Tag Archives: entitlements
Where:Streaming Internet Radio
What: Join independent political commentator Michelle Ray as she discusses the issues impacting Americans.
Tonight: Rich is on vacation (just like Obama, only Rich will be back next week!) so Michelle and Tom will discuss a common sense approach to the economy and a mutual disgust for apathy, ignorance, sloth and the “I’m a victim” attitude pervasive in America. ( Full credit to Tom for this little added gift!) Be sure to check out Tom’s article on the topic at The Right Sphere before stopping by!
What no one on either side of the political aisle will stop and think about is how the abuses of these systems that were created to help are now hurting the very ones that need it the most.
We received our youngest child when he was only 7 weeks old. He was born addicted to cocaine, and when he came to us, he was still experiencing withdrawal tremors from the drug he was born addicted to. This is one of the most excruciatingly painful things I have ever experienced in my life! I felt so helpless, just wanting to make the pain go away for him!
Thankfully, he stopped having the withdrawal tremors. He is now a healthy, vibrant 3 1/2 year old who is into absolutely everything!
However, about 6 months ago, we began to notice a spot on his spine. It actually began as a bruise, which we originally thought was caused by his tumbling around with his two older brothers. He may be the youngest, but he thinks he is as big as they are!
Unfortunately, the bruise did not go away. I took him to the doctor, and she told me that bruises of this kind take a very long time to heal. She explained that they are deep, so the healing process and time is much more extensive than a “normal” bruise. Feeling slightly better about things, we went about life, watching and waiting.
However, while the bruise eventually went away, a bump began to appear on his back, in the very same spot. I took him to the doctor yet again. She examined him, and determined that due to the fact that she could move the bump around, there was nothing to be alarmed about. This time, I wasn’t so sure. She told me to keep a watch on it, and if it didn’t go away, bring him back.
Rather than going away, the bump grew bigger. I took him back to the doctor yet again, and finally received a referral to a dermatologist.
Three weeks later, I was finally able to see the dermatologist. Upon examination, he determined that he needed to refer us to a neurologist. I questioned him extensively, and he explained that it could be a number of things, including the possibility of fluid leaking from his spine. This set off alarm bells for me! I tried desperately not to panic, but the thought that this is a real possibility is alarming!
The dermatologist also scheduled an MRI, so the neurologist would have this information at that appointment.
That evening, while discussing everything with my husband, we began to question the length of time it was going to take to get the MRI. I told him that I would call the doctor’s office back the next day, to see if there was any way we could get the appointment moved up.
Before I had a chance to call, they were calling me to give me the neurologist’s number. I started telling the nurse about my concerns for the length of time we were still going to have to wait. She told me that when she first called to make the MRI appointment, the first available was in March! The doctor was not happy with this, so he personally called back to get an appointment sooner. The nurse assured me that if he had thought it was an absolute emergency, he would have gotten him in immediately! She advised me that if my son complained of his back hurting we simply needed to take him to the emergency room.
We’ve made the necessary arrangements for both appointments- the MRI and the neurology- and were simply waiting.
Then I received a call from the dermatologist office telling me that Medicaid has denied the MRI request! Remember: the children are on Medicaid due to the fact that they were adopted through the state Foster Care System. This is not simply a case of irresponsible parenting on our part.
When the nurse told me that Medicaid had denied the request, I got angry! She said the reason they gave for the denial was because there “was not enough documentation” to warrant an MRI!
Now, if you are not familiar with what an MRI is, WebMD will help explain it:
Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a test that uses a magnetic field and pulses of radio wave energy to make pictures of organs and structures inside the body. In many cases MRI gives different information about structures in the body than can be seen with an X-ray, ultrasound, or computed tomography (CT) scan. MRI also may show problems that cannot be seen with other imaging methods.
As reported around the internet yesterday, a second home in Obion County, Tennessee was allowed to burn down on Tuesday. John McQuaid at Forbes had this to say in response:
But here’s the deeper problem. Look at Mayor Crocker’s rationale for letting homes burn: you pay, you get a service. Don’t pay, you get nothing. No free riders. This is straightforward and thus appealing. But it is also misguided: it puts abstract principle over the business of governing. Lives and property are put in danger in exchange for the satisfactions of bean-counting and moralistic coercion. Is letting homes burn, and scaring non-payers, really an effective positive incentive? Fire protection isn’t like water or electricity: if you cut if off for non-payment, people don’t notice until it’s too late. If a house burns for non-payment, most will think “oh, it’ll never happen to me” and go on about their business. Instead of throwing up their hands, public officials should account for this somehow, because protecting the houses of the poor and/or irresponsible from death and destruction is a public good. It’s bad for you when your neighbor’s house goes up in flames.
In other words, people are entitled to fire protection funded by someone else.
To cut through the entitlement rhetoric, let’s examine the facts:
From the 2008 Obion County Comission fire report (PDF):
On January 19, 1987, the Obion County Commission passed a resolution establishing an Obion County Fire Department, but no action was taken to implement the resolution. Therefore, Obion County has a county fire department on paper, but is unmanned, unfunded and not operational.
Because there is no operational county fire department, Obion County has missed the opportunity to actively pursue receipt of FEMA Assistance to Firefighters Grants (AFG) and Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), which could amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars of funding.
According to survey information, over 75% of all municipal fire department’s structure calls are rural. All fire departments in Obion County charge a $500.00 fee per call in rural areas, but collections are, less than 50% and the fire departments have no way of legally collecting the charge. Therefore, the service was provided at the expense of the municipal tax payer.
Each individual municipality currently furnishes operating funds for their fire departments without assistance from the county or state.
This is in reference to the prepaid $75 annual fee, not the $500 per-call fee mentioned above. The article also mentions that approximately 700 of the 900 residences not covered by municipal fire departments have opted to pay the $75 fee.
So let’s review:
-The county established a fire department on paper nearly 25 years ago, but has failed to implement it, and in doing so, has missed the opportunity to have most of its firefighting operations funded by federal block grants;
-The county collects a property tax, but contributes none of it to firefighting operations;
-For 21 years, the city of South Fulton has permitted county residents with no fire service to pay a $75 fee for fire protection (probably the smallest amount any homeowner pays for firefighting service anywhere in the United States);
-Fire departments in Tennessee have no legal recourse for collecting un-reimbursed fees or firefighting expenses;
-The fire department already refused to put out one house fire earlier in the year due to lack of payment, and the owner of the home which burned two days ago still hadn’t paid the fee.
And for some strange reason, this problem is seen as the city of South Fulton’s fault.
Folks, each of us pay property taxes, either because we are homeowners or because the cost is embedded in our rents. Those of us who have fire protection, police service, and other emergency services, pay for them (unless we are homeless). The situation in Obion County, Tennessee is a result of incompetent government, entitlement mentality, and a lack of individual responsibility.
Remember this whenever a “registered Republican” chastises the South Fulton Fire Department: “incompetent government”, “entitlement mentality”, and “lack of individual responsibility” are three things the rest of us are battling against.
In this installment of the FairTax series I want to cover the cost of compliance and enforcement with today’s tax codes. Before I go into the complexities of compliance and enforcement I want to spend a few minutes dispelling the favorite myth of the anti-FairTax crowd. One of the things that put me off the FairTax at first was the pooh-poohing of the plan by those who don’t want to see it implemented. I bought into the lies and distortions because I did not have enough knowledge of the FairTax to dispel these negative stories. This part of the issue is covered a little further into the book but I want to get this cleared up before I go any farther. I want you to understand the plan clearly, without the distortions thrown at me early in my exposure to the FairTax.
There have been some in Congress, along with the “tax the rich more” crowd, who have suggested a Value Added Tax or VAT. This would be a national sales tax added on to the cost of everything we buy today. This tax, proposed to begin at about 2%, would eventually be up in the 16% or higher range as it is now in some European countries. THE FAIRTAX IS NOT THE SAME PLAN. Those who do not want to see the FairTax implemented deliberately confuse the two plans to scare people like me, and you, away from the FairTax. This worked for quite some time as I was not knowledgeable enough to discern the difference. Be assured that when you hear VAT used in the same sentence as the FairTax it is a red herring designed to put you off the most intelligent proposal I have heard in my 61 years, The FairTax.
Now to the costs associated with our current system. In the debate about income and employment taxes we seldom hear of the costs involved. I am a simple man with a high school education so it doesn’t take very long for the tax structure to get the best of me. I haven’t been able to find any concrete numbers but the federal income tax code has somewhere between 67,000 pages, as stated in the 2nd FairTax book published in 2008, and 86,000 that I heard a politician mention a little while back. I can’t remember which politician or exactly when he gave that number but I do remember 86,000 pages being mentioned. I really don’t care which number is right, both are absurd. My wife has a college degree in accounting in which she achieved a 4.0 grade point average. She is a very smart lady and extremely good with accounting but even she can’t keep up with yearly changes and the odd nuances of the ever changing tax codes. As a result we have our taxes done by a local Certified Public Accountant who is very good and keeps up with all of the changes from year to year.Let me describe the differences very simply here before I go on to the main subject of this article. The FairTax is instead of, not in addition to, income taxes, employment (Social Security/Medicare) taxes, inheritance (death) taxes, gift taxes, etc. The Value Added Tax (VAT) is in addition to, not instead of, these other taxes. This is a huge difference when it comes to deciding whether to support the FairTax or not. Once I understood the difference in the two plans I could plainly see that the FairTax is a plan that is in my best financial interest.
This year, 2011, the IRS has a $12.633 billion budget. That is $12,633,000,000 of our money going to an agency to insure that everyone, well almost everyone, complies with the tax codes. Even with that amount of money being spent they won’t get all of the money “due” to the government in taxes. The IRS is not the most efficient tax collection system. They can find me if I don’t pay but they have a hard time finding out if members of Congress, congressional staff members, and even the head man at the Treasury Department, Timothy Geithner paid their taxes as they should. As I mentioned in the first segment, they won’t collect these taxes from the local drug dealer, prostitute, illegal alien, or anyone else who gets paid under the table for work.
Now let’s talk about the cost to We the People directly. The last figures I could find on the cost to prepare income taxes were from 2005. That year the U. S. General Accountability Office reported that taxpayers paid between $240 billion and $600 billion to prepare and file their tax forms. That is for 2005, 6 years ago. My costs have almost doubled since then to the $315 my wife and I paid to have our taxes prepared in 2010.
So, let’s take a quick look at what we have for the cost of compliance. The IRS alone will spend $12.633 billion in 2011, at least, to insure that some of us pay our taxes. Those of us who pay our taxes spend as much as $600 billion, at least as of 2005, to have those forms prepared. The GAO also stated that taxpayers can expect to pay as much as 20% of the cost of their taxes to have the forms prepared by professional tax preparers. That is another 20% in addition to the amount of the taxes owed (ours isn’t that high). The figures in this paragraph come from the IRS site itself, not the FairTax book. I guess these numbers are great if you are a CPA or tax lawyer but not so great for those of us who have to spend that money.
For those who say “so what, I don’t pay much in taxes and the rich can afford to pay more” I have a new perspective for you. Every dollar that is spent to prepare tax forms or taken by government is a dollar that those “rich people” can’t use to provide jobs for working class people like myself, or you. Also look at the downstream effects. Corporations and the “rich” who own businesses factor their tax liability into the prices they charge for their products and the wages they pay their employees. One way or the other we all pay for the taxes that are heaped upon those we consider “rich”, and those “evil corporations”. People who own businesses own them to make money for themselves to support their families primarily. They are going to make money regardless of how much they are taxed, or they are going to go out of business and let their employees fend for themselves in the employment lines. When they pass those expenses on to the customer it comes to the point that customers pay the taxes in the end through the cost of the product. The bottom line is that corporations don’t pay taxes, the customer pays the taxes. The corporation just becomes the tax collector for the federal government because that money goes straight to bureaucrats and politicians.
The economists who have studied the tax structure and developed the Fair Tax plan have determined that there is a 22% tax liability built into everything you purchase, above and beyond state and local sales taxes. This is where things get a bit complicated and are difficult to comprehend. For example, let me use the wagon we bought for one of our grandchildren last fall. We paid $99, not including sales taxes, for a small wagon with wood sides. These wood sides were barely stronger than balsa wood, not the hardiest or strongest of woods. That may or may not sound like a lot of money but let me delve into how the price of that wagon was arrived at.
The wagon is made of metal, with rubber tires and wood siding. Each of these materials has a manufacturing process. The ore for the metal has to be mined, processed into steel, stamped into shape, painted, packaged, and shipped to its final destination, the store where we purchased the product. The wood for the sides and the rubber for the tires go through this same process. At each step of the process taxes are assessed for the materials and labor needed to complete the process and those costs are included in the final price of the product. By the time we purchased that wagon, $22 of the cost were the built-in taxes added to the cost of producing that product. This includes evaluating the tax costs of those who provide the machinery that makes the wagon. So I pay roughly 32% of my income to the government and then pay another 22% in federal taxes, not counting state and local sales taxes, to purchase the wagon for my granddaughter. So we have a wagon I could have bought for $77 now costing $99.
Take out your latest pay stub and look at it. Look at the Gross Pay box, and then look at the Net Pay box. Now go back and look at the various deductions, federal income tax, social security/Medicare tax, miscellaneous federal taxes, and see how much they take from your paycheck each time you get paid. Quite an amount going to Congress to waste on themselves isn’t it? (The FairTax stops the 32% I pay on my income but doesn’t raise the 22% I pay for the wagon.)
If you will stop and think about it for a moment the current system is a can of worms that is so ungainly and complicated even those who write the tax codes can’t comply. Don’t believe me? Do some research on Rep. Charles Rangel (D- NY), the former chairman of the Ways and Means Committee in the House of Representatives. They write the tax laws and he just got pinched, or hand slapped to be more accurate, for evading millions in taxes. He claims he didn’t understand the laws and made a simple error, to the tune of several million dollars. He had the nerve to stand on the floor of the House of Representatives and complain about how complicated the tax codes are. Rangel writes those tax codes. You try to make that excuse fly and see if you find yourself with a finger wagged in your face or you join Wesley Snipes in prison for tax evasion.
The FairTax puts a stop to all of this nonsense. No need for the IRS, no need for complicated forms and CPA’s or tax lawyers, and a full paycheck coming to you every payday. How much would it help if the drug dealers were paying a consumption tax on their fancy cars, boats, airplanes, etc? What about the millions of tourists who visit the United States every year? Under the FairTax plan they would be helping pay the taxes that support Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and social welfare systems. Right now almost 50% of American citizens do not pay any income tax at all, not to mention the illegal aliens who use an overly large portion of our “free” services. What if John Kerry had to pay taxes on the $7 million boat I mentioned in the introduction to the series!!!!!!!!
How would you like to get a gross pay check instead of a net pay check? How far would that money go to help you provide for your family? You are paying a 22% tax on everything you buy, food, clothes, a bicycle for your child, a car to get to work in, shoes for your feet, light bulbs, toilet paper, food, everything. Imagine not having to pay the income tax on top of these embedded taxes. And a bonus is that it wouldn’t hurt the “poor” people in our society. Even those paying no income and social security taxes are paying the embedded taxes.
So let me review what we have learned in this installment. We the People are paying millions to have our taxes prepared by professionals because the tax codes are too complicated for us to do it on our own. The IRS will spend billions on auditing and compliance, for those of us who they audit. Those who engage in illegal activity do not pay income and social security taxes while those of us who are honest hard working folks pay through the nose. The “poor” aren’t going to be hurt by this. And best of all, We the People can be rid of the IRS, and take the favoritism and vote buying out of the hands of the politicians. Those who use taxes to increase their power, wealth, and prestige through taxation lose a great deal of that power and give it back to We the People where it belongs in the first place.
In the next installment I will delve into the business and financial aspects of the FairTax, how it would help in bringing business and manufacturing back to our shores from other countries, and why the money being hidden in offshore accounts would be brought back to provide jobs and increased opportunity for American citizens.
I submit this in the name of the Most Holy Trinity, in faith, with the responsibility given to me by Almighty God to honor His work and not let it die from neglect.
November 25, 2011
Have you ever been surfing the web and found a video that made you drop your jaw and made your blood pressure go through the roof? I recently came across one such video.
The sad thing is that this woman is just one example of the many in our country who expect that their decisions should come without responsibilities. The way I look at it, if you can’t provide for them, don’t have them!
This is the first of a 5 part series I am writing based on the book “The FAIRTAX: The Truth”. In the series I take a 300+ page book and condense it down to a virtual “cliff notes” version designed for the novice political reader. I designed the series for those who are not very knowledgeable about politics or the tax structure and how it affects all Americans. I encourage eveyone reading the series to buy the book and get the full effect of the policies in place today and see how the FAIRTAX will change the dynamics of government financing.
A couple of years ago I began hearing about a new concept in taxation. This new concept is called The FairTax. I didn’t pay much attention because I thought “how is any tax fair?”, when some pay and some don’t. At first I dismissed it as another scam to throw me off the track of an out of control government looking for another way to hoodwink me into paying more of my hard earned money into their grand spending plans.
I have long since grown tired of paying so much of my money into ever growing but useless government programs that pay people to sit on their butts and spend my money. Welfare expenses keep going up as more and more people find ways to game the system by having babies, faking injuries, working for cash under the table, etc. The ultra-rich hide their money in “foundations” or overseas to avoid the taxes I have been paying for 45 years. All of them, rich and poor are getting over on the other working stiffs who are too stupid, too honest, or unwilling, to do these things. These money pits keep growing as the amount of available income to tax drops.
One of my pet peeves with income tax is those who don’t pay any. While I was paying 32% in my working years the local drug dealer was paying nothing. The local prostitutes who hang out on street corners in the bigger cities or work out of high priced hotels were paying nothing. The welfare cheats who sit around finding ways to game the system for their own benefit have no intention of doing anything to benefit society, or themselves for that matter. The illegal aliens who were working for cash were paying nothing. I had noticed the illegal aliens especially. They were everywhere and driving much nicer vehicles than I was, or am now driving (I don’t hang out where the hookers hang out). I was paying a 25% income tax, a 7.5% social security/Medicare tax, plus state taxes, and being told the government couldn’t afford for me to retire while those not paying taxes lived the good life. I struggled, they flourished. That is when The FairTax began to make sense to me.
I heard Neal Boortz one day talking about this new plan on his radio show. I listened with interest and thought it sounded good but never really did any more to learn about The FairTax. In the last election cycle, the 2010 mid-terms, I kept bumping into Carol Chouinard and she kept handing me literature about The Fair Tax. I took the information and looked it over without really spending a lot of time educating myself on this new concept. Interesting but, ehhhh!!!!
One day I was going through a stack of papers that had accumulated over a few months, actually several months, and found the literature Carol had given me. As I read through the brochures and leaflets I began to realize that this was not the run of the mill scam to get more of my money. This was an idea that made sense to me once I really looked at it.
