Beware of the Common Good or Public Interest

I recently had someone tell me that we should enact Pres. Obama’s domestic agenda for the sake of the common good and that his policies were in the public’s interest. His statement forced me to consider the fallacy of the argument that is “the common good” or “public interest.” To justify a decision based upon “the common good” is merely a tool of using an indefinable concept to justify someone’s ideological agenda. If you break “the common good” of society down to its core, you realize that the public is merely a collection of individuals.

When politicians argue that “the common good” of society is somehow different from and superior to the individual good of society’s members, they are essentially concluding that the good of SOME men should take precedence over the good of others. So what is to become of the less fortunate members of society? Well, they become the proverbial sacrificial lambs that must be slain for “the common good."

The use of terms such as “common good” and “public interest” assume that it is moral and just for the good of the majority to trump the individual. However, if we understand that a society is nothing more than a collection of individuals, we will recognize that the good of the majority is delusional because the violation of an individual’s rights means the abrogation of all rights. As we have seen in Russia, China, Germany and in many other tyrannical states over the past 100 years, the end game of justifying “change” in the name of “the common good” is a deliverance of a helpless majority into the hands of any demagogue that claims to have the “voice of the people.” History of such regimes has proven that the State acting in the interest of “the common good” is always at the expense of the individual’s liberty and freedom.

Compiled thoughts on the Baucus Health Bill Write-up

Sorry for not posting for so long. The new baby has taken up much of my time but I will do my best to keep up. I am attaching some great thoughts on the Baucus proposal:

"Taxing Baucus [Benjamin Zycher]

Mike Tanner of Cato and I (separately) have looked at the CBO analysis of the Baucus markup (which is not a bill), and have reached much the same conclusions. The headlines will tell us that it will cost $829 billion (that is, less than $900 billion) over ten years, and will reduce the cumulative deficit by $81 billion.

Those numbers are phony for any number of reasons, but notice that the "deficit reduction" is the net result of $518 billion in increased spending from expanded insurance coverage, $404 billion in reduced spending from "other provisions affecting direct spending," and $196 billion in increased revenues. The $404 billion "does not include effects on spending subject to future appropriations." So: Will Congress actually cut Medicare reimbursements (by over 20 percent), unlike previous years? More fundamentally: The increase in revenues ($196 billion) is over twice the net reduction in the deficit. So put aside all the other problems with the numbers: None of this net "deficit reduction" results from spending efficiencies. It is all tax increases and more. Will those higher taxes be limited to those making in excess of $250,000 per year? Please... Note also that the analysis states in the first paragraph that the "analysis is preliminary in large part because the Chairman's mark, as amended, has not yet been embodied in legislative language."

So, it is no longer the production of only laws and sausages that should be hidden from view. Chairmen's marks also are to be hidden from polite society, lest voters, CBO, and an ever-hopeful press be scandalized. So much for transparency."

Random Thought

It has been a while since I posted and have been busy with family matters but I thought I would include this interesting perspective on redistributive policies and government intervention:

"U.S. President Grover Cleveland once vetoed an expenditure that would have provided $10,000 of federal aid to drought-stricken Texas farmers. He explained to congress why such an appropriation of taxpayer money was inappropriate:

"I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution; and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadily resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the Government, the Government should not support the people. ... The friendliness and charity of our fellow countrymen can always be relied on to relieve their fellow citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood."

“Progressive” Government & Big Business: Common and Corrupt Bedfellows

After examining the moral justification for capitalism and the hypocrisy that exists within government regarding the policy of price controls and monopolies, it would be reasonable to conclude that businesses would want as much freedom and competition free from government control as possible within the marketplace. However, ever since politicians and economists first began enacting policies to regulate and “plan” the free market, there have been a contingent of traditionally larger businesses that have been strong advocates for government control and manipulation of the markets. Why would these businesses jump in bed with the government? The answer lies at the end of what my grandfather wisely taught me about years ago: “Follow the money trail.”

A byproduct of the consumer-friendly competition created by capitalism is the requirement of every business to pull its own weight and create value for consumers or risk being overtaken by more innovative, creative and driven competitors. So what is the best way for a large established company to avoid the hard work required to remain its status at the top of its industry? Run to the only institution capable of forcing businesses and individuals to comply with its demands: the government.

Traditionally, political pundits and historians have painted the interests of big business as being aligned with a conservative agenda. However, an examination of the Obama administration’s “cozy embrace of big business,” through its economic policies and bailouts, persuasively illustrates that big business has rarely had such an ally as the government in shielding them from the cruel realities of competition.

A few examples I have stolen from Jonah Goldberg (writer for National Review) will illustrate my point: (1) it has been well publicized that when President Obama called for healthcare reform, insurance companies quickly adopted the mantra that they wanted to be “at the table rather than on the menu.” Translation – insurance companies wanted to ensure that they were in a position to play a profitable and integral role in the upcoming welfare state that will be created through socialized medicine; (2) Phillip Morris, the largest of the tobacco companies, recently supported and realized passage of a so-called “anti-tobacco” bill that benefited Morris’ position in the market because it made it more difficult for smaller, more innovative competitors to compete (the bill made it more difficult for tobacco companies to advertise their products – a nice bill for a large tobacco company looking to retain its 50% market share); (3) GE has willingly jumped into bed with the government on the global warming hysteria by peddling “green” products to Uncle Sam rather than creating and selling competitive products on the free market that create value for consumers. Why? Because GE knows that it wants to position itself as a “favorite” of Obama when cap-and-trade passes so that it can attain a protected industry status, thereby ensuring decades of government subsidization; (4) finally, the most obvious and blatant example of protectionism for big business is President Obama’s proposed plan to deal with “systemic risk” in the financial markets. A quick summary of the proposal shows that big businesses in the financial markets – large banks, insurance companies, etc – will not be permitted to fail if it is determined by the Federal Reserve that such a failure would threaten the stability of the financial markets. This policy creates an obvious incentive for larger financial firms to grow as quickly and attain as much influence within the markets as possible in order to attain a “too big to fail” status (even if it were to involve irresponsible “investments”). By attaining a “too big to fail” status, a business can become lazy and rest assured that it has become a ward of the state and can operate as a careless chronic welfare recipient that has no incentive to do anything other than maintain its status.

Who loses when big business jumps into bed with the government? You do. Individual consumers and small businesses seeking to expand by offering better products at lower prices lose. Individual consumers lose because we never experience the drop in prices and development of new, innovative and more efficient products by smaller, hungrier and aggressive entrepreneurs. Small businesses lose because they don’t have the benefit of government protection from competition and are required to play from an uneven playing field, thereby limiting the prospects of success.

The examples discussed above provide a wonderful illustration of how a planned economy creates inequities that far outweigh the claimed “unfair” consequences of a free market economy. What is the end result of President Obama’s policies that protect big business at the expense of small business and consumers? Any Rand summarizes it best: “The inevitable result of planned economies is a ‘syndicalist or corporative organization of industry in which competition is more or less suppressed but planning is left in the hands of the independent monopolies of the separate industries. This places the consumer at the mercy of the joint monopolist action of capitalists and the workers in the best organized industries.” See what happens when government confuses and corrupts the free market by taking sides and protecting certain “big” business? I don’t fault big business for looking out for their interests by attempting to capitalize on a corrupt government; I fault our corrupt government for taking sides and corrupting the free market.

The Moral Justification for Capitalism

The topic of capitalism vs. planned/organized economies and their variations (socialism, fascism, communism, etc) is too complex to completely dissect in a blog posting but due to the fact that so many of President Obama’s domestic policies (health care, cap & trade, extensive regulation of the financial industry, wealth redistribution policies employed under the tax system) are based upon a perceived deficiency of capitalism and the free markets, it is important to examine the moral justification for capitalism when compared to planned economies. This blog posting will only examine the moral justification for capitalism and will reserve discussion regarding planned economies and President Obama’s concept of a planned economy for soon-to-be posted blog discussions.

When considering whether a social system should be adopted by a society, it makes sense to ask whether individual citizens will retain their freedom under the proposed system. A number of economists, philosophers, and Founding Fathers of our country have outlined the concept of freedom and the reality that in order to guarantee freedom, a social system must uphold and protect the rights of the individual. As the Declaration of Independence and other Founding documents have indicated, a citizen’s individual rights can only be assured by upholding a political and economic system that guarantees an individual’s right to his own life, his own liberty, and to the pursuit of his own happiness. If we assume that the primary goal of a social system is to provide and protect freedom, we must consider whether the system respects individual rights and whether physical force is banned from human relationships.

Although many of the concepts and thoughts about capitalism that I am about to discuss are common knowledge, I think it is important to revisit them from the moral perspective of who is permitted to make decisions and the freedom provided under capitalism. Generally, capitalism is defined as “an economic and social system in which trade and industry are privately controlled (instead of state-controlled) for profit.” Under capitalism, all human relationships (investments, distribution, income, production, pricing, and supply) are voluntary. As a social system, capitalism respects individual rights by respecting the concept of property rights. A cornerstone of capitalism is the concept of privately-owned property. The concept of private property (the right to keep property purchased and earned as a result of one’s labor) provides an incentive for each individual to strive to pursue his own good for his own sake. By allowing human relationships to remain voluntary, capitalism permits each individual to decide what product or service provides the most value. Additionally, capitalism, through the mechanism of competition, creates an incentive for each producer to continue to provide better quality and lower priced products in order to survive. By allowing every business, producer and consumer to keep the property they have earned as a result of their labor and value created within the market, capitalism provides an incentive and reward for all parties in the market: consumer, producer and service provider.

The economic benefits of capitalism are widely recognized but many proponents of capitalism advocate its use for efficiency reasons, while neglecting the freedom of choice free from coercion that capitalism provides. As an example, many passive proponents of capitalism argue that the concept of the free market can only be justified because it provides for the “best allocation of the national resources” or that it represents “the best way to achieve the common good.” These arguments are misplaced because as Ayn Rand and F.A. Hayek and others have pointed out, man is not a national resource and the fact that capitalism provides the most effective means of achieving the “common good” is merely a secondary consequence and not the primary justification for capitalism.

Many critics of capitalism argue that this desire to act in one’s own self-interest through the existence of the “profit motive” is immoral because it creates greed, excess and a misallocation of resources that leaves a segment of the population neglected and in poverty. This focus on selflessness/altruism is an admirable quality for individuals to pursue in their own lives. However, altruism is a philosophy that should be accepted or rejected by each individual based upon their own decisions, not a political philosophy employed and directed by the government. When government imposes altruism upon its citizens through claims that every citizen must act in the best interest of the public or that each citizen has a social or societal duty, it imposes a moral duty upon the competent to serve the incompetent and the willing to serve the unwilling.

The moral justification for capitalism is that it is the only system that provides for and protects the individual and his right to exist for his own sake. Capitalism provides an equal opportunity to each individual and does not discriminate or make judgments upon individuals: “The economic value of a man’s work is determined, on a free market, by a single principle: by the voluntary consent of those who are willing to trade him their work or products in return. It wholly rejects altruism (the deliberate pursuit of the interests or welfare of others or the public interest). Man is not the property or the servant of society – a man works in order to support his OWN life and must be guided by his own self-interest and if he wants to trade with others he must not expect sacrificial victims.”

The Founding Fathers always expressed their deepest respect and conviction for the freedom of individuals in society and the necessity that governments limit their sphere of influence and control. It was for this reason that America has long remained the most free of all men since its founding. Our Founding Fathers also knew that government should concern itself with providing a framework in which freedom and equality of opportunity can be assured and maintained and understood that it is wiser to leave altruism and benevolence to the moral conviction of each individual and the philanthropy of every man.

When is a Monopoly & Price Fixing a Good Thing?

I am starting this posting differently because in the process of writing about the hypocritical economic policies being advocated by the Obama administration and the liberal members of Congress related to the Cap and Trade and socialized medicine proposals, I have realized that capitalism must be thoroughly defended and explained. It has become popular to vilify, denigrate and blame the free market for all of society’s economic problems in order to gain support for new policies that concentrate on government planning. As such, I will begin a series of blog postings related to capitalism/the free market and the fallacies and effects of government planning on our economy and individual liberties. Here are a few of the upcoming topics: (1) The Moral Justification for Capitalism; (2) Why Big Business Supports Obama’s Regulation of the Free Market; (3) Pres. Obama’s Policy of Planned Competition/Capitalism. But, these topics are for another day; back to the topic at hand.

President Obama’s health care reform rhetoric and proposed policy agenda has proposed a clever, yet dangerous twist on applying government control within the framework of competition: Obama proposes to create a public health care option operated and funded by taxpayer funds that will compete with private health insurance companies. On the surface, it sounds like a good idea to many people because it sounds like you still have competition and the free market available to all with the government merely competing as a new member of the group for the benefit of all Americans. However, as pointed out by many economists, the government insurance plan will have many political and economic advantages over private insurance companies (gov’t agency has no need to make money and can run at a loss for decades at the expense of the taxpayer, as well as exclude itself from harsh regulations imposed on the private sector – thereby placing the private sector at a distinct disadvantage) that will ultimately create a government-run health care monopoly.

