeling that Barack Obama would be excellent in the role of “Captain.” He certainly seems determined to break the spirit of the American people – and then blaming us for his failures. He scold us about the economy almost daily: “Well, you know, I inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression and…” Yes, Mr. President, we’re well aware of what your policies have done to the economy. You took 5% unemployment, sprinkled some of your pixie dust and

*POOF*

all the jobs disappeared. That pixie dust was mostly made of tripling the deficit, selling it by telling us that unemployment wouldn’t cross 8% – but without all of that extra debt, the economy would certainly tank. Fast forward 18 months to the mid-terms. Faced with a soul-crushing economy and an American people distrustful of your policies (not atypical for people who’ve been lied to), you took to blaming… not the message (something about cars and ditches) and not the messenger (because we’ve all been told what a terrific orator you are) but the American people (because we’re too stupid and too busy clinging to guns and religion to understand how good we have it). Then you seemed dumbfounded when your party and their crazy ideals of “spreading the wealth around” got chucked out on their butt.

“What we got here is … failure to communicate”

Fast forward another 8 months and once again, we’re being assaulted by daily pronouncements from the Annointed One. This time, the debt ceiling has been reached. After weeks of having our senses assaulted by your minions telling us the sky will fall come August 2nd, we’re nearly at the appointed day and time. Never mind that this sort of thing generally gets hammered out in the underground corridors of the Capitol; you had to create a crisis. The reason? Apparently to lecture us idiots on the necessity for higher taxes and more spreading the wealth around, only this time couched as “sharing the pain.” Only this time, not even the denizens of your own party are believing that straw man any longer. Every American you talk to is pretty certain that the economy can’t get much worse, but the one thing we can do to ensure that it does is listen to your proscriptions. I guess the TV performance last night was meant to scare the US populace into adopting a plan that nobody has written down anywhere (one heavy on your usual bromides), instead of allowing the House and Senate to haggle out the differences in their resolutions.

Yep, Mr. President, I’m certain that come August 3rd, you’ll be out there blaming us poor, ignorant, ordinary folk for not understanding why you’re the best thing to come down the pike since sliced bread. I’m certain you’ll be comparing your role in the debt crisis with that of Leonidas of Sparta. (You know, valiant last stands no matter the personal cost, blah, blah, blah). In reality, all this episode has proven again is that you can’t lead from behind. Oh, and that for all of your awesome rhetorical abilities…

“What we got here is … failure to communicate”

King Leonidas

Posted by  |  July 26, 2011 | Categories: Politics | Tags: , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

On Libertarian Government


One thing that never fails to amaze me is the reaction I receive from people when I describe my politics as Libertarian. I think it shows how remarkably uninformed the American people are regarding their history, their civics and their individual roles in government. I find myself wondering what Abraham Lincoln (16th President, saved the Union, etc) would think about modern politics and the modern citizen. Lincoln’s primary goal during his term was not to end slavery. While slavery was an underpinning issue of the Civil War, the real reason it was fought was eloquently expressed during the Gettysburg Address:

“…that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

Stop to consider those words for a moment. Let them roll around in your mind and ponder their significance. Lincoln considered the preservation of the Union to be paramount; of greater importance than ending the great immoral stain left behind the Founding Fathers. This is the essence of Libertarianism and is counter to the views of most of my fellow citizens, who see Libertarians as being one step from being anarchists. But Libertarianism is actually more aligned with what the media refers to as the “center,” some amorphous grouping of Americans that believe that while government has a role in our lives, that role should be minimalized to the greatest extent possible. We believe in Liberty – not just the ideal of liberty, but the pursuit and practice of Liberty. What’s more, we believe that a government that is supposed to be of the people, by the people and for the people cannot fulfill that role if it becomes bigger than the people. The people then become subsumed by the demands of government –the delicate balance envisioned in the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and the Federalist Papers is upset. Rather than the a representative republic, the governmental form is turned into something else – a government oppressing the people, by the government and for the government.

Libertarians look at the proper role of government as being like a three-legged stool.

First, government acts as the final arbiter of disputes among people by imposing guidelines based on common morality, while not restricting anyone’s individual liberty. Wait, you say – morality implies religion, so are you implying that government applies a religious principle? No, not hardly. Morality can come from religious faith and certain moral codes are common to most religions (such as provisions against murder or theft). But a common morality is determined by a given society in general. So, while my particular religion considers certain actions to be immoral, general society does not. It is government’s role to say this is the general consensus. And in a well-informed society, impertinent changes to a society’s moral code as represented by the government’s actions are remediated by selecting new representatives. In this way, government does not establish rules of conduct for society and does not impose the will of any group or individual on any other.

Second, government is charged with ensuring the defense of society from those that would harm the society. Most people understand this to mean the defense of the society in cases of armed conflict. But more than that, it also refers to defending a society from internal destruction. Because this is such an awesome power the people cede to their government – the ability to force or coerce a course of action – the Founders took great care to ensure that the application of such force had multiple checks and balances, as represented by our three-headed government. I suspect they would be greatly troubled by the amount of power the Legislative branch has yielded to the Executive over the past 70 years.

Finally, government is responsible for ensuring that it remains the servant of the people and that the people are not the servants of the government. This is a difficult proposition, since it essentially means governments are required to be answerable to society in all cases. As enshrined in our Declaration of Independence:

“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. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

And so, we accept that in cases where government no longer abides by the first two principles, the third allows the society to overthrow the existing government and replace it with a new one.

For Libertarians, the problem with modern government is simple and two-fold: first, society has ceded too much power to government and allowed it to infringe on individual liberty, on any one person’s ability to be who and what they desire to be. Second, the Legislature has ceded too much of its power to the Executive. The result of this is that government is no longer responsive to society, but rather to powerful elements in society. And on those rare occasions when society demands a change in course by exercising its power on the Legislature, they find themselves stymied by a too-powerful Executive.

Tomorrow, we’ll delve into the practical implications that rose from America’s abandonment of Libertarian government –and how we’re still living with those implications today.

Posted by  |  July 19, 2011 | Categories: Politics | Tags: , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment