ex•tor•tion [ik-stawr-shuh n] –noun
1. An act or instance of extorting.
2. The crime of obtaining money or some other thing of value by the abuse of one’s office or authority.
3. Oppressive or illegal exaction, as of excessive price or interest: the extortions of usurers.
4. Anything extorted.

Early in our industrial infancy, the cheapest labor was often recent immigrants, indentured for their trip from the old world. Like many nubies, they were mocked as unsophisticated or slow witted by some in pop culture for their low socio-economic standing and lack of understanding of local norms. They were employed at a slower rate than assimilated workers. Unscrupulous business owners, and I might add, political parties, took unfair advantage of their ignorance. Workers were hired under misleading arrangements specifically worded to entice these workers into unfair contracts. The workers did what all workers in a free market do when treated dishonestly, the walked out. This wiped the gotcha-smile right off the bosses faces. The bosses could not infringe upon one’s right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. One of the principles essential to the right to pursue happiness is the ability to keep the fruits of one’s pursuits, the protection of private property. The bosses wanted to get the production from the worker, and keep much of the remuneration as well.

To infringe upon this right required collusion with government.

Fraudulent employers got bigger, helped elect business friendly politicians who then enacted laws allowing employment contract skippers to be arrested and to allow local police to enforce the terms of the contracts. Railroads, coal mines, steel, were industries notorious for taking advantage of workers, enforced with the help of local and state police. They paid in script only accepted at the over priced company store. This is the part of the story we have all heard. The employees banded together and stopped working. Without production, the bosses could not buy the government they needed to keep the employees working. Such collusion only works to the advantage of the privileged few. We elect our government and the majority of Americans do not appreciate fraud and corruption, even now. Once the lights were turned on, the roaches scurried.

For most of the rest of our country’s history, unions could strike and business owners could fold. Pay and benefits were negotiated somewhere in the middle. All agreements were subject to either party simply walking away, at least temporarily. If the business folded, no amount of picketing would create money from thin air. If the employees walked, no amount of retained profit would produce. Soon equilibrium was reached whereby the employees felt favorably compensated, the business owner had labor he could count on and little changed year to year. Employees questioned the relevancy of the unions and hesitated to pay the dues for no change year to year. But politicians, as they are prone to do, followed the politically expedient source of money and grew to be on the “side” of unions, for a price. The unions used the means at their disposal to enact favorable legislation of their own. So was born the closed shop. If you wanted a job in a union shop, you had to join the union, often before applying for the job. Anyone who was not pro-union would not be allowed to join and therefore could not get the job. Friends and family were the only ones allowed to join and dissention in union matters was scarce. Even with this arrangement, employees were less and less interested in joining unions and paying the extorted dues. Non-union shops could pay less and charge less and fire people more easily, at the same time, they hired more easily and sometimes the take home pay was higher as no one was supporting a union infrastructure. This was especially true for other countries. Soon, a new generation of workers grew up only hearing stories of the labor movement. Their union loyalty faded as the union looked less and less like the savior of mistreated employees, and more and more like the bloated bureaucracies that had enslaved their grandfathers. Unions needed a better way of growing members in order to survive.

One option, the hard way, was to insist on minimum standards for members for training, ethics, dependability, etc. They could insist on eliminating poor performers from their ranks. This would give unions a reputation for the best employees for the money and guarantee a steady supply of employees wanting to join and a steady supply of employers wanting to hire them. The downside, the dues would have to be really low to keep newly employed members from leaving once they got the job. And, there is the downside of having to produce something in return for the dues after years of getting closed shop dues for relatively little. But if they could find another option, a new steel industry or a new coal industry, where the businesses hardly had any competition for employees, it would be much easier. Such a business would be staffed by employees with little choice but to work for the union. What would be even better is if they could do so in an industry with considerable profit margin from which to negotiate. The search was on for an industry with unlimited funds, relatively high tolerance of favoritism and nepotism, and a favorable political climate.

The perfect industry exists. However it was illegal to organize until the late 1950’s. Then a New York City mayor wanted to secure a few city worker votes and the public sector union was born. Democrat politicians across the country rushed to add public sector union members to their roster of campaign contributors. The unions could push the entitlement form of pay and benefits, and get the government to pull their closed shop union dues straight from the employee’s paychecks. The union could then use those dues to help elect pro-union politicians with which to negotiate those entitlements. The position normally held by the business that could go out of business was now filled by the tax payer. The tax paying public can not cease to exist due to unprofitable employment arrangements. Moreover, the union employee gets to vote for their representative on the government side of the table, same as any other tax payer. They then also get to send a second negotiator on the union side. The first places to adopt such laws were those states where a large portion of the state’s employees worked for big, heavy industries which were already union supporters. The rust belt fell first along with steel and dockworkers heavy states. More would follow as right-to-work states had uprisings to get the “right” to extort higher pay from their taxpayers as well. All went as planned, at first.

The arrangement in Wisconsin threatens the golden egg laying goose for two simple reasons: Greed and incompetence. Pay is peanuts; the big money is in pensions. A public sector worker can work for 30 years as a teacher, from 25 to 55 years old, retire with a pension, live to be 85 years old, and draw more in pension in those 30 years than they were paid to actually work 30 years. Each time a teacher in Wisconsin retires, the cost of their replacement is double, one for the replacement, one for the pensioner. In a private sector business, where pensions have long gone the way of the dinosaur, the money for the pension would be set aside each year the teacher worked. The cost would be obvious as the $52,000 teacher also had $52,000 set aside for her pension in hopes that she only lived 30 years following retirement. Retired teachers who live to be 90 could see 5 years when the cost is triple. The number of retirees, who do so, increases every generation, as does the base pay, all of which is renegotiated each year. The public sector union employee in Wisconsin grew up seeing their parents get this pension, without paying into it themselves, and now expect the same. They see it as a right. They feel entitled. Public sector pay and benefits outweigh the private sector employee packages from which the public sector pensions are paid, and the private sector employee also paid for a significant portion of their own retirement. Private sector pensions are all but nonexistent because no one can predict how long a new 25 year old employee will live after retirement. No business decision can be made 30 years in advance with any security. Private sector employees must live off of the retirement they helped pay for as well as continuing to pay for the public sector pension for a retiree who did not. The cost of a public sector union employee far exceeds that of the private sector employee’s pay and benefits. Which would be OK, if the electorate feels they are getting their money’s worth. The downside of favoritism and nepotism in an environment of employees motivated by belief in entitlement to the job, is that performance will always be lackluster at best, and never approach the performance where continued employment and promotion require it. Indeed, the union can be counted on to talk higher performers into slowing down or performing less to prevent bringing undue attention to the overall lackluster performance. But the internet allows parents to realize that their students are more likely than other similar students to perform poorly, despite spending much more per capita on education. As teacher pay increased, public school student performance decreased. We understand child learning better now than in previous generations, we have computers and other teaching tools available to us like never before, and a large portion of Wisconsin public school 8th graders cannot read proficiently.

But the death knell for the public sector unions in Wisconsin and the rest of the U. S. sounded when they took a stand on the ability to renegotiate their position, on the promise of accepting pay and benefit cuts now. They got the nation’s attention when they stated flatly, that cutting pay and benefits for union members instead of raising taxes on everyone was solving a money mismanagement problem on the backs of the unions.

Really? The collective scowl from the country was palpable.

Although they were correct about the mismanagement, it was at the hands of the union-elected miss-managers. Taxes had already been raised 60% to pay for the existing packages as businesses left the state. Fewer students to educate could not be accepted as a sound reason to lay off unneeded teachers. The teacher’s union wants everyone to pay even higher taxes, following an election upset run and won on the promise of cutting spending and taxes,  The union promises that union members will take a small hit now, so long as they get the opportunity to negotiate themselves raises and increases in the future, (when they can get more union friendly politicians elected). What I heard was, “We will keep the roaches out of the kitchen so long as the light is on.” Such negotiations in the past have often been accompanied with back pay for those cut years. In other words, “Write us an IOU for the “pay cuts” we are borrowing from the next generation of workers we are under-educating, or we will shut down the underperforming school system we took an oath not to abandon. Really, we promise.” To put it in terms some of you might appreciate, they said, “Nice school system you have here. Be a shame if something bad were to happen to it. A threat?!! Heavens no, it is illegal for teachers in Wisconsin to strike! I’m just sayin’ if something were to happen, organically without our community organizers community-organizing it . . .”