The health care proposals of President Obama are merely an example of a broader point I am attempting to make: Why is a monopoly and the practice of price fixing a criminal act punishable by prison time when a private business is involved but instantly becomes admirable policy enacted for the “public interest” when instituted and directed by government?

In order to understand why the public accepts such a hypocritical argument by bureaucrats, we have to understand that, over time, the public has accepted a baseless statement: businesses operate solely on a basis of “excessive greed and irresponsibility” and policies enacted by bureaucrats are admirable attempts by “public servants” with “good intentions” to look out for the common people.

It is useful to consider the government’s own arguments against the use of monopolies and price fixing (Anti-trust laws) when determining the government’s culpability. The logic behind the Sherman Act and other anti-trust laws as expressed by the U.S. Supreme Court was that business decisions “directed to (take) control of the market by suppression of competition” should be made illegal. “The end sought (by anti-trust laws) was the prevention of restraints to free competition in business and commercial transactions which tended to restrict production, raise prices, or otherwise control the market to the detriment of purchasers or consumers of goods and services, all of which had come to be regarded as a special form of public injury.” The primary purpose of the Sherman Act and similar laws was to protect the consumer from manipulation of the market by businesses that would result in higher prices and the squeezing out of competitors, thereby limiting the effectiveness of the free market. Additionally, the Sherman Act was so concerned about the effect a monopoly would have on the consumer and other competitors that it made it a felony to show “intent to monopolize,” as expressed in Section 2: “Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine to conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony. . .”

If it has been determined by government that price fixing and monopolies are detrimental to the consumer and a “restraint to free competition,” what danger does a government program pose when it possesses inherent advantages that would have the end effect of creating an industry monopoly (a government-run health care monopoly)?

To gain a full understanding of the danger of such a government policy, it is necessary to examine the difference between economic and political power. Ayn Rand’s analysis is illustrative: “Economic power is exercised by means of a positive – offering men a reward, an incentive, a payment, a value; political power is exercised by means of a negative – threat of punishment, injury, imprisonment, alienation, destruction. The businessman’s tool is values; the politician’s tool is fear. The sole means by which a government can grow big is physical force; the sole means by which a business can grow big, in a free economy, is productive achievement.” Rand makes the insightful point that the only entity in society that holds a legal monopoly on the use of force is the government. Businesses and individuals have no legal power to force individuals to act against their own choice. However, “the nature of governmental action is coercive action.” The public must recognize that when businesses make an error of economic judgment, that business suffers the consequences; when the government makes an error of political judgment, the entire country suffers the consequences.

Perhaps the most important point to take from the government’s proposal is that just as bureaucrats consistently propose legislation from which they exclude themselves (excluding Congress from the proposed government-run health care monopoly), so too they vilify, criminalize and regulate business under the disguise of “protecting the public,” only to accept and implement the same monopolistic policies for the “protection of the public.” Which is more dangerous and capable of corruption and control, business or government?

Social Justice: The Goal of President Obama and Sotomayor’s Application of Empathy and Race

On May 1, 2009, President Obama was very clear in his conclusion that in determining a qualified candidate for the U.S. Supreme Court, the “quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people’s hopes and struggles, (w)as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decision(s) and outcomes.” Pres. Obama further elaborated his thoughts on empathy as a necessary quality to justice on July 17, 2007 during a speech to Planned Parenthood Action Fund: “We need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom, the empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old -- and that’s the criteria by which I’m going to select my judges.”

In the same spirit as her husband, Michelle Obama has voiced her views regarding race and her opinion that an “(African-American) separationist may better understand the desperation of their (Black lower class) situation and feel more hopeless about a resolution as opposed to an integrationist who is ignorant to their plight.”

In an attempt to establish a presence of empathy on the U.S. Supreme Court, President Obama has chosen Sonia Sotomayor, an appellate judge who has repeatedly asserted that she “embraces the view that ‘Our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions’ and explicitly disagrees with Justice O’Connor’s assessment that a wise old man and a wise old woman would reach the same conclusion. According to Judge Sotomayor, ‘I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a while male who hasn’t lived that life.’ Judge Sotomayor challenges the belief that the law needs to be knowable and predictable, borrowing from the early 20th century Legal Realists who rejected the idea that judging involves the impartial application of neutral principles.”

With such a judicial philosophy in mind, the conservative Republicans involved in the confirmation hearings must focus on what Sotomayor’s ultimate goal is when applying empathy, race and economic status in the evaluation of cases. Why would empathy be required when applying the law to a set of facts? Social justice is the ultimate goal of President Obama and Judge Sotomayor.

Social justice has long been a goal of many philosophers and politicians and originated as a moral duty by each individual to assist individuals and groups in receiving fair treatment and an opportunity to an impartial share of the benefits of society. However, Socialism imposed a political duty on governments to ensure social justice to identified groups or individuals deemed to have experienced some form of injustice. Social justice, as a political duty, has long been defined by results. All of the named people groups Pres. Obama and Judge Sotomayor identified were all groups statistically deemed to have experienced some form of discrimination or stigma: unwed teenage mothers, the poor, gay, disabled, elderly, African-Americans, Latina women, etc. Additionally, Judge Sotomayor has explicitly identified which groups should receive empathy and at whose expense: wise Latina women would make better decisions than white males presumably because minority women would be able to account for how judicial decisions would affect minorities and other groups that have experienced some form of discrimination or injustice.

What the concept of social justice, as applied in the judicial context, truly means is that judges must, in the words of the renowned liberal constitutional law professor Lawrence Tribe, “get into the kind of controversial substantive choices that the process components are so anxious to leave to the electorate and its representatives.” More specifically, the written law is “neither irrelevant NOR all-determining and the U.S. Constitution is to be interpreted broadly as moral values to be applied rather than as explicit rules to follow.” Under Sotomayor’s view, empathy is a necessary ingredient in judicial decision-making because the decisions being made are not mere issues of law, but also issues of morality and equality.

An essential component in ensuring social justice is achieved is the belief that assistance to the less fortunate must come not through merely the means of charity, but by the transfer of benefits to the less fortunate from the more affluent of society. This transfer of wealth is viewed as a matter of justice – “individuals are entitled to some share of the wealth produced by society, simply by virtue of being members of that society, and irrespective of any individual contributions made or not made to the production of that wealth.” Empathy would be an empowering quality to an activist judge seeking social justice through redistribution of wealth and property rights in the application of the law.

Oliver Wendell Holmes opposed “confounding morality with law” and held the essential function of the law was to preserve society and strongly opposed the application of empathy or other “emotional applications,” as this quote illustrates: “The law takes no account of the infinite varieties of temperament, intellect, and education which makes the internal character of a given act so different in different men. It does not attempt to see men as God sees them.” Justice Holmes knew that to apply empathy and other emotional arguments to law was to imply a drastic change in the judicial process under the disguise of a mere preference for one group over another, with the end result being an expansion of the power of government to make “discretionary determinations in domains once exempt from its power.” Finally, to assume the judicial branch or any other branch is capable of producing specific social results is presupposing “a mastery of social details inherently beyond our ken.”

The point of this post was to point out that although the nomination of Judge Sotomayor may ultimately be confirmed due to the make-up of Congress, conservatives in Congress must use this time as an opportunity to teach and expose the true ideology behind the application of empathy, race and economic status to the judiciary. Questions should require Sotomayor to illustrate how empathy would result in better decisions and how race and an understanding of certain groups of individuals would result in more “just” decisions. If the questions are tailored appropriately, the answers from Sotomayor will illustrate that her adherence to such principles of judicial activism are the means by which she wishes to ensure social justice is achieved at the expense of the law.

What It Means To Be a “Moderate”

What does it mean to be a “Moderate?” What ideological approach do “moderates” adhere to? What does it mean to moderate on your principles? Why has it become so desirable for Republicans to moderate their political and moral principles?

“Moderate” Republicans have recently come forward with the charge that in order for the Republican Party to remain relevant and in-touch with the American public, Republicans must become more moderate in their views/ideology. Although it is true that politics does routinely involve negotiation and posturing, “moderate” Republicans have come forward with a philosophy of compromise and moderation as an ideology and political strategy by which to govern. In order to evaluate the validity of such a strategy, it is necessary to consider what a “moderate” claims his principles and values are and how the principle of political moderation can and will affect the American people.

As a general matter, a principle is “a fundamental, primary, or general truth, on which other principles depend.” A man of principle is a man that has a framework or foundation of core values and concrete concepts by which he can set goals and determine the viability of a given proposal. However, “Moderates” have articulated a self-righteous ideology that requires one to compromise with an opponent on anything in an effort to be “practical.” In an effort to be politically “practical,” Moderates have been relegated to a role of responding to policies, as they are proposed by liberals, rather than leading by principles.

Over 45 years ago, Ayn Rand wrote a defense of capitalism (“Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal”) in which she addressed the issue of moderation and the effects moderation would have on capitalism and the political direction of the United States. Although this blog posting is not directly discussing the moral and societal benefits of capitalism, Rand’s analysis of moderation provides an excellent explanation of how the concept of political moderation results in unacceptable costs to the representative party and society.

Rand offered three rules about the relationship of principles to goals:

(1) In any conflict between two groups who hold the same basic principles (conservative Republicans and supposedly Moderate Republicans) it is the more consistent one who wins. The group holding a clearer, more consistent view of the end to be achieved will be more consistently right in his choice of means; and the contradictions of his opponent will work to his advantage

(2) In any collaboration between two groups who hold different basic principles (liberals and Moderate Republicans), it is the more evil or irrational who wins because a group that pursues mixed goals will find that its bad/compromised principles drive out the good principles. Compromising basic principles results in a slow slide further to the political left with no possible return to one’s previous principled position.

(3) When opposite basic principles (conservatism and liberalism) are clearly and openly defined, it works to the advantage of the rational side but when they are not clearly defined, it works to the advantage of the irrational side – in order to win, the rational side of any controversy requires that its goals be clearly understood and defined, not hidden or confused.

Applying the rules above, it shows that a philosophy of political moderation would result in a Republican Party lacking any direction or leadership. Republicans would be relegated to responding to liberal policies/legislation by saying “no” or “me-too’ing” any program initiated by Democrats while claiming they seek to achieve “the same ends as Democrats,” but by different means. Does this strategy sound familiar? A similar strategy to John McCain, Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe and other “moderate” Republicans?

The goal of most liberal/statist politicans is to “change” the country through the means of a welfare state by using “single, concrete, specific measures, enlarging the power of the government a step at a time, never permitting these steps to be summed up into principles.” The overall effect of the liberal policies was to create statism by “slow rot.” Apparently, the goal of moderates is to merely retard this process by a series of compromises in which certain statist policies are accepted in exchange for some specified concession. This shows the primary reason liberals like/promote “moderates:” they know they can incrementally wipe out the relevancy of moderates through a policy of bargaining and compromise in which the ultimate result is voluntary compliance to the statist.

So what is the safely undefined, indeterminate “moderate” middle? It is “a moderate amount of government favors and special privileges to the rich and a moderate amount of government handouts to the poor – with a moderate respect for rights and a moderate degree of brute governmental force – with a moderate amount of freedom and a moderate amount of slavery – with a moderate degree of justice and a moderate degree of injustice – with a moderate amount of security and a moderate amount of terror – and with a moderate amount of tolerance for all, except those “extremists” who uphold principles, consistency, objectivity, morality and who refuse to compromise.”

What can one say about a man with “moderate” integrity? Only truly uncompromising virtue can be properly termed as virtue. “If an uncompromising stand is to be smeared as ‘extremism,’ then that smear is directed at any devotion to values, any loyalty to principles, any profound conviction, any consistency, any steadfastness, any passion, any dedication to an unbreached, inviolate truth – any man of integrity.”” There can be no compromise on basic principles. There can be no compromise on moral issues. There can be no compromise on matters of knowledge, of truth, of rational conviction. “

What can Republicans expect if “moderates” define the party with their compromising philosophy? “A docile, pliable, moderate Milquetoast who never gets excited, never makes trouble, never cares too much, adjusts to anything and upholds nothing. . . the best proof of an intellectual movement’s collapse is the day when it has nothing to offer as an ultimate ideal but a plea for moderation.”

The Republican Party Solution: Become a Broader Party by Being a Purer Party

Is the Republican Party dead? If you listen to the media and political pundits, the resounding conclusion is that not only is the Republican Party dead, Reaganism and traditional conservatism is dead. In fact, many political “experts” now say that the only way the Republican Party can experience resurgence is to learn from Arlen Specter and other “moderates” by adopting liberal stances on many social, environmental and economic issues. Is this true? Jeb Bush recently stated that “it’s time for Republicans to give up ‘nostalgia’ and look forward, even if it means stealing the Democrats’ winning strategy.” Are Republicans doomed to an existence of lukewarm conservatism?

Republicans that feel their party is doomed should look back at history and feel some reassurance. For at least a century, Republicans have had an internal debate regarding whether the party should moderate its conservative principles. You only have to look back 50 years to see the most recent example of the “moderation” debate that is occurring today. Barry Goldwater ran for President against LBJ in 1964. LBJ won the election in a landslide (6th most lopsided election in American history) by carrying 44 of the 50 states. LBJ’s victory was decisive (22.6% margin of victory and 61.1% of the national popular vote). Many Republicans (i.e. Nelson Rockefeller and other “Rockefeller Republicans”) understandably analyzed this defeat and similar electoral defeats during this time as a sign that Republicans must become more and more “moderate” in order to remain relevant. However, Goldwater and other principled conservatives understood that the American people lived their lives based on conservative principles and understood that Republicans must remain true to those principles. Otherwise, Republicans and conservatism becomes nothing more than watered-down liberalism. Goldwater and other conservatives pressed forward with their conservative message by laying the groundwork for Reagan’s gubernatorial and presidential elections. Imagine if Goldwater and other true conservatives had decided to throw in the towel and give up their conservative principles? What if they decided to moderate their views by adopting New Deal/Great Society, welfare, and other entitlement programs? What true legitimacy would they have had and would the Republican Party have ever been relevant again?

This brief history lesson illustrates that Republicans must not “jump the gun” when it comes to decisions to abandon conservative principles. Perhaps the best evidence that Republicans should not abandon their philosophy comes in the form of polls showing strong support for conservative principles and the example of President Barack Obama’s public perception campaign he has been waging since his election. Although polls continue to show a high approval rating for President Obama related to his job performance, polls show a lack of support for a number of policy and ideological stances taken by the President: a majority of voters believe the economic stimulus and auto bailouts were a bad idea and a large percentage of voters believe a smaller and limited government are more beneficial for our country. Additionally, Pres. Obama’s April 29th press conference illustrated his understanding that the American public still adheres to conservative principles (at least as related to economic principles and the size of government). During a portion of Pres. Obama’s speech he mentioned that he did not want to run auto companies and banks and that he wants a smaller, leaner and more efficient government. It is obvious from the President’s policies that he believes in growing government and allowing government to take a larger role in the lives of its citizens. So why say this? President Obama is attempting to play the role of the thoughtful and “sober centrist,” while underneath enacting radical policies in an attempt to transform America through an ever-growing federal government. Obama can read the polls and knows that America may like his personality and demeanor (as shown by his approval ratings), but the gap between personality and policies/ideology shows Americans do not believe many of his radically liberal policies are good for America.

Republicans must take full advantage of this opportunity to show the American people the distinction between Pres. Obama, the personality and rhetoric, and Pres. Obama the ideologue and liberal. After all, what value does a President provide to the People if he is not judged by his policies and ideology? Republicans must remember that the “moderate” candidate, John McCain, was a failure and lost the election precisely because he presented the American people with watered-down conservatism. Why should Republicans water down conservatism even more? Why do Republicans think that will somehow result in victory? The Republican Party can become a broader party by being a purer party – the goals are not mutually exclusive. Liberals are not apologizing for their views. Similarly, conservatives have no reason to apologize for being conservative by diluting the conservative message and philosophy by adopting liberal tendencies. Conservatives must boldly reclaim their position by articulating what it means to be conservative and how conservative policies differ from Obama’s radical liberal agenda. Conservatism can win the battle on substance; where conservatism is lacking is in form and perception. Conservatism doesn’t need defenders; it needs articulate and charismatic mouthpieces to voice conservative philosophy. By remaining true to conservative principles and unashamedly remaining a purely conservative party, Republicans can broaden its base of support and reclaim its influence.

Beware: Change Is Not Always Something You Should Believe In

Throughout history, generations have theorized that society’s ills can be cured by “change(s)” to society's foundations through government/political intervention. Our current President ran on a simple message of Hope and Change. He claimed that he would provide Change that people could truly believe in. Change is a funny word. One segment of the population views this word as a positive word connoting the casting off of ancient philosophy or thought and adoption of a new, innovative approach. Other members of the population view “change” as a threat to traditional prescriptions that have existed over time that have proven to provide predictable results. When is change a good thing? Is it proper for a man to claim he can bring about change that everyone can believe in?

Before you determine if “change” is beneficial, you must ask yourself if the status quo is in need of change. If the answer to this question is yes, you must consider if the change being advocated by the politician is in fact more beneficial than the status quo. I will concede that certain aspects of our health care, education and energy policies are in need of changes. However, change is in the eye of the beholder. Herein lies the problem with the “change” being preached to Americans by President Obama: He believes the “change” that is needed for our country is a complete reframing of the foundation for which our country operates. President Obama’s policies on cap and trade, socialized medicine, immigration reform, economic regulation and many other domestic and foreign policies exact a radical departure from traditional American policies. Many Americans are listening to President Obama’s utopian rhetoric regarding these policies without asking themselves if the results of these policies would in fact be more beneficial than the status quo. I hear people say that the health care system is broken and that anything would be better than what we have. Is that true? Is that why Canadians and Europeans come to the U.S. for important medical treatment rather than stay and wait for months or years for treatment from their government run hospitals and doctors? I understand that people easily forget that it can appear that “the grass is greener on the other side.” However, simply “hoping” or even “believing” that the grass is greener on the other side doesn’t mean it actually is greener.

The real question I have is whether President Obama’s drastic and sudden “change” he proposes is a change any of us should believe in? When I hear a man stand before me and tell me he has a vision for America that involves radical changes in the framework for which our society operates, I pause with suspicion and concern. History has proven that in almost every regard, beneficial change takes place slowly and through the unconscious actions of many individuals within a society; not at the hand of a single man with good intentions. The great statesman, Edmund Burke, pointed out that proper change comes as a consequence “of a need generally felt, not inspired by fine-spun abstractions. Our part is to patch and polish the old order of things, trying to discern the difference between a profound, slow, natural alteration and some infatuation of the hour.” Burke summarized his point by stating, “by and large, change is a process independent of conscious human endeavor, if it is beneficial change.” Men may use their reason to assist an adjustment of the old order of things to new things “if they are employed in a spirit of reverence, awake to their own fallibility.”

President Obama’s rhetoric regarding his policies paints a utopian picture of free, yet high-quality health care for all; complete energy independence through alternative energy sources while at the same time somehow keeping costs low to consumers; spending trillions on stimulus for infrastructure, education and other social programs with the promise such spending will have no ill effect on our economy and international standing in the future. President Obama’s rhetoric of “change” provides no possibility of the fallibility of his policies and is quick to pass judgment on the status quo without considering if his new policies would be any more effective than the status quo or result in any possible unintended consequences creating greater harm. For example, if President Obama wanted beneficial change for our health care system, he would analyze not only the deficiencies of the American health care system, but also the deficiencies under the socialized medicine programs instituted in Canada and UK (i.e. 4 month to 2 year waiting lists and rationed health care). Unfortunately, Pres. Obama is arrogantly relying upon his reason and vision as a means to fundamentally “change” America. By throwing aside the traditional policies and practices of society and altering the fabric of our American society, President Obama sets upon a dangerous course, as expressed by Burke:

“One of the first and most leading principles on which the commonwealth and its laws are consecrated, is lest the temporary possessors and life renters in it, unmindful of what they have received from their ancestors, or of what is due to their posterity, should act as if they were the entire masters; that they should not think it among their rights to cut off the entail, or commit waste on the inheritance, by destroying at their pleasure the whole original fabric of their society; hazarding to leave those that come after them a ruin instead of a habitation – and teaching these successors as little to respect their contrivances, as they had themselves respected the institutions of their forefathers. By this unprincipled facility of changing the state as often, and as much, and in as many ways, as there are floating fancies or fashions, the whole chain and continuity of the commonwealth would be broken. No one generation could link with another. Men would become little better than the flies of a summer.”

Prudence, patience and a respect for the traditional social, economic and religious framework for which our country was founded and developed should be employed in seeking reform or “change” for the ills of our society. Burke said it best when he described beneficial reform: “the perceptive reformer combines an ability to reform with a disposition to preserve; THE MAN WHO LOVES CHANGE IS WHOLLY DISQUALIFIED, FROM HIS LUST, TO BE THE AGENT OF CHANGE.”

One Nation Under ????

Recently, President Obama made a startling statement to the people of Turkey regarding his perception of the religious beliefs of the U.S: “I've said before that one of the great strengths of the United States is, although as I mentioned we have a very large Christian population, we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values.” This is a startling statement coming from a U.S. President. Although it is true that our Constitution does not advocate or endorse any specific religion, it has always been very clear that we were a nation founded under God and detailed readings of the Founders reveal that many of the Founding Fathers strongly believed that a faith in God was the backbone that would keep our democratic republic intact. One must ask themselves why Obama would make this statement. Clearly, the only reason is to curry favor with the Muslim world and appease them by making a “feel good” statement that clearly misrepresents the founding of our nation and the present state of religion and belief in God in America.

The more interesting question is what President Obama meant when he stated that “we” (meaning him) consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values. What ideals? What values? Where do we originate and develop these ideals and values and why are they the “right” or “moral” ideals and values? Equally important, do our ideals and values and the inclusion or exclusion of a belief in God matter to the health and survival of our country?

As a general principle, individuals establish their ideals and values from either their faith in God or their own adoption of a moral code based on their reason. The choice to believe in God or to believe in one’s own reason is a profound one because it greatly influences an individual’s perspective and decision making regarding the proper role of government in society.

An individual that adheres to a belief in a moral code based upon their reason believes man is the only true “god” in the universe and adheres to the principle of meliorism (man is capable of perfection and unlimited progress). Such a belief in one’s self springs forth a belief that “education, positive legislation, and alteration of environment can produce men like gods.” This results in the meliorist choosing to deny that man has a natural tendency toward sin or moral degradation. This “aspiring to be perfect” man soon develops contempt for tradition and concludes that formal religion is an archaic burden limiting the advancement of the “perfect man.” The meliorist relies instead upon “reason, impulse, and materialism” as a means to exact policies regarding social welfare. This type of man becomes a man “in love with change.” The meliorist focuses on abstract reason as a means of directing social order and concludes that man’s downfall has been the corruption by traditional institutions and the archaic traditions of mankind that he believes were based upon myth. Such a man seeks “liberation from old creeds, old oaths, old establishments.” “Political power (or the destruction of existing political power) becomes the most efficacious instrument of reform.” Such a man concludes that his purpose in the world is to indulge his appetites and enact his “social reform” in order to create a more perfect human existence.

Individuals that establish their ideals and values based upon a faith in God believe that political problems are essentially religious and moral problems. An individual that believes and exercises a faith in God makes decisions for himself and others with the understanding that he will one day account for his conduct to God, not just his constituency. An individual with a sense of accountability acts in prudence: “If our world indeed is ordered in accordance with a divine idea, we ought to be cautious in our tinkering with the structure of society; for though it may be God’s will that we serve as instruments of alteration, we need first to satisfy our consciences on that point.” This individual believes a universal equality among men exists: equality in the ultimate judgment of God. Additionally, this individual has contempt for the notion of human perfectibility and believes that “poverty, brutality, and misfortune” are the consequences of our depravity and evil heart, not of erring institutions or misplaced legislation. The religious individual believes “pride, ambition, avarice, revenge, lust, sedition, hypocrisy, ungoverned zeal, disorderly appetites – these vices are the actual causes of the storms that trouble life. Religion, morals, laws, prerogatives, privileges, liberties, rights of men are the pretexts for revolution by sentimental humanitarians and mischievous agitators who think that established institutions must be the source of our afflictions.” Burke believed that a man governed by a devotion to God would make decisions based upon tradition, tempered by expedience: “A man should be governed in his necessary decisions by a decent respect for the customs of mankind; and he should apply that custom or principle to his particular circumstances by a cautious expediency.”

Americans have long heard that our country is great because of the principles that our country were founded upon. It is settled history that an overwhelming number of the Founders had a definite belief and practicing Christian faith or closely related faith in God. My argument, derived largely from the writings of Edmund Burke and others, is that the belief in God and one’s decision to conform one’s life in accordance with a belief in God creates an attitude and philosophy of prudence and humility. In contrast, the meliorist or humanist lives a life seeking to fulfill his ambition and passions through his arrogant decision making with the belief that his decisions hold no threat of providential accountability. The meliorist philosophy enables man to view himself as a god and emboldens him to seek more and more power to enact his social order for the “perfection” of mankind.

Burke succinctly summarized the plight of a society with no belief in God: “If we are adrift in chaos, then the fragile egalitarian doctrines and emancipating programs of the revolutionary reformers have no significance; for in a vortex of chaos, only force and appetite signify.”

Do our ideals and values and the inclusion or exclusion of a belief in God matter to the health and survival of our country?

Pres. Obama Didn’t Tell Us About This Upcoming Tax – Taxation Without Representation

Many Americans are confused and depressed about the level of spending by President Obama and Congress and are understandably concerned because we have heard few explanations regarding how Obama and Congress intend on paying for all of these “reforms,” other than by increasing the marginal tax rates for the “rich Americans” that can afford to “pay their fair share.” The Obama Administration has boldly proclaimed that the Bush Administration tax cuts will be allowed to expire, the capital gains tax will be increased by 5%, and cap and trade policies will enact a heavy burden on all Americans (including the poor). In addition to the exploding deficits and the mind-boggling increases to the national debt, one must consider the additional consequences that rampant spending will have on everyday Americans. Once such consequence the Obama Administration has not warned Americans about is the upcoming tax that will plague most of us: the taxation without representation created as a direct result of inflation.

A number of economists, business leaders and the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) have addressed the reality that the current unprecedented spending will likely result in an overwhelming amount of inflation. So what does inflation have to do with taxation? We must first look at the concept of inflation and why we are headed down that path to understand how inflation affects taxation.

Milton Friedman described that “inflation occurs when the quantity of money rises appreciably more rapidly than output, and the more rapid the rise in the quantity of money per unit of output, the greater the rate of inflation.” Friedman explained that output is necessarily limited by the available human and physical resources and by the “improvement in knowledge and capacity to use them.” However, the ability of the Federal Reserve to print more money or to make bookkeeping entries that result in the increase in the quantity of money is subject to no real limits. Friedman’s comments are illustrated by the recent developments by the Federal Reserve, Pres. Obama and Congress regarding the printing of $1 trillion (in addition to the purchasing of outstanding government bonds through newly printed money), the multi-trillion dollar spending on the bank bailouts, the auto industry bailouts, the stimulus spending, the overwhelming spending proposals in Pres. Obama’s proposed budget (which would triple the national debt in 10 years), and discussions regarding additional bailouts and stimulus plans. Such questionable actions by Washington bureaucrats make it clear that Washington can only fund such spending through the printing of money. When the Federal Reserve establishes a policy of funding government spending through increasing the quantity of money, the value of the dollar is debased, resulting in higher prices for all products and services and lower buying power for all consumers (your money will buy less now than in the past because it is worth less). As John Maynard Keynes (Obama claims to be adhering to his economic philosophy) stated, “There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose.”

Now to the tax implications related to all Americans. Inflation raises taxes in two ways: (1) increasing the quantity of money in the system forces Americans to increase the amount of money they have in savings or earn in income in order to buy the same amount of goods and services required to maintain their standard of living. Friedman explained, “The people who spent less than their income in order to maintain the purchasing power of their money balances (savings) have given up these goods and services in order that the government could get the resources (arguably for the government’s funding of spending projects); (2) inflation benefits and funds the government by effectively raising citizen’s tax rates. As inflation increases the cost of goods and services, employers are required to increase employee’s dollar incomes. As all American’s incomes are increased, more and more American’s (presumably middle-class Americans) are forced into higher tax brackets resulting in higher tax liabilities for American’s that have less buying power. Additionally, inflation creates higher prices for consumers due to the negative effects it has on corporate income – “Corporate income is artificially inflated by inadequate allowance for depreciation and other costs. On the average, if income rises by 10% simply to match a 10% inflation, federal tax revenue tends to go up by more than 15% - so the taxpayer has to run faster and faster to stay in the same place.” The cumulative effect of such taxation results in taxation without representation and produces damaging effects for each American.

Why would any politician advocate such policies that almost certainly would result in rampant inflation? Perhaps Washington should consult history and the past attempts to implement similar strategies in order to realize such policies end in serious problems. Consider what UK Prime Minister James Callaghan said in a conference in September 1976 regarding government spending to fight recessions – “We used to think that you could just spend your way out of a recession and increase employment by cutting taxes and boosting government spending. I tell you, in all candor, that that option no longer exists; and that insofar as it ever did exist, in only worked by injecting bigger doses of inflation into the economy followed by higher levels of unemployment as the next step. That is the history of the past twenty years.” Do these failed policies PM Callaghan mentioned sound familiar? We must all realize that such policies create the effect of funding government policies through hidden taxation (taxation without representation) that greatly limits economic growth and seriously affect each American’s standard of living.

Understanding Why Obama and Members of Congress Never Read the Stimulus Bill

Everyone already knows that Pres. Obama and many members of Congress did not take the time to read the text of the $787 billion Stimulus Plan that was passed last month. The real question we must explore is why is it so easy for many of our elected officials to pass legislation spending billions of taxpayer dollars while proudly claiming they didn’t read the legislation? Many people throw this issue to the side and treat it lightly. I believe this acceptance by politicians to pass “emergency” legislation without reading the legislation is a symptom of the greater problem that exists in government.

Before I begin, let’s establish some context and perspective to what our elected officials are doing. Ask yourself what would happen to these individuals in the real world of private industry: (1) a CEO or business executive intentionally fails to read or study his company’s financials and performs no research or fails to consult research provided to him regarding his industry and the affects of certain prospective decisions the CEO is contemplating on implementing. As a result, certain monies from the company are misappropriated due to the CEO’s failure to notice/research/read information related to his business decisions; (2) a lawyer is hired by his client to create an estate plan. The lawyer asks his legal assistant to compile the information provided by the client and draft an estate plan. The lawyer then fails to read the estate plan but informs the client that the estate plan is in place and will be in his best interest to have the plan as soon as possible to ensure his affairs are in order. Ultimately, the lawyer failed to notice the legal assistant omitted certain provisions that would cause the client undue tax obligations. In both scenarios I have described, not only would the CEO and lawyer lose their job/client, they would face possible professional discipline, civil liability and criminal charges as a result of their incompetence and lack of discipline.

Unfortunately, politicians and government entities are held to a different standard and expectation level. This different standard and expectation level explains why the American electorate allows bureaucrats to be re-elected term after term, despite our federal government running dangerously high deficits with no attempts to reform such deficits through a balanced budget. So what is it about a politician, who may have had good intentions when he/she was first elected, that changes internally when they obtain the power of their position that allows them to justify spending OUR money so irresponsibly? Milton Friedman’s principle regarding the “Fallacy of the Welfare State” perfectly explains the dilemma by illustrating the spending and decision-making process using four different scenarios:

(1)It is a natural law that no one spends your money better than you because you have an incentive to spend as little as possible and get as much value as possible from each dollar you spend. (2) When you spend your money on someone else, you have an incentive to pay as little as possible, but little incentive to get as much value as possible from each dollar you spend. (3) Spending someone else’s money on yourself creates a strong incentive to receive high value but no incentive to keep the spending in check. (4) Finally, spending someone else’s money on someone else is the worst of all possible combinations because you have no incentive to keep the spending down and no incentive to take the time to ensure you receive as much value as possible from each dollar you spend.

As Friedman noted, “legislators vote to spend someone else’s money . . . Legislators are inclined to regard someone else as paying for the programs the legislator votes for directly and the voter votes for indirectly. Bureaucrats who administer the programs are also spending someone else’s money. Little wonder that the amount spent explodes. Bureaucrats spend someone else’s money on someone else (Scenario #4 above). Human kindness, not the much stronger and more dependable spur of self-interest, assures that they will spend the money in the way most beneficial to the recipient. Hence the wastefulness and ineffectiveness of the spending.”

Friedman’s insight illustrates why we see politicians constantly passing costly legislation that sounds good on the surface, yet those same politicians never take the time and effort to follow up and ensure the legislation is effectively administered or provide oversight regarding its effectiveness. Hence the modern era of people judging politicians by their intentions, not their results. Obama and members of Congress failed to read the legislation because they knew they would be judged on their intentions, not their results: Who cares if we read the bill if we are spending money on programs that sound good, regardless of their effectiveness or the possible unintended consequences such programs and spending may create.

Let’s apply Friedman’s insight to the most recent scandal: If a bailout of AIG and other banks were really needed, it would be imperative that Congress and the President read the text/language of the bill and be responsible with taxpayer money. Bailouts were allowed under the premise that they would benefit every American by securing our economy. Ironically, the decision by members of Congress and Pres. Obama to not read the language of the bill allowed them to pass a bill endorsing $165 million in bonus payments to AIG employees (many more bonuses are on the way, including Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) and $20 - $35 billion in bailout funds for overseas banks (admittedly, this issue was dealt with primarily by the Federal Reserve bailout of AIG).

All of this brings me to the hypocrisy and arrogance we witnessed when members of Congress excoriated Ed Liddy, CEO of AIG. Watching members of Congress question Liddy was remarkable. They acted as though they were sinless and had the credibility to pass judgment on private citizens of a company who received bonuses under a contract, when such politicians themselves misused and abused their duties as an elected official when they deliberately chose not to read a bill that effectively cost the American taxpayer $165 million, thus far (with many more bonuses due from bailed out companies this year). We all expect private citizens to accept a retention bonus that is paid to them by their employer but do we expect our politicians to blame and threaten private citizens with 90% taxation for accepting compensation under a contract that those same politicians could have prevented if they had just READ THE BILL they voted into law? Power corrupts and absolute power absolutely corrupts. Perhaps the audacity of arrogance and hypocrisy was illustrated when Senator Dodd indirectly claimed that the reason they didn’t know about the bonus provisions was because they didn’t read the final version of the bill – like that is supposed to be a valid excuse for this mismanagement.

Next time you want to take out a loan or a mortgage and don’t feel like paying it, just tell the company that you didn’t read the contract and that is why you didn’t realize you couldn’t afford it. See how that works out for you. Then again, in this bailout environment, you might just get a bailout for your incompetence. Who will bail out Congress and Obama for their incompetence? Taxpayers for generations into the future. Last question – do you really want to trust Washington to run your healthcare, energy, and our already broken education system when they can’t even manage the details of a bailout or a stimulus plan? Why is there so much faith in government when government consistently fails us?

Socialist Platform of 1928 vs. US gov't (2009)

I came across a summary of the Socialist Platform of 1928 and couldn't help but notice the striking resemblance to many of the policies being advocated, enacted or previously enacted by our federal government. I have included a few of the most relevant policies of the Socialist Party that have become part of our society and our expectation of government.

1. "Nationalization of our national resources, beginning with the coal mines and water sites..."

(The Obama administration is clearly pushing to heavily regulate or ultimately nationalize the energy industry through the goal of "energy independence." Obama has made it clear that coal and oil are the enemy and through cap and trade policies, he will dictate pricing and supply of our natural resources)

2. "A publicly owned giant power system under which the federal government shall cooperate with the states and municipalities in the distribution of electrical energy to the people at cost."

(The Tennessee Valley Authority took care of this)

3. "National ownership and democratic management of railroads and other means of transportation and communication."

(Railroad passenger service is nationalized through Amtrak and the FCC clearly controls communications by telephone, TV and radio - watch out "fairness doctrine" and local controls)

4. "Immediate governmental relief of the unemployed by the extension of all public works and a program of long range planning of public works. . ." "All persons thus employed to be engaged at hours and wages fixed by bona-fide labor unions."

(Obama's attempt to ease unemployment by creating jobs solely funded through direct government spending on public works is an example; similar to the WPA and PWA enacted during FDR's administration during the 1930's. Also, the recent push by the Obama administration to pander to the labor unions even if it means a trade war with Mexico and other countries illustrates Obama's allegiance to trade unions.)

5. "Loans to states and municipalities without interest for the purpose of carrying on public works and the taking of such other measures as will lessen widespread misery."

(This point by the Socialist Party summarizes large portions of the "Stimulus Plan" recently passed. The main difference is that the Stimulus Plan gave states and municipalities hand-outs to be spent "to lessen widespread misery." However, as SC Governor Mark Sanford learned, you will only be given such a hand-out if you spend the money on lessening the widespread misery the federal government believes should be lessened. Otherwise, you can't have the money.)

6. "A system of unemployment insurance. . ." "A system of health and accident insurance and of old age pensions as well as unemployment insurance."

(This goal of the Socialist Party sounds very similar to Pres. Obama's goal of universal health care/socialized medicine and his expansion of the welfare state through broad expansion of entitlements by providing unemployment to part-time workers, etc.)

7. "Increase of taxation on high income levels, of corporation taxes and inheritance taxes, the proceeds to be used for old age pensions and other forms of social insurance."

(This point perfectly illustrates the Marxist theory on taxation and redistribution of wealth - "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." How many times have we heard President Obama say that he wants to spread the wealth around and that everyone should get or pay their "fair share?" Obama is intending to raise taxes on the wealthy to fund a host of social insurance programs - another blog posting on this one for another day)


I decided to add this to make the point that socialism and socialist philosophy enacted into policy is still socialism, regardless of what you call it. Let me know what you think and any ideas you have on my musings.