Tuesday, September 29, 2009

The last (and best) word on health care

On the current topic of health insurance, conspicuous in its absence is any discussion of the actuarial numbers.  Seems those in charge just want to get to the end game, with no public discussion on what it will cost.  Not so fast.

Among other things in my checkered past was a short stint as an insurance underwriter.  From that I learned the concept of insurance, at least as far as the insurance industry is concerned, is that insurance is a social mechanism for the transfer of the risk of monetary loss from the individual to a larger group.  The concept is that risk of loss fits a random pattern of probability.  It works very well for things like lightning strikes, hail, wind, etc.  Risk and the premiums charged for insurance vary directly with the probability of loss.  Hurricane insurance premiums are greater for folks living in Pensacola than for those in Minneapolis.  Car insurance premiums for a guy with 3 DWI's and two at-fault accidents are higher than for grandma, who only drives to church on Sunday.  Life insurance premiums for an aging rodeo clown who smokes and has a bottle hidden behind chute #9 are higher than for a young (straight) desk clerk. You get the idea.

Insurance doesn't work when the pool is exposed to catastrophic losses (exclusions for acts of war, earthquakes, etc), or when the pool as a whole is exposed to a high probability of loss.  Assuming a guy with 3 DWI's still has his license to drive, he isn't going to be able to buy insurance from a commercial company.  It will have to be a low limit, state fund that sells him insurance. How about $1,500 a quarter for $10,000 liability only coverage? That is the way it works.

Enter health insurance, where the industry has attempted to do the same thing, except in this case, the risk rules are not supposed to apply.  Insurance companies do deny coverage for pre-existing conditions.  Not to do so would be like asking a property insurance company to sell insurance on a car that's already been wrecked.  The same thing applies for seniors.  It is a fact of life that as one ages, health related issues, and the costs to pay for health care, increase.  As a group, seniors would be considered high risk for claims, so the concept of insurance isn't workable at any reasonable premium.  Because the insurance industry couldn't make it work, the government assumed the risk. To pay for it the government created the pyramid scheme known as Medicare, with a supposed larger pool of workers paying for the health care of our seniors.

My thoughts on this piece were triggered by a recent op-ed in our local paper in which the author set forth his list of "demands".  To address the problems he sees in the health cost dilemma it included a host of things; insisting that insurance companies provide coverage for pre-existing conditions, portability of coverage (meaning you get to keep the policy if you change jobs or lose your job), no limits on coverage, cheap drug benefits, etc.   Of course he wanted it for little to no cost to him. In short, he wanted to be able to transfer liabilities of potentially hundreds of thousands (billions?) of dollars to someone else.  The author didn't say what he would be willing to pay for these benefits, but my guess is probably no more than a few hundred a month.  Is this realistic?  No, but when these same folks are presented with the facts, the general reply is they don't care, they just want it.  But if you put the numbers to it (and I suspect those up to their neck in this have), the per capita cost for all this as an insurance product is unworkable.  If not, it would have already been done.

Once the cost to do this becomes reality, it will not be acceptable to the market.  Private insurance is still risk rated.  Most private health plans are weighted to younger, working force age employees, not seniors.  These pools are exposed to child rearing costs, but once you get past the first few weeks, most children are healthy and health care costs, while frequent, are not large.  In contrast, government pools are intended to assume all risk, so costs will blow through the roof.  Just as the bank bailouts took all the bad credit off the bank's books and put it on the government, this will take all the major health care costs away from those who can't afford it and put it on all of us.

But back to our opiner's list of demands, it's unlikely he sells his product for a huge loss, or if he works for wages, unlikely he works for free, but somehow expects the health care industry to do just that.  Bottom line is they couldn't do it if they wanted to.  In no time at all they would pay out more in claims than they could collect in premiums and the checks would bounce. At least it would if it were being operated on a straight up basis.  Medicare is broke, paying out more than it takes in and that's with all workers paying into a fund to pay for only part of the health care costs of seniors.  But Uncle has had a big credit limit on their charge card, so they have covered it for now.  But throw in everyone, and it is an unworkable system. You often see Medicare being touted as a model government program everyone is happy with. Yes they are because they get a huge amount of something for nothing.  It is unsustainable and if you could get an honest assessment from the Dems, they know this.  The "House Plan" being discussed does roll seniors into the total plan, where it will run head first into reality.  Talk of "Death Panels" is a little over the top and makes for good theatrics in rebuttal, but the fact is if you throw Seniors into a pool, it gets top heavy in a hurry.  Rationing care, or better, having a senior die is a good way of balancing the books.

Make no mistake, this is going to be expensive.  Once the sticker shock sets in, government plans will have to find a way to spread the costs.  Enter MANDATORY participation.  If you object to getting in the pool, they throw you in.  They need you to help spread the costs.  First it will be how much you are going to pay.  Later, they will start telling you how to live to control costs.  And this time they will have to. This is shaping up to be the mother of all pyramids, dwarfing Medicare and Social Security.

So to cut to the chase, we are no longer talking about "health insurance" that is a mechanism to insure against the risk of large medical costs that might wipe a person out with the insurance industry assessing risk.  Instead this will be another system of put and take, with the total risk pool thrown into one large hopper. So the question is, “After throwing everyone into the same pool, what is the cost?”

Lets assume that a unit of standard care (use Medicare as the base line) the industry offers to the general healthy public costs some amount of money.  Say $1 per unit. The industry and government both know what it costs by occupation, by age group, or collectively as a whole.  OK, that is the standard unit.  Now include all the extras, like pre-existing conditions, etc.   Is it now $4 or $5 per unit? So be it.  It is what it is. Are you going to include illegals?  You can say they will have to pay to participate but if you put a low earnings threshold, that is tantamount to free health care for illegals and anyone else.

So be honest about it. Put the numbers out there for all to see and then make the call.

Howard Audsley

Monday, September 28, 2009

WANT TO RUMBLE?

Let us take a short break from politics and speak of something more pleasant.

Last June three old friends and I took an eight day motorcycle tour of the Oregon Coast.  To say we had fun is a gross understatement.  I am organizing a run next year through a little traveled portion of Northern California. This will be a leisurely putt for no more than seven or eight old (ancient?) farts sixty and older.

The run will consist of easy 2-300 mile days over well maintained “Blue” highways with short stretches on the superslab no dirt or gravel. Each day we are in the saddle around 0730-0800, breakfast and lunch on the road.  After a scenic and gentle run we park the bikes around 1600-1700 at an upscale accommodation and walk to a fine dinner at a restaurant with a full bar.   This is no “Iron Butt” event.  No, this is tailored to the “geezer glide” set.  All bikes and trikes are welcome.  (I ride a 2004 Road King Classic.)

This will be a stag event so send the wife or girlfriend (or both) to the spa for a week.

We will stay at comfortable, upscale hotels or motels within walking distance of good restaurants with full bars.  There will be no camping or sleeping on picnic tables.

Now, I know what most of you guys are thinking, “Man that sure would be a hoot and I have the money and health but I’m too old, the wife, kids, grandkids, would never let me.”  In reality even if you are healthy 60+ and have never even ridden a bike it is more than possible to take MSF course, buy a bike and be perfectly comfortable on this adventure.

I have a very tentative itinerary that is guaranteed to change before we leave.  Anyone interested?  Leave a comment. 

 

Thursday, September 24, 2009

Let them drink tea

I emailed the following to teaparty@centralvalleyteaparty.com today about noon eastern time:
Watched Sean Hannity’s TV show last week from Huron, California.  He’s been beating YOUR drum about the gum’mint’s shutting off YOUR water to the San Joaquin Valley.  As I watched, I kept growing more and more angry.  I was angry at YOUR congressmen who talked about all their efforts to turn on the pumps.  I was angry at YOUR governor who talked about all his efforts to turn on the pumps. Didn’t he play tough guys in the movies?  Wasn’t he once called Europe’s strongest man? Didn’t he win something like 900 Mr. Olympia titles?  Or is he more like the characters he played in such forgettable films as ‘Twins’?  But I was most upset at the sight of thousands of healthy men whining to the gum’mint to please, please, please, be nice to us.

The current gum’mint of OUR nation cares nothing about YOUR plight other than to exploit it for their own self-interests: subjecting WE the people and forcing us all to suck on them for our nourishment, that and caving to foreign dictators and terrorists. I was hollering at the TV for you all to FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT!  When a rapist attacks should we just lie back and enjoy it hoping he won’t kill us, or should we do all we can to scratch his eyes out?  Are we to go gently into the good night of what was once the greatest nation in the history of the world until it caught a bad case of the kommie flu?  Come on folks, the gum’mint has you exactly where it wants you and you act like a herd of mewing sheep following the judas goats you elected into the slaughter pens.  Remember what happened to Christ on the Cross when He told gum'mint that He was thirsty?

Cass Sunstein currently is the Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.  His appointment was confirmed by the senate.  He believes that animals should have court appointed attorneys and be allowed to sue people in OUR courts.  Do you really think that a gum'mint which has placed this clown in any position of responsibility cares one twit about mere human beings when a pizza topping is at risk?

The policies of out-of-control gum’mint are pretty much raping YOUR incredibly fertile valley, which only needs water to thrive.  A quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin is, "God helps those who help themselves." In order to help ourselves, we must take this matter into our own hands.  You all should have a Tea Party at the Pumps.

Use Hannity to get the word out and invite tea partiers from throughout OUR nation to gather.  Ask us to bring chain cutters and welding torches.  If the gum’mint has not restored YOUR water by a given deadline, we must do so ourselves.  Party at the pumps!  Dare the gum’mint to stop us.  Turn the water back on ourselves if need be.  The time for yackity-yack is over.  We must take back OUR country from the kommie-czars determined to enslave us and our posterity.

I suggest you hold this party on November 4 as that is the anniversary of the worst mistake OUR nation ever made; however, I do not live there, so I am open to whatever date you all choose.  But we do have to draw a line in the dust and the time for words was yesterday.

Invite us and we will come!

Gill O'Teen

Indoctrination in Our Schools

Maybe you thought I put too much emphasis on conservatives and libertarians cooperating on some sort of education initiative at the end of my recent seemingly endless treatise. Well check this article out - Elementary School Students Reportedly Taught Songs Praising President Obama. There was a similar incident in a private home in California. As far as I know they aren’t yet calling Obama the Dear Leader but that is the only upside. This sort of indoctrination is going on to a greater or lesser degree all over the country.

I can honestly say that when I was in grade school and high school I had no idea what the political beliefs or affiliations of my teachers were. That’s how it should be. Even in college it was less obvious than it is now where even technical courses are politicized. This nonsense has got to stop or this Republic is doomed! We are running out of daylight!

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

Quote for the day

 Who is the very famous author of this quote:

"No morn ever dawned more favorable than ours did; and no day was every more clouded than the present! Wisdom, and good examples are necessary at this time to rescue the political machine from the impending storm."

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

Can Conservatives and Libertarians Form a Coalition to Save the Constitution? – Part VI

A Libertarian Conservative Coalition?

Before I end this series with some practical bottom line suggestions for cooperation between libertarians and conservatives I thought I would provide some thoughts from a conservative friend I often correspond with.

Part of the problem libertarians face in working with conservatives comes from our legitimate idea that civil society needs to handle many of the things that government now purports to control, maintain, and underwrite. Libertarians usually wish to go a little further in that direction than conservatives. But unfortunately for libertarians civil society is on shaky ground these days.

This particular conservative friend of mine has a theory about what made the U.S. a great country and powerful defender of constitutional government. He calls it the Four Pillars theory. "They are Our Republican Democracy, Our Capitalist system, Our historical reliance on Christian Principles, and the physical safety afforded by our Ocean Borders."

He contends that civil society as we know it and more importantly my ideal governmental institution, i.e. classical constitutional democratic republican government cannot function without all of them interacting in a reinforcing manner. I tend to agree although our ocean borders will have to be replaced by military high technology.

He had a comment about the scope and reflections of this series of posts and suggested that I add something about the special nature of the Constitution which I tried to do in Part II.

He also indicated that liberals and many others think that just because something is a “good idea” the Federal Government somehow needs to pass a law about it with little thought as to whether the Constitution would actually allow it without an amendment and with even less thought about the true purpose and nature of the document. This of course is a pernicious result of the “living” document concept.

He pointed out that people like Hamilton didn’t want a bill of rights. Not because Hamilton didn’t believe in rights but because our rights were in effect axiomatic and a legitimate government could only be instituted by people with rights, i.e. rights came first and then government. His specific observations were:


They actually are righteous in their belief that the way to ensure that
everyone behaves properly is to legislate it, forgetting that it was the people
(i.e. founders) that defined the extent of the government duties and
obligations, not the other way around.

Hamilton was emphatic about that. In effect, he recognized that if we were to have a “contractual” relationship with our government; that is that we agree to allow the government to “manage” our lives in exchange for certain rights and privileges, then (like in all contracts) there would need to be a negotiation, or an arbitration to settle arguments over which rights the people actually have or to make changes. Instead, he proffered that it was necessary that we keep the Constitution as a document that only defines the obligations of the Federal government, all else being left to the
people.

It was the people; he said that gave the government rights specifically formulated and defined by the various states. He wanted no Bill of Rights, considering them unnecessary since, in the Constitution, “the people surrender nothing, and as they retain every thing, they have no need of particular reservations." He likened them to political arrangements between sovereigns and subjects, where the people would wind up depending on the government to define their rights. He wanted it kept the other way around and warned against stipulations defining the people’s rights like those between kings and their subjects. The arguments between the federalists and the anti-federalists are legendary and make and interesting study, especially as we
now look back on 225 years of subsequent practice.
Whether you agree on the exact number of "pillars" one thing should be clear the social, economic, and moral strengths that supported our democratic republican constitutional system have been under attack for many years.

It seems to me that only a very few citizens have any concept at all regarding issues like the above that were debated when the Constitution was written. Yet this and other important issues were central to the reason the document was created in the first place.

What is important to understand is that in the view of the Founders legitimate governments protect the rights of their citizens but they are not the source of those rights which are natural or God given. This is the founding principle and philosophy behind our republic. Just because we haven’t always lived up to that principle does not change the fact that no other nation on earth was founded on such a profound and radical idea.

I have to believe that both libertarians and conservatives would agree that it is very important for our education system to cover these ideas in an unbiased manner. We allow all sorts of people inside and outside of our education system to offer their “considered” opinions on the Constitution and its meaning while providing almost no information on the ideas of the people who wrote it.

One of our key problems is that the moral integrity and the willingness to defend our socioeconomic system that was underwritten by our Judeo-Christian heritage are in massive disrepair and are constantly assaulted by the mainstream media and our education system which has become nothing more than a socialist propaganda mechanism for leftists. Yes, there were secular philosophers that contributed much and informed citizens should know about them but there is no denying the importance of our Judeo-Christian heritage.

Although I was raised as a Christian, today I probably would best be described as a deist not an atheist but not a devout follower of any organized religion either. Yet I acknowledge this moral heritage because it is an important fact and is part of the moral underpinnings of our laws. The idea that we are on the verge of becoming a theocracy is cultural Marxist propaganda. The only theocracies today are Islamic states.

Furthermore it is important to teach the truth. The U.S. is not a perfect nation but on balance it has done many more good things than bad. It is important that all citizens understand this especially the young ones. In U.S. schools today it seems to me that what is taught is not American history but negative American history. This will be a long difficult fight and the outcome is decidedly uncertain.

Two Sets of Suggestions:

Now here are my suggestions for practical cooperation between libertarians and conservatives in two critical areas.

Direct Political Cooperation:
  1. We should support only those politicians who show a clear understanding of constitutional issues and who are against the “living” document concept and the misuse of the phrase “general welfare”. In fact it might be a good idea to demand an amendment to the Constitution that requires every elected federal official to make a statement in writing describing his understanding of the Constitution and its purpose. That means they would actually have to read it!
  2. We should support only politicians who show a clear understanding of economic issues and are against profligate government spending and understand that we need a strong and stable currency backed by more than hot air from folks like Timothy Geithner and Ben Bernanke.
  3. We should support only politicians who indicate a genuine commitment to reducing the size of the federal government and who will demand that any new initiatives introduced in Congress be specifically authorized by the Constitution.

    Any such new initiatives not authorized must be implemented only by an amendment to the document. That also means ending actual departments and moving back toward what is actually allowed by the Constitution. The departments of Education and Commerce come to mind immediately. They are just not needed. Other things will either be phased out or we will agree on an amendment. This will be a very long and contentious process.
  4. We should support only those politicians who are willing to scrap our current Byzantine tax system, and add a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Whether you favor consumption taxes like the FairTax or a flat income tax let’s make it clear the status quo won’t cut it any longer.
  5. We should endeavor to convince all libertarians and conservatives to work together at all levels to strengthen the Constitution and to agree to leave contentious issues between them in abeyance until we have restored the Republic.

Here is an example of what I am talking about. Consider a conservative who meets all the constitutional philosophy criteria but is in favor of strict drug laws. If he has the best chance to beat a collectivist in an election, libertarians should vote for him and support his campaign. Another example would be a Libertarian or libertarian Republican who is not happy with our large oversees military commitment. Ron Paul and Peter Schiff come to mind. Conservatives should vote for them and support them because they are committed to limited constitutional government.

Educational Cooperation:

  1. We should support school vouchers. It isn’t a panacea but it will help break the hold of the cultural Marxists on our education system.
  2. We should support the right of parents to home school their children and demand reasonable rules for this activity. We can’t let the unions, politicians and government bureaucrats throw up unreasonable roadblocks.
  3. Knowing that we will get no help from the education establishment we should encourage all conservative and libertarian institutes like Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute, etc. via e-mails and other means to launch a joint educational effort to teach as many citizens as possible about the Constitution and its founding principles and about basic market economics.

    All of these institutes have some educational outreach programs but we need an all out coordinated effort to reach lots of folks. Maybe it should take the form of a joint foundation. We should make sure that we indicate that we will financially support such an effort. How this is done is best left to the experts. Maybe it can be done by a combination of TV, Internet, town hall type meetings, free formal classes, etc. Maybe 30 minute TV ads every day for the next 3 years is the answer! Maybe prizes or scholarships for students that write the best explanations of documents like the Federalist Papers would help. I just don’t know.
  4. We should write, call and e-mail your representatives in Congress to introduce a bill that would require every person entering government service to complete a course on the Constitution and the Founders basic view of this document as part of their training. If they are going to swear to support and defend this document against all enemies foreign and domestic, they should at least know what it says and have some understanding of the basic ideas behind its creation.

When it comes to the area of education we have to break the stranglehold of the cultural Marxists. That will take money and a long term commitment. I believe that if we don’t do that any political gains will only be brief holding actions. People will not support ideas they do not understand or have been indoctrinated to believe come from 18th century tedious treatises of no value in the modern world. The Constitution and the philosophy of the Founders must to be part of the education of American youth either in the regular educational system or outside of it.

Let's Agree to Disagree on Certain Issues

Disagreements between libertarians and conservatives are important but surely a commitment to make real progress on limited government defined by the Constitution and the principles upon which it is based has to be the highest priority. If we cannot make progress toward that goal, how can we expect any progress on other less important issues? I am convinced that if we don’t do this the collectivists will win.

Conservatives may not always agree with libertarians. But there is one thing they can count on from all libertarians (large or small L). If there is something libertarians really think the federal government should take on or some change is required in our government that isn’t explicitly allowed by the Constitution they will try to convince 2/3rds of the Congress and 3/4ths of the state legislatures to support it. If they can’t do that then they will accept the fact that as Mick Jagger said in 1969: “You can’t always get what you want.” They won’t try some weasel like maneuver to circumvent the Constitution a la the collectivists and their “living” document make it up as you go along strategy.

The “living” document concept has caused incalculable harm to this republic. It has in effect without the consent of the governed transferred the power that the Constitution declared as being automatically in the hands of the citizens of this country (see my conservative friend’s comments on Alexander Hamilton above) to its politicians and government bureaucrats. I think the “living” document concept is a canard and unmitigated sophistry. Think hard about it and see if you agree.

So what would be the best outcome of all this verbiage? I can’t speak for anyone else but for me it would be this. Someone will read this series of posts or just some of them and pass some ideas along or just talk to others about these issues. More people will think about the issues, come up with more or better ideas and just maybe somebody like Newt Gingrich will say: “Yeah, I can do something about this political situation and this education problem. I’ll just sit down with guys like Dick Armey, Bob Barr, Ron Paul, John Cornyn, Mike Pence, Jim DeMint, some folks at Heritage, Cato, NRO, Townhall.com, etc. and get things rolling.”

Then I can go back to being a techie, building web sites and web stores and burying myself in database and software manuals secure in the knowledge that the Constitution will be safe at least for a while anyway.

Sunday, September 20, 2009

Respected Friends?


On a recent broadcast of MSNBC’s Hardball, host Chris Matthews was chatting with historian Douglas Brinkley. He noted that Brinkley’s book ,"Teddy Roosevelt: the Wilderness Warrior", was #21 on the New York Times best seller list, and then he could not resist getting in this dig:  "There’s so much right-wing crap on the best seller list these days. It’s great to see a book that you might want to put on your shelf and let your respected friends see you actually reading."

By Matthews’ definition, a "respected friend" is obviously someone who has swallowed the liberal bait and doesn’t want to even consider that there might be another view. He fails to grasp an important fact: The reason that his so-called "right-wing crap" tops the list is that many more people are buying it. In harder times, people tend to vote with their wallet; they buy those things they really believe are necessary. It’s a fact that far more literature from the conservative side is being sold in these difficult days, and that seems to defy the percentages seen in last year’s election. It may mean that many people are regretting their vote in light of the Obama administration’s hard left turn in policy and huge increases in spending.

Chris - The tingle you feel running down your leg might just be a spasm of guilt.

--Tom Wells 9/20/09

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Can Conservatives and Libertarians Form a Coalition to Save the Constitution? – Part V

Another Difficult Issue – Immigration

First let’s talk about immigration in general. Most people think it should be handled in an orderly way via reasonable laws. I think the radical open border folks are a small minority. They are people who essentially don’t believe in nation states and favor some sort of world government. BTW that is a typical Marxist view of the world.

Libertarians do view immigration favorably, maybe too much so now that we have over 300 million inhabitants in the U. S. They are often accused of being open border supporters by conservatives who are more likely to be concerned about immigration. I can assure you, however, libertarians do believe in the concept of nation states. Unless the U. N. adopted wholeheartedly the limited government philosophy of the Founders of this country and a carbon copy of the U. S. Constitution libertarians would not be remotely interested in even contemplating world government. That isn’t likely with an institution as corrupt as the U. N. with its plethora of factions that do not believe in democracy let alone limited democratic republics.

Immigration is one area where I personally disagree with the Libertarian Party. They are too cavalier regarding this issue. Milton Friedman a libertarian economist pointed out that you can't have a liberal immigration policy and a welfare state. The welfare state has to be dismantled first. Libertarians sometimes forget that Friedman admonishment.

There are of course business people who see immigrants as cheap labor and helpful to their bottom line. Many of these business people hold mostly conservative views on other issues. The collectivists see them as potential voters who will support socialist policies. It’s a complex issue with many viewpoints some of which are very dangerous to the survival of this nation state.

I think we all understand that unrestricted immigration is a national security, economic, and cultural (assimilation) problem. All of us need to understand the practical limits of immigration.

It is also a problem of sheer numbers. Yes, the ideas of Thomas Malthus did not play out as he envisioned them due to the march of technology. However, there really is a practical upper limit on the number of people in a given geographic area. Because it is something that doesn’t get talked about very much let’s now consider that one issue in detail.

Immigration Has Mathematical Limits

There is the matter of the exponential mathematics involved with large influxes of people many of whom have high birth rates at least in the first few generations. Growth and decline in the population of any species is an exponential function. The U.S. now has 300 million plus human inhabitants. Is 500 million OK? 700 million? More?

The problem with exponential growth is that it can sneak up on you. If Pn = P0 * (1 + r)**n where P0 is some starting population, Pn is the population after n years, and r is the growth rate you can creep up on the “knee” of the curve and then suddenly be overwhelmed. This is possible even if r isn’t particularly large. It just takes longer to reach the “knee”. Here is an example of an exponential curve.

Here is a numerical example. If you assume that the growth rate r is 0.02 (2%) and you start with 300 million folks in 25 years you will have 492 million, an increase of 192 million between year 1 and 25. However after 50 years you will have 807 million, an increase of 315 million between year 25 and 50. Between year 50 and 75 the population would jump by 518 million to over 1.3 billion! It just continues to get exponentially worse until something bad happens.

It strikes me as ironic that maybe current economic policies will be that something. No one will want to come to a bankrupt United States. If our current third world banana republic economic policies result in much lower immigration or the opposite emigration it’s a hell of a price to pay to attain manageable population growth! Or as Dirty Harry said “That’s a hell of a price to pay for being stylish.”

If we disregard emigration, the only way this constant increase can change for a given indigenous population is if your growth rate is negative, i.e. there are more deaths than births. You then have a population decreasing exponentially. Emigration of course would accelerate the decline especially if the émigrés were mostly young. This by the way is what is happening with the indigenous populations of Europe and Russia which brings its own set of problems.

There seems to be one possible exception to an increase vs. decrease scenario. Some societies that have a robust economy where the middle class is pretty large seem to be able to stabilize around replacement, i.e. zero growth (r = 0). Our native born population in the U. S. is at about replacement. Japan on the other hand doesn’t seem to have been able to achieve this. The only reason the U.S. and European populations are increasing is because of immigration. In the U. S. the influx comes mostly from south of the border. In Europe it comes from North Africa, the Middle East and Asian countries like Pakistan.

The manner in which populations grow or contract is simple irrefutable mathematics.
Because we have an advanced high tech economic system which includes a high tech agricultural system we have avoided the dire Malthusian predictions. But the objective of this little exercise is to show that at some point we will still reach limits. Those limits are not unimportant.

Yes, we like to think of our country as welcoming immigrants but there are these damn facts that can’t be ignored. You can’t stuff everyone on the planet into North America. Some folks from certain cultures may not assimilate well. Some folks coming into this country may be terrorists. Some immigrants may not have the skill to live and work in an advanced economic system without financial support from the state.

The Bottom Line

OK, why did I bother to explain these points of contention in detail in posts III through V? I think they are the main reasons why cooperation between libertarians and conservatives is often lacking. I wanted to be honest and not ignore the contentious issues. If we gloss over the differences between conservatives and libertarians we will have at best only temporary cooperation and the collectivists will win with their main weapon, cultural Marxism. Keep reminding yourself that collectivists control most of the media, most of the education system and now most of the state and federal governments. Get complacent and you are done and they win.

Conservatives should not underestimate the number of people who are outright libertarians or hold at least some libertarian ideas. A coalition is worth pursuing. My last post in this series will be on the two areas where long term cooperation is vital. One is obviously political cooperation. The other is in the area of education. That’s a tough one since that is a game where the collectivists especially the cultural Marxist variety now hold almost all the high value cards.

Conservative/Libertarian Coalition

Gxm--- I find your discussion of Conservative/Libertarian interesting and informative.  I agree with most if not all of your points.   While I agree, I must take issue with what I suppose the premise to be:  That Libertarians, and Conservatives, should join forces and in joining forces could be a force on the national stage.  While this might be the hope and dream of many of us, the fact is the Republican Party rules this roost.

I ask, how many Libertarians are there?  How many Libertarians vote?  How many Libertarians vote for their national candidate?  I suspect that in a national election most Libertarians vote Republican.