We are at a crossroads in this country on so many levels, but this is ground zero for the entitlement culture war. (Wisconsin is also seen by many as the beginning, ground zero, for union solidarity of past unions. I find this ironic, but perhaps fitting that the attempt to skew the political processes in favor of the privileged few, on the backs of the many, would be exposed there and defeated there.) If Wisconsin folds, so folds the country.

I call for the formation of a new union, one representing the over 80% of all workers who are not currently represented. I suggest that membership be open to all taxpayers not belonging to a union and that membership can be begun and ended year by year, with a prorated refund of dues anytime a politician you don’t want to support is supported. I suggest that we vote ourselves the “right” to bargain and the “right” to have union members pay OUR retirement and healthcare. In fairness, the unions will likely loose the ability to negotiate pension and healthcare soon either way. Perhaps we should only reserve the one right we truly do have; the right to the pursuit of happiness; the right to keep our property. I suggest we organize a taxpayers union and strike to end the extortion of our property on the threat of public employee sickouts. I want the right to strike and put the golden egg laying goose out of the egg laying business. I want to strike to end the practice of borrowing from our children without their informed consent, to send from balanced-budget/right-to-work states like Virginia, to states like Wisconsin.

We can survive without public sector unions. They cannot survive without us.

Eventually, the unions put up candidates of their own for government positions and the practice of government enforcement of unfair labor practices was replaced with regulatory protections against them. However, just as business used this influence to their advantage, unions worked to enact legislation favorable to themselves through their elected officials. Eventually, all truly unfair business/employment practices were eliminated by legislation. Unions were no longer relevant in matters of fairness. To remain relevant, they negotiated from a position of solidarity for better than fair pay and benefits. Pay to union employees rose above non-union pay and unions could not persist. Businesses resisted hiring union employees, knowing pay and benefits would be extorted above market price. In some areas of the country, unions were influential enough to successfully support a sufficient number of elected officials to make it legal to force businesses of a certain size to only hire union employees. The concept of a closed shop was born. Join the union, or don’t bother applying for a job. Favoritism and nepotism replaced merit and production.

Businesses that could not survive the new burdens of employee strikes and unfair legislation, did not survive. They either moved to more business friendly environments following the paths of looms past, or businesses formed by others in such friendlier locals put them out of business. This cycle of business start up, unionization of the successful ones, and their eventual demise continued until all but the large industrial employers with factories and plants too large to move easily were gone. Now, a business opens in a union state and makes a profit long enough to get the attention of a union. The union convinces the employees that they deserve a larger portion of the difference between their current pay, and the profit retained by the owner, real or imagined. This is an easy sell in union states as it is common knowledge in such states that union jobs can pay several times what non-union work pays. The owner is told that the union will supply well trained employees and the increased pay will be an advantage as the unions will not tolerate non-union shops which might open to compete with the union shop. This is an easy sell as well, since the owners often grew up in the union rich society of the union state. The owner tolerates the union and can sometimes negotiate help from the union elected government officials in the form of competition limiting regulation in return for better pay and benefits for the employees. Over time, the negotiated arrangement is re-visited and changes in favor of the employees creep in. Rarely does an economically weak company gain relief with newly negotiated employee contracts, as the union continually attempts to get as much of the profits for employees and the union as is possible, while threatening to interfere with commerce if any reduction is requested. Often, concessions in good economic periods render the business unprofitable in another. High labor costs in high skill, labor intensive fields encourage automation in competitors where such automation would prove too costly without the union bolstered pay scales. Eventually, unionized industries fail more often in union states and less often in non-union states or countries. Unions fail and disappear in direct relation to the death of the host organism they helped starve. As profits shrink in favor of high pay, even the large industrial employers are replaced by foreign competitors. Unions could have educated and trained their members to be more competitive than non-union workers, instead they worked for conditions where they would not have to compete.

There is one industry however, which can never be outsourced. There is one industry which has almost no connection between the existence of the employer and the financial feasibility of the employee pay package. There is one industry where competition for survival has no connection to the production of the workers. This industry is government. Union organized public employees can pay dues to support the election of union compliant officials, and then “negotiate” a “fair” pay and benefits package with those same officials. Since unfair business practices or unfair pay and benefits are no longer left to fight, the union must fabricate such in order to remain relevant. This is exactly what happened in Wisconsin. The “union busting” legislation proposed in the Wisconsin legislature, if passed, would only make Wisconsin state teachers’ bargaining abilities equal to those for unionized Federal employees. The proposed legislation would not however bring the teacher’s union employee’s pension or health insurance contributions in line with either non-union Wisconsin residents or in many cases, other union employees. So why would the unions and their members take an extremely hard stance on an incremental loss in abilities which are out of line with most other employees’ abilities? They are not fighting for safe working conditions. They are fighting to be able to re-negotiate when the electoral pendulum swings back in their favor and they once again choose the government negotiator. They are fighting to continue to negotiate from both sides of the table. They are trying to make the voters, their employers, regret challenging the status quo.

The unions have drawn the line in the sand. The risk is that voters will not regret challenging the unions, but regret allowing them to exist at all. If the proposed Wisconsin legislation passes, I believe this will be the first time that public sector employee unions have lost any significant gains for their employees. There have been some temporary decreases in benefits, or temporary freezes on pay raises, or temporary freezes in hiring. I assert that this is the first permanent setback in the slow progression of pay and benefit improvements. I assert that this is the first setback that will not be re-negotiated with the elected official of their construction. If this legislation passes, the unions will have to negotiate in the open venue of public elections directly with their employer, the voters, instead of behind closed doors with someone who owes them for their job. They will have to stand in the public square and convince them that union members are entitled to pay raises when everyone else is taking cuts. They will have to convince the public that higher union pay will lead to better educated students, . . . this time. They will have to convince the voting public that tax increases best balance a bloated education budget, coincident with rising teacher pay. If the proposed legislation passes it could indicate a realization by the public that unions are obsolete, to be replaced by automation or at least, lower paid labor. I first suspected they recognize this too when I noticed the unprecedented pressure being brought to bare on Madison Wisconsin by the union friendly, union elected power players outside of Wisconsin. The unions are calling in their chips and the union elected officials are doing what they promised to do, knowing this will not go unnoticed by the voting public. President Obama publically put his support behind the unions. I assert that he does this as a knee jerk reaction resulting from his coming through the union rich political machinery of Chicago somewhat oblivious that his actions caused most of the rest of the country to pause at their own jobs and look up to see what he has done. The DNC sent their chairman, Tim Kaine to help with organizing protests, knowing(?) the people in the right to work state of Virginia will not understand his support for a union fight against negotiating directly with the tax payer over tax payer supplied pensions, and may not vote him into office again. President Obama put his left-over campaign resources into the fight via his campaign organization, Organizing for America. Solidarity. President Obama’s oath is to the Constitution. He is an employee of the very tax payers he has sided against. It seems lost on him that the fact he cannot represent “US” and “THEM” at the same time and that he chose to move to this side of the table. It seems lost on him that the fact the taxpayers have realized this is the very basis for the November upset in Wisconsin, and the new support for union restraint there. Is it more likely that such support for a union is because teachers are barely being fairly compensated in union negotiated contracts, or that the union contracts are so lucrative that the union members will pay dearly to keep them?

Consider this: If the school system took bids for teaching jobs, union and otherwise, would the low bids from out of work teachers be the same as the current teacher pay? Or, could current teachers be replaced from the free market for a price much lower?

