After having been in Missouri for 10 days or so, my wife is finally on her way back home and I couldn't be happier.
While I admit, going from having her home every minute of everday to being alone every minute of everyday (obviously that's not true, but when I stepped foot inside the empty house, it sure felt like that) was a bit of a transition at first, results that come from time spent alone were well worth it. I discovered a few things while she was away.
Most Happy Fella kept me pretty busy for the first weekend of my solitude, but after that was finished, I no longer had nightly commitments--it was just me. First thing I did was schedule lunch with an interesting person who I wanted to know better--the investment of time was well worth the resulting friendship. That conversation was the catalyst to some pretty intense Bible reading, which is something I had neglected for while (call it being busy, being tired, being distracted, it doesn't matter). Nightly scripture reading with constant talking to God (remember, it's just me in this house... what better time to talk with God), really allowed myself to quiet down enough to be able to listen and face demons that I knew had been lurking around.
One of the largest problems I faced within myself was my departure from my biblical duties as a husband. For 4 out of my 5 years of marriage, I had not been the spritual leader that I have been called to be. In that first year, every night, I would read a few chapters from the bible to my wife and together we would pray before going to bed, before eating, before traveling, etc. This was a central part of our relationship. But then, and I can't point to anything specific, perhaps I was lazy one night and didn't do anything, it stopped. I stopped leading. While I still prayed in solitude, my spiritual life became a private matter. I wasn't hiding anything, I just wasn't sharing.
But this week, this incredible week has been a transformation. I pray to God that he will give me the stamina and self-discipline to stick with this and not fall away because of fatigue or selfishness or embarassment or whatever else.
My wife is on her way home now, from what I understand. She has had an exhuasting week dealing with some family matters that have really needed to be dealt with, and while she is very happy to have had the opportunity to get it all finished for now, she is tired.
I thank God for His work and that in His vastness, He is loving enough to care about somebody so small. There are also some people this week who He worked through who deserve thanks as well, you know who you are *wink*.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
God and Government
Because of some recent conversations, I'm tempted to take on this overwhelming topic. I think for a lot of Christians, there is this separation between government and God, and I'm not entirely sure it's an accurate separation, nor a healthy one.
Long ago, the colonies of America, under British rule, were incurring tax upon tax from London without having a voice in the Legislature to articulate the colonial position or sentiments. When push came to shove, the colonies formed a Make-shift army and rebelled against Britain. At first it was just a rebellion, there was no interest of independence, at least not outwardly. Eventually, and especially when Britain's response was to make quick work of the rebellion by "conquering the American Colonies", the colonists decided they needed to claim their own sovereignty. For most of the war, Washington and his troops were on the run, retreating at every encounter with superior British forces. His army was built largely of undisciplined farmers, smiths, and drunkards who were more of an embarassment than a real threat to the British. It was a long long road to victory, one filled with tiny miracles, which when analyzed on their own may seem like convenient coincidences, but when stacked upon each other, point more toward Divine Intervention. One such miralce happened on the eve of August 30, 1776.
Washington, at this point, had won a few victories that served more to boost British resolve than make the Continental Army particulary effective. At this point Washington's army is in New York to defend against an eminent British invasion. The 9,000 member Continental Army was facing a 30,000 member British Army. The initial battle was devastating and drove the Americans back to Brooklyn Heights. Taking refuge on the hill put them in an awful position, they were surrounded by water on three sides and by 30,000 British troops on land. Furthermore, the British Royal Navy with 300 ships was making it's way up the bay, nearing the river to cut them off completely. Surely this meant the end of the rebellion. On the eve of August 30, 1776, the Americans were planning a retreat.
The troops were told they were going to attack the British that night, at 7pm, all soldiers ready, the move began. Officers guided the troops down to the ferry where the inexperienced and the sick and wounded were loaded first for the RETREAT under the auspices that their reinforcements had arrived to replace them. "The thing was conducted with so much secrecy that neither subalterns or privates knew the whole army was to cross back again to New York," Lt. Tench Tilghman wrote. Major Benjamin Tallmadge of Connecticut later wrote of Washington: "To move so large a body of troops, with all their necessary appendages, across a river full a mile wide, with a rapid current, in face of a victorious well-disciplined army nearly three times as numerous as his own, and a fleet capable of stopping the navigation, so that not one boat could have passed over, seemed to present most formidable obstacles." To add to the complications, the ebb tide and a northeast wind that was keeping the British Fleet from entering up the river was also proving a problem for the retreat. The order was made from General McDougall to call off the retreat because conditions were too treacherous. At 11pm, the Northeast wind became a Southwest wind, and the retreat began. Troops, supplies, horses and cannons, all loaded onto tiny ferry boats making repeated trips from one bank to the other.
"Though nearly morning, a large part of the army still waited to embark, and without the curtain of night to conceal them, their escape was doomed. Incredibly, yet again, circumstances--fate, luck, Providence, the hand of God, as would be said so often--intervened. Just at daybreak a heavy fog settled in over the whole of Brooklyn, concealing everything no less than had the night. It was a fog so thick, remembered a soldier, that one 'could scarcely discern a man at six yards distance.' Even with the sun up, the fog remained as dense as ever, while over on the New York side of the river, there was no fog at all." David McCullough, 1776. That night, Washington successfully moved 9,000 troops out of harms way and began his famous campaign of retreat.
It wasn't until Christmas Morning, 1776, that Washington would have his victory at Trenton. The night before, blizzard-like conditions made the barefoot Continental Soldiers much slower than Washington had hoped... He wanted to get accross the Delaware River and over to just outside the Hessian encampments before midnight. That mark did not happen, however the snowy conditions did dampen the sounds made by an army on the move and allowed them the surprise attack and victory that ensued without a single American life lost.
The entire war was filled with moments like this, moments that I point to as the Hand of God intervening. It's not that God loved Americans and hated the British, I feel that He wanted this country to exist. And through the delicate and trying process of drafting and approving our current constitution, His hand is evident as well; consequently, I believe the Constitution to be an inspired document. Is it on par with the Bible? No. But, nevertheless, I feel that the debates and deliberations that decided what books should be massed together to form what we know to be the Bible today could easily be compared to the debates and deliberations that went into framing our Constitution and form of Government. And so, to think about our government as being something separate and unrelated to God is heartbreaking considering all the blessings He gave us in this nation's inception.
The fact is, this government was founded on a basic faith and trust in God. The whole reason for the colonies was to escape religious tyranny so that the early settlers could worship Him in whatever manner they saw best. Through our Constitution (if you are like me and believe God played a prominent role in it's creation) we can see that God's idea for us is to be a free people. This is evident in His attitude toward us in all aspects. He wants us to be free to make our own choices, and ultimately, He wants us to free to make a choice about Him. What better environment to foster that sort of freedom than in a free democratic republic? Any government at all is a violation of freedom on some level, but, as the Founding Fathers understood, having no government equals anarchy, and there are some things that need to be taken care of by a collective central authority (as I say frequently, the Preamble of the Constitution outlines the purpose of Government and Duties of Government beautifully), but lest that authority become corrupt, which is the nature of human existence, those citizens in places of authority must be put there by the majority rule of the people. Thus, we still maintain freedom through the Sovereignty of the People because the government can never do what we will not allow them to do. Unfortunately, when people are falsely educated in regards to our origins, they conclude falsely the responsibilities of our government. At that moment, our sovereignty is put in jeopardy. Just like Israel, when they strayed from God and were too lazy to uphold God's law and God delivered them into the hands of their God-less enemies, we too must strongly adhere to God's plan for us and be adamant in defending our freedoms or else we too face the possibility of being given over to our enemies.
*tangent* There is much todo about this fanciful "seperation of church and state" idea. This is an imaginary wall that was never intended to be taken as far and to be interpretted as preversely as it is today. The first Amendment in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . ." Funny how the first rule of the new form of government RESTRICTS Congress from making any law "establishing" or "Prohibiting the FREE EXCERCISE" of religion. In popular zeal to keep God and Government separated, those involved fail to understand that the clause they hold onto does not contradict, but rather reinforce the First Amendment. By interpretting it the way they do, they are infact, using the precedence of the Courtrooms to "Prohibit the Free Excercise" of religion, which is in DIRECT VIOLATION of the first amendment. *end tangent*
Long ago, the colonies of America, under British rule, were incurring tax upon tax from London without having a voice in the Legislature to articulate the colonial position or sentiments. When push came to shove, the colonies formed a Make-shift army and rebelled against Britain. At first it was just a rebellion, there was no interest of independence, at least not outwardly. Eventually, and especially when Britain's response was to make quick work of the rebellion by "conquering the American Colonies", the colonists decided they needed to claim their own sovereignty. For most of the war, Washington and his troops were on the run, retreating at every encounter with superior British forces. His army was built largely of undisciplined farmers, smiths, and drunkards who were more of an embarassment than a real threat to the British. It was a long long road to victory, one filled with tiny miracles, which when analyzed on their own may seem like convenient coincidences, but when stacked upon each other, point more toward Divine Intervention. One such miralce happened on the eve of August 30, 1776.
Washington, at this point, had won a few victories that served more to boost British resolve than make the Continental Army particulary effective. At this point Washington's army is in New York to defend against an eminent British invasion. The 9,000 member Continental Army was facing a 30,000 member British Army. The initial battle was devastating and drove the Americans back to Brooklyn Heights. Taking refuge on the hill put them in an awful position, they were surrounded by water on three sides and by 30,000 British troops on land. Furthermore, the British Royal Navy with 300 ships was making it's way up the bay, nearing the river to cut them off completely. Surely this meant the end of the rebellion. On the eve of August 30, 1776, the Americans were planning a retreat.
The troops were told they were going to attack the British that night, at 7pm, all soldiers ready, the move began. Officers guided the troops down to the ferry where the inexperienced and the sick and wounded were loaded first for the RETREAT under the auspices that their reinforcements had arrived to replace them. "The thing was conducted with so much secrecy that neither subalterns or privates knew the whole army was to cross back again to New York," Lt. Tench Tilghman wrote. Major Benjamin Tallmadge of Connecticut later wrote of Washington: "To move so large a body of troops, with all their necessary appendages, across a river full a mile wide, with a rapid current, in face of a victorious well-disciplined army nearly three times as numerous as his own, and a fleet capable of stopping the navigation, so that not one boat could have passed over, seemed to present most formidable obstacles." To add to the complications, the ebb tide and a northeast wind that was keeping the British Fleet from entering up the river was also proving a problem for the retreat. The order was made from General McDougall to call off the retreat because conditions were too treacherous. At 11pm, the Northeast wind became a Southwest wind, and the retreat began. Troops, supplies, horses and cannons, all loaded onto tiny ferry boats making repeated trips from one bank to the other.
"Though nearly morning, a large part of the army still waited to embark, and without the curtain of night to conceal them, their escape was doomed. Incredibly, yet again, circumstances--fate, luck, Providence, the hand of God, as would be said so often--intervened. Just at daybreak a heavy fog settled in over the whole of Brooklyn, concealing everything no less than had the night. It was a fog so thick, remembered a soldier, that one 'could scarcely discern a man at six yards distance.' Even with the sun up, the fog remained as dense as ever, while over on the New York side of the river, there was no fog at all." David McCullough, 1776. That night, Washington successfully moved 9,000 troops out of harms way and began his famous campaign of retreat.
It wasn't until Christmas Morning, 1776, that Washington would have his victory at Trenton. The night before, blizzard-like conditions made the barefoot Continental Soldiers much slower than Washington had hoped... He wanted to get accross the Delaware River and over to just outside the Hessian encampments before midnight. That mark did not happen, however the snowy conditions did dampen the sounds made by an army on the move and allowed them the surprise attack and victory that ensued without a single American life lost.
The entire war was filled with moments like this, moments that I point to as the Hand of God intervening. It's not that God loved Americans and hated the British, I feel that He wanted this country to exist. And through the delicate and trying process of drafting and approving our current constitution, His hand is evident as well; consequently, I believe the Constitution to be an inspired document. Is it on par with the Bible? No. But, nevertheless, I feel that the debates and deliberations that decided what books should be massed together to form what we know to be the Bible today could easily be compared to the debates and deliberations that went into framing our Constitution and form of Government. And so, to think about our government as being something separate and unrelated to God is heartbreaking considering all the blessings He gave us in this nation's inception.
The fact is, this government was founded on a basic faith and trust in God. The whole reason for the colonies was to escape religious tyranny so that the early settlers could worship Him in whatever manner they saw best. Through our Constitution (if you are like me and believe God played a prominent role in it's creation) we can see that God's idea for us is to be a free people. This is evident in His attitude toward us in all aspects. He wants us to be free to make our own choices, and ultimately, He wants us to free to make a choice about Him. What better environment to foster that sort of freedom than in a free democratic republic? Any government at all is a violation of freedom on some level, but, as the Founding Fathers understood, having no government equals anarchy, and there are some things that need to be taken care of by a collective central authority (as I say frequently, the Preamble of the Constitution outlines the purpose of Government and Duties of Government beautifully), but lest that authority become corrupt, which is the nature of human existence, those citizens in places of authority must be put there by the majority rule of the people. Thus, we still maintain freedom through the Sovereignty of the People because the government can never do what we will not allow them to do. Unfortunately, when people are falsely educated in regards to our origins, they conclude falsely the responsibilities of our government. At that moment, our sovereignty is put in jeopardy. Just like Israel, when they strayed from God and were too lazy to uphold God's law and God delivered them into the hands of their God-less enemies, we too must strongly adhere to God's plan for us and be adamant in defending our freedoms or else we too face the possibility of being given over to our enemies.
*tangent* There is much todo about this fanciful "seperation of church and state" idea. This is an imaginary wall that was never intended to be taken as far and to be interpretted as preversely as it is today. The first Amendment in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . ." Funny how the first rule of the new form of government RESTRICTS Congress from making any law "establishing" or "Prohibiting the FREE EXCERCISE" of religion. In popular zeal to keep God and Government separated, those involved fail to understand that the clause they hold onto does not contradict, but rather reinforce the First Amendment. By interpretting it the way they do, they are infact, using the precedence of the Courtrooms to "Prohibit the Free Excercise" of religion, which is in DIRECT VIOLATION of the first amendment. *end tangent*
Monday, April 20, 2009
Washington's farewell address: almost prophetic
Anyone who has spoken to me at length regarding social policy and government knows that I am a Constitutionalist. That is that I believe firmly in getting back the basics of the constitution.
Tonight, I just finished readingWashington's Farewell address of 1796. He had just spent 8 years as the only President to have ever been unanimously elected to the office (a feat which happened for both terms). Those of you familiar with Constitutional history know that at this point there were no Term Limits to the Presidency. In fact Term Limits to the Presidency (22nd Amendment) were approved by congress in 1947 and ratified by the states in 1951 and were instituted in response to FDR's 4-term reign. One of the most important things Washington did was remove himself from the running of a third term. In doing so, he set a precedence that would not be broken until FDR.
If you're looking forward to my own thoughts in this blog, I'm afraid you're going to be sorely disappointed (as if anyone REALLY enjoys reading my books). I simply want to take a moment to quote Washington's thoughts on some of the issues of his day and explore how those philosophies might still be relavent.
Patriotism and the Federalization of Government:
"With such powerful and obvious motives to union, affecting all parts of our country, while experience shall not have demonstrated its impracticability, there will always be reason to distrust the patriotism of those who in any quarter my endeavor to weaken its bands." Clearly Washington thought there was something to be said for Patriotism and had reason to believe that there would be those who would try to break the bonds of unity from within our ranks. He warned to be on guard.
The Dangers of a Political Party System:
"They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extaordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of the party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternative triumphs of different parites, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.
"However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust domain."
"I have already intimated to you the dangers of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.
"This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.
"Their alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissention, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later, the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty."
"It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasional riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another."
More prophetic words could never have been spoken.
Religion and Morality:
"The name American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together; the independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint counsels, and joint efforts of common dangers, sufferings, and successess."
"Of all the dispositions and habits that lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. . . . The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and cherish them. . . . And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
National Credit:
"As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible, avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater dibursements to repel it, avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of exepense, but by vigorous exertion in time of peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves out to bear."
In times of peace, do not accumulate debt, be wise to fund a standing army to be trained and ready for the inevitability of war, and pay off additional expenses incurred during war. Sounds simple enough... but I think it's a far cry from where we are today.
Foreign Influence:
"Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to belive me, fellow citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be contantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful woes of republican government."
Interesting isn't it that Justice Ginsburg of the Supreme Court said this on April 10, 2009: "I frankly don’t understand all the brou-ha-ha lately from Congress and even from some of my colleagues about referring to foreign law.” Her suggestion was that we should keep our minds open to the ideas of smart minds anywhere in the world when deciding domestic Supreme Court cases. Personally, I think the idea is repulsive and a sell-out of our national sovereignty.
In short, I guess, our first President, George Washington, seemed to hit alot of issues squarely, and in the case of the corruption of political party and how it can create the absolute power of an individual his words are almost prophetic.
Tonight, I just finished readingWashington's Farewell address of 1796. He had just spent 8 years as the only President to have ever been unanimously elected to the office (a feat which happened for both terms). Those of you familiar with Constitutional history know that at this point there were no Term Limits to the Presidency. In fact Term Limits to the Presidency (22nd Amendment) were approved by congress in 1947 and ratified by the states in 1951 and were instituted in response to FDR's 4-term reign. One of the most important things Washington did was remove himself from the running of a third term. In doing so, he set a precedence that would not be broken until FDR.
If you're looking forward to my own thoughts in this blog, I'm afraid you're going to be sorely disappointed (as if anyone REALLY enjoys reading my books). I simply want to take a moment to quote Washington's thoughts on some of the issues of his day and explore how those philosophies might still be relavent.
Patriotism and the Federalization of Government:
"With such powerful and obvious motives to union, affecting all parts of our country, while experience shall not have demonstrated its impracticability, there will always be reason to distrust the patriotism of those who in any quarter my endeavor to weaken its bands." Clearly Washington thought there was something to be said for Patriotism and had reason to believe that there would be those who would try to break the bonds of unity from within our ranks. He warned to be on guard.
The Dangers of a Political Party System:
"They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extaordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of the party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternative triumphs of different parites, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.
"However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust domain."
"I have already intimated to you the dangers of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.
"This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.
"Their alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissention, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later, the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty."
"It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasional riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another."
More prophetic words could never have been spoken.
Religion and Morality:
"The name American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together; the independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint counsels, and joint efforts of common dangers, sufferings, and successess."
"Of all the dispositions and habits that lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. . . . The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and cherish them. . . . And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
National Credit:
"As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible, avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater dibursements to repel it, avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of exepense, but by vigorous exertion in time of peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves out to bear."
In times of peace, do not accumulate debt, be wise to fund a standing army to be trained and ready for the inevitability of war, and pay off additional expenses incurred during war. Sounds simple enough... but I think it's a far cry from where we are today.
Foreign Influence:
"Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to belive me, fellow citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be contantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful woes of republican government."
Interesting isn't it that Justice Ginsburg of the Supreme Court said this on April 10, 2009: "I frankly don’t understand all the brou-ha-ha lately from Congress and even from some of my colleagues about referring to foreign law.” Her suggestion was that we should keep our minds open to the ideas of smart minds anywhere in the world when deciding domestic Supreme Court cases. Personally, I think the idea is repulsive and a sell-out of our national sovereignty.
In short, I guess, our first President, George Washington, seemed to hit alot of issues squarely, and in the case of the corruption of political party and how it can create the absolute power of an individual his words are almost prophetic.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Correction and Adendum to "Charity.... our responsibility or Uncle Sam's?"
I mispoke about the tax % that Social Security and Medicare take from earned income. It is true the employee sees 7.65% taken out, however, and I feel stupid having not thought of this last night because we do own our own corporation and I am the payroll guy, the company that issues the paycheck also pays a matching 7.65%. In total, the federal government receives 15.3% of all income earned in the US for Social Security and Medicare. 15.3%!!!!!
To put that in perspective, 15.3% of a $100k income is $15,300 that the tax payer could use someplace else... Imagine if that $15,300 were used locally for the people you know to be in need? And that is just one person with one income. If the average income of a town of 50,000 people was around $35k (at 15.3%, $5,355) , and if only 20,000 of those people had jobs and took the money they're paying the federal government in SS and MC now and used it instead for local charity, that would be $107,100,000.00 in charity for that small town. I think they could take care of a few medical needs and hungry families. And that is only assuming that 40% of the total population are working.
A Wikepedia article (it's the best I could do, don't judge) cites the 2005 Census Bureau report claiming the average household income to be $44,389. It also claims there were 116 Million Households in 2006. (If the total US population is around 300Million, then 116M Households into 300M people comes to 2.58 people per household. We can then assume our town of 50,000 has 19,000 households)
So let's do the math with the new numbers. 50,000 people into 19,000 household with an average annual income of $44,389 taxed at 15.3% for SS and MC, could potentially use $129 Million dollars to help "widows and orphans". Not too far off from my shot in the dark.
Let's revist what Government Social Programs do. Because of their nature, one group of people receives money that has been legally taken from another group of a people; a polarization occurs between productive, and nonproductive citizens. This also helps create ungiving attitudes: "why should I give more, they already get part of my paycheck." In the current system, money is directly pulled from paychecks before the Taxed workers even have a chance to see it. There is no personal loss associated with it because the worker did not have to physically write the check to the IRS. And potentially the biggest problem with this system is that the Tax Payer never gets to see the end result of their tax dollars. In a private system, where personal dollars are freely given to people in need, the result of those gifts are openly evident. If it's an organization, they will promote themselves with campaigns showing you all the good things they've done with your money (while asking for more). If it's local, you'll see the immediate effects of the family down the street who is using your old used lawnmower because they couldn't afford one. And anyone who has experienced giving knows the euphoria that happens to the giver and is then encouraged to give more next time to somebody else.
In short, Government Social Programs create polarization and ungiving attitudes by taking the personal loss and reward out of the giving relationship.
To put that in perspective, 15.3% of a $100k income is $15,300 that the tax payer could use someplace else... Imagine if that $15,300 were used locally for the people you know to be in need? And that is just one person with one income. If the average income of a town of 50,000 people was around $35k (at 15.3%, $5,355) , and if only 20,000 of those people had jobs and took the money they're paying the federal government in SS and MC now and used it instead for local charity, that would be $107,100,000.00 in charity for that small town. I think they could take care of a few medical needs and hungry families. And that is only assuming that 40% of the total population are working.
A Wikepedia article (it's the best I could do, don't judge) cites the 2005 Census Bureau report claiming the average household income to be $44,389. It also claims there were 116 Million Households in 2006. (If the total US population is around 300Million, then 116M Households into 300M people comes to 2.58 people per household. We can then assume our town of 50,000 has 19,000 households)
So let's do the math with the new numbers. 50,000 people into 19,000 household with an average annual income of $44,389 taxed at 15.3% for SS and MC, could potentially use $129 Million dollars to help "widows and orphans". Not too far off from my shot in the dark.
Let's revist what Government Social Programs do. Because of their nature, one group of people receives money that has been legally taken from another group of a people; a polarization occurs between productive, and nonproductive citizens. This also helps create ungiving attitudes: "why should I give more, they already get part of my paycheck." In the current system, money is directly pulled from paychecks before the Taxed workers even have a chance to see it. There is no personal loss associated with it because the worker did not have to physically write the check to the IRS. And potentially the biggest problem with this system is that the Tax Payer never gets to see the end result of their tax dollars. In a private system, where personal dollars are freely given to people in need, the result of those gifts are openly evident. If it's an organization, they will promote themselves with campaigns showing you all the good things they've done with your money (while asking for more). If it's local, you'll see the immediate effects of the family down the street who is using your old used lawnmower because they couldn't afford one. And anyone who has experienced giving knows the euphoria that happens to the giver and is then encouraged to give more next time to somebody else.
In short, Government Social Programs create polarization and ungiving attitudes by taking the personal loss and reward out of the giving relationship.
Charity... our responsibility or Uncle Sam's?
Conservatives often say that we would be much better off without government social programs. We contend that it is better and more efficient for the private citizens to donate their time and resources to help their brothers and sisters than to rely on the government to do this. The point of this post is to brainstorm and explore each path and point out the positive and negative aspects of each.
Government Subsidized Social Programs
Currently, we have many government subsidized social programs, and don't misunderstand, government subsidized means Tax Payer Funded. Some of these include, WIC, Social Security, MediCare, MedicAid, etc. Most of these, I believe were created either during the FDR administration as a response to the Depression of the 1930s or under LBJ and the Great Society. The purpose of these programs is to help support Americans (recently, even illegal aliens) who cannot support themselves for whatever reason. These programs aim to at least provide a comfortable existence. I think they do achieve this.
Unfortunately, we have to look at the cost. What are we losing as a result? This may sound calloused or cruel, but the reality is that there are many people living off these programs who are capable of providing for themselves. When the government does anything for any citizen, it MUST create a blanket program and set qualifying criteria. If Joe meets the criteria, he is allowed early Social Security, disability, and MediCare. The government is incapable of dealing with people case by case; it's a daunting task that would consume more tax payer dollars in administrative costs than you could imagine. So for efficiency's sake, we have the qualifying criteria. Back to Joe. Joe knows that he could work at McDonald's for $8k-$11k/year or he could draw his government subsidies for the same amount or probably more. Which will Joe decide to do? It is likely that Joe will decide that making just as much or more without spending time at McDonald's is the more profitable and pleasing choice. Because of this, government programs create dependency. When Joe starts receiving subsidies from Uncle Sam, what incentive does he have to wean himself from them? None. It's not like Joe can get a part time job and receive half of his disability. If Joe makes more money than the Qualifying Criteria says he can make, then he is cut from Disability and Social Security and MediCare. It is still more profitable for Joe to stay home and do nothing than to be a productive citizen.
What about the tax payers who are being productive? They are paying an extra 7.5% of their earnings to subsidize people they have never even met in corners of the country they have never seen... They are paying for Joe's lazyness! It's a good deal for Joe, it's a raw deal for responsible Americans who get up every morning and log 8-10 hours to support their own families and realize their own dreams.
Alternative, what does private giving look like?
First, let me qualify this by saying that we, as a society are so conditioned to letting the government take care of people that if all government social programs were abolished tomorrow, the result would be a disaster.
Having said that, if we never would have adopted these programs in the first place, Joe's life would likely be much different. Instead of sitting at home drawing a paycheck from Uncle Sam, Joe would be working. He would have to work because that is how you make money. However, people are generous, and if Joe was really in a sore place or needed help, his local church would be happy to help him meet his needs... not too much, not too little. You see, with a local philanthropy, resources can be, as the Bible says of the early church "distributed to anyone as he [has] need." (NIV Acts 4:35) This also makes every $1 of charity more effective than $1 of taxed money. Private citizens do not need the Politically Correct Qualifying Criteria with Highly Paid Administrations to distribute aid to a neighbor in need.
With 7.5% of income earned in this country back in the hands of those who earned it, more money will be available for charity. Will people use the extra 7.5% of their income for charity? Not always, but there won't always be a need for it either. Additionally, with a vacancy in the charity area, Charitible Foundations and Organizations will rise up because there are people out there who are very passionate about this issue and will do whatever they must to see to it that needy people are taken care of. And because the people are not looking to the government to solve the problem, Citizens will realize that it is a responsibility that must be taken seriously.
In the end, I hope that I have given some compelling reasons why government social programs are inferior to private sector charities. Ultimately, it will be near impossible for the government to give up what it already has, such is the nature of government--once it has control of something, it will never relinquish that control. While I'm not seriously advocating the abolition of such programs (as healthy for the nation as it would be in the long run), I am adamantly opposing the adoption of new social programs that expand the long arm of ever-growing government even further. IE, Mortgage Bailouts, Corporate Bailouts, Socialized Medicine (you know it works so well when you see the millions of Americans crossing the boarder to stand in a 6month line for Canadian Healthcare), Goverment Subsidized Warranties on GM vehicles, etc.
Government Subsidized Social Programs
Currently, we have many government subsidized social programs, and don't misunderstand, government subsidized means Tax Payer Funded. Some of these include, WIC, Social Security, MediCare, MedicAid, etc. Most of these, I believe were created either during the FDR administration as a response to the Depression of the 1930s or under LBJ and the Great Society. The purpose of these programs is to help support Americans (recently, even illegal aliens) who cannot support themselves for whatever reason. These programs aim to at least provide a comfortable existence. I think they do achieve this.
Unfortunately, we have to look at the cost. What are we losing as a result? This may sound calloused or cruel, but the reality is that there are many people living off these programs who are capable of providing for themselves. When the government does anything for any citizen, it MUST create a blanket program and set qualifying criteria. If Joe meets the criteria, he is allowed early Social Security, disability, and MediCare. The government is incapable of dealing with people case by case; it's a daunting task that would consume more tax payer dollars in administrative costs than you could imagine. So for efficiency's sake, we have the qualifying criteria. Back to Joe. Joe knows that he could work at McDonald's for $8k-$11k/year or he could draw his government subsidies for the same amount or probably more. Which will Joe decide to do? It is likely that Joe will decide that making just as much or more without spending time at McDonald's is the more profitable and pleasing choice. Because of this, government programs create dependency. When Joe starts receiving subsidies from Uncle Sam, what incentive does he have to wean himself from them? None. It's not like Joe can get a part time job and receive half of his disability. If Joe makes more money than the Qualifying Criteria says he can make, then he is cut from Disability and Social Security and MediCare. It is still more profitable for Joe to stay home and do nothing than to be a productive citizen.
What about the tax payers who are being productive? They are paying an extra 7.5% of their earnings to subsidize people they have never even met in corners of the country they have never seen... They are paying for Joe's lazyness! It's a good deal for Joe, it's a raw deal for responsible Americans who get up every morning and log 8-10 hours to support their own families and realize their own dreams.