Assuming that most Libertarians vote Republican and the others vote for their candidate, what is the driving force that would tempt the Republican Party to more than tepidly court the Libertarians?  Nice to have them on board, but not worth a lot of effort.

One might reasonably say, Republicans should better spend time and treasure courting the Black vote.  Now this would be a true “black hole,” given that the present resident in the White House recently took something like 96 percent of the Black vote.  What about the large and growing Hispanic vote?  No way is it going in majority to Republicans.

What does that leave the Republicans?  Not much.

What does this leave Conservatives?  Even less.

Monday, September 14, 2009

Quote for the day

 This was writ thousands of years ago but could have been written yesterday.  Who is the author?

"The budget should be balanced, the treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance."

Saturday, September 12, 2009

Can Conservatives and Libertarians Form a Coalition to Save the Constitution? – Part IV

A Difficult Issue
One of the most contentious disputes between conservatives and libertarians is their view about what should be legal and illegal behavior.

Libertarians tend to view any action that does not directly violate the rights of another person as being permissible in a strictly legal sense. That doesn’t mean that libertarians don’t find certain behavior objectionable. It’s just that we don’t think people should be locked up for being foolish in their life choices or objectionable in their behavior.

Conservatives, on the other hand, are more likely to view certain behaviors as so damaging to society that they must be outlawed even though no individual is a direct victim in the conventional sense. Society as a group is a victim.

Libertarians would prefer that these damaging and objectionable behaviors be reduced via social pressure within civil society. However, I think many libertarians would acknowledge that there is a problem with our reasoning. Our civil society has been ineffective in reducing certain self-destructive and objectionable behaviors due to a general disintegration of our culture.

I believe that disintegration also has a lot to do with the lack of understanding and support of the founding principles of our republic something conservatives and libertarians desperately need to address. I also think that cultural Marxists, a la Antonio Gramsci, have consciously aided and abetted this cultural disintegration.

Two of the most contentious issues are the use of drugs and the oldest profession of prostitution. Now, some actions connected to these two issues are without a doubt illegal. Prostitution often involves intimidation and abuse of prostitutes, the use of minors, and outright slavery by the organized criminals that control the sex trade.

None of this is viewed as legal behavior by libertarians. Drugs are often sold to minors and drug gangs use intimidation, force, and murder to increase their market share. None of this is viewed as legal behavior by libertarians either. Probably the one area that holds the most potential for real damage to the social fabric is the drug trade.

Drugs Are Harmful--Sometimes Very Harmful

I agree with the principle that “victimless crimes” cannot be crimes because there is no victim. Certainly the use of drugs, as opposed to the sale of them, should at some point be decriminalized. However, you could possibly make the case that selling at least some types of drugs is harmful enough to society to be a national security issue and a crime similar to espionage, sabotage or treason.

Again, libertarians need to acknowledge this and have a civil discussion with conservatives about how we can reach a compromise. Conservatives, on the other hand, need to recognize the problems of trying to enforce anti-drug laws.

We experienced the same issues during the period when alcoholic beverages were illegal. Should we allow this and the general dispute over allowable behavior to be a deal-breaker with respect to the important goal of truly limited government and the restoration of the Constitution to its former exalted position in U. S. jurisprudence? I think not. Let’s agree to disagree on this one for now and focus on ways to stop the collectivists from destroying classical constitutional democratic republican government.

My next post will be on immigration, another point of contention with conservatives; then I’ll lay out the two most important ways libertarians and conservatives can cooperate to save the Constitution.

Thursday, September 10, 2009

Can Conservatives and Libertarians Form a Coalition to Save the Constitution? – Part III

One of the fundamental differences between conservatives and libertarians is their view of foreign policy. I think they both agree on the importance of national security but disagree on the policies needed to maintain national security.

We have military installations in something like 135 countries but we only have about 5% of the world’s population. That’s not sustainable, any more than the third world banana republic economic policies now being pursued by our government.

In the libertarian view we need to discuss a phase-out of the American military presence in the world and return to something closer to the old Monroe Doctrine. Some folks have occasionally referred to it as a more rubble-less trouble doctrine, i.e. leave us and our hemisphere alone or we will pound the hell out of you and then go away and let you ponder the consequences of messing with us.

However, I am one libertarian who is willing to hold any decision on this matter in abeyance until we have actually gotten on the road to restoring the Constitution and the Republic. I think even staunch defenders of our current military and foreign policy would agree that some phase out is needed to help get us through the current financial situation--along with, of course, large cuts in many other parts of the government.

It seems to me that the bedrock of any cooperation between libertarians and others in the political sphere must rest on a belief in the principles of limited government, a written constitution of contractual nature, and the philosophy of “God given” or “natural” rights. Lately I have had some misgivings about the attitude of some libertarians that makes them sound too much like the anti-war collectivists who simply want to unilaterally disarm.

Make no mistake. These folks desire the destruction of our constitutional republic in favor of some ill defined world collectivist government. I can assure conservatives that libertarians do think the U. S. government must provide for the common defense and are very concerned about the viability of the Constitution and the Republic. We do not favor a world government.

Libertarians Have Very Little in Common with Modern Day Liberals or Progressives. Modern Day Liberals or Progressives Are Socialists.

There has actually been some discussion among a few libertarians of a possible alliance with liberals on foreign policy issues. In my view, today’s liberals are really an eclectic group of collectivists.

I have had discussions with both liberal Democrats and with “democratic” socialists over many years. I have always come away with a disquieting feeling that many of them are really closet totalitarian socialists. They, like their European counterparts, seem to be afflicted with what I call the philosopher king syndrome. They are looking for someone to lead them to Utopia.

I know feelings are not a good basis for solid analysis. However, if you listen to their rhetoric and examine their proposals for policy changes, there is no adherence to limited government or to the philosophy of the Founders beyond some vague commitment to “rights” which seem to expand and contract with passing fashion. One thing seems very clear to me:  they are committed to the concept of a “living” constitution, i.e. you make it up as you go along. This idea is an anathema to libertarians.

Our Foreign Policy Is a Result of the Trauma of WWII.

To be honest, many libertarians, like collectivist Democrats, seem to have a lack of historical perspective when it comes to foreign policy. In my view we still operate under the Truman Doctrine, not the Bush Doctrine or any other doctrine, albeit in time there may be a radical change coming with the new administration and it will then justifiably take on a new name, i.e. the Obama Doctrine.

At any rate, the current doctrine is the same one that sent me to Vietnam in the late 60’s. The overriding theme of today’s foreign policy continues to be our break with the noninterventionist policy that prevailed (with some deviations) prior to WWII. Prior to that war we operated for the most part, except during WWI, under the Monroe Doctrine. You will note, however, that the Monroe Doctrine was not totally noninterventionist--at least with regard to the western hemisphere.

The trauma of WWII radically changed our foreign policy, and that should be perfectly understandable. At the time it may well have been the only way forward. Over the years each administration has placed its own “spin” on this doctrine (some being more aggressive than others). JFK, LBJ, and Reagan were Truman Doctrine heavy while Carter and Clinton were Truman Doctrine light and now Obama is at best ultra light bordering on treason.