So long as there are out of work teachers, the pay is too high. We expect the highest moral character in our teachers. We want them to be attracted to teaching because of a heartfelt desire to be in the profession. We want teachers driven with a desire to encourage such character in our children through example. What I see in Madison are teachers apparently attracted to teaching by a strong union, lying to their employers the taxpayers, saying they are sick and cannot work. I see them doing so in public, in front of their students, in front of an electorate not stupid enough to believe them. I see them doing so, knowing that no one believes the obvious lie, yet they persist. I see doctors lying on camera, writing notes to the very teachers who would not accept a bogus doctor’s note from their students. I see the kind of lying and cheating that money buys. I see teachers claiming that an education is a right while interfering with said education. I see them causing a stop to education activities and claiming without the union, education of the children will cease. I see teachers willing to teach children that lying for money is acceptable. I see teachers deliberately confusing the difference between rights and privileges, for their personal monetary gain. I see teachers using school yard bully tactics against legitimately elected officials with whom they disagree, for the purpose of interfering with the sworn duties of teacher and Congressman alike. I am not alone when I plainly see what an entrenched union will do when challenged.

What the union members do not realize is that much of the country is watching. Most of us did not grow up believing that such poor behavior is acceptable in the protection of the union interest. What they do not realize is how disgusted I am with the thought of my personal friends who are teachers, being forced to support and pay dues to such an organization as a condition of their being allowed to teach my children. I find it particularly unsavory that one of my teacher friends would be required to pay to support the election of a particular candidate as a condition of employment. I am not alone. The line has been drawn. Tremendous force is being applied in Madison in the protection of the unions. I find it a little ironic that their “fight for the freedom to negotiate” as unions could lead to Wisconsin’s freedom from them. All that stands between union survival and union oblivion is freedom to work without paying the union for the privilege. Simply allowing a teacher to work as a non-union teacher for the same pay as a union teacher will mark the end of teacher’s unions. The teacher’s union could have simply allowed this proposed bill to pass, quietly, then wait a couple of years and have the union supported Congress that would one day return, “fix it,” and get back to negotiating ever increasing benefits. Instead, they want to end challenges to public employee unions by their employers, and punish those who dare to do so. I wholeheartedly hope they succeed in doing just that. I hope that freedom ends this debate once and for all. What a fitting place for the progressive movement to have gained an early foothold, and ultimately the place where it shot itself in the foot, marking the end of the belief in the long term sustainability of socialist tenants. What a fitting end to public sector union conflict-of-interest, at the hands of voter solidarity.

I think the answer to the first one is simple. No, it is not the answer Lisa Jackson, EPA Administrator gave. Her reason was the agreed upon, previously released response, the evidence is overwhelming, the EPA is obligated to do something about it. My answer is that carbon is the most dangerous “pollutant” left to regulate, and public opinion has not swayed to the liking of the warming lobby, Congress has refused to pass Cap & Trade because the electorate kicks those Congressmen who threaten to do so, out of office. Just like the cleanup of the Gulf Coast beaches, lots of people are needed early on. As the worst of it is cleaned, fewer people are needed until eventually, only a few are “needed” to check out reports of places that are not cleaned. The EPA, like all government agencies, will not send the early cleaners home, and their ranks continue to grow. Their budget grew 35% since President Obama took office. There are too many people. They are obligated to clean something up. The EPA only remains relevant so long as there is an environmental pollutant not being cleaned up.

The second is simple as well, if you simply apply poli-logic, the logical assessment of a policy’s outcome. The EPA asserts it is obligated to regulate carbon, for the purpose of reducing the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, for the purpose of relieving the earth’s fever. Assume for a second that the earth has Al Gore’s fever, and that reducing carbon will accomplish this cooling. The question is reduced to the simple form: Will carbon in the atmosphere be reduced as a result of EPA limits on it? I suggest it will not. Simply, global warming suggests a global phenomenon. The air we clean (or don’t pollute) circles the globe. The EPA does not. When it costs too much to operate a factory here, because the electricity costs too much, the factory will move to China, or close and be replaced by one opened there. The Chinese electrical generation is not as clean as ours was then the EPA was formed, much less EPA obligation “clean.” The end result is more carbon in the atmosphere than there is now, and more of other pollutants like sulfur that are all but eliminated in U.S. electricity production. If the EPA, or anyone for that matter, wants to reduce air pollution, they should do everything possible to bring as much industry to the U.S. as possible. The dirtier, the better.

While we are at it, lets look at another assumption that must be true in order for the EPA assertions to hold water, ( . . . um . . . air?), specifically that the science is settled. I can remember when floppy drives came on the scene. I can remember the news talking about global cooling in the ‘70’s and the impending next ice age. One thing I have noticed, scientists talk about the current understanding, or the current theories, not settled science. If Lisa Jackson had testified that tests have produced results consistent with the current theories, raising confidence that the theories accurately describe the natural phenomenon, I could check her assertion. I could concur, or at least find people who had done so and concurred. If she had said what scientists say, that the theory is not perfect and new refinements are being discovered each time the tests are repeated, I would have more respect for her opinion. But she did not. She said what politicians say, the subject is settled, because the Supreme Court ruled that the Clean Air Act could allow the EPA to ignore public will and the will of Congress and act on their beliefs as apposed to mine. To paraphrase one comment made during the hearing: The Supreme Court said the Clean Air Act COULD be used to regulate airborne carbon, the EPA staff thinks it SHOULD be so used, the Congress will decide if it WILL be so used.

Scientists do not claim to know all of the consequences of a political scheme and would generally not offer what should be, one would simply state what is known, and what the predicted outcome will be. A scientist knows that she will one day be proven wrong concerning some “settled” scientific truth, and would not want to be held responsible for spending billions of dollars and sending away millions of jobs and increasing the pollution in the air. So even if Lisa Jackson is not the climate activist she seems, and is correct in her assertion about the science, how long are we going to allow the EPA to increase the carbon in the atmosphere via China et. al.?

The EPA must be stopped to save the planet!!

If I substitute President Obama for President Mubarak, how different is the story. Does President Obama demonize revenue producing business as President Mubarak does the gift giving west, all the time relying on such funds to pay for his endeavors? Did President Obama not promise better government but deliver more government? Are the Tea Party attendees much different than the protesters in Cairo, simply without the violence? Would President Obama have attempted to physically shut down the news media and internet if such were within his power? I assert that he certainly tried to marginalize those portions of both which questioned him in the hopes that we would effectively do so. We have net neutrality, whatever that will turn out to be.  Proposals for reviving the fairness doctrine and giving the President an internet cutoff switch are ever in the Washington D.C. vernacular.

We are different from the Egyptian people in so many ways, mostly differentiating our heritage from the vision President Obama has for America. Our press will always be free as long as any of us are. We will be free to express ourselves to each other without fear of government prosecution so long as any act is without such fear. But when I saw President Mubarak arrogantly offering a 15% raise to government employees who had been told for years that the public coffers were dry, I could remember the self admitted “amused” President Obama smirking about Tea Party protests, “You would think they should be saying Thank You,” to Democrat-fundraiser applause.

Are we different from Egypt? Yes vastly. But will these differences prevail or will the vision President Obama has for us? Will we remain the shining example of what free people can do and lead Egypt by example to their new future? Or will we follow them as every socialized society before us, into the cycle of promise, tax, oppress, and collapse? We get to decide. Will we be content with borrowing a 15% raise from our kids and simply say, “Thank you President Obama”? Time will tell, but I like the odds, given the increasing size of the crowds in the streets during Tea Parties.

Oops:  In discussions about the situation in the middle east, my friends and I speculated about the state of Egypt and what affect other conditions in other countries would have if they coincided with the unrest in Cairo.  One such country that received considerable amounts of our time was Turkey.  I prepared this post well after midnight the first night, and proof read it the second and decided instead of using a generic country in the middle east, I would use the events in Egypt specifically.  I opened the document and replaced the generic language with Turkey and Turkish, instead of Egypt and Egyptian.  Those of you who know me, probably simply read in the proper language as you read, the rest of you now have a glimpse into the hell endured by the first group.  You both have my sincerest apologies.

I was pleasantly surprised to hear his words and will take it as a sign of hope that he does not want to fundamentally change America as he led me to believe.  Also, Jon Stewart, who I also disagree with frequently, elevated my respect of him by saying in part, “I wouldn’t blame our political rhetoric any more than I would blame heavy metal music for Columbine.”  Again, look up the rest of his well spoken words if you are so inclined.  Unfortunately, his view is not shared by the bulk of his more conspicuous knee-jerk supporters in the media, if I am to take them at their word.

In case you have not been watching, the local Sheriff started blaming his political foes for encouraging violence.  There was a collective gasp in the more liberal members of the media and a clamor to be the first or loudest to cheer, “Yeah, what he said!”  I had the same reaction as most of the more conservative members of the media and blamed this piling-on as following Rham Emanuel’s advice, “Never let a serious crisis go to waste.  What I mean by that is it’s an opportunity to do things you couldn’t do before”.  But earlier today, my good friend Brian shared a discovery he made.  He was discussing the ludicrous attempt to convince people that this could have been stopped, if only we did not sell guns to the public.  Among other claims are assertions that ending the Fairness Doctrine led to this tragedy, as did the “loophole” that allows people to say unflattering things about elected officials, leading the insane to get the idea that people are unhappy with the elected official’s conduct.  We should protect ourselves from insane people learning that we are unhappy with the state of affairs in Washington?

How ludicrous does a claim need to be, before we skeptically view it critically?  Has Critical thinking died?  Let me make a ludicrous claim and seemingly back it up with facts you can check.  Please tell me if you would accept my claim if it were presented in the news media as serious analysis and commentary.  I will make an attempt to identify the facts and the gratuitous assertions as we go along and ask that you correct me when I miss one, like my English teachers used to correct my grammar.  I do not expect political correctness, but critical thinking, so the use of red ink and exclamation points is encouraged.  So, here it goes.

In Tucson a lone gunman, shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, a Democrat U.S. Representative of Arizona, (fact) as reprisal for her recent vote against House Minority Leader and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (gratuitous assertion).  Gifford was obviously unhappy with Pelosi (gratuitous assertion) for leading Democrats into the largest shift in party power since the 1930’s and the lowest Democrat representation in the House since the 1940’s (fact)  Former Speaker Pelosi has a reputation for holding a grudge against Democrats who publically disagree with her (common gratuitous assertion).  Recently the House of Representatives held elections for the position of Speaker.  All of the Republicans voted for current speaker Boehner, except Boehner himself who abstained from voting.  This is historically benign; nearly all such elections are without dissention, along party lines.  However, an historic 10% of Democrats did not vote for the Democrat nominee in this election.  18 Democrats, including Giffords, voted for someone other than Democrat nominee Nancy Pelosi.  One humorously voted “present”, and one dissenter had more important things to do and did not show up.  In 1923, twenty three Republicans voted against the speaker-to-be in a preliminary round, but voted the party line in the final vote.  Otherwise, there has never been a dissention numbering more than single digits in U.S. History, much less to vote for a record 7 different alternative candidates, 6 of whom were not even running as was the case in this election.  (facts)  It seems that in a calculated response to Ms. Pelosi’s hate filled desire to meet out revenge for her public humiliation, the gunman started with one of the more vocal of Pelosi dissenters, Giffords.  (Patently false fabrication)

(If replacing Pelosi with Boehner and telling you we are talking about 2006, with Bush as President makes this sound plausible when it did not before, stop reading, you are too lost to benefit from any further discussion.) If I demanded that Ms. Pelosi is a coward unless she personally denounce this gunman and deny he is an arm of her office or upholding in any way her convictions, would I be reasonable?  I think not.  I have not shown any link between Ms. Pelosi and the shooter in any stretch of my imagination.  Would this change if I inserted another political cause in place of the election of the House Speaker?  Certainly, that would not point to new connections and should not be treated with any more credibility.  What if I substituted someone for Ms. Pelosi in my assertion?  Again, no.

But this is exactly what has happened in the last few days.  The local Sheriff blames the hateful vitriol and rhetoric of the right, and, “believes the hard right is deliberately fueling the fire against public officials, elected officials, government, and the administration”, admitting when asked directly that he has no evidence of a connection between the two.  He does this with a veteran lawman’s knowledge that the gunman’s legal defense will use the Sheriff’s statements against the prosecution to establish bias in the collection of evidence or in mitigating his sentence.  A reporter characterizes Sarah Palin as a coward for not defending herself, presumably to him, for her roll in the shooting. Her website has cross hairs on a map of political opponents and she recently said after some political setback to not retreat but to reload.  The MSMBC crew seems dedicated to naming names and blacking eyes of those on the right who were warned that protesting “progressive” policies via Tea Parties et. al. would lead to such lunacy.  Our Secretary of State tries to make friends in the Mideast by painting the shooter as an extremist (not a criminal, not a lunatic) and equating him with the sane, organized extremists from their world who attack us.

Similar talk comes from all parts of the political world and practically nowhere else.  I would be guilty of the same if I did not point out that this is true, regardless of party or affiliation.  Hard core political beasts do bloodthirsty battle on a blood drenched field of combat before the ravenous gaze of vultures and sympathizers alike.  Is it irony that such violence-metaphor is the target of the current campaign?  But you and I are not political beasts, presumably.  I know hardly anyone who assigns political motivation to hardly any behavior other than perhaps the act of voting, or not.  My challenge is aimed at the pedestrians on the sidewalk outside the stadium, not into the fray inside.

How hard is it for you and I to check the facts?  Should those in the media be able to check them?  What about the Sheriff close to the investigation?  Would he not have the best information available?  Would we not be best served to believe him when he states that he does not have anything to back up his assertion that right wing rhetoric contributed in any way to the motivation of this shooter?

I find it interesting that those who are appalled at the incitement of violence by the right, are uninterested when the left demonizes President Bush.  The outrage is selective and no side is innocent in this regard, but there was no outrage in the media when a liberal director made a movie, The Death of a President, about the assassination of the President of the United States.  Would it surprise you to know that this was not a story about a generic President, but about the then current, sitting President George Bush?  There was certainly no outrage when Ms. Pelosi used metaphors about para-trouping over Republican resistance to the Democrat health care bill, no outrage when President Obama bragged about bringing a gun to a knife fight.  There was no outrage when Joe Manchin, a Democrat Governor, made a political add where he carried an actual gun, loaded it with an actual bullet, took actual aim and an actual target, and actually shot a hole in a copy of the cap and trade bill.  This was allowed since it was metaphorical, and from a Democrat.

I assert that people who think that ALL actions are politically motivated had to assume that the shooting of a Democrat in Arizona must be motivated by non-Democrat forces.  They could not conceive of a person being willing to shoot ANY, RANDOM elected official, without regard for political affiliation.  Since this was a liberal victim, and a liberal tenant is to blame the lack of government control for bad things, they immediately look to expose the gap in the law that allowed this person to snap.  Case in point, there are legislators calling for tighter gun control with the idea that the gunman would not have used an illegal gun to commit murder.  I will get back to my friend’s genius on this point in a moment.  Also, there are proposed laws to make illegal any speech or symbol that could be construed as encouraging violence against a member of Congress.  Too bad they didn’t think about such controls when people were burning effigies of  President Bush portrayed as Hitler hanging from a noose.  Rahm’s lead notwithstanding, there is no functional connection between such control of speach and the tragedy in Arizona.

I encourage you to listen critically to outrage.  When the victims of a shooting are enroute to medical treatment and a first responder blames someone, it can be excused considering the excitement of the moment.  When several days go by and they maintain this blame, consider if the one casting blame knows something to logically lead them to that determination, in other words, could it be factually based.  When people totally uninvolved with the shooting, blame everyone of a group who disagrees on unrelated issues, critically consider if the accusations could possibly be true.  Could the person making the claim have the bit of information to fill in the logical gap between them?  When someone defines a “problem” as if it were fact, without offering any facts to support the link between the “problem” and the crisis, then insists on a “solution” in the form of restrictions on people they disagree with, carefully consider that it may not be a solution at all, but a tool of political gain.  Don’t believe me, think for yourself.

So, how does my friend’s revelation fit in with this?  It has to do with the cries for gun controls.  Let’s look at the facts we know.  This young man was in trouble in school more than once for disrupting class with claims such as the school is using grammar for mind control.  He was once asked to leave and refused in such a way that a security guard was posted outside the room from then on.  His classmates were afraid he would show up one day and start shooting people.  He had a similar record in college where one professor said he was afraid to turn his back on him for fear he would be shot in the back.  We know that although he was arrested more than once, the charges were dropped each time.  His mom works for the County Board of Supervisors, and although I have no reason to believe the leniency he received is related to her employment influences, such would cast more doubt, in my mind, on the Sheriff’s objectivity.  We know that he was pulled over for running a red light, hours before the shootings, and let go with a warning.  And, we know that he legally bought a handgun that he then used in this shooting.  We know these things because of the records, not the least of which was the gun purchase.  This made me realize two things.  First, making people go through the background check and waiting period and so on do not prevent committed criminals from proceeding with their plans. What would have changed if guns were not legally available?  There would be no record of where he bought the gun.

Second, and most profoundly, is that the liberal idea of relativistic enforcement of the law, the idea that they should be enforced sometimes and not sometimes, enabled this man to pass the background check.  The fact that his unacceptable behavior did not have him kicked out of school and evaluated, at the high school and collegiate levels, in the name of political correctness, allowed him to pass the background check when he should not have.  The fact that he was arrested, more than once, and allowed to go free perhaps due to favoritism, may have kept him from being diagnosed as the paranoid schizophrenic he seems to be, kept him from being treated, and allowed him to pass the background check.  It is easier to attempt to keep law abiding people from buying guns, than to admit that the system failed this man, and the people he attacked, including the 9 year old girl he shot in the face at point blank range.  It is easier to think that only the system is broke and can be fixed by new restrictions on the speech and other behavior of the law abiding.  It is too hard to realize that this man is broke and no system can catch someone committed to acting outside of it.  Utopia cannot exist in a human world, regardless of the level of government control.  This man certainly would not have been deterred from using an illegal gun when he did not hesitate to shoot a child, in the face, close enough to see her anticipation and reaction.  Believing that controlling speech on the radio, or the guns in the stores, would bring this ill man productively back into society is simply bizarre.  Do we prefer to control the largest number of people, or to discover the largest number of mentally disturbed people?  Critically consider how to best do that, and the other rhetoric seems too ludicrous even for TV.

I heard an exasperated congressman say that people on unemployment spend 100% of the money they get in the economy, and therefore this is the best place money could be spent to stimulate growth, certainly better than extending tax cuts for those making more than $250,000. (For the record, I think it is better than building interstate off ramps to nowhere as individuals can make decisions about how to spend the unemployment benefit.) On the surface, this wealth redistribution argument sounds great, put money in the hands of people eager to spend it, instead of letting the wealthy hoard it, right? The devil is in the details. What they are suggesting is that setting money aside while paying someone to collect the tax and review the tax return, pay someone to account for it, pay someone to distribute it to the relevant agency, pay someone to distribute it to the state employment agencies, pay them to account for it, pay them to distribute it to relevant case account, and pay to distribute it to people who are not working, puts more people to work than the high income earner spending it themselves, or investing it or anything else they might do with it. The argument is that paying people to manage a government program produces more wealth than turning raw materials into finished products.

What’s my problem with this? I have a problem with the assumptions insinuated within the premise that the government pulling leaky buckets buckets of water from one end of the economy pool and dumping them in the other somehow lowers the level on one end and raises the level on the other. (Consider they are sucking water from the water-multiplying end of the pool.) The first assumption is that high income earners are less efficient at spending money in the economy than low income earners. Second, the assumption that paying for unemployment generates less unemployment. Third, the assumption that giving capital to consumers generates more capital than investing in production generates, so much so that it can cover the interest paid to borrow it. Finally, I take exception with the assumption that individual’s situations can be improved by applying a single solution to the group as a whole.

First, why do high income earners make the big bucks? Pick a reason. Half of you will say something like tenure, or favoritism, or just plain luck. Although the luck argument probably exists, it cannot be sustained, Chelsea Clinton asside; indeed none of them can, without one truth. Sustained employment exists when an employee produces more than they cost the employer for a sustained length of time. A private endeavor goes out of business if they pay more than they earn. The simple truth is that high income earners produce higher returns on their employer’s pay investment in them than does someone doing a minimum wage job could make for them. Otherwise, there would be no sustained high income earners. When faced with the decision of whether to hire a $300,000 employee or 2 employees making $150,000, the decision comes down to which situation makes it more likely that the company will survive. In short, that option which produces the most money in return. Raise the cost of having a $300,000 employee, via tax increases on those making more than $250,000, and you skew the decision slightly and get fewer $300,000 employees. In some cases, that means hiring more $150,000 employees which is good for out of work $150,000 employees. In some cases, the $150,000 option is not profitable. (The $300,000 employee may have been more profitable than the lower paid option by an amount which straddles the break even point.) Those businesses will stop conducting business, or move this business to another country to survive, firing all other American employees in both cases. This produces a net decrease in all jobs at all income levels, clustered near the tax break level of $250,000.

My next problem is with the idea that paying people to sit at home, or unsuccessfully look for work, keeps their money going in the economy even though they are not producing anything. Remember the bucketing of the pool water idea? Taking money out of the economy, or promising to do so by borrowing it, and then putting it back via the hands of entitlement recipients, does not create anything. Simply, there is no return on the investment. Just like friction in an engine, there are parasitic losses in doing this, and there is a time lag between when the taxes are known, and the payments put them back in circulation. Also, when you increase the cost of some activity, you get less of it, when you lower the cost of some activity, you get more of it. We tax tobacco and subsidize GM’s Volt with this conviction. Raising the cost of employing people, via taxes or future taxes via borrowing, reduces hiring, and eliminates the marginal businesses from the American economy. The marginal companies go under, or move away to survive, taking the remaining jobs with them. Concurrently, when you make it less costly to be unemployed, you get less effort to change that condition by the only person who can affect it, the unemployed. Of course some take any job as soon as they can, and some feel like they hit the lottery and would not take a high paying job until all the “free” money stops. Those people who did not need to work, or who were barely breaking even after paying the costs of getting to work and dressing for work, will stay home and take the unemployment payment. They are not immoral, in my opinion, they can simply add. Why get up each morning, come up with gas money ahead of the paycheck, and give up your day to spend time on the road, hire daycare, and loose an 8 hour day, when you can stay home for anything in the ball park of the same net income? Shame you say? Perhaps, but some of those working out of a feeling of obligation, not need, such as those whose spouses are able to pay the essential family expenses, will not work with the “unemployed” badge of honor shielding them from feeling shame. Encourage businesses to not hire people with promises of increased unemployment taxes while encouraging people to put off searching for a job with promises of benefit extensions, increases unemployment. Do a little research and see just how close to the end of unemployment payments people get, ON AVERAGE, when they miraculously find an acceptable lower paying job. People turn down lower paying jobs than they lost in hopes of finding a higher paying job than exists in their market, for as long as they are being paid to do so. When you make future job creation cost more, and current joblessness cost less, you get higher current unemployment and higher future unemployment in a downward spiral.

The next is one of my favorite pro-government-program arguments to dispute: the idea that low income people spend their money in such a way which creates more jobs than more affluent spenders do. In other words, 5 people who only make $20,000 a year do more to create jobs than a single person making $100,000 does. Ask yourself this, is a “poor” person more likely to buy things that are mass produced by machines, (pop tarts), or custom things that are handmade, (omelets)? Is a “rich” person more likely to buy cheaply produced food from a factory, (tater tots for home), or hire local kitchen staff to prepare more labor intensive, expensive food, (baked potato in a restaurant)? Come on, be honest. “Poor” people buy flour and make bread; “rich” people buy bread, and pay the baker. The affluent also invest in bakeries and bakery company stock. Another obvious question, which is more likely to have cash stashed in a shoebox under the bed, and which is more likely to have it in a bank account or invested in stocks? In other words, in preparation for the proverbial rainy day, who is more likely to have their available money in the economy and which is more likely to have it hoarded? Know anyone who thinks they will start saving and investing once they make a little more money? That is me. I can’t wait to make enough to hoard, all the while flexing my spending up and down to match my income. I doubt that this is a “poor only” phenomenon. I suspect that promising future tax increases by borrowing against future taxes, actually encourages the higher earners to hoard their money instead of spending it or investing and paying capital gains. Those who barely think now’s the time to invest, will switch over to the buy-gold-and-hoard side, removing their money from the economy. This money stays out of the economy until the capital gains tax rate is low enough. It has to be low enough to pay the double tax of cashing in gold and paying the tax, and investing in stocks and paying the tax again each year. Even if gold goes down, but by a lower percentage than the tax, it may not be sold. Which do you think makes gold rise, government spending or government frugality? See the catch 22 of raising taxes on the rich to “create or save” jobs?

The last assumption is at the core of the government spending v.s. private spending debate. The idea is that everyone on unemployment gets extended payments because someone will have a worse time if they don’t. My belief is that the national government should steer the national efforts, those which will benefit the most people, not those that will benefit any single person. Those who want to raise unemployment benefits agree with me, otherwise they would not suggest we extend every unemployed person’s benefit time. If they wanted to help individual situations, they would encourage and empower the people familiar with the individual. At a minimum they would leave the money in the states to pay out and eliminate several middle men. They would suggest local control of unemployment programs instead of single-location control from Washington DC. I question whether votes for extension is about helping a person or about looking like they want to help. Helping people can get you re-elected, so can looking like you are, and the two can only be contrasted in light of fact and principle and rejection of feelings and emotion. We will limit job growth for everyone via the promise of high taxes to cover debt service which produces nothing. We are willing to allow millions of new workers to suffer without a job, in order to believe that one previously employed person will not suffer having lost one. Why is a new employment ready person not important but one who held an over paid position, no longer needed, worthy of borrowing money from the Chinese?

More philosophically, consider this story. A man has $20 and stops at an intersection with 5 men sitting next to, “Will-work-4-food” signs. He rolls down his window and gives each $4. A dozen people driving by notice this act and applaud it. The 5 men buy burgers and eat. Next day, another man, also with $20, stops and asks if any are truly willing to go home with him and help him rake his leaves. 3 stand up and get in the car. He goes home with $20 worth of groceries and rakes leaves. A dozen neighbors notice and applaud the second man. The second man and the workers eat their share of the groceries, the three men remaining at the intersection get nothing.

The next day, both men collide with each other and die and can no longer offer up $20. Now that there is no longer either man to offer help, which dozen applauders is more likely to respond to signs of Will-work-4-food? Which of the men are more credible in the argument that they would work for food for what work there exists? In other words, which situation actually gave them opportunity to improve their lives and which situation actually encouraged others to employ the men? Most of us would agree that it is better to make a man a fisherman than to simply feed him fish.

So how can we claim to produce more fish when the fisherman supplies a government fish collector to give non-fishermen free fish?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/02/AR2010040204207.html

Mr. Stuever is correct in the assertion that this is not news, but he misses the point that much of what is paraded in front of us is not news. Bald children claiming to need S-CHiP expansion to get treatment is news(?) but the revelation that the family could afford health insurance but campaigned for federal aid expansion so they would not have to, is not (?), ad. nauseam on both sides.

But, there is one point of merit, veiled as he points out, that we are told daily that we cannot do inspiring things like help one another. We are told that Massachusetts cannot provide health coverage for all, only the federal government can do that. We are told that Virginia cannot regulate drilling off her shores, only the federal government can do that. We are told that the state of Utah cannot manage her lands, only the federal government can do that. We are told, although subtly, that people cannot do inspiring things, until they go to Washington.

So, he is correct that this is not news to most of us. But, that this particular show got any comment at all, indicates that the author knows that someone was trying to say something, (political perhaps, it is Palin after all?) but the fact that the author lumps it in with all the sunshine being blown at us indicates that the thinly veiled point was lost on him. Or, perhaps not, perhaps he would like to think it will be lost on his readers if he simply wills it.

The Great American Experiment followed the sacrifice of, “lives . . . fortunes . . . and sacred honor” in defense of an idea. The idea that individuals, free from the tyranny of central command and control, protected their individual interests better than any unrelated protector, no matter how kind, caring or otherwise motivated. The Great American Experiment was funded, fought, and died for on the promise that freedom led to higher standards of living for everyone, greater innovation in business, agriculture, and every other aspect of life for everyone it touched, successful and failing alike. The government would be as limited as possible, the people as free as possible.

Carl Marx, believed the antithesis of these ideas. Marxism suggests that such freedom, and the fact that some people would be immensely more successful than others under such freedom, hurts the average person. Marx believed that for some people to succeed, others must fail, that the size of the pie is fixed, and who gets large pieces and who goes hungry is mostly random, except that dishonest people predisposed to fraud will skew things to their advantage. The typical honest person will suffer under the abuse of the dishonest. People are better served, in his theory, when each produce according to their abilities, and a central authority distributes according to one’s need. The average is better served when everyone follows the plan.

Every society in human existence has either answered to a central authority like a king, or had some system whereby the people chose their governors. In early history, a king who fought for the position was best able to fight to defend his people from invaders and pillagers, or to invade and pillage neighbors. Most were still farmers and hunters. Later, when technology progressed to the point where people could produce more than they consumed, trading came on the scene with the evolution of the middle man (middleous homosapien). This relied on fair play and people were hunted down and killed for foul play. Knowing who could be trusted and a person’s reputation became valued knowledge. Middleous man evolved to make a living off of what they knew instead of what they could grow or hunt. This only happened because there was enough excess produced to support people who did not directly hunt or gather food, make clothing, or build shelter, and there was efficiency in producing a couple of commodities where the climate was best suited to it and trading them for goods that could be more efficiently produced elsewhere. (This is why we raise beef and corn here, and they raise sugar cane in the tropics). It was almost unregulated. The middle men got together and formed colleges, or congresses, (groups of like minded people to serve a common end). Being a member of such could encourage producers and buyers to deal with you. The members of such groups would promise better and better prices to producers, and better and better quality to the buyers. Some would temporarily make a better living by such promises than from what they knew. They promised more than their competing middle men, until they could no longer produce and the group collapsed. They were replaced.

This system was ultimately replaced by the selection of fair play representatives (governors) by consensus. This made the selection based more on the perception of the candidate’s abilities than on actual performance. (Sound familiar?) Sometimes the selection was fair; sometimes it was coerced and intimidated. Indeed, control of all societies has been and is by governments chosen by a range of methods, with violent seizure of power after surrender on one end of the scale, and free and frequent elections on the other.

I am only concerned with the violent seizure method in that it is no more or less likely an end to any society, regardless of where their system currently lies along the scale, and is therefore mostly unpredictable. Such systems arise when the people are not able or willing to withstand its takeover. My concern is with the other end where America selects its government. Every society in human existence who chose their governors based on promises of representation have ultimately fallen to wasteful spending. The cliché is that they fell when the electorate voted themselves larger shares of the stores of grain than they were motivated to produce when fed with free grain. It is another of human’s natures. Until the mid 1900’s, these happenings were part of common education.

These are well known facts. In the pre-American world, kings tried to motivate their subjects with a system of taxes and entitlements. Prior to America’s founding, it was generally believed that anarchy would ensue without divinely inspired and chosen leaders. Many cultures still believe that today. Our founders believed that no one is more or less divinely created than the next, and that anarchy ensues without a divinely inspired population. They conceived a system whereby people could correct tyranny by choice. They conceived, debated, and persuaded the acceptance of a system that limited the power of the government to only that which the people authorize it to have. They demanded limits on government which could not be changed by the government serving those limits. They knew that human nature would compel elected officials to promise ever increasing rations from the public stores, and that once government control got sufficiently complicated, one size-fits-all policies would be the only way to manage the complexity thereby limiting innovation and individual motivation. They believed that nearly every government activity must be controlled locally, or fail.

So here we are. We stand at the cross roads where intellect faces human nature. On the one hand, intellect can rightly lead us to the conclusion that perfect management of a well motivated populace, provided for in accordance with the needs of each, eliminates suffering caused by bad decisions made by the individual. Human nature can lead us to accept Marx’s arguments without challenging the assumptions inherent in them. Marx’s utopic theory requires that human nature be resisted by the managers so that corruption does not foul the system, and that human nature be resisted by the managed so that defense of individual best interest no interfere with the common good even when contrary to individual good. Human nature explains why corruption is so common in countries with Marxist leaning systems. The self interest of the briber is provided for by the indulgence of the self interest of the bribed. Innovation is only relevant when conceived by or recognized by the managers and no incentive exists outside of ego for the innovator or the observant manager. Likewise, human nature leads us to vote ourselves larger shares of the public stores on the promises that “they” will be sufficiently taxed and sufficiently tolerant of the taxes to continue to produce grain undeterred. Human nature leads some to believe this despite the evidence to the contrary.

On the other hand, intellect can lead us to look for examples of both systems, socialist and free market, and determine which provides better conditions for the poor, or disadvantaged. Human nature would be to choose the best performing system.

Have we chosen the system whose theory stands up to rational debate when devoid of real world examples, or the system that has proven successful in practice despite being too complicated to fully explain every action rationally?

The choices, as I understand them are these: Recognize that we have the best medical system in the world BECAUSE the rich pay more than the poor, BECAUSE the rich have access to new treatment and technology before it is cheap enough for mass consumption; Recognize this it is this arrangement which makes medical care for the poor more available than it was a decade ago; Recognize that medical treatment of the poor is more available than it is in any other system in the world; Recognize that much of the medical treatment available to the world’s poor only exists as a result of the American medical system; Recognized that more treatments are available to the poor than would be if FDR had been successful in realizing socialized medicine; Recognize that a generation from now, the poor will have less access to as yet undiscovered treatments under socialized medicine than would be available if the rich continued to fund research and development; Recognize that socialism, Marxism, communism, statism, progressivism, liberalism, or however else you chose to label it, has led to the death of more people in the world than all other calamities combined; Recognize that because these systems rely on complete adherence to the common plan and surrender of the protection of individual defense of one’s best interest, violence and oppression are always used to control the population; Recognize that the wealth created by American entrepreneurs has funded the defense of most of the free world for two generations. Simply, choose to protect the rights of the individual to succeed or fail by one’s own decisions, unencumbered by agendas of social justice and wealth redistribution.

Or, choose the path chosen by every free society ever known. Choose the path dictated by emotion and human nature. Choose to bankrupt the country by trying to plan and provide an ever increasing array of goods and services, devised by a politically motivated committee that sets it own limits, provided to increasingly less motivated and demonized producers.

Will intellect win out over emotion? Am I wrong in my belief that I am on the side of intellect and not emotion? Is it arrogance that got us here in the first place, to believe that the human nature cycle of tyranny-escape-freedom-prosperity-guilt-entitlement-dependancy-tyranny can be short circuited without the pain of tyranny fresh in our minds? Are we destined to go down as the society arrogant enough to think that it manage all things for all people, just as the Romans did?

I hope not. I hope, that the success of the Great American Experiment thus far, can inspire us to not relinquish this prosperity and freedom in return for short term illusions of social justice. I hope that we recognize the success that took us from 13 colonies, too worthless to warrant the resources to control those colonies, to the most prosperous, powerful, free, and generous people in the world in less than 100 years. I hope that we collectively believe in our hearts, that the reason people immigrate here from every country in the world is freedom and opportunity and not a random coincidence. I hope that we as a country do not give in to the human nature that leads us to believe that our neighbors make poor choices at home, but perfect ones when electing officials, that these same neighbors make poor decisions at home, but perfect ones once in Washington DC.

I hope that we recognize that it is because of human nature, not despite it, that socialism and statism have always failed wherever they existed, and that free markets have succeeded everywhere they have existed. There is only so much motivation garnered from threats of fines and imprisonment, but the motivation of the hope for a better life is only limited by one’s imagination.

1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

There is a socialism rumbling in the media about President Obama. There are those who label him a socialist, and those who find this ridiculous. I will simply point to the facts, all of which you can check for yourself. Consider the following, and make up your own mind. Challenge my observations with your own or admit the facts do not matter.

First, what is a socialist? In laymen’s terms, a socialist finds preferable a system where the community as a whole should control the means of production and distribution of goods and services and the use of property and resources, as opposed to systems where individuals decide such things for their individual situation. A socialist thinks that the entity in control (government) decides best how things should be, and individual decisions waste resources.

But asking if President Obama is a socialist is similar to asking if he is hot, or cold. You cannot say that something is hot or cold without comparing it to something. When we say the temperature outside is hot or cold, we are saying this in comparison to our comfortable, preferred temperature. Socialism is a spot on a continuous scale with anarchy on the one extreme end and Tyrannical Dictatorships on the other. To determine if President Obama could be accurately labeled as a socialist, we would have to reference some position or person to compare him to. There are only two comparisons with any relevance to me. First, how does he stack up to the founding principles of this country. Second, how does he compare to current American society. I can easily point to the ideals this country was founded on, but will leave it up to you to decide where you fit on this scale and use that as the indication of today’s society.

To define the scale, lets look at the ends. At the freedom, far end of the scale is anarchy. You would be able to do anything you could get away with. The faster draw would survive the gunfight, the wealthier person could hire the better body guards, etc., and would rule those under him while he could hold it. There would be no government control of anything. Much of human history tells tales of anarchist times and places. Anarchy controls places like Somalia today. I think we can all agree that this oppresses those who cannot defend their human rights at the hands of those who can oppress them. On the other end of the scale are monarchies and dictatorships. In these systems, a single person decides everything, or at least has the authority to do so. No one owns anything or controls anything except by the permission of the tyrant. Much of human history offers examples of times and places where such tyranny controlled. Cuba, Venezuela, and North Korea are examples in existence today. I think we can all agree that this oppresses those who cannot defend their human rights at the hands of those who can oppress them. The founders advocated the federal government being as close to anarchy as possible and let the individual states decide for themselves nearly all issues. They believed that such an atmosphere put in the hands of individuals the power to control local government instead of the other way around. Countries like Russia want to be as close to dictatorship as possible and still claim that the total community is in control (ergo communism). This tyranny can exist just slightly right of dictatorship when a group is in total control, called totalitarianism. Russia, Iran and others are totalitarianist countries.

Ask carefully, as the founders did, which end of the scale promotes freedom and which promotes oppression.

So consider the things that President Obama claims are important to him. The most notable recently is healthcare. Does, in your observation, President Obama favor central control of healthcare or does the President favor leaving the decision making in the hands of doctors and patients?

Next, in your observation, does the President favor allowing the customers in the market determine which banks and finance companies succeed or fail, or does he favor the government stepping in and closing some and spending tax money assuring others remain open?

Next, does your observation indicate that the President thinks that government should prevent private manufacturers from failing when demand for their products falls, or that the free market should determine how often weaker producers should be eliminated from the economy?

Next, does the President seem to favor individuals in the labor market negotiating what they can get in benefits from employers based on their skills and employability, or does he favor larger, central labor unions controlling these discussions by tolerating “closed shops” where employment is dependent on union membership?

Next, did the founders write the Constitution so as to limit government or individuals? Does President Obama, who holds himself out as a Constitutional expert, believe that the founders got it right, or missed the mark?

Next, does President Obama advocate government taking from each according to his ability and re-distributing that to each according to his needs when he says, “I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.” Or does he mean that individuals should be free to decide where their wealth goes.

Lastly, and more philosophically, can you point to any good or service which is not controlled in some way by federal law, which the President has advocated keeping free from federal law, or any area which he advocates allowing less central control? On the other hand, can you name any areas the President has characterized as out of control or otherwise deserving more government control?

Can you point to any area of your life where you think there is unnecessary federal regulation or where the federal government spends money on things you would not? If so, then you are less socialist than the President.

Do you think that the founding fathers would have tolerated taxing your attempts to feed yourself, much less for the purpose of supporting “the arts?” If not, then the founding fathers were less socialist than our President.

Bill O’Reilly has taken to asking those who advocate calling President Obama a socialist, paraphrasing, “Do you think he wants to take your house? I don’t see anything that indicates he wants to take your house!” He has missed a slight difference between socialists and communists, socialism is about control, communism is about ownership. President Obama advocates use of “the smart grid” whereby the electrical company can change your thermostat in your home, presumably to control energy use. President Obama advocates forcing you to make your house “green” enough to meet federal limits prior to being allowed to sell it. O’Reilly is correct that President Obama does not want to take your house, but it seems obvious to me, that he would gladly control it. This begs the question, “What President was more socialist than President Obama?” I have determined that President Obama is more socialist than our founding principles, more socialist than I am, and more socialist than anyone I have ever talked to. He is the most socialist President we have had. Am I disconnected from current society, or is our President?

Would you expect one or more of the 5 to show up the next day with a stuffed animal, because they did not like doing without? Do you think that some of the kids would offer their extra stuffed animal to classmates with none? I would. I would expect one or two of the 5 who simply forgot, or didn’t take the request seriously or whatever would remember the next day. That leaves 3 who did not bring a stuffed animal because they could not, for whatever reason. I would expect some with stuffed animals to share with those who do not have a stuffed animal. I have a son who routinely shares his most prized treats with others around him. Some of those with one stuffed animal would bring in another the next day, and some would do so specifically to share with their classmates.

Imagine however if the teacher felt sorry for the 5 students without a stuffed animal and assumed they did not bring one in because they did not have the opportunity at home. Imagine that she wants to keep from embarrassing those without stuffed animals by allowing them to play without a stuffed animal or to be at the mercy of the charity of those students with multiple stuffed animals. Imagine that with good intention, she collects the “extra” stuffed animals and distributes them to the students without one. Everyone has a stuffed animal. Perfect, right?

What happens the next day? What happens if this is continued indefinitely into the future?

Will the 2 forgetful students bring in a stuffed animal the next day, or the next? Perhaps, but is there more or less incentive for them to do so than if they had been left alone?

Are the students who had 2 or 3 stuffed animals, and had the “extra” collected more or less likely to bring their 2 or 3 again the next day, to have them collected and redistributed to someone else?

When there are fewer than 30 stuffed animals brought in, is it fair for those who brought one or more in to be the one without any, so that someone who did not bring one in can have one?

Does the student’s reason for no longer bringing in a stuffed animal matter to you when answering this question? For example, does it matter that one student who brought in multiple stuffed animals just days before, only brings in one, and another student does not bring one because she cannot? Would you take the one stuffed animal from the “stingy” student and give it to the one without any choice in the matter?

Would you expect a child to bring their best or favorite stuffed animal in if they saw another student play carelessly with stuffed animals that did not belong to them? Would they attempt to protect their favored stuffed animal from confiscation and damage by leaving it at home in favor of a less appreciated toy?

If the teacher attempted to make the stingy students (who stopped bringing in stuffed animals) feel bad, would they bring in lesser appreciated stuffed animals in larger quantities to keep the count up without risking the better stuffed animals?

Would those who lack the ability (as apposed to those who were forgetful or lazy) be better off in the original situation where everyone felt free to bring their best stuffed animals and share as they felt comfortable?

How does this thinly veiled commentary on free choice relate to current events?

The Associated Press did some homework recently: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091029/D9BKMVMG0.html

http://www.cleveland.com/newsflash/index.ssf?/base/national-13/126320409066680.xml&storylist=washington et. al.

First, the jobs created were overstated. Imagine that, people competing for government grants painting a rosy picture about how well they had used the money. No surprise, I would expect any program with self reporting to have tremendous reported success.

Second, unemployment did not fair better in areas where a lot of stimulus money was spent relative to where none was spent. Transportation Secretary, Ray LaHood disagreed and said there were tens of thousands of jobs created in construction with road and bridge money. After all, how could we spend $400,000 per stimulus job and not hire anyone? They can’t all be raises for current employees reported as jobs saved. Is someone lying or stretching the truth? Perhaps, but both could also be right. Consider this:

Start with the fact that government cannot create wealth; it cannot give anyone something without first confiscating it from someone else. So, where did the jobs come from? In terms of stimulus money, where did the $400,000 dollars come from? More importantly, how many people would your employer have to lay off, to pay up $400,000? After all, that is where the money comes from, the economy. So, we borrow (from the future economy) $400,000 per job, with interest, which will have to be paid back (likely in terms of jobs lost or not created) by that part of the economy left when the new notes come due. We recently borrowed $290 billion to pay the interest on the next few months of loans we already have. This was the raise in the borrowing limit to keep the notes from coming due, presumably until the health care bill can pass.

In addition, the economy has to pay the government to operate, pay people to print/collect/borrow the money, as the government does not create anything and cannot pay for itself. And, the economy must pay for those programs and non-operational expenses of the government, like national health care, should it pass.

So, imagine that you are a potential employer, especially one over seas. Are you more likely to hire people in America, or somewhere else? Keep in mine, an employer has to have the money to pay the employee before hiring and for a long enough time for them to pay for themselves. Are you more likely to bring your best-most-favoritest bear you built at Build-a-Bear to the American kindergarten to be confiscated, redistributed, and played with by careless Americans? Or are you more likely to take your bear to China/India/Ireland/Dubai or any of hundreds of more bear friendly countries?

The problem with socialism, shared prosperity, social justice, economic justice, or whatever statist-collectivist name you want to put on it, is that it demands that human nature be ignored. This type of system is only sustainable (let alone prosperous) if the teacher can go into each student’s house and force them to bring in their bears. In other words, if there is no private bear ownership, if there are no alternatives, if there are no liberties. Such systems are only sustainable at the point of the proverbial gun. Such systems are only enforced, not upheld by informed free people.

Consider how this fits in with the current discussion of the day, where you will be forced to buy a particular government specified health insurance from companies who are forced to provide it to you without considering pre-existing conditions, at a government determined “affordable” rate, payable to Doctors who have been forced to accept this amount. Plans better than the particular “minimum” plan determined by the government (ironically called Cadillac plans, a GM brand owned by the Fed) will be taxed for re-distribution, and Doctors who do not accept the minimum payment or charge cash or provide enough care to be in the top 10% by volume, will be penalized likewise.

Will the currently uninsured be better off with the eventual outcome, or at the mercy of the current system? Will those from other countries continue to bring their medical dollars here, or will they follow the foreign Doctors to the more bear friendly counties?

Taking resources out of the productive areas of the economy, via healthcare, energy, income, or any other taxes and mandates, to re-distribute to non-producing areas, wastes resources in the re-distribution effort, and scares producers from other countries from producing here. Job stimulation spending costs us jobs and re-distributive health care reform hinders the availability of health care. The “stingy” will always have theirs, here or in China. Those who cannot produce always suffer the worse equality-of-outcome from socialism than the outcome from equality-of-opportunity of the free market.