Alternative, what does private giving look like?
First, let me qualify this by saying that we, as a society are so conditioned to letting the government take care of people that if all government social programs were abolished tomorrow, the result would be a disaster.
Having said that, if we never would have adopted these programs in the first place, Joe's life would likely be much different. Instead of sitting at home drawing a paycheck from Uncle Sam, Joe would be working. He would have to work because that is how you make money. However, people are generous, and if Joe was really in a sore place or needed help, his local church would be happy to help him meet his needs... not too much, not too little. You see, with a local philanthropy, resources can be, as the Bible says of the early church "distributed to anyone as he [has] need." (NIV Acts 4:35) This also makes every $1 of charity more effective than $1 of taxed money. Private citizens do not need the Politically Correct Qualifying Criteria with Highly Paid Administrations to distribute aid to a neighbor in need.
With 7.5% of income earned in this country back in the hands of those who earned it, more money will be available for charity. Will people use the extra 7.5% of their income for charity? Not always, but there won't always be a need for it either. Additionally, with a vacancy in the charity area, Charitible Foundations and Organizations will rise up because there are people out there who are very passionate about this issue and will do whatever they must to see to it that needy people are taken care of. And because the people are not looking to the government to solve the problem, Citizens will realize that it is a responsibility that must be taken seriously.
In the end, I hope that I have given some compelling reasons why government social programs are inferior to private sector charities. Ultimately, it will be near impossible for the government to give up what it already has, such is the nature of government--once it has control of something, it will never relinquish that control. While I'm not seriously advocating the abolition of such programs (as healthy for the nation as it would be in the long run), I am adamantly opposing the adoption of new social programs that expand the long arm of ever-growing government even further. IE, Mortgage Bailouts, Corporate Bailouts, Socialized Medicine (you know it works so well when you see the millions of Americans crossing the boarder to stand in a 6month line for Canadian Healthcare), Goverment Subsidized Warranties on GM vehicles, etc.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
A Touching Moment
Tonight, I was truly Blessed to be involved in a very special moment. My professor, and, I think I can say, friend, Timothy Noble, gave his final stage performance tonight with what I can only assume was the same vitality, vigor, and emotional commitment as he would have 25 years ago.
The man is one of the best actors I have ever seen in my life, and I have the feeling, one of the best ones I will ever see. His delivery and reactions are so close to actual life that when stormed off stage with the intent to kill Joey, I didn't want him to even see me in fear that he may lash out on me. His scene with Rosabella where she breaks his heart is so touching, so convincing that from off stage, you simply want to weep for the man.
All in all, I have never been so proud to be on stage with a collegue (I can say that because I was in fact working with him)--never felt so privileged.
Bravo, Tim Noble, Bravo!
The man is one of the best actors I have ever seen in my life, and I have the feeling, one of the best ones I will ever see. His delivery and reactions are so close to actual life that when stormed off stage with the intent to kill Joey, I didn't want him to even see me in fear that he may lash out on me. His scene with Rosabella where she breaks his heart is so touching, so convincing that from off stage, you simply want to weep for the man.
All in all, I have never been so proud to be on stage with a collegue (I can say that because I was in fact working with him)--never felt so privileged.
Bravo, Tim Noble, Bravo!
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Indianapolis Tea Party
Well, Amanda and I went to our state's Capitol to express our outrage over the uncontrollable spending happening in Washington.
I knew it was going to be a good event when we showed up and the speaker/organizer said that we were going to start the way our forefathers started their Continental Congress meetings: with a Benediction. The prayer asked for strength, courage, and the will to stand up for and protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. The gift given to us through our founding fathers and which 21 generations of Americans have faithfully fought to defend. As the man led us in prayer, the moment hit (if you've experienced it before, you know exactly what I'm talking about) and tears uncontrollably ran down my cheeks from behind my sunglasses. Why? Because deep inside, my soul knew that he was speaking truth. First and foremost, we need to hit our private closets of prayer and petition the Almighty on behalf of our nation and our future.
One of the speakers mentioned something that really startled me. Since 1974, 94% of incumbant politicians (National Politicians) are reelected at every election. In 2006, Congress had a 16% approval rating, yet 94% were reelected, in 2008, Congress had a 9% approval rating, yet 96% were reelected. How does this happen? His answer was that politicians found a way to give money to special interest groups in form of Earmarks. Those interest groups then donate to the politician's campaign... a vicious cycle.
In all this, the focus for the night was getting back to the Constitution. The framers of our Constitution were godly men. If you haven't, read David McCullough's 1776, it is an account of the Revolution from the diaries of these men. Some of the excerpts will touch your soul so profoundly.
I knew it was going to be a good event when we showed up and the speaker/organizer said that we were going to start the way our forefathers started their Continental Congress meetings: with a Benediction. The prayer asked for strength, courage, and the will to stand up for and protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. The gift given to us through our founding fathers and which 21 generations of Americans have faithfully fought to defend. As the man led us in prayer, the moment hit (if you've experienced it before, you know exactly what I'm talking about) and tears uncontrollably ran down my cheeks from behind my sunglasses. Why? Because deep inside, my soul knew that he was speaking truth. First and foremost, we need to hit our private closets of prayer and petition the Almighty on behalf of our nation and our future.
One of the speakers mentioned something that really startled me. Since 1974, 94% of incumbant politicians (National Politicians) are reelected at every election. In 2006, Congress had a 16% approval rating, yet 94% were reelected, in 2008, Congress had a 9% approval rating, yet 96% were reelected. How does this happen? His answer was that politicians found a way to give money to special interest groups in form of Earmarks. Those interest groups then donate to the politician's campaign... a vicious cycle.
In all this, the focus for the night was getting back to the Constitution. The framers of our Constitution were godly men. If you haven't, read David McCullough's 1776, it is an account of the Revolution from the diaries of these men. Some of the excerpts will touch your soul so profoundly.
