Back to Basics

Face-painting, bongos and drum circles in New York, on Wall-street, and now even on Main Street in many of America’s smaller cities. Is this a movement of outrage by average American citizens, or a modern Woodstock, where the nearest park is a microcosm of Yasgur’s farm in August of 1969? This is not to say that some people within the movement don’t have some legitimate complaints, but it is all too obvious that many of those participating in the protests have no coherent or unified theme motivating them. So many are just perpetually discontented and have jumped on the parade band wagon.

One should not entrust those who willfully pollute the park, with saving the planet. It also occurs to me that if I am unemployed, and need a job, it can only get more difficult to find one if I’m protesting and not actively pursuing employment. To me a rally is where you meet like-minded folk, have stirring speeches, make posters, but then pick up your trash and go home or out into society to influence others.

Of course some pundits hoping to legitimize this celebration of chaos, have quickly labelled the movement as a liberal cousin of the Tea Party. But that is clearly a slur to the Tea Party, since there are actually few similarities. For example, how many people were arrested in all the Tea Party rallies nation-wide over the past Two-and-a-half years? I find it amazing that we recently had an inquisition where detractors were inspecting Tea Party rallies with a fine tooth comb, looking for isolated incidences of racism or other objectionable elements. When in comes to coverage of the “Occupy” movement, there is more than ample evidence of bazaar and hateful perspectives. Yet these are ignored as isolated occurrences, while the media goes beyond the call of duty attempting to lionize and give a patina of credibility to the movement.

The whole concept of the “1% and 99%” is the latest symbol of contemporary urban mythology. Warren Buffet may be a billionaire, but he should know better than to make the ridiculous argument he did in favor of higher taxation. If Buffet and his rich cohorts want to contribute to the nation debt, they have every right and opportunity to do it voluntarily. So why doesn’t Buffet use his influence to promote that among those in his economic circles? If Buffet is paying a smaller percentage of taxes than his private secretary, it is only because he takes a small salary, and most of his income comes from capital gains. Capital gains are currently taxed at a lower rate because the returns come from money at risk in investments, not from salaries and wages. Most likely, much of Buffet’s personal wealth is in trust funds that he can control, but which is sheltered from taxation. There is nothing in the tax-rate schedule that would allow the rich to pay less on ordinary income. Perhaps this is an argument for an entirely new tax structure, which is being currently promoted by some conservatives.

In circles among conspiracy theorists, it was sometimes asserted that the Rockefeller’s were behind passage of the federal income tax nearly a century ago.

Recently the legislature in the state of Wisconsin passed a law requiring ID to vote, with certain specified exceptions. Many people have voiced their opinion opposing requiring voter identification. I have trouble understanding those objections.

Their primary objection is that potential voters will be disenfranchised because the requirement to furnish identification impacts certain people who may have trouble acquiring it. To buttress their position, they point out that statistically speaking, there have been only a small number of instances of prosecutable voter fraud here in Wisconsin.

The idea that identification requirement disenfranchises voters is a spiel that borders on absurdity. The objection is based on stereotypes. Why is this protest predominately coming from those who are ideologically left of center? Are there not elderly, disabled, economically challenged, or ethic minority voters, who are conservative voters as well?

Well, in answering a few of these questions, I have my own anecdotal experience to guide me. My own Mother is in her ‘80s, is totally disabled, is not wealthy, and has never driven a car. She has had identification as long as I can remember. She is a voter that has consistently voted for conservative candidates based on principle, yet falls into a socioeconomic category that is pigeonholed as the bastion of the liberal constituency. If my mother could get an ID under her circumstances, anyone can get it with advanced intentions. 30 years ago, I was a economically challenged young adult, but never was tempted to vote for a liberal political candidate. I have a feeling my experiences are not unique. If conservatives were hoping to marginalize certain potential voters, they would be cutting off some of their own as well. We can also look to other states that have similar election laws as Wisconsin, to see if there are actually prior problems with voter disenfranchisement.

The claim that voter fraud is uncommon is a red-herring. Simply because there are statistically few prosecutable cases is hardly an argument that nothing much is going on. When I was a youth, I constantly heard that shop-lifting was a serious problem, and that it was responsible for the increased price of merchandise at retail stores. Only a small number of shop-lifters were actually caught, so is that reason to assume the problem was being purposefully exaggerated?

A little over two years ago, my wife and I lost our home and all belongings in a devastating fire. When we rebuilt our home, we had to be very budget conscious because gaps in our insurance policy curtailed our settlement. Now, should we have declined placing locks on the doors to save money because none of the homes in our neighborhood was ever burglarized before? Or for that matter, why put a stop sign at an intersection where there has never been an accident? Suppose a company employs two workers, one of whom frequently calls in sick, and one who has never done so. It might be presumptuous to say that the first employee is abusing sick leave, but you would know for certain the second one was not.

There is no mention made of the deterrence effect the new laws will have on schemes that are difficult to prove. Take for example a typical quid pro quo—a gift or favor for a specific vote.

In light of the jubilant celebrations all over America, spawned by the announcement that Osama Bin Laden had been killed by Navy Seals, we have to assess the appropriateness of our reactions. It is certainly hard to deny that the carnival atmosphere following the announcement was anything short of the jubilation like that of the Munchkins after certifying the death of the Wicked Witch of the East.

The killing of Bin Laden means a variety of things to different people. For those who lost a loved one in the terrorist attacks on 9-11, or in the war theaters in the middle east, perhaps it represents closure of some sort. For others it may be a relief that an icon of terrorism has finally been vanquished. Some will say that what goes around, comes around, and Bin Laden’s demise is confirmation of that axiom. Finally, there is a group insisting that we were cowardly attacked on 9-11, and the killing of bin Laden was a watershed act of revenge. I suppose there are all sorts of shades of sentimentality that fall in between those characterizations.

For my own part, there was a sense of silent satisfaction, but little desire to celebrate. My temperance is hardly a function of standing on a higher moral plane, or exuding a greater civility than those who were more vocal and demonstrative in their celebrating. The biggest difference is that for me the death of Bin Laden is somewhat anti-climatic. Were Bin Laden found seven or eight years ago, it might have been a different story. Then too, some people might assume that because I do not support the president’s policies, I will not be enthusiastic toward anything that helps his sagging poll numbers.

I am not one of those “Holier than thou” contrarians who are trying to make people feel ashamed for their celebratory spirit. While calling on people to reflect on the appropriateness of their reactions is a worthy endeavor, it has become such an overworked exercise, that it is hard to believe all such requests are genuinely thoughtful dissent, and not an effort to garner publicity. Anti-celebratory dissent has become so common that it is the neo-conformist position.

Often, the Christian community, both from within and without, is admonished with the WWJD(what would Jesus do)standard. While this is appropriate for programming individual ethics, it is an absurd benchmark for adjudicating the activities of the state. This is because the state and the individual have different mandates. In the Bible, at the end of Romans chapter 12, we are told not to seek vengeance against those who have wronged us, because final judgment belongs to God. However, we are not left hanging, waiting for the day of reckoning for the enactment of temporal, remedial justice. For that reason, in the beginning of Romans 13, God has delegated derivative authority to the “higher powers,” namely the state.

1. Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

2. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

3.

The state of Wisconsin has suffered a meltdown. I am happy to report it was not a meltdown of their nuclear reactors such as Japan experienced after its recent catastrophic earthquake. It has instead been a meltdown in citizenship. A crisis whereby people have completely lost understanding of the constitutional role of government. An Orwellian Twilight Zone where the government has been transformed into a cow to be milked rather than a watchdog to be fed.

A quotation sometimes attributed to A.F. Tytler says it all “A democracy (And the U.S. was never founded as a democracy) cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury…”

People have certainly discovered the public trough. We see it in the way they have reacted to the budget crisis in this state, but the epidemic is hardly native. Everywhere, we have seen a deconstruction of the foundations of good government, into a morass parasitical dependency.

A fictional anecdote below which illustrates the ideal of informed constitutional citizenship, is taken from the book “The Life of Colonel David Crockett,” written by Edward Sylvester Ellis.

Many people are unaware that Davy Crockett served in Congress before his death at the Alamo in 1836. While he was in Washington, there was supposedly a fire in Georgetown, which he along with other Congressmen helped to put out. Afterward, Congress voted to designate money for those who had their homes destroyed. Crockett voted for the bill, but afterward when he was making the rounds for his re-election campaign, he was criticized by one of his constituents for using taxpayer money as charity. This person was a farmer named Horatio Bunce. Bunce then pointed out to Crockett that the U.S. Constitution never allowed Congress this prerogative. When Crocket later returned to Washington, he was soon confronted with another predicament not unlike the one mentioned above. It was a bill providing a stipend to a widow of a deceased naval officer. When Crockett was given the floor to speak he stated:

“Mr. Speaker, I have as much…sympathy as…any man in the House, but Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money….Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week’s pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks.” Edward S. Ellis, The life of Colonel David Crockett…(Philadelphia: Porter & Coates, 1884), pp. 138-39.

In mid-February, political turmoil crashed up on the shores of Lake Monona in Madison, Wisconsin and surged all the way to the capitol grounds. Last year, when protesters raised havoc in Greece over budgetary austerity measures, some pundits said the aftershock would soon be coming to America. But who would have thought it would have struck first in the middle of the heartland, and in the cradle of the progressive citadel?

The newly elected governor of Wisconsin, Scott Walker, has not only called on public employees to contribute to their pension and health insurance, but then proposed a bill to at least partially eliminate their privilege to collective bargaining.

Even as a conservative, I’ve never opposed unions or considered the need for opposition to collective bargaining.

When I first heard about this bold stroke, I presumed Walker had gone a political bridge too far. But, as I looked into the issue, I discovered some iconic labor advocates surprisingly opposed collective bargaining for public employees. As recently as the 1950′s, George Meany, a former president of the A.F.L.-C.I.O proffered his misgivings. F.D.R. himself struggled with the idea. Roosevelt was concerned that labor conflicts spawned by collective bargaining would lead to citizens hating their government. The point being made was that in the private sector, unions were bargaining against a private corporate entity, but in the government it was in opposition to the citizens as taxpayers themselves.

Well, as of this writing, Walker has gotten his bill passed.

It should also be observed that if losing collective bargaining privileges is perceived as extreme, Wisconsin has a civil service statute that still provides substantial rights and protections to state employees. This statute existed for more than a half-century before the legislature granted bargaining privileges.

Interestingly enough, the crisis began with Obama wanting to weigh in on the issue, but much of the talk stopped after certain news commentators pointed out that most federal workers don’t have collective bargaining rights. The suspension of collective bargaining was enacted by President Carter. In addition, Obama ordered a two year wage freeze on federal employees.

My immediate family is almost exclusively represented by vocations within state government. No doubt that will lead to interesting exchanges at family get-togethers. All my life I have been in blue collar occupations, so there is an emotional aversion to seeing any group of workers take a hit. But, it my own life I have not gone unscathed, as the economic realities of our times have resulted in a loss of income from my job that exceeds what most state employees will lose by being forced to pay more toward their benefits.

I sincerely doubt that most of us can hold a principled political position apparently in opposition to our vocations, and consequently, our perceived economic well-being. As a conservative voter I have always attempted not to allow job considerations to inordinately color my political perspectives, but such assertions of objectivity have their limitations and their costs.

For over two years, conservatives have been anticipating this moment, the first step to reinstall representatives in Congress which will hopefully put us back on the path toward limited government. While the characteristics that divide liberals from conservatives may be articulated on numerous fronts, the primary arguments are rooted in a fundamental disagreement over the proper role of the federal government or even government in general. Conservatives are actually “moderates” on a political spectrum that places tyranny on one end of the continuum, with anarchy at the opposite pole, with limited government as the middle ground.

Interestingly enough, political science taught from a liberal perspective uses a political or ideological spectrum that places communism on the left and fascism on the right. From there, it is a small rhetorical jump to falsely associate conservatism with fascism, while denying that progressivism is simply a watered down version of socialism. In reality there is little difference between the two polar extremes when measured by the standard of too much government control.

Conservative idealists point out that numerous activities of the government are illegitimate because there is no mandate for these functions under the U.S. Constitution. I long ago gave up on the idea that a bunch of self-interested politicians, even with a smattering of principled statesmen and constituents to hold their feet to the fire, will suddenly change policies, or defund programs that make a mockery of limited constitutional government. The best we can hope for is to stall growth of the government, and take baby steps back in the right direction.

One reason why this is so difficult is that once you get the public dependent on entitlements and wealth distribution schemes, it is almost impossible to wean them off the giveaways. It becomes nearly impossible to educate and motivate people to eschew programs which are perceived to be in their own self-interest. For every person too proud to accept government relief, 100 will elbow and shove each other to line up and receive it as a reckoned entitlement.

Liberals will insist that the correct role of the government is to assist people by means of wealth redistribution policies. They then try to place this under the “General Welfare” clause in the U.S. Constitution. Our Founders, Madison in particular, insisted that the correct understanding of this term was not that the federal government would be a charity of first resort, or the means of manufacturing equalized outcomes. Rather “General Welfare” is in contrast to specific welfare, whereby governmental policies were potentially designed to benefit all Americans, and the citizens of all states equally, rather than to benefit citizens of certain states or with special interests. It’s not a question of the federal government lacking compassion, but realizing that under the theory of federalism, the powers of the federal government were to be few and limited, whereas the powers of the states were to be many and more substantial.

For over two years, conservatives have been anticipating this moment, the first step to reinstall representatives in Congress which will hopefully put us back on the path toward limited government. While the characteristics that divide liberals from conservatives may be articulated on numerous fronts, the primary arguments are rooted in a fundamental disagreement over the proper role of the federal government or even government in general. Conservatives are actually “moderates” on a political spectrum that places tyranny on one end of the continuum, with anarchy at the opposite pole, with limited government as the middle ground.

Interestingly enough, political science taught from a liberal perspective uses a political or ideological spectrum that places communism on the left and fascism on the right. From there, it is a small rhetorical jump to falsely associate conservatism with fascism, while denying that progressivism is simply a watered down version of socialism. In reality there is little difference between the two polar extremes when measured by the standard of too much government control.

Conservative idealists point out that numerous activities of the government are illegitimate because there is no mandate for these functions under the U.S. Constitution. I long ago gave up on the idea that a bunch of self-interested politicians, even with a smattering of principled statesmen and constituents to hold their feet to the fire, will suddenly change policies, or defund programs that make a mockery of limited constitutional government. The best we can hope for is to stall growth of the government, and take baby steps back in the right direction.

One reason why this is so difficult is that once you get the public dependent on entitlements and wealth distribution schemes, it is almost impossible to wean them off the giveaways. It becomes nearly impossible to educate and motivate people to eschew programs which are perceived to be in their own self-interest. For every person too proud to accept government relief, 100 will elbow and shove each other to line up and receive it as a reckoned entitlement.

Liberals will insist that the correct role of the government is to assist people by means of wealth redistribution policies. They then try to place this under the “General Welfare” clause in the U.S. Constitution. Our Founders, Madison in particular, insisted that the correct understanding of this term was not that the federal government would be a charity of first resort, or the means of manufacturing equalized outcomes. Rather “General Welfare” is in contrast to specific welfare, whereby governmental policies were potentially designed to benefit all Americans, and the citizens of all states equally, rather than to benefit citizens of certain states or with special interests. It’s not a question of the federal government lacking compassion, but realizing that under the theory of federalism, the powers of the federal government were to be few and limited, whereas the powers of the states were to be many and more substantial.

As of this writing, it is difficult to speculate on whether or not the Democrats in Congress will pass the deal to maintain current tax rates, as agreed upon by Obama and Republican political leaders. If they fail to do so before the end of the year, the “Tax cuts for the rich,” will become tax increases for everyone. The people in the 10% tax bracket will find their taxes will increase by 50%, in order to spite the wealthy from getting a 10% increase.

The tax compromise proposal keeps tax rates for all Americans exactly where they have been for nearly a decade. It extends benefits for unemployment for an additional 13 months—a feather in the Democrats’ hats. It raises the estate tax from 0% to 35%, but keeps them from rising back to 55% as they were scheduled to do in 2011—chalk up one for the Republicans. I don’t know how anyone can complain about the payroll tax reduction of 2% in 2011. It will result in a full 2% refund of tax on wages and salary for the working poor and lower middle class. Nobody will be rebated more than about $1800 no matter how high their income.

Democrats in Congress have become indignant because they were cut out of the negotiations and because they think Obama unnecessarily gave away the farm. But the Democrats’ reputation as champions of the little guy is purely illusion. If they really wanted to maintain tax rates for the middle-class, that should have been a legislative priority long before crunch time.

Personally, I could live with this deal. As a middle-class American I would benefit from the payroll tax holiday. Out of principle I wouldn’t shed a tear if the proposal fell through though. I think it would be a disaster for the Democrats if they choose to die on this hill. When the average American sees their first pay check in January, reflect a decline in less take-home pay, they are going to ask how all this happened. The answer will be that Obama made a deal with Republicans that was nixed by Democrats. After the lame-duck session, it will be harder for Democrats to save face.

Let me tell you about my principles. I believe in limited government. That’s limited government, and neither anarchy nor a nanny state. As such, I think taxes are way too high. Tax structure has been used as a political football to perpetuate class warfare for far too long. Progressive income tax is a gift from Karl Marx. I prefer a flat tax rate, either on income or on consumption. We do not have a tax problem, we have a spending addiction. As such, no tax structure will be much of an improvement if the Congress continues its spendthrift ways. Tax reduction, or in this case, continuance of current rates, doesn’t “cost” anything or result in a deficit. The impression that keeping tax rates the same is a budget cost, assumes all the money belongs to the government to start with.

A recent editorial theme that is overworked among the soothsayers of conventional wisdom, is suggesting that newly elected conservatives have a short time to right the economic ship, or face the same expulsion many Democrats faced in the recent election.

In reality, they have no time at all, because hard leftists didn’t vote for them, nor will they in the next election regardless of the level of economic progress made in the next two years. These hard core voters are motivated strictly by ideology, not results, and as such, have a prefabricated template to justify their preferences without respect to what actually happens.

These folks manifest their sour grape juice because they believe that Obama wasn’t given enough time with a Democratic majority in Congress to achieve an economic turnaround. The republicans are the party of “No. They can’t imagine the real problem is that voters calculated Obama and the Democrats didn’t do the right things with the time they were given in the first place.

If the economy perks up in the next two years they will claim Obama’s policies are coming to fruition despite conservative obstructionism.

If the economy fares poorly it will be because of the gridlock invoked by the newly elected representatives against Obama’s policies.

Suppose, Heaven forbid, that Obama is re-elected because of effectual conservative policies, in the same fashion in which co-opting the Contract With America helped Clinton to re-election in 1996. If the economy again tails off afterward, they’ll say that even Obama can’t reverse 20 years of the Reagan-Bush-Bush complex in a mere two terms. The answer will be either to elect another liberal for president or amend the Constitution so that a third term for Obama is possible.

Of course if things go well they’ll say “look which party had a president in the Whitehouse when all these good things happened.”

There is also a flip-flop in how economic data is viewed. When the unemployment rate under George W. Bush reached a staggering 6.4% for a single month during his first term, the Chicken Little’s were proclaiming that the sky was falling. Recently when I brought up the high unemployment rate under Obama, I was reminded by a liberal apologist that the unemployment rate had stabilized. Likewise, under Bush, debt was a blight, whereas under Obama, all that debt was a small price to pay for bringing this country back from a precipice of economic depression. A healthy DJIA under Bush was “good for Wall Street, but not helpful to Main Street.” Under Obama a rise in the market from the bowels of hell is considered a good financial omen.

Equally predictable is the boilerplate assertion that emotional and uneducated voters propelled this political reversal. That disregards voting trends in 2008, where Obama was lifted by enthusiasm of young, idealistic voters, with virtually no life experience to influence their political preferences. I guess these erudite voters were busy watching M-TV this time around.

The recent election brought about mixed results based upon my expectations. Pending the outcome of the undecided Senate races at the time of this writing, the U.S. Senate elections will have somewhat worse results than I expected. The congressional elections yielded a few more pick-ups in the House than I had anticipated. And the state of Wisconsin met my objectives right on the nose.

To echo the First Lady Michelle Obama, I would say that for the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my state of Wisconsin, at least as it pertains to the elections. Wisconsin held up its end of the bargain on the federal and state elections. The only mosquito in the ointment was that Democrat Ron Kind avoided an unexpected upset in the 3rd Wisconsin congressional district.

First of all, that perennial nemesis, Russ Feingold, was finally voted out of office. My wife made me promise that if Feingold escaped with a Senate victory yet again, we would move out of the state. While I hate Wisconsin winters, I’m not prepared to leave just yet, and now I don’t have to. I admit that I have never understood the infatuation of local constituents as well as the national acclaim for Feingold. The reputation given to Feingold was that he was a “maverick” and a fierce independent. I don’t know in what sense Feingold could have been considered independent. I don’t think he ever voted with conservatives on any position. If one considers taking the positions advocated by ultra-liberal blogs, rather than flip-flopping to enhance re-election possibilities, then I suppose Feingold is principled. Feingold was one of the few candidates to perpetuate his own political suicide by actually running on his record. Okay — I suppose that’s principle.

This election featured economic and policies issues. The usual prominence of values voters in this election was relegated to the back burner. But make no mistake, those folks were out they jumping on the bandwagon to assure Feingold’s ouster. Russ Feingold was a long-standing thorn in the side to both values voters as well as the pro-life movement. In the final week of the election they put Feingold on notice through radio messages that they were holding him accountable. Don’t think they are not celebrating today.

The big rap the mainstream media marshalled against Feingold’s victorious opponent, Ron Johnson, was that he “foolishly” attributed global warming to natural causes. This means Johnson would oppose any legislation promoted by alarmists that would economically penalize the U.S. in an effort to drastically curtail CO2 emissions. We can’t have that radical and uninformed viewpoint now can we?

Secondly, the election of Scott Walker as governor was a repudiation of Jim Doyle’s financial incompetence, which Wisconsin residents suffered under for the past eight years. The deceptive political ad foisted against Walker was lifted from the playbook of overworked boilerplate canards.