Carol is the local guru on The FairTax. She lives in Rogers County, 2nd Congressional District, State of Oklahoma. She travels throughout Eastern Oklahoma, or anywhere else for that matter, presenting The FairTax to any group or person who will give her a chance to enlighten them. I ran into her again the other night and we got to talking about political issues and The FairTax came up. Well, I was complaining about the current debt ceiling debacle and how to deal with it. Carol began to explain some more about how The FairTax was the answer to much of the problem.
As I listened to her a light bulb came on in my head, and the squirrel began to spin the cylinder. The things I had read came back to me and began to make sense. I began to remember about the way our tax system keeps hard working honest people in bondage while those who don’t mind cheating skate by without paying anything, only taking from those of us who do things the right way. Carol gave me a book about The FairTax. It is the second book called FairTax: The Truth. The first book, The FairTax, came out in 2005. This book was published in 2008 so is 3 years old as I start this article. Much of the information I will include in future articles about The FairTax will come from updates from the FairTax web site as I want to give you the most up-to-date information and statistics available.
One solution I see to our fiscal problems in this plan is the title, The FairTax. From everything I have read and the research I am doing, this plan solves many of the financial problems we face as a nation, the issue of money paid in taxes. I find that this plan is aptly named. I often hear Democrat and sometimes Republican politicians, especially those in Washington, cry about how “the rich” get over by not paying enough taxes. Yeah, like the politicians pay “their fair share”. Remember the hullaballoo a few months ago about Senator John Kerry, the one who parked his multi-million dollar yacht, $7 million yacht to be exact, on the far side of the bay because the state taxes on that yacht were cheaper there than on his side of the inlet? $500,000 per year cheaper to be exact. So much for Washington’s multi-millionaire insiders being concerned about paying their fair share of taxes. Hmm, I wonder where I am going to park my $7 million yacht. Oh, never mind, I don’t have one.
I also hear many “poor” people make the same statements, “the rich need to pay more taxes”. The problem with the “poor” complainers is that most of the ones I know don’t pay any taxes at all either. Most of the “the rich need to pay more taxes” crowd, at least the ones I know personally, are on the dole. They are drawing welfare, food stamps, social security disability, state aid, etc. Many of them either don’t work at all or work part time. They pay nothing and spend much of their time complaining that they don’t “get enough help from the government”. They have cell phones for themselves and their children, several have big flat screen HD televisions, complete with the latest game consoles, cable TV service, cigarettes, and are usually well stocked with beer in the fridge. Actually, I need the “rich” people to continue to be “rich”. They are the ones who will hire me, hopefully, so I can make a little money. Poor people never seem to hire me for anything.
In the spirit of “transparency”, my wife and I both have cell phones, we have cable TV service, and one 37 inch flat screen HD television set. Before you say “AHAH!!!” let me offer a caveat to this. We don’t get any help from the government and are not exactly in the “rich folks” category. I am retired but not old enough to draw social security, my wife works a full time job, and we have a small Mom & Pop business that gives me a little work and usually provides us very little in the way of profit. As a matter of fact, if the business doesn’t make a profit in 2011 we are going to have to shut it down. I work part time for a friend when he needs help on a project but the rest of the time I spend working on and around the house. We have a 1976 Chevy pickup that my father-in-law gave to us when he became unable to drive. We have a 1995 Ford Escort that my mother-in-law gave to us when she became unable to drive. We also have a 2004 Dodge PT Cruiser with over 100,000 miles on it (it was a demonstrator model). We don’t owe any money on our cars, and live in a 101 year old house with a $60,000 mortgage. Not exactly Beverly Hills here, closer to Green Acres, but we don’t get any government assistance either.
To get back to the point of this article, our nation cannot keep going the way it is financially. We cannot continue to borrow and spend, drive businesses out of the country, and raise taxes on the “rich”, those making $250,000 per year or so, the small to medium businessman/family who provide the bulk of the jobs in this nation. We have to do something to bring the jobs back to the United States. We need to make it feasible for those who hide their money to use that money to provide jobs so those who desire to work but can’t find a decent job can get back to work. Giving people unlimited unemployment pay is not the answer to prosperity, it is a handout not a hand up. Many of those drawing that unemployment would work if they could find a job. Some of them are lazy bums that are looking for a handout but most, and I do mean MOST, are honest hard working people who just want to provide for their families.
The FairTax is a method to accomplish this task of financial recovery and prosperity. In the next installment of this series I intend to delve into how our current tax structure is designed to inhibit rather than enhance prosperity. I will cover the costs of enforcing and complying with the current tax code and how it affects every person in America, tax payer and non-taxpayer. The FairTax books are a treasure trove of information about how our financial system works, or doesn’t work, and what We the People can do if we will stand up and demand that the politicians change the way they do things. Other installments will cover more aspects of The FairTax plan and how we go about getting it implemented by politicians that are more concerned about themselves than We the People. Elections are only 11 months away, so let’s get to work changing our future. God Bless America!
I submit this in the name of the Most Holy Trinity, in faith, with the responsibility given to me by Almighty God to honor His work and not let it die from neglect.
November 25, 2011
The U.S. national debt can’t be trimmed by cutting spending alone. That is the illogical and easily-disproved lie circulating through the main stream media. It’s a mantra that is repeated… over, and over, and over. Considering that this claim is at the core of the current progressive demand for tax increases, it’s sad that only a handful of fiscal conservatives are taking people to task on the complete dishonesty of the position.
Keeping this as basic as possible so that even the political establishment types in Washington might understand it – if we keep cutting spending until the government spends less in a year than it receives in taxes (innovative concept!) and then we apply the money that’s left over to our debt, that will actually lower the national debt.
So hypothetically, if the government collects $2.5 trillion in taxes this year and our politicians could manage to squeak by on spending only a measly $2 trillion, the debt could be lowered by half a trillion dollars. No kidding, I did the math on it myself.
Nowhere in that equation was there a need to mention raising taxes.
There is one catch in this plan that should be explained for the political elite. “Cut spending” does not mean a smaller increase in spending than the one politicians had budgeted for. “Cut spending” means actually spending less this year than last year.
As this oh-so complicated example shows, it is possible to lower the national debt just by cutting spending. The problem is that it requires cutting spending in areas that the leaders of both political parties don’t want to cut.
A quick look at the U.S. debt clock shows that the country is quickly being spent into oblivion. To avoid an economic catastrophe, some tough decisions are going to have to be made – it’s time for members of Congress to put on their big boy pants and start acting like adults.
Of course, if anyone ever does try to cut spending enough to lower the national debt, that effort will immediately be met with sob stories about all the people who will be hurt. While it’s true that some people might be temporarily hurt by massive spending cuts, the cuts themselves aren’t to blame for the hardships they case. The real problem is the progressive politicians who made people dependent on government in the first place.
Unfortunately, that is the situation we’re in if we want to keep the country from collapsing under all this debt. If we don’t make some uncomfortable cuts in government spending, we’re all going to feel a much greater pain… and soon.
According to U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, being on food stamps is good for the economy.
While the Democratic party continues to find ways to spend money, and the president is off golfing, taking vacations, or just out campaign trail hoping for an addional four year term – the country is falling into a deeper recession. Whether people agree or disagree, democrat or republican, it doesn’t matter; just look at how much the cost of goods and services have gone up in the past few weeks. Although this presidents spending has well exceeded that of his predecessors, he alone is not responsible for the debt crisis, nor the creation of the entitlement state, or a welfare society that currently exists. No, the creation of big government began sometime ago, its effects are just beginning to catch up to us now. The sad part is, there are so many on the Hill who what to make the government even bigger, they fail to recognize the warning signs they are getting from those in Europe who are seeing the errors of their ways.
The spending in Washington that has been going on for decades is at the root of the problem. However, the lack of clarity on how true job creation actually occurs – which is not by raising taxes or extending unemployment benefits as suggested by democrats. The self-righteous attitudes of those on the hill, whose own self-interests seem to come first, are just a few examples of what is at the crux of the problem. The reality is we live in a welfare society where people truly believe government entitlements are their God-given right. These same people fail to recognize making government bigger than what it already is, is not the answer.
What is happening in Athens, London, and other parts of the world, and is beginning to happen here in the United States is just the beginning of waht happend to economys that cannot sustain government spending. The flash mobs, threats, violence, and so on that occurred in Madison, Wisconsin as well as other parts of the country, are the just beginning of what happens in a welfare society driven by people who have visons whichh are not founded in a realistic way. The issues with Wisconsin employees are just one example of what is spreading across the nation. These people are beginning to feel the end result of what happens to people who rely on entitlements simply because they were promised by a government whose spending well exceeds its income. This is what they were promised and this is what they truly believe they are entitled to at any cost, they don’t care.
There is a common theme that exists: even when times are rough, and government clearly cannot fulfill their expectations, and cuts are necessary, these flash mobs are proof that people demand what government has promised. Regardless if it bankrupts the state they are living in, they truly believe they are entitled to things such as pension plans they did not pay into, early retirement at age 53 or earlier, free medical benefits, welfare checks, food stamps, and the never-ending unemployment checks. The violence is just beginning. In addition, union officials are sending people to states to fight against anyone who tries to put an end to the entitlements. People are being threatened; their businesses are risk, if they don’t comply with the threats. One person in Kenosha, WI who was suppose to hold a tea party meeting was threatened and forced to hold the meeting elsewhere; scared by union goons.
What we are seeing in London is just the beginning of the end of years of government entitlements. Generations of people who have spent their entire lives living on government handouts and stimulus – the reality of government outspending always catches up; it is just a matter of time. The people of London, for example, that time is now. The same thing is happening here and people are reacting the same way – fighting, picketing, rioting because they have a big government mentality. They believe that they have a right to the all the free stuff government has been providing. Remember: As government keeps getting bigger people and business keep getting smaller – how do you create jobs from that? How do you like the end result? Think about that next time you go to vote or contact your congress man or woman.
Yesterday I posted an ad on Craigslist for some things I am giving away. I posted in the Free section, because quite honestly I just do not have the time to haggle with people. The things I am getting rid of are not in the greatest of condition, but they are still usable for someone just starting out.
When I clicked the link in my email to confirm my posting, it took me to the main Craigslist Free listings page. I had to scroll to find my posting. As I was scrolling, another listing caught my eye. The title was something along the lines of, “Get Your Free Cell Phone Paid For By The Government”. I opened up the listing, and saw a full page ad for a government issued cell phone, if you “qualify”. The post also warned to make sure you write everything down because some people “have nothing better to do than report the ad as spam”.
I did not have a chance to read through everything last night, and sure enough, when I went back to check it out today, the ad is gone. However, all I had to do was do a general Internet search for “free government cell phone” and not only did I find the company that I saw the ad for yesterday, but several others as well!
As I browsed through some of the sites, I read the comments, and one person posted:
“Wow this is awesome i think the government is doing everything to help us.Cheers”
Yes, I quoted that word for word, exactly as it was written!
Honestly, I am not sure why I am writing this article right now, because I just do not have the words to express how appalled I am with finding this information!
So, don’t worry, America! You are going to be alllllll better now, with Uncle Sugar taking care of you! I am not quite sure when Uncle Sam moved out and Uncle Sugar moved in, but it looks like he’s here to stay! With Uncle Sugar’s cell phone offer you get a FREE phone AND 250 FREE minutes a month! WOW! Where do I sign up?
Oh wait! Excuse me? Oooooohhhhhhhhhhhh! Ok! I don’t qualify? And just why is that?
Oh, I see! Because I am a responsible adult and I don’t expect the government to take care of me?
So……….. where is Uncle Sugar getting the money to pay for all these free cell phones and cell minutes!
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh I see! From MY pocket, and every other honest, tax-paying citizen!
You are so very welcome, Uncle Sugar and all those looking for yet another free handout! One day, my money is going to run out, and that day is not too far away! Whatcha gonna do then, huh?
America… tax-payers- when does it stop? When are we going to say, “Enough is ENOUGH!” ?
To make sure that no critically-thinking Americans stop them on their reckless spending binge, Kathleen channeled the oratory prowess of Alan Grayson who last year told us that Republicans want us to “die quickly”. In her testimony to the House Education and Workforce Committee, Sebelius echoed Mr. Grayson’s concerns.
“If you run out of the government voucher and then you run out of your own money, you’re left to scrape together charity care, go without care, die sooner. There really aren’t a lot of options.”
The left-wing extremists in our government know that any cut to entitlements threatens there very base of power. They buy votes by handing out gifts from the treasury. Americans have to be bold enough to say, no thank you Madame Secretary, we can’t afford this anymore – we can’t afford YOU anymore.
It is becoming obvious that voters are going to be barraged with an entire line of messaging based on only emotion – no facts, no realization that we’re broke, no compromise – just pure emotion. We’ll be told that any cuts will harm children, kill grandma, or cause the earth to be destroyed by global warming/climate change/human-caused disasters or whatever. The truth is that if nothing is done, everyone will be harmed, all children will suffer, everybody will die quicker.
If we do not cut entitlements – the nation will fall into bankruptcy. Look at Greece, Ireland, Portugal, the list goes on.
Democrats aren’t coming up with any solutions, just poking holes in the well-thought plans of the House Republicans – Paul Ryan’s plan. Instead. senate democrats are position a status-quo Medicare bill as having savings in it. Senate Budget Committee Charman Kent Conrad (D-ND) is proposing a Medicare bill as a contrast to the House GOP plan. Unfortunately for America, there is absolutely zero deficit reduction in the bill.
“There are savings in Medicare, modest savings to pay for the doc fix,” Conrad said.
The doc-fix is Congress’ annual fix to a shortcoming in Medicare that would underpay doctors for their services. The underpayment would be so significant as to force many out-of-practice. Sen. Conrad’s bill proposes unspecified cuts in Medicare so that more money can be paid to physicians, but does nothing to reduce the deficit.
The Democrats plan simply proves that the current Medicare model cannot continue to exist – it must be reformed. It can’t afford to pay doctors and Sen. Conrad’s cuts will reduce services to seniors in some way.
The major differences in Sen. Conrad’s plan and Rep. Ryans is that Ryan’s reform phases in changes so that seniors aren’t immediately affected and that Rep. Ryan’s plan reduces the deficit – Sen. Conrad is fine with the status quo and hurting seniors to keep it that way.
It is expected that progressives would attack Paul Ryan’s honest attempt to save the country from its fiscal mess. Now, it appears that other house GOP members are quietly stepping back from supporting the plan they voted for. Dave Camp, Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee has already stated that he will not creating the chairman’s mark-up on Ryan’s proposed entitlement reforms.
If the Democrats status quo entitlement plan is allowed to continue, the America our parents and grandparents gave us – will “die quickly”.
Assuming their motives are pure, liberals are to be applauded for their dedication to assisting the poor and needy. But that does not excuse the abject failure of their misguided ideology which they wield like a sledge hammer – smashing prosperity wherever they find it in their lunatic quest to achieve equal outcomes.
Ignoring the fact that that Good Samaritans, by definition, need to be in a superior position in order to provide aid, comfort, and resources to assist the poor, liberals force a redistribution of wealth upon society at large – purposely destroying wealth, which is the very foundation from which aid to the poor and needy has to be drawn. By killing the goose that lays the golden egg, liberals obliterate society’s capacity to lift up the downtrodden. By forcibly taking from the productive and redistributing the ill-gotten gains to the unproductive, liberals exacerbate the problem by creating an ever-larger pool of the poor. By their imperial decree that government is the sole solution to poverty, liberals conveniently ignore the honored philanthropic and charitable traditions in American society.
Some approaches to welfare in the world foster idleness, give subsidies with no labor required, create a burden of debt, and promote greediness—an appetite for things of this world rather than the riches of eternity.
Too often rich and poor alike shut their hearts to the divine attributes of love and compassion. The rich languish in their abundance and justify turning the poor away as “welfare cases.” The poor are likewise entrapped, becoming dependent on others in a system destined to trample initiative, undermine family responsibility, foster divisiveness, and erect barriers to equity, opportunity, and fellowship. – Robert D. Hales
Hales’ expose of illogical systems of welfare pegs liberalism at its very core. Liberalism ignores the divine attributes of love and compassion. “For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: “Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me” (Matt. 25:34–36). Implicit to this scriptural example of love and compassion in action is the fact that these acts of charity are done voluntarily. Force is not the answer. True charity comes from the heart. It comes voluntarily. It comes from a deep and abiding conviction that all men are the giver’s brother – and all women are the giver’s sister.
Liberalism’s approach to welfare is a good example of Charles Darwin’s theory of Survival of the Fittest. Liberals believe that only the fittest in society survive. Progressives also proclaim themselves the fittest of all and therefore crown themselves as Gods on earth – presiding over the vast unwashed masses of humanity who are too stupid to figure out for themselves the wisdom of socialist/communist doctrines – especially how they relate to wealth and the proper redistribution thereof. But progressives forget one little fact when it comes to Darwin’s theory of “Survival of the Fittest.” The missing element? – Love! If Survival of the Fittest is a natural law, then how do liberals explain the fact that men have developed love and compassion for their fellow men? Through acts of charity mankind has ensured that those who are not deemed to be among the fittest survive to live another day. Through philanthropic acts of generosity, untold numbers of people have been fed, clothed, educated, and loved – their needs met without once relying upon the largesse of a misguided progressive government agency.
Hales also pegged another problem of liberal ideology when it comes to welfare. Hales notes that incorrect systems of welfare “give subsidies with no labor required.” This, in a nutshell, aptly describes the vast system of entitlements enacted by progressive legislators and signed into law by equally progressive presidents. Liberal entitlement programs do not require the able-bodied to work for what they receive. This robs the poor of their dignity. It robs the poor of the desire to work and lift themselves from the depths of poverty through their own efforts. It robs the poor of not only their own lives but the lives of their posterity by creating and perpetuating a permanent culture wherein people exist in poverty and misery – barely able to exist upon the meager handouts of the public dole. Public entitlements suck the very life from the souls of men, women, and children by taking away their incentive to better themselves. No conservative endorses a system in which those who are truly physically incapable of providing for their own needs are denied food, clothing, shelter, and other basic needs. But conservatives are keenly aware of the emotionally damaging aspects of the public dole. It literally destroys people.
Public entitlements also create massive amounts of debt – a phenomenon now fully on display in the United States of America. Under President Barack H. Obama, the public debt has soared to record heights because of his profligate spending – much of it on idiotic programs of dubious value. By funding entitlements through raids on the public treasury, Obama and his ilk have unfairly and unethically burdened both the present and future generations. The heavy burden of unrepayable debt threatens to crush our society – which is also part of the liberal plan.
The liberal philosophy regarding welfare also promotes greediness, the final aspect of unworkable welfare systems described by Hales. Obama is happy to forcibly take money from the rich and the middle class in order to shower it upon the heads of the poor. But take notice that Obama is not willing to put a crowbar to his own personal fortune and pry loose any funds to be used to relieve the suffering of his half-brother who lives in a shack in Kenya. Is Obama his brother’s keeper? Apparently not! Obama also ignores the plight of his aunt who lives in the projects on the east coast. While Obama greedily keeps his money to himself and lives the high-life on the public dime, his relatives languish in abject poverty with no hope for change that they can believe in.
The wisest of the Greeks was always held to be Solon, the father of democracy. Solon foretold the Age of Obama and others like him who through their destructive actions would bring down empires:
The ruin of our state will never come by the doom of Zeus; . . . it is the townsfolk themselves and their false-hearted leaders who would feign destroy our city through wantonness and love of money; . . . they are rich because they yield to the temptation of dishonest courses. . . . They spare neither the treasures of the gods nor the property of the state, and steal like brigands one from another. They pay no heed to the Unshaken rock of holy Justice; . . . our beloved city is rapidly wasted and consumed in those secret deals which are the delight of dishonest men. – Solon
Dr. Hugh W. Nibley, commenting on Solon’s proclamation, said:
It is the perennial story: “Ye yourselves raised these men to power over you, and have reduced yourselves by this course to a wretched state of servitude. Individually, you are a lot of sly foxes, but collectively, you are a set of simpletons. For ye look to the tongue and the play of a man’s speech and ignore the deed which is done before your very eyes.”( Ivan M. Linforth, Solon the Athenian (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1919), 140-45. The trouble is that “no visible limit is set to wealth among men. Even now those among us who have the largest fortune are striving with redoubled energy.” Then Solon… strikes a familiar note: “Wealth comes to mortals by the gifts of the gods. But out of it comes madness, which leads to destruction when Zeus sends this madness as a punishment to men.
Thus we see liberals decrying the greed of capitalism while they hoard their cash, like Obama, refusing to come to the aid of their brothers in need. Thus we see the Hollywood set wallowing in their wealth and seeking to curry favor with the powerful in society by promoting socialism while, like Obama, refusing the share of the abundance with the truly downtrodden among us.
The economist Daniel Yergin, writing about the problem of poverty in society said this:
There is an increasing doubt [among economists] that anything at all can be done about anything; . . . if that wisdom is correct, then any “solutions” to poverty become far more difficult and painful; they cannot be financed out of a growth dividend, but only by redistributing what others already have, in turn creating massive social unrest [most utopians did that merely by suggesting such a move]. Before the 1974-1975 minidepression, all financial poverty could have been eliminated at a modest shift of $10-15 billion to the poor from the rest of the community. 15 billion is less than 1.5% of the GNP, about the size of one of the cheaper weapons systems.
Once again, we turn to Nibley – “Our society has gone out of the way not to do what could be done to solve the problem. Why? A community which can at tolerable expense eliminate human distress but refrains from doing so either must believe that it benefits from unemployment or poverty, or that the poor and unemployed are bad people, or that other more important values will be impaired by attempts to help the lower orders—or all of these statements.”
This is an incredible statement by Nibley. Read it again, carefully. Nibley maintains that our society, i.e., our legislators, have chosen not to solve the problem of poverty. Why? It is simple really. The liberal Democrats know that by purposely creating and enlarging a populace totally dependent on government entitlement programs they ensure their own continual political power. Think about it! The Democrats have purposely allowed poverty to expand in the United States simply in order to ensure that they remain in power! It is inconceivable, at best. The scope of the evil is unfathomable. Obama’s 2008 campaign slogan is a lie. The Democrats have no intention of allowing us to hope for change – for change would eliminate the need for Democratic control of society.
No other civilization has permitted the calculus of self-interest so to dominate its culture,” writes the eminent economist and historian Robert L. Heilbroner. “It has transmogrified greed and philistinism into social virtues, and subordinated all values to commercial values.” [See Leonard Silk’s New York Times book review of Robert L. Heilbroner, Business Civilization in Decline (New York: Norton, 1976 )] This is exactly what Thomas More said: “What has heretofore passed as unjust,.. they have turned upside down, and in fact proclaimed it publicly and by law to be nothing less than justice itself.”[Sir Thomas More, Utopia, 1:25] And that is exactly what Ivan Boesky proclaimed when he recently commended “healthy greed” as a high virtue to a college audience. [Mariann Caprino, “Healthy Greed Was Boesky’s Undoing,” reported in Salt Lake Tribune (20 November 1986): D9.] The complete inversion of the utopian ideal is reached when success itself becomes synonymous with money. And what is the end result? The old familiar pictures. A citizen of New York writes,
You have to be on the alert constantly to sense when somebody nearby is out of place, waiting, looking, ready to pounce. You have to clutch your handbag up close, ready to fight for it should that become necessary. You have to put three locks on your door, plus a burglarproof chain. You have to avoid the subways, night or day, and don’t smile at strangers on the bus. [Carolyn Lewis, “The Beasts in the Jungle,” Newsweek (19 January 1981): 8.]
Nibley conducted a great deal of research into the study of ancient utopias, Greek, Christian, Hebrew, Roman, and Coptic, etc. Read his conclusions, below, regarding the common elements found in those ancients who sought out utopia:
Here is what all the great utopians have in common:
- They were not losers with axes to grind but the most successful and respected men of their times.
- They were preeminently practical men of the world, with far more experience in leadership and organization than their critics.
- All attempted to implement the setting up of societies that they believed had existed among men in the past and would again in the future.
- Whether Jew, heathen, or Christian, all thought of their utopias as religious societies, and they preached both religious tolerance and the cultivation of faith.
- Yet all, in spite of all the great esteem in which they and their works were held, were persecuted by the powers that be, and few escaped violent death.
- All suffered disillusionment in their own day; their communities were either violently destroyed or went underground.
- They taught that the object of life was joy, and none of them either displayed or recommended stern puritanical judgments. Their utopias were… easygoing.
- The advantage of technology and its possibilities for bettering the human condition were first fully realized by the utopians.
- They all realized that joy is to be found only in the active mind—the glory of man is intelligence, and knowledge is the stuff on which the mind feeds.
- Science, art, scholarship, philosophy, literature were all cultivated together as the principal activity of the citizens. There is quite enough there to keep us all busy even without the urgent imperative of getting lunch. It is because of this that what appears to us as a disturbing uniformity in dress, housing, and so on, presents no problem but rather removes obstacles to the proper studies of mankind.
- The joy derived from the senses—beautiful surroundings and impressions—and from the vigorous exercise of our physical as well as our mental faculties is never neglected.
- Goods of “secondary intent” (Campanella uses the expression)—clothing, housing, food, medicaments, transportation, etc.—are essential to assist in carrying on the more serious work of the mind and body, but they never become primary, in other words, their own excuse for being, as is the case with us, where to make and market such goods fulfills the measure of one’s existence.
- Money and private property are the insuperable obstacles to the achievement of utopia. The two are inseparable because the idea that there is no limit to what money can represent is necessary to implement the equally outrageous idea that there is no limit to what an individual can own. The relationship is succinctly stated in a formula propounded by one of awesome authority in the very beginning, in the first utopia, where he cast the long, dark shadow ahead with those ominous words: “You can have anything in this world for money.”
Were all of these shrewd, experienced, and concerned observers being simplistic in unanimously tracing the root of all evil to money? Well, make a list of some of those evils that today as never before threaten the whole world with dissolution—drugs; pornography; terrorism; nuclear armaments; fraud; corruption; soldiers of fortune; corporate outrages; opportunistic preachers; pollution of air, water, food, and information; acid rain; extinction of species; and so on. Which of these does not have big money as the driving force behind it? The drive for power and gain is the soil in which they all flourish.
Reading Nibley’s works in-depth show that he is not against private ownership of property. What he is against is people accumulating more than what they need – thereby depriving the poor of what “they” need. What Nibley rails against is greed – a subject that goes to the very core of what Obama is about.
No society will ever solve the problem of poverty through government entitlement programs. The solution cannot be forced upon us by Obama’s dictatorial edict of the redistribution of wealth. The solution is a voluntary one. The solution must include teaching the poor how to become self-reliant. The solution must teach the self-reliant how to care for their families. The solution must teach those who care for their families to voluntarily reach out and extend helping hands to the down and out. The solution must be run with integrity, without guile, and without greediness.
Utopia cannot be achieved through the forced distribution of wealth. The answer lies in voluntary acts of love and mercy, tempered with the realization that man is meant to work for what he receives. This preserves the dignity of the poor and shows them the way to work towards becoming self-reliant. Men are meant to stand independent and strong.
By work we sustain and enrich life. It enables us to survive the disappointments and tragedies of the mortal experience. Hard-earned achievement brings a sense of self-worth. Work builds and refines character, creates beauty, and is the instrument of our service to one another and to God. A consecrated life is filled with work, sometimes repetitive, sometimes menial, sometimes unappreciated but always work that improves, orders, sustains, lifts, ministers, aspires. – D. Todd Christofferson
We will only solve the problem of poverty through the proper application of conservative principles. Liberalism only exacerbates the problem. Conservatism solves it. By consecrating our lives in service to our fellow men – lifting them up, comforting them, and teaching them to become self-reliant, we can solve the problem of poverty. This is why the election of 2012 is so important. Do we choose a continuation of the degrading communistic policies of Obama and the rest of the progressives, or do we choose to free ourselves from bondage and once free, extend our hands in kindness and lift the weary, downtrodden, and poor among us. The choice is ours. And we will live with the consequences of our national decision next year.
Leaders that value self determination and independence are denigrated by those who idolize the memory of a former president who said “Ask not what your country can do for you”—and then lowered taxes. John F. Kennedy allowed people more freedom and control over their lives, which conflicts with grandiose notions of governmental entitlement. He certainly knew that helping those in need is a high moral endeavor, but “helping” men become dependent debases and destroys them. Sophisticates who adhere to modern social-justice belief systems (the social-justice sophisticates) strive to make whole populations succumb to such “help”, by whatever means necessary. Our current president declares the constitution to be fundamentally flawed because it does not dictate what the government must do for you. The insidious effect of such a culture of dependence includes suffering that spans generations. Look to your children; will you tolerate such “help” being forced upon them?
In a televised interview democrat Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York observed that many of us believed that the socioeconomic system of the Soviet Union is the way of the future—right up to its fall. He had earlier been criticized from both major parties and academia for declaring Soviet decline and likely collapse. After Soviet collapse, devotees to social-justice belief systems (the social justice acolytes) were in disarray. Years later it became increasingly clear that China would not follow suit, so it again became possible to proselytize social-justice belief systems in the US. While China retains a totalitarian government and its economy works, this successful version of China has more in common with fascism than western notions of social justice or communism. Young Chinese compete as they grow and a child who falls short becomes a child left behind. Such vigorous competition adds to the prosperity of China and all Chinese, but the Chinese are neither free nor social-justice acolytes. Senator Moynihan did not live to see the recent ascendency of social-justice belief systems, but as a sociologist and public official he ascribed Soviet failure to its economic and social systems and reminded everyone that he predicted collapse. Despite predictable failure, social-justice belief systems promote financial dependence of whole populations on governments. This must be recognized as a direct attack on prosperity as well as freedom.
By promotion of governmental dependence and other means our American prosperity is under attack, and our freedom hangs in the balance. Even though many consider prosperity unimportant or even inherently undesirable, on our present course we will accept tyranny and suffering in hopes of regaining it. Growing numbers of Americans seek to forestall this suffering by removing those who threaten prosperity and freedom from positions of power and influence in all areas of society, which is increasingly seen as the only means by which to halt progressive use of the state to impose destructive beliefs on us all. These state belief systems directly assault prosperity and promote the deterioration of our system of rules, decimating it and ultimately destroying it. Threats to American security and freedom demand universal attention to prosperity; with our eye on the prosperity imperative we can neutralize missionaries of state belief systems found in our schools and other public venues, especially the social-justice sophisticates. At the ballet box and on juries, we must demand rational promotion of the public welfare, including a willingness to create and apply rules without notions of situational ethics, relative truth, and moral relativism that make those rules ineffective or worse. We may avoid the experience of many millions in diverse societies, including the sad experience of facing our own children as they plead to understand how we could have had so much and left them so little. If we strive to remove social-justice sophisticates and other sophisticates from positions of power and influence, we may meet this challenge, and America may remain a prosperous land of the free.
The desirability of prosperity was formerly unquestioned, but today prosperity is openly condemned together with free markets and capitalism, which are collectively credited with ills both real and imagined. Open attacks occur in numerous forums including our public schools, and are obvious because they are direct. Proxy targets like global warming are taken up in determined but less direct attacks; these antagonists of prosperity find it merely inconvenient that considerable carbon science is a mirage. Fraudulent though they may be, proxy target attacks unavoidably inspire true believers who introduce unintended economic and political consequences; for example, nuclear energy would reduce carbon emissions and thus interest those who honestly believe the carbon “science”, but solutions that might actually produce energy economically and promote prosperity run counter to the anti-prosperity crowd who created the proxy targets.
However convoluted, cloaked, or supported by political power the assaults on prosperity may be, in theory they ultimately must fail and so are destined for well populated trash heaps. Markets and economies press forward organically by independent actions of individuals. After the Soviet political collapse, Chinese and later Russian prevailing wisdom embraced key market tenants; notably, only market societies reliably compete with market societies. China emerged after many generations of economic obscurity with a functioning market. In contrast, the West’s reaction to the Soviet collapse includes notions of a new world order where competitive and market-based societies are not an issue because they are simply not allowed. So while China has evolved to embrace market competition, considerable intellectual energy of the formerly prosperous and competitive West is engaged in denying those principles. Social-Justice belief systems are central to such deteriorating thought.
Ongoing economic leveling between EU nations encourages and manifests western visions of equal outcomes and unequal opportunity, for it is impossible to provide equal outcomes without holding many individuals and the society collectively back. Entire nations demand equalization in the EU as necessary to meet some loosely defined requirement for fairness or social justice. Support exists for forced leveling at granularities of nations, races, regions, individuals, and every other conceivable division. Promoters promise leveling to all possible divisions, so adherents are expected to simultaneously deliver on all of them. According to the theory, lower rungs are raised to the benefit of all, but outcomes fall short of the vision. The Chinese may view the rise of these notions in the West as curiosities or problems; but from experience they know that the problems are mainly ours, just as their former unsuccessful principles and plans for markets were mainly theirs. While Chinese were starving by the millions, Americans lived in a competitive, vibrant society—the situation is reversing.
In social-justice economic systems someone else pays—another country, class, race, region, etc.—but ever and always someone else. When there is no one else who can be made to pay or who can pay, then desperation and despair typically lead through generations of suffering to eventual rejection of social-justice belief systems and a renewed reach for prosperity. According to the old theory, an economy based on social-justice belief systems will increase productivity as a natural consequence of removing unfairness, and greater prosperity for all inevitably follows. Thus formerly, the adherents to social-justice belief systems could have been said to honestly differ with non-believers about how to achieve the greatest prosperity.
Though not always sophisticates, devotees to social-justice belief systems (the social-justice acolytes) sacrifice prosperity imperatives in favor of political nirvana (i.e., a blissful oblivion that results from government-enforced “social justice”) that has no possibility of prosperity as we have known it. According to this new belief system, the fall of the Soviet Union was not inevitable because countries like the United States at the time of the fall are simply not allowed. When social-justice acolytes say that they want prosperity, they mean that they want it in the same form as the Soviet Union, and not as we have known it. The past prosperity of America is undesirable and to be actively prevented. Unlike its predecessor, this new belief system avoids honest exposure of its intentions regarding prosperity. A major means of subterfuge is to masquerade as its predecessor unaltered. Many social-justice acolytes thus do not recognize that increased prosperity has been thrown under the bus.
But those sufficiently aware and honest with themselves have been forced by collective human experience to reexamine such beliefs; the social-justice belief systems and adherent states have resulted in untold millions of deaths from starvation, and millions more from mass killings of non-believers. A social-justice belief system spreads using any “necessary” means, and non-believers are assimilated or eradicated; this is the only way that adherents can bring about their nirvana. Nevertheless, honest assessment of the data demands rejecting expectations of higher prosperity in a social-justice belief system. In contrast to other belief systems, the new and old social-justice belief systems demand nirvana here and now. In order to retain their notions of political nirvana, remaining adherents to social-justice belief systems have overtly or covertly, wittingly or unwittingly, dropped prosperity imperatives. They demand that others to do the same. Many are more than willing to impose their social-justice belief system on the masses with full knowledge and expectation of its destructive effects on prosperity.
This contradiction between the true and purported goals dampens efforts to find and interest new adherents. However, the ability of belief systems to engender contradictions in the minds of men is historically unbounded. Fuzzy philosophical notions like situational ethics, moral relativism, and “relative truth” have rescued social-justice believers from considerations of absolute truth and overwhelming evidence against the workability of social-justice belief systems; so many have dumped the notion that absolute truth exists. These fuzzy ideas had already come a long way when President Clinton’s widely followed legal defense managed to redefine the most common two-letter verb (“is”). Adherents to these ideas form a creed that denies its own existence and eschews labels. We call adherents to this creed the sophisticates since they self-declare their personal sophistication and that of their ideas. Many of those who are today members of the so-called “ruling class” are sophisticates.
Evolution of social-justice belief systems from ones promoting prosperity to ones that renounce truth is not too surprising; from long human experience we know that sane notions of truth are often sacrificed to retain otherwise unsupportable beliefs. Many social-justice acolytes became adherents to the largest sophisticate sect today, the Social-Justice Sophisticates, who are now at the core of a pervasive and aggressive state-promoted belief system. This sect avoids “separation of church and state” issues by shunning something as basic as a name while at the same time existing within state organs. It seeks to in fact control the state and in some important ways it becomes the state. Its meeting houses are the state organs and necessary societal institutions, which includes universities, media organizations, primary and secondary schools, state and national governmental bodies, and both political parties. Heresy against this state belief system is punished relentlessly; there are no heathens—only heretics.
The social-justice sophisticates have become self-absorbed and drunk with power. Not only do they use state property to promote their belief system, they use state power directly and openly to suppress non-believers. They have proposed that government operatives secretly infiltrate and influence groups who do not share their belief system. Incredibly, one of their assigned tasks is to pose as group members and put forth notions that the social-justice sophisticates are not engaged in conspiracies! Success of that activity incongruously requires convincing the populace that the infiltration activity itself does not exist.
Societies can be unaware that they hamper or destroy prosperity. There were no prosperity haters to welcome the Great Depression, yet through ignorance prosperity was lost and the depression perpetuated. Only global war restored it. While individuals who strive are found in all times and cultures, conditions necessary for general prosperity are often absent. However prosperity is achieved, it requires societal stability in which governments play an important role. Some believe that America’s past prosperity is a consequence of self-governance and rule of law, but whether or not self-governance and the rule of law are present, prosperity is hampered without general responsibility and reliable accountability based on rational rules. Unfortunately, rules ensure neither economic freedom nor prosperity; at times they are no more than window dressing over seething corruption. Direct and proxy attacks in concert with the acts of elected social-justice acolytes have considerable negative effects on prosperity, but until recently these effects have paled when compared with effects of a continuing breakdown in rational rule-based accountability. Direct attacks on prosperity, including the social-justice attacks, are easier to recognize than those that proceed from the spread of situational ethics, relative truth, and moral relativism, which contributes to making our rules ineffective and thereby profoundly decimates prosperity. The rules have become so ineffective that it has even become necessary to justify notions that rules are central to prosperity.
As America proceeds in its decline into debt and corruption, which no sane nation should want to duplicate, Americans persist in lecturing China and others on how to prosper through the rule of law. Yet we assault prosperity through disdain for our rules and so hasten our decline, precisely as the theory we externally tout predicts.
When we enforce rules it is generally untimely; few ascribe the old dictionary meaning of “justice” to what now happens in our law enforcement and court systems. As a society we have become progressively uninterested in effective rules and accountability. Lack of interest notwithstanding, the speed, integrity, and surety of accountability can either encourage or discourage rule breaking. Today, at all levels, rule breaking is tolerated and insidiously encouraged, which correlates with breakdowns in our societal drive toward prosperity. Breakdown of the rules will ultimately lead to tyranny, which may be momentarily necessary to restore a semblance of order and productivity. While tyranny has its own negative effects on prosperity, it does not always destroy prosperity immediately, which is one reason we will accept it. However, if we accept tyranny from the social-justice acolytes, then we will have ruthless application of rules and neither freedom nor prosperity. By long experience the human race knows that such tyranny and suffering can last for generations.
Societal rules are subject to sophisticate thinking in courtrooms, classrooms, and street-corner discussions. To support sophisticate views, sophisticate guardians of the rules may break them by improperly launching investigations, audits, or writing improper indictments and rulings; they may also improperly fail to do those things. Action is all to the good if it promotes a sophisticate sect. Many sophisticates feel that ordinary honest folk ought to fail—after all they believe naïve, self-defeating, and unsophisticated things. Sophisticate acts are rarely presented with their honest motivations—that would be unsophisticated. Instead they may make straightforward assertions that proper procedures were followed, thereby justifying injustice. At such times sophisticates typically promote illusions that they defend process or tradition, and that they have merely applied procedural rules with worshipful rigidity, which is precisely opposite to what they actually do. When necessary they write sophisticate derivations built upon earlier sophisticate derivations, with no ultimate foundation, which might amuse if the effects did not wound the common wellbeing so grievously. They appear unaware of the naïveté that their audience sees in them when they point to America as they advise a country like China on prosperity by rule of law.
Our increasing disregard for rules forced its way into the public consciousness during the Bush era, when rule breaking and its consequences bruised America’s self-image. We see in our American president a reflection of our own condition, but with Bush II it was more; he is widely quoted and alleged to have said that the constitution “is only a piece of paper”. America hoped that change at the head of the fish might begin a new era, so President Obama was elected. We had been disappointed before, but this time we had a new president unsullied by compromise with evil forces. Our euphoria supported collective visions of glorious transformation. Mere anticipation of withering rot and corruption was for those too cautiously optimistic. The planet itself was in rapture and the human race barely noticed when appointees to high office were tax-cheats and participants in public failure. Then, not to be outdone by the previous administration’s disdain for the constitution, our new guardians assert that reading and reciting the constitution presents a danger to the republic.
Sophisticate candidates are not obliged to inform—the citizenry showers votes in exchange for inaccurate and accurate campaign promises alike. While making promises is important, keeping them is not so important because voters are intellectually inferior and incompetent—i.e. not sophisticates. Accordingly, Bush I raised taxes; his promises to the contrary are only of concern to the foolish. Bush II created “no child left behind”, a ridiculous program without resemblance to campaign promises, and scattered the public coffers like rain over even less worthy notions. The Bush family presidents know that campaign promises matter—during the campaign. President Obama in turn promised many contradictory things. Within weeks of the election almost no one publicly risked sophisticate ridicule by recalling them. While it would have seemed impossible, Obama appears less accurately described by his campaign promises than the Bush presidents. How can an electorate express their will if they cannot know what the candidates honestly intend to do? To sophisticates this is precisely the point, the electorate is not supposed to express its will; it is more than enough that they vote.
Each dawn brings new awareness that the Bush era hastened our decline most by unfortunate effects on our choice of its replacement. The newly elected or appointed may be more disinterested, cynical, incompetent, or corrupt than their predecessors. Rot at the head of the fish is increasingly perceived, and erosion of support steeper than anyone remembers.
Political and economic wisdom are not the only casualties; the creed with no name has spread to science. When evidence of corruption and general rule-breaking by carbon science researchers in England was made public, the messenger was scorned while sophisticate scientists were justified by peer, politician, and reporter alike. The non-event status that the media assigned to such rule-breaking belies impressions that it was unexpected. Instead, bringers of truth are made to fear—an unbreakable rule of the unnamed creed is that their own rule breaking is not to be exposed. Participation in rule-breaking is demanded of scientists, who generally depend on sophisticate-controlled government support. While non-participation in the sophisticate creed may be naïve, some scientists surely are nostalgic for former notions of scientific truth. They may long for a colleague with stature who risks everything to expose this corruption, perhaps a modern Galileo. But they know that he would be and perhaps already has been silenced by sophisticates. Social-justice sophisticates are more thorough and wide ranging suppressors of truth than the Pope of Galileo’s time could have imagined. Scientific integrity is now a public illusion, truth relative, and ethically situational; scientists have become masters of long-standing sophisticate staples: disappearing evidence and “I don’t recall”. To observers of this scientific farce, it has become conceivable that truth-speaking will not be protected in America, not even officially, for scientists or anyone else.
Overt Acorn-style rule-breaking is also expected by the media. These elected, appointed, and self-appointed guardians of the public welfare are more likely to persecute a messenger than demand accountability. In this sophisticate situational ethic, evidence of repeated conspiracy to finance importation of underage Latina girls for sexual exploitation warrants no prosecution and only passing scrutiny. In the sophisticate creed, this rule-breaking also is justified as part of the broad promotion of a “greater good”. Nevertheless, public exposure offends sophisticate sensibilities, and that is what must be discouraged in the most unambiguous manner.
Attacks on prosperity introduced earlier were categorized as direct, proxy, social-justice, and sophisticate. There are many in positions of power and influence that engage vigorously in all four; i.e. it is common for social-justice sophisticates to engage in direct and proxy attacks as well. Such persons often hold professorial positions at universities, positions as judges, and other positions as elected or appointed officials. Seemingly single-issue promoters such as Al Gore actually engage in all four categories of attack. The most subtle of these forms of attack, and the most damaging in the U.S. (at least until fairly recently), are the sophisticate attacks that undermine our system of rules.
Sophisticate speeches, lectures, and publications laud the dependency of prosperity on a system of rules. Making more rules is a fundamental tenant of the sophisticate creed, which means that existing rules must be defective and violated. Thus sophisticates become hypocrites, making rules ineffective, then lauding and taking credit for new rules as they are made. They propose ever more rules, often to remedy defects seen only by sophisticates and expounded in esoteric theories. The sophisticate more-rules imperative entails perpetual exercises in inadequacy of rules; in this way sophisticates insist that there are no viable solutions, just ever and always more rules. Indecipherable piles of rules have proven inadequate to satisfy sophisticate imperatives. Those who make rules now propose individual rules described in thousands of pages, and reading just one rule is unwanted and perhaps unrealistic. Even the sophisticate rule makers do not read them. It is no coincidence that elected officials declare citizens who read or recite the constitution to be clear and present dangers to the republic.
So instead of reading and understanding rules, citizens are expected to leave complicated matters like rules, including the constitution itself, to sophisticates. But understanding rules, as the public understands the meaning of “understanding”, is not what sophisticates do. It is not even intended that there should be substantial understanding—it is subject to relativism and changes from one sophisticate theory to the next. The public may indeed be collectively incapable of a sophisticate grasp of reality—after all they generally aren’t sophisticated enough to realize that attempts to fathom the rules are naïve. Such sophistication may be a delusion created by intelligent but nevertheless unsound minds, and shared with others similarly limited. Thus there may be nothing overtly difficult about sophisticate thought that actually requires understanding. It is nevertheless important to understand the direct cost of ever increasing numbers of sophisticate attendants required by ever increasing piles of indecipherable rules.
It is difficult to imagine a greater danger to rule-of-law notions than the sophisticates, and the evidence is almost everywhere; we have discussed their general disdain for the rules, and there is a seemingly endless parade of egregious examples. They include:
- As part of the recent “financial reform” and financial “transparency” act, the SEC is no longer subject to public disclosure requirements, i.e. the Freedom of Information Act.
- California grossly miscalculated pollution levels by 340 percent in a “scientific” analysis used to toughen the state’s clean-air standards. When caught, the Air Resources Board blamed the difference on the economic slump!
- Fraudulent carbon science is being used as the basis of innumerable rules and regulations.
- The New Black Panther party, its leader, and two of its members were successfully accused of voter intimidation, a charge that they did not even attempt to defend, but the DoJ dropped the case before sentencing. Naturally, the attorneys who found the intimidation criminal have been attacked as biased.
- The Acorn conspiracies and subsequent non-enforcement of rules became an issue because they generated bad public relations, never mind that what was done is wrong.
These examples amongst many illustrate just how far we have come in this sophisticate-led disconnect from reality. Considerable damage is done when rules specifically meant to promote prosperity go unenforced, and so are made ineffective or worse. Some rules promote the general economic welfare by limiting economic behavior detrimental to prosperity. These rules have become largely ineffective by sophisticate design.
Rules protecting intellectual property, suppressing monopolistic practices, and enforcing contracts are intended to promote prosperity directly. These rules promote the economy in part by encouraging and protecting innovation-driven progress, a key component of American prosperity. Monopolies by nature tend to suppress innovation; they typically ignore intellectual property rights and intimidate parties to contracts that they do not and may never have intended to keep. Innovators with a “new thing” are routinely asked by investors how their business will survive market attacks by an interested monopoly, and the attack is presumed to use the full power of the monopoly—rules notwithstanding. Innovations whose inventors have no ready answer may not come to market. Innovations that never occurred go entirely unknown. Their potential markets lie in that part of the economy subject to the monopoly’s control, i.e. in the monopoly’s kill-zone where their economic nukes work. A monopoly’s kill-zone is studiously avoided by many investors and hence innovators. A monopoly’s nukes may include intellectual property acquisition-by-infringement, redesigning their products to make others’ innovations unusable, intimidation of those who might do business with targeted innovators, combinations of the above, and similar business practices. Monopolies can and do economically nuke what annoys them in their kill-zone, even though such practices are nominally against the rules.
Monopolies often need not innovate. Their inside talent is frequently competent to copy, but even copying is often unnecessary unless a would-be competitor has the temerity to put himself in the kill-zone. The desired effect is often achieved for a particular innovation without overtly improper acts—having nuked others with impunity may be enough to intimidate and achieve cheap acquisition of intellectual assets. For a monopoly, knowing when and how to nuke depends on accurate understanding of market dynamics and a target’s resources, especially its revenue sources. They must also recognize the boundaries of their kill-zones, the areas within which their nukes will work. While a monopoly may misjudge such things, it has the power of its monopoly to extract excessive prices from the public and with those resources attack competitors again and again.
This leads us to a major example of rule ineffectiveness—the endlessly farcical Microsoft antitrust case. It ought to be a cause célèbre of social-justice acolytes; but those in power are also sophisticates—who apparently see neither personal nor sophisticate sect gains from factual pursuits of justice. The US Attorney General and his lieutenants know the Microsoft case well; they created it during the Clinton administration. But now it has done its work: sophisticates have made millions in fees and salaries and now it becomes just another case of failed rules, and perhaps evidence that we need new rules. Microsoft lost the case, yet their operating profit margins have increased, their revenues have more than doubled, and their overall profit margins have remained the same since 2003. While Apple now has revenue almost equal to Microsoft, Microsoft’s profits are almost equal to those of Apple and Google combined.
Nevertheless, the court sanctioned judgment in the case has almost run its course, and a central question before the court is whether Microsoft has complied—as they agreed to do several years ago. A naïve observer might assume that the court records would answer that question, but the court records instead contain nebulous weaseling statements that surround the phrase “substantially complete”, and redefine it as meaningless. There is also an agreement with the US Department of Justice (DoJ) that the oversight will shut down if Microsoft deals with some known bugs in its documents. To help them in that effort, the DoJ, the New York/Maryland group, and the California group of states have agreed that the oversight committee will conveniently stop adding bugs to the statistics on January 1, 2011. Who does not instinctively understand that the poorest products have the largest numbers of bugs? Given the absurdity of a bugs-fixed measure, why the DoJ doesn’t just cook nice statistics for the court is an obvious question—but then again perhaps they have done so.
Whatever the mechanism is for generating irrelevant but pretty bug statistics for the court, Microsoft has these many years missed golden marketing opportunities. If a federal judge will buy the fixed-bugs story, then Microsoft could honestly have advertised that they fixed more bugs in Vista than any would-be competitor had imagined, and doubled their market share by sucking in the judicial system. Less sophisticated consumers are purportedly even more susceptible to technical gobbledygook than Federal Judges. Microsoft may have infected the plaintiffs and the Court with the idea that they are done because it is time to be done; i.e. they outlasted the government. The plaintiffs may be tired of fighting Microsoft over their documents, since the executive and judicial branches of government together are apparently incapable of actually enforcing much against so powerful a corporation. Instead they create the kind of scenario that the judge requires to finally end this unseemly display of governmental impotence and farcical enforcement.
Easily snookered though the court may be, the sitting administration ought to have desired social-justice at least insofar as the facts and the rules support it; instead, its sophisticate imperatives trump any need for facts and rules based outcomes, even where a final judgment is already in place and where social-justice sits on the balance. If in-power social-justice acolytes cannot factually pursue a healthy capitalist monopoly that already lost its case, then who can rationally depend on them for anything?
This case raises the question of whether the present administration actually comprises social-justice acolytes. Perhaps, despite ubiquitous and continuous press to the contrary, they are mainly sophisticate opportunists seeking only increased power and control over our lives—like any other kind of sophisticate might do. Whatever labels accurately apply to the administration, the various sophisticate sects have destroyed notions that the electorate has reasonable expectations of their representatives. With sophisticates everywhere, no candidate of any stripe can be relied upon to apply the rules as written based on the facts. Notions of rule-of-law require that some of us factually apply the rules; who does that now?
The Clinton administration pursued the Microsoft monopoly, and the antitrust chief first appointed in the Obama administration stated that the new administration would aggressively pursue antitrust cases. But that did not happen. Application of antitrust law is now effectively suppressed regardless of the party in power. Sophisticates per-se have no interest in actual rule-of-law, which may explain the lack of interest during the Bush administration. Nevertheless, in hindsight we now know that the Obama administration is less likely than its predecessor to adhere to rule-of-law, including anti-trust law. Something changed between the Clinton administration and the Obama administration. The idea of incrementally transforming the United States to a social-justice economy appears to have been dropped. Incremental movement requires that things work along-the-way with some consistency. Today, the idea of future catastrophic failure and a single transforming event appears more in keeping with the Obama view of things. Actually fixing something with existing rules, i.e. making things work, does not fit with that idea.
Because there were only sophisticates running for office, including a social-justice sophisticate, it turns out that there was no one to vote for who would have taken a rule-of-law approach to the presidency. In his most recent book; Newt Gingrich declares that democrats are more likely to be in bed with anticompetitive corporate interests than are republicans—perhaps he is spot-on. On the other hand, perhaps Microsoft and corporate monopolies in general are merely off the hook for now while the social-justice sophisticates wait for their big opportunity in an expected economic collapse—hopefully a long wait. Multiple unworthy motivations are possible so the question arises; precisely how is it that the New York/Maryland and California groups of states have gone along with the DoJ in the Microsoft case? This should be asked of their Attorneys General.
Now underway for half as long as the Exxon Valdez case, the Microsoft antitrust case joins a menagerie of other “endlessly interesting” and “important” examples of our rules in action. By causing “important” cases to become “endlessly interesting” sophisticates make rules ineffective and promote the “need” for more rules. Twenty three years after the Exxon Valdez oil spill many victims are deceased; the remainder still await relief for damage to their lives and livelihoods. American imperatives for personal justice make this outcome unconscionable and people who justify it loathsome. Proposals for more rules do not always wait for “endless” characteristics to set in. A “crisis” allows sophisticates to short-circuit the slower process; for example, they immediately began proposing new rules after the BP oil leak. Enforcement of existing rules is never the answer to sophisticates, it is ever and always more rules that are needed. Nevertheless, mistakes are made; they seemed surreal and even comical when filing lawsuits appeared to be our national plan for plugging the Gulf oil leak. Louisiana and other states needed effective action by accomplished people who are grounded in truth and reality. Preventing the leak in the first place may have been achieved by honest application of myriad existing rules. But sophisticates need not apply rules, whether to Acorn, oil companies, Microsoft, Black Panthers, or anywhere. To them it just isn’t necessary or even desirable. Disconnected from reality, sophisticates whose primary skills are holding meetings, speaking in sound bites for the evening’s news, making rules “endlessly interesting” but otherwise ineffective, and generating proposals for ever more taxes, rules, and lawsuits are unqualified for office.
When against all odds an existing rule promotes prosperity and general welfare, and even the sophisticates find it difficult to relegate that rule to the “endlessly interesting” and “important” category, then they arrange to undo it. With congressional complicity, George Bush I effectively signed away the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings act of 1985 and 1987, which had provided executive power over federal deficits. It was that power specifically that many expected him to wield—but instead he signed it away and turned Gramm-Rudman into yet another failed rule. George Bush II wouldn’t have used that power willingly; he spent money like water. Obama wouldn’t have used it willingly; he is showing us just how green water can be. Bill Clinton wouldn’t have used it willingly; he wanted health care reform then as now, but having lost his first mid-term elections there was then no pressing need for Gramm-Rudman. All of these presidents claim to abhor deficit spending, but would not have wanted the power to stop deficits that George Bush I conveniently removed from consideration before the others took office. The last president to serve approximately as advertised was Ronald Reagan, who signed Gramm-Rudman into law, only to watch his successor and one-time VP drop the core concept. We have now had two presidents each from the two major parties since Ronald Reagan, who was the last non-sophisticate among them.
While sophisticates generally do not embrace freedom, democracy, and rule-of-law, prosperity at levels formerly enjoyed depends on economic and political freedom as well as rule-of-law and predictability of rule application. We may yet keep our freedom and prosperity, but the sophisticates must go.
We must halt the election, appointment, and promotion of sophisticates at all levels, or regardless of party we will have only sophisticates to choose from at the ballot box. With our children’s future and prosperity itself in the balance, we must remove sophisticates and especially social-justice sophisticates from elected and appointed positions across society. Nevertheless, by long experience we know that replacing one sophisticate with another accomplishes little. We must focus on the core of the problem and replace sophisticates with non-sophisticates—in whatever party and wherever they are found.