There has been a whole foreign policy establishment built up since WWII that is wedded to this doctrine, albeit to different ways to implement it. I have read some articles written by Thomas Barnett, for example. It seems to me that he has taken the Truman Doctrine and ratcheted it up a few hundred degrees and then mapped it over the entire underdeveloped world.

Other folks, like Carter and Clinton, think we need to use the soft approach by talking in the UN, which is a thoroughly corrupt organization and giving countries stuff so they will be nice. The Europeans refer to this with the oxymoron “soft power”.

Admittedly, Obama’s foreign and military policy is only a few months old and hasn’t fully matured, but it seems very suspect. There are many people in his administration who are world government believers and so are his financial supporters like George Soros. They can’t be trusted and would, I believe, sell out the U. S. in a heartbeat. They will end the Truman Doctrine in favor of a new approach of complete submission to the U. N. if they can get away with it.

I have read speeches by Wilson (the first truly internationalist president), FDR, Truman, JFK, et al. Bush and Cheney sounded exactly the same. To postulate anything different, as many collectivist Democrats do, is patently absurd and I think dishonest.

Bush and Cheney believed in the Truman Doctrine because they grew up with it just as I did and unlike me have never questioned it, although Bush did exhibit an aversion to "nation building" prior to 9/11. I do not hold that against them. My father, who served in WWII, firmly believed in it also.

If the U.S. does not guarantee peace and stability, the world will descend into chaos. I actually don’t necessarily disagree with that supposition but I don’t necessarily think it would be impossible to defend the U.S. even if such chaos ensues. However, what libertarians must come to grips with is that for the foreseeable future a very robust national defense will be necessary.

Although the Founders highly recommended that we not enter into “foreign entanglements”, this was not an explicit part of the U.S. Constitution. If we are going to suggest a return to a noninterventionist foreign policy closer to something like the old Monroe Doctrine, we first need to explain to the American people that we understand the history of our foreign policy, and then we need to explain how the US can be defended just in case the rest of the world does not make progress toward peace and prosperity based on our good example.

The conservatives, who are more apt to accept the current military situation, need to honestly assess alternatives to the massive number of military installations we have worldwide. Libertarians, on the other hand, need to understand that if we begin closing bases in the eastern hemisphere, for example, some or all of the savings may have to go to other military expenditures like R&D. We can get a much fairer hearing from conservatives if we acknowledge this fact.

In the interest of national survival a noninterventionist foreign policy requires a realistic understanding of the world we live in. The attitude of the Swiss might be worth reflecting upon.

We also have to address the moral issues involved. What libertarians have to understand about this whole foreign policy paradigm shift at the end of WWII is that once you buy into it you begin to look at the world differently. Other places in the world seem so connected to us that a deviation from our less violent behavior requires action to stop it.

Think of it this way:  If bombs were being detonated daily in Chicago or L.A. as they were in Baghdad not too long ago, would anyone here think it was none of the rest of the country’s business? Would it be OK if Chicago’s mayor Daily was systematically executing people he didn’t like?

There is some logic and moral arguments on the side of conservatives who think the U.S. should police the world and make it "safe for democracy". Think of it in more personal terms. If you knew your neighbor was mercilessly beating his wife every night, would you ignore it because it was none of your business?

What I am saying is that there are moral dilemmas here that cannot be cavalierly dismissed. Now, the collectivist Democrats say we should do all of this policing through the UN, but we know that will not happen. Look at Darfur! Even when UN peacekeeping troops are deployed they often act like organized criminals, thugs, and child molesters!

The collectivists always like to vilify the U. S. military whenever they can get away with it. Any individuals in the U. S. military that commit crimes are prosecuted under UCMJ if caught. The sort of wholesale corruption and barbarity exhibited by U. N. troops from other nations does not occur in the U. S. military. I think the solution advocated by collectivists is a veiled attempt to place the U.S. military under the direct control of the U. N., something that would be an anathema to both libertarians and conservatives.

In making the case for a more noninterventionist foreign policy, libertarians have to acknowledge these moral issues and then argue persuasively that given our resources and political ideals we cannot and should not act alone as the world's police force. But we should and have every right to vigorously defend this country and its constitution.

Conservatives need to make a cost benefit analysis and convince libertarians that all these oversees military expenditures are really worth the sacrifice. The Monroe Doctrine was once the foreign policy conservatives supported. They wanted to bring all the troops home after WWII. Truman won the debate and maintained forces in Europe and Asia that grew ever larger over time. It was a triumph for a philosophy started by another Democrat, Woodrow Wilson.

At any rate, this disagreement can wait until such time that the continued life of this Republic is more secure from its domestic enemies.

Quote for the day

 Who is the author of this Quote:

"All profit is not measured on the bottom line."

We will call you out….

One word: Wow!

The talking heads previewed President Obama’s speech to congress as an attempt to reach across party lines and find common ground on the health care reform issue.  It was anything but.  The President instead used every negative term he could cram onto his teleprompter to further divide and inflame the issue.  American citizens who have demonstrated their concerns were accused of using lies, distortions scare tactics and misinformation.  Could it be he was looking in a mirror when he wrote those words?  He finished by acting the playground bully, with his, "We will call you out." comment.

The best way to deal with a bully is to face him down.  We need to consider ourselves called out, then, and we need to respond by increasing our efforts to expose the massive hypocrisy that is this administration.

This provides a perfect example of the old axiom that absolute power corrupts absolutely.  They believe that their way is the only way, and because they control the White House and congress, they refuse to compromise.  The President chided Republicans for "having no plan", ignoring the members holding aloft their alternative legislation. The lapdog media, in their wrap-ups, called that a theatrical stunt, with one commentator stating that he suspected them to be only blank stacks of paper.

The Obama/Pelosi/Reid wagon is rolling headlong down the road to ruin with only arrogance in control, and we need to put on the brakes before it’s too late.

Mr. President, I am an American Citizen who has real concerns.  I consider myself "called out."



Tom

Tuesday, September 8, 2009

The President's Address to Youth

First of all congratulations to President Obama on his address to our  youth.  With his eloquence he imparted much better the same wisdom I would have.  He is a Loved Great Leader.

What he has deftly done is to establish a new national day of  message to our youth from the President.  You may be sure that henceforward the day after Labor Day will be known as “The Presidents Address to Youth Day” or some such name.  It will be hyped in the media to the extent well known.  (Until [if ever] a Conservative is elected.)

This President has at least three, likely seven, and perhaps many more addresses to be made.  So, one might ask, “What is the problem?”.   No problem as long as messages stay on the same note as the first, but do you expect that?   I don’t.  The messages will become more and more slanted toward his Socialist agenda and after three, six or seven years students will be pledging alliance to BHO against a background of a Wagnerian symphony. 

Remember Barack Hussein Obama and  his people are intelligent, very intelligent.  More intelligent than you or I; trained behind ivy walls, nurtured by Lenin, Marx, Alinsky, Ayers, Wright, and put to the test on the streets.  These are combat hardened veterans.  Do not at all underestimate the evil that lurks within their hearts.            

Politicians Give Drunken Sailors a Bad Name

I've seen a lot of comments lately to the effect that the government in Washington is spending money like a drunken sailor.  This is an unfortunate comparison.  Having been a drunken sailor, I'd like to offer some comments on their behalf. 

Unlike the comfortable life style of the politicians in our capital, the lot of a sailor is a hard one, and so it is not surprising that sailors are a hard lot.  When you see them ashore they are compensating for a life that has often been brutal, frightening and lonely. 

The sailor always wishes he were somewhere else.  Mostly he wishes he were home.  The politician is comfortable in Washington.  He may even be afraid to go home.

While the sailor may be found to have an astounding vocabulary, he is not a lawyer.  He does not drone on and on in debate.  He settles his differences quickly and often at amazingly low cost. 

The sailor will not try to modify your behavior.  He will not make rules for you to follow to achieve some glorious but distant end.  In fact, if you take care not to insult him, his ship, or his consort, he will probably take no notice of you at all. 

There will be a clear understanding between the sailor and the woman on his arm.  Unlike the politician with his interns or staff, the sailor and his consort will do nothing newsworthy.  They will make no scandal. 

So if you see a sailor enjoying the delights of the port, you might consider buying him and his companion a drink.  Be he Navy or merchant marine, he is greatly responsible for your liberty and your good life style...

but most importantly, unlike the politician, he is spending his own money. 

--Jerry 9/8/09

Saturday, September 5, 2009

Can Conservatives and Libertarians Form a Coalition to Save the Constitution? – Part II

The Problem

Now that we have some idea of what conservatives and libertarians are let’s discuss the joint problem we have. First, the Constitution of the United States is no longer the one the Founder’s envisioned. I don’t mean because it has been amended. They envisioned that. What they did not envision was that it would change radically merely by a convoluted and sophistic interpretation process that began in earnest in the 1930’s when it was redefined as a “living” document. They may, however, have had some inkling of the problem if you consider the quotes below under “The General Welfare” heading. That “living” document process has almost rendered the U. S. Constitution “a mere scrap of paper”. A view of all constitutions sometimes attributed to Fredrick the Great. Second, I think we are now seeing the final step in this process an attempt to bring what I call classical constitutional democratic republican government (CCDRG) to a complete end and replace it with a sort of collectivist mob rule guided however by the elites of Washington D. C. and their bureaucratic minions. If collectivists remain in control, that final effort may come as an overt move to completely replace the document at some point. This has been openly talked about by a number of socialist individuals and groups. Obama himself has talked about the document being about negative rights – Obama Interview on WBEZ. My interpretation of his redistribution idea is nothing less than legalized theft. True individual liberty cannot exist if you take property from someone who gained it without violating some else’s rights, i.e. via theft, fraud, etc. and give it to someone else. The only way that can happen in a free society is through individual charitable giving. Anyone that has been half awake for the last 80+ years knows that the “altruistic” politicians and bureaucrats involved in the government redistribution process take a big cut of the money flowing through these programs. It is about power, control and money for them not about helping the downtrodden.

I think the perniciousness of this process is understood by many libertarians and conservatives but is not even on the radar of the vast majority of voters. In addition even among libertarians and conservatives there does not seem to be a good grasp of what can be done. I’ll suggest two things which we can discuss in more detail in subsequent posts. They are joint political action and some sort of joint educational effort to at the very least present the philosophy behind the Constitution to the general public especially those who are or have been in the government school system between 1970 and the present. Surely if voters are going to reject the U. S. republic they should at least understand what they are rejecting. Rest assured that unless individual teachers are making an effort to teach the true philosophy behind the Constitution it is not happening. Schools are now propaganda mills for collectivist ideas. Here’s just one example - Politically correct mumbo-jumbo in our schools. Many collectivists will tell you the Constitution isn’t really very important because it was a flawed document that allowed slavery for example. That’s another unsound argument. It is an amendable document and that flaw was eliminated. You can bet however that the flawed document sort of reasoning gets full play in government schools. You can also bet that the truth will never see the light of day in the average government school. That truth is that the Founders realized that people (themselves included) were not perfect and can never be trusted with too much power. That truth has not changed and had been germinating from the time of the Greek democracies and the Roman Republic long before our country’s founding. This from Cato’s Letters a series of essays very familiar to the Founders:

“There is something so wanton and monstrous in lawless power, that there scarce ever was a human spirit that could bear it; and the mind of man, which is weak and limited, ought never to be trusted with a power that is boundless.”

Cato’s Letter # 25 April 15, 1721

The Constitution was drafted to limit and divide the power of the federal government via checks and balances nothing more and nothing less. It was based on the Founder’s best understanding of the problems experienced in the Greek democracies and the Roman Republic, the philosophies of Adam Smith, John Locke and others, and on essays like those of John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon (Cato’s Letters). They did a pretty good job but nothing is perfect and the collectivists have been chipping away at this concept for about 100 years now. They have done a lot of damage. If we let them they will destroy the whole concept of limited government and the separation of powers.

The General Welfare

As a libertarian I believe that the root of most of our problems lies in the sophistic argument that the phrase “general welfare” found in two places in the U. S. Constitution transforms it into a “living” document. Check out the copy of the U. S. Constitution here or here, read the paragraphs that contain this phrase and see if you agree with collectivists on their interpretation that these words give the federal government the level of power they contend it does. You will find the phrase in the preamble and the first paragraph of Article I Section 8.

This idea got its first real opportunity for massive implementation during the New Deal of the 1930’s. Although the Supreme Court thwarted some of the New Deal’s unconstitutional collectivist programs the concept of a “living” document held. Taken to its logical conclusion it basically means we just make it up as we go along. In spite of what collectivists will tell you it really is the antithesis of the rule of law. How can you rely on the rule of law if the law isn’t in writing or if even though it is in writing it is subject to such broad interpretation that it might as well not be in writing? Just think of normal business contracts. Imagine you sign a contract with someone. Standard business contracts always have some way to change them by agreement between the parties or for parties to abandon the contract after giving notice in writing. There is usually some period of time that must elapse before the notice takes effect and there may be stipulations that some payment must be made to exit the agreement, etc. Now imagine you find out that the other party to the contract you signed a few months ago is violating it. You call him and ask why he is not adhering to your agreement. “Oh well” he says “that was a number of months ago and times have changed”. “I interpret this as a living agreement subject to change as the times change.”

The Constitution is a special kind of contract. It can be changed by amendment in writing only by one party. That party is the citizenry of this republic who can amend the Constitution via their representatives. You need the agreement of 2/3rds of the Senate and House and 75% of the state legislatures. The amendment process can be started in the Congress or in a convention held by the states. The New Dealers thought that was too much trouble so they just started adding powers and responsibilities to the central government and ignoring the amendment process. The excuse for this approach to the Constitution was the general welfare phrase. They called it a clause but it isn’t. It’s just a phrase taken out of context.

Now collectivists don’t want you to know this but this question of general welfare came up early in the history of this republic. Here is what two Founders had to say.

“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.”

- Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Albert Gallatin, 1817

"…in questions of power then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the constitution…"

- Thomas Jefferson

"With respect to the two words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. If the words obtained so readily a place in the "Articles of Confederation," and received so little notice in their admission into the present Constitution, and retained for so long a time a silent place in both, the fairest explanation is, that the words, in the alternative of meaning nothing or meaning everything, had the former meaning taken for granted."

- James Madison in a letter to James Robertson 04/20/1831

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government. The more adequate, indeed, the federal powers may be rendered to the national defense, the less frequent will be those scenes of danger which might favor their ascendancy over the governments of the particular States."

- James Madison (Federalist Paper 45)

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions."

- James Madison in a letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792

"There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."

- James Madison

I rest my case.

My next post will be on foreign policy which is an area of disagreement between libertarians and conservatives. Let’s see if we can agree to disagree until we have gotten this country heading back to CCDRG.

Friday, September 4, 2009

Colossal Arrogance on Display

On Tuesday, September 8, President Obama intends to address all schoolchildren in the country simultaneously. It was initially reported that his address would include encouraging the children to find ways to “serve President Obama” and to write a paper describing their ideas. As of Friday morning, September 4, it is reported that he has abandoned that approach, and will instead encourage them to “work hard and improve themselves.” We’ll see.

It is very disturbing, even frightening, that he even considered such language. The founders intended that elected officials would serve the citizens. What kind of object lesson is it, then, when a President considers telling our young minds that they should be serving him? The question should be, “How can you serve your country?”

Take a look back through world history. Whenever people have been told that they should serve any national leader, that leader has proven to be a self-serving despot who believes that he IS the country. That is the definition of arrogance. If the intent was there to use such language when addressing the kids, it means the thought remains regardless of any statement to the contrary.

This colossal arrogance on display, combined with the reckless spending and ill-advised agenda of this administration and congress, makes the growing grassroots efforts more important than ever. We need to work as hard as we can to assure that congress is brought under control in 2010, and that a new administration is elected in 2012.

--Tom Wells 9/4/09

Thursday, September 3, 2009

Some Call it Torture

When the attorney general appointed a special persecutor [sic] to harass CIA interrogators, I got to wondering if these people were missing something.  I tend to think of this gang as a bunch of liberal whiz kids, and one thing about liberal whiz kids is that they mostly do not avail themselves of the chance to serve their country by being in our military. 

Lacking this military experience may prevent them from being able to understand the big picture.  Now I will grant that extreme interrogation measures are not nice, but look at these from the perspective of millions of American servicemen. 

In boot camp they take you apart with various physical, mental, and verbal abuses and then put you back together the way they want you to be. 

After boot camp the main theme is to do harm to the enemy.  It is OK to kill the enemy with small arms fire, artillery, bombs, and mines.  It is OK to attack the enemy with really nasty things like flame throwers, napalm and white phosphorus.  None of these things are nice. 

While our service men and women are attacking the enemy with these nasty implements and methods, they understand that the enemy will be attacking them with similar weapons and techniques.  There is no question that such experiences are comparable to the worst torture possible.  But they have always been the standard deal for millions of Americans who, unlike the whiz kids, served in uniform.

There are lesser things to deal with as well.  Sleep can be hard to get.  Meals are missed, and the food was not always great, and you have to learn to live with the fear and separation.  You know that if you are captured the enemy will torture you if he sees any advantage in doing so.  I have to wonder if we have ever fought any enemy that did not torture our troops.  It is pretty much the standard deal.  Try not to get captured.

Given all that, I have to wonder if we are about to start treating enemy prisoners better than they were treated by their own side before we captured them.  We must make sure they get enough sleep.  They must not miss any meals.  Can't say threatening things to them.  Looks like we are going to treat them better than we treat our own people.

Waterboarding is romper room stuff compared to what happens when a ship goes down and all hands are lost.  Over the years we have lost a lot of ships.  Our people have died in a lot of other ways that are easily comparable to the worst torture.  War is not nice.

Our new administration, the whiz kids with little or no military experience, want to be nice to the enemy.  I don't think they get it.  The enemy is at war with us.  We need to be at war with them. 

In the good times a person can take to the moral high ground and look pretty.  In the bad times (that be now) people will look at them over there and wonder why they are not over here in the mud where the fight is.  It is going to look like they won't fight.  At least not for our side.

--Jerry 9/3/09

Tuesday, September 1, 2009

They Never Learn...


In the past few months, we’ve endured the passage of the Stimulus package, the continuing saga of Cap-And-Tax, and now the soap opera that is Obamacare. The Obama Administration’s casual references to trillions of dollars in debt send chills down the spine. (Not thrills up the leg – sorry, Chris Matthews.)

When they are asked how they intend to pay for all of this, the only response is the old mantra, “Tax the rich.”  They couch it in vague terms and attempt to mask the intent, but it is, as it has always been, the mainstay of Democrat tax-and-spend economic theory.  Time and again the fallacy of this approach has been proven, but the left continues down the same tired path. They ignore a simple truth, one which cannot be refuted by the most rabid liberal. It is best summed up in this series of questions and answers:

Q:       How did the wealthy get wealthy?
A:       They are the investors, the entrepreneurs, and the developers that make this country grow and prosper. They provide the goods and services that everyone needs.  They make their profits (Profit is not a dirty word!) by selling these goods and services.

Q:       So, if they make a profit, shouldn’t they pay more?
A:       They need to continue to make a profit. Otherwise, it’s pointless.  If they are forced to pay more in taxes, they will need to increase the price of their goods and services to offset that loss and remain in business. That means that the end consumer bears the brunt of any increase in the taxes on the so-called “rich.”

Q:       Well, if they can’t sell the goods at a reasonable
            price, shouldn’t they fail?
A:       And be replaced with what? If you drive these people out of business and essential goods and services become scarce, supply and demand will force the prices still higher.  Again, who gets stuck with the increase?  You do.

If you run through this with a liberal, you will find them grasping at straws to defend their side of the argument.  They will turn to government caps on profit, price controls, and the other ill-advised intervention strategies that have never worked and never will.  Eventually, what they will propose is nothing short of a move to socialism, which is exactly where this bunch is trying to take us.
Try this on a liberal or two.  It’s fun to watch them struggle with it.

--Tom Wells, 9/1/09

The Beginning of WWII

I’ll continue with my ongoing treatise on conservatives and libertarians in a few days. However, during the next two days you might want to read this two part article - Why Wasn't Hitler Stopped? Although there were military skirmishes in the decade prior to September 1, 1939 that really were part of the build up to WWII this was the day that was the official start of that massive conflict 70 years ago. WWII was the event that radically changed our foreign policy something conservatives and libertarians don't always agree on. The article is interesting from another angle because it is in Spiegel Online a German media site.

Quote for the day

Who is the author of this quote:

“My choices in life were either to be a piano player in a whore house or a politician. And to tell the truth, there's hardly any difference!”