The thing that I'm realizing in all this is that the Republican Party has failed us. I have been attending monthly gatherings with the Monroe County Republicans and in talking with them, their agenda has come out. They say that Conservatism doesn't win elections and that we had that for 8 years with Bush and that John McCain was more of the same. WHAT?!?!?! Wait, Bush was a Conservative?!?! That's news to me. Bush was just Right of Moderate with a Big Government Agenda. Don't get me wrong, I loved the guy and I think he was a far better choice than either Gore or Kerry! But he was not a Conservative... and no, John McCain was certainly not a conservative either... We haven't seen a Conservative President since Ronald Reagan. *getting back on topic* Monroe Count Republicans say that if we want to win elections we need to be centrists... we need to move to the middle. *shakes head in frustration* this is where I become disheartened and wonder what happened to this country. Personally, and especially with the strong support from Tea Parties that happened at over 2000 locations across the US today (and one in Copenhagen, Denmark), the Republican Party may be crashing soon... and all those Linguini Spined moderates too afraid to stand for an issue will have to choose... left or right. A new party will rise up and actually represent the people of this country-- for now, I'm calling it the Constitution Party.
The cool thing about tonight is that while we didn't throw-out and replace 535 politicians in Congress, we demonstrated that in 2010 and 2012, The Silent Majority has woken up and we will hold people accountable.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
What it means to be conservative: It's not Republican/Democrat
"I have always strenuously supported the Right of every Man to his own opinion, however different that opinion might be to mine. He who denies to another this right, makes a slave of himself to his present opinion, because he precludes himself the right of changing it."
-Introduction to Age of Reason by Thomas Paine-
The willingness of able people to take responsibility and preserve what is right has always been a defining mark of this country. However, for too long, conservatives have sat back and slowly allowed transgressions upon freedom to occur in various forms. I cannot and do not attempt to provide every reason for this: some people decided long ago to let the dirty politicians in Washington do the dirty work, others felt as though their voices were too small to matter, while others still were either too busy with daily life to pay attention or did not understand governmental environment and were too daunted to learn. Current events have led to a critical self-evaluation of conservatism and the result has shown that we have paid a great disservice to young generations. We have assumed that conservatism is an intuitive instinct that all people regardless of education or tuition will understand. And perhaps it is, but that is an exploration for another time. The point is, we have failed you and we apologize. Allow me to attempt to set the record straight by explaining what it means to be conservative and what it does not.
At the foundation, a conservative loves all people individually and believes that every human has unlimited potential in life. This end goal is not dissimilar to other political and social philosophies. What distinguishes us are the methods we know to be effective in accomplishing this goal. Many of us believe the founding documents of this country contain words and philosophies of great wisdom (even heavenly inspiration) and we use these documents and their context to try to create an environment which promotes maximum peace and prosperity. For example, probably the most quoted phrase from the Declaration of Independence reads: "We hold these Truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. . . ” From this, you can rightly assume that we believe we can achieve maximum peace and prosperity for everyone through Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
Life. We believe that everyone has the God-given right to live. This right transcends and trumps all human rationalization that may stand in opposition. The Right to Life is the chief most important right we have as humans.
Liberty. It is our natural state to be free. We are an ambitious, industrious, imaginative, creative, artistic people. The God-given right freedom is the outlet we need to express these characteristics.
Pursuit of Happiness. With Freedom comes the opportunity to chase after our dreams and goals. We are guaranteed this right so long as our pursuit of happiness does not interfere with or prohibit another's Right to Life and/or Liberty.
The most delicate, and the one we feel is most often under assault is our Liberty. This is also the easiest to whittle away. We establish governments to preserve the rights of the people and it is interesting how those governments often have the power to take our liberties away. Our constitution framers understood this and were very cautious of such an abuse of power. As a result, we have the tertiary form of government with all the checks and balances that exists today (mostly). However, any institution of government, while its purpose may be to protect the rights of her people, is an infringement at some level to personal freedom. We believe in making this impact on personal freedom as small as possible. We want you to be as free as possible to make the decisions that are going to best suit you and your happiness; we achieve this by keeping government as small and as removed from your personal life and decisions as possible. Here are some of the venues where we believe this occurs.
Taxes. Low taxes for everyone, not high taxes for one economic class and no taxes for another, low taxes for everyone. Money is private property. Any tax is an invasion of private property, however we do understand the need for the government to have the resources to fulfill its duties outlined in the Preamble to the Constitution. Did you know that for the first several years of our country, the only income the federal government received was from import and export tax? The constitution grants the government the authority to collect and levy taxes under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, but we did not have a national Income Tax until 1913, Amendment XVI.
Free Market. Free Market is the best judge of business. Ideas are constantly evolving and styles come and go like the wind, the businesses that are the most economic in their handling of capital and resources are going to endure. Where one fails and goes under, more efficient others will rise up and take its place. The government should not choose which businesses succeed by deciding to give or loan money to failing institutions. In the end, there will be more prosperity as a result of free market than there would have been under a market highly regulated by the federal government. While Enron was devastating at the time, the market went on to repeatedly hit new heights with record setting days on the Dow.
Equality. While each and every one of us is created equal, we are not all blessed with the same gifts, talents, or character. To assume that we are would be a mistake. To try to amend society to make it so would be a mistake. The only way a government can "level the playing field" is to lower the ceiling. One cannot effectively ask a person with a 70 IQ to perform the tasks of a person with a 160 IQ and achieve similar results. Instead, it is only possible to limit the 160 IQ person to the 70 IQ task. Conservatives understand we each can only achieve our highest potential in life, however our fathers and mothers have proven your highest potential is as high as YOU allow it to be. Your ceiling is up to you.
Charity. We believe in a self-sufficient people, but we understand there are people who physically cannot do this. Charity is the proper way to handle this situation. Social programs that rob one person to cover the needs of another are an infringement of freedom. Charity that is forced upon a tax payer is not charity at all, it's robin hood, and only serves to foster resentment. Wise people have often said that when one freely gives of his time and resources, that person benefits more than the recipient. When citizens freely give money and/or other gifts to organizations/people, when citizens are in charge of their dollars and time, they ensure that their resources are being used in as efficient manner as possible to stretch the impact of every dollar.
Medicine. Again, we believe in free market. No state issued bureaucracy can make better, more informed decisions about your treatment plans than you and your physician. Nor can a state controlled health system provide the expediency desperately needed in this field. If you need more information, read the policies of English or Canadian Healthcare; waiting lists dictate who will receive healthcare. Currently, our government does subsidize healthcare for many people, namely citizens below a government established poverty line and residential non-citizens. The government dictates to the physicians and hospitals the amount they will pay for prescribed procedures on these people, often this amount is only 50-60% of the market rate. Physicians are then forced to charge health insurance companies more money because they must make up for the underpayment from the government. That, in turn, raises health insurance rates for the end consumer. Instead of using the government to control healthcare rates, we should let the private market dictate the value of procedures. Competition promotes quality and efficiency.
Immigration. We believe everyone who is ambitious and has a dream for prosperity should come to the United States. We have a process for this. We are aware the line is long, but that is because we have so much opportunity. Illegal entry into this country is not only a violation of our laws, but a national security risk. With the rise of Mexican drug cartel violence along the southern border, we really should be building a fence. As for those people who are here illegally, they ought to be processed and given the chance to apply for asylum. Those who are denied ought to be sent back to their countries of origin and encouraged to apply through the established process for reentry.
Jobs. We understand that jobs are created by the middle and upper classes. Cutting corporate tax rates will give companies more capital. Companies with excess capital expand and create new jobs. Cutting personal tax rates puts more money in the hands of citizens who will then either invest their money in stocks (Corporations) or in the consumer market by purchasing goods and services. Expanding government programs to create jobs is a false idea. Government does not produce goods or services, they regulate and control. These two things are restrictors of freedom.
Education. If we want to improve the quality of education, we must introduce choice. Currently, the field is imbalanced. As a parent, you can choose to send your child to the local public school subsidized by your tax money, or you can pay additional money in the form of tuition to a private school for a private education. Like everything else, conservatives want more free market influence. Let individual schools determine curriculum and policy, the ones that make the most sense will be rewarded with more students and more tuition money. Currently, the method that makes the most sense is a voucher program. In this system, your tax dollars follow your child to whichever institution you choose.
Conservatism is not bigotry, homophobia, racism, xenophobia, etc. Conservatism is not socialism. Conservatism denies the authority of government to invade your life. Conservatism denies the government the authority to invade the free market except in the case of removing themselves further by lowering taxes. Conservatism restricts the Federal Government to the duties outlined in the preamble of the constitution: "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote [not secure] the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." Conservatism is what your grandfather called Common Sense. Conservatism is Personal Freedom.
-Introduction to Age of Reason by Thomas Paine-
The willingness of able people to take responsibility and preserve what is right has always been a defining mark of this country. However, for too long, conservatives have sat back and slowly allowed transgressions upon freedom to occur in various forms. I cannot and do not attempt to provide every reason for this: some people decided long ago to let the dirty politicians in Washington do the dirty work, others felt as though their voices were too small to matter, while others still were either too busy with daily life to pay attention or did not understand governmental environment and were too daunted to learn. Current events have led to a critical self-evaluation of conservatism and the result has shown that we have paid a great disservice to young generations. We have assumed that conservatism is an intuitive instinct that all people regardless of education or tuition will understand. And perhaps it is, but that is an exploration for another time. The point is, we have failed you and we apologize. Allow me to attempt to set the record straight by explaining what it means to be conservative and what it does not.
At the foundation, a conservative loves all people individually and believes that every human has unlimited potential in life. This end goal is not dissimilar to other political and social philosophies. What distinguishes us are the methods we know to be effective in accomplishing this goal. Many of us believe the founding documents of this country contain words and philosophies of great wisdom (even heavenly inspiration) and we use these documents and their context to try to create an environment which promotes maximum peace and prosperity. For example, probably the most quoted phrase from the Declaration of Independence reads: "We hold these Truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. . . ” From this, you can rightly assume that we believe we can achieve maximum peace and prosperity for everyone through Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
Life. We believe that everyone has the God-given right to live. This right transcends and trumps all human rationalization that may stand in opposition. The Right to Life is the chief most important right we have as humans.
Liberty. It is our natural state to be free. We are an ambitious, industrious, imaginative, creative, artistic people. The God-given right freedom is the outlet we need to express these characteristics.
Pursuit of Happiness. With Freedom comes the opportunity to chase after our dreams and goals. We are guaranteed this right so long as our pursuit of happiness does not interfere with or prohibit another's Right to Life and/or Liberty.
The most delicate, and the one we feel is most often under assault is our Liberty. This is also the easiest to whittle away. We establish governments to preserve the rights of the people and it is interesting how those governments often have the power to take our liberties away. Our constitution framers understood this and were very cautious of such an abuse of power. As a result, we have the tertiary form of government with all the checks and balances that exists today (mostly). However, any institution of government, while its purpose may be to protect the rights of her people, is an infringement at some level to personal freedom. We believe in making this impact on personal freedom as small as possible. We want you to be as free as possible to make the decisions that are going to best suit you and your happiness; we achieve this by keeping government as small and as removed from your personal life and decisions as possible. Here are some of the venues where we believe this occurs.
Taxes. Low taxes for everyone, not high taxes for one economic class and no taxes for another, low taxes for everyone. Money is private property. Any tax is an invasion of private property, however we do understand the need for the government to have the resources to fulfill its duties outlined in the Preamble to the Constitution. Did you know that for the first several years of our country, the only income the federal government received was from import and export tax? The constitution grants the government the authority to collect and levy taxes under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, but we did not have a national Income Tax until 1913, Amendment XVI.
Free Market. Free Market is the best judge of business. Ideas are constantly evolving and styles come and go like the wind, the businesses that are the most economic in their handling of capital and resources are going to endure. Where one fails and goes under, more efficient others will rise up and take its place. The government should not choose which businesses succeed by deciding to give or loan money to failing institutions. In the end, there will be more prosperity as a result of free market than there would have been under a market highly regulated by the federal government. While Enron was devastating at the time, the market went on to repeatedly hit new heights with record setting days on the Dow.
Equality. While each and every one of us is created equal, we are not all blessed with the same gifts, talents, or character. To assume that we are would be a mistake. To try to amend society to make it so would be a mistake. The only way a government can "level the playing field" is to lower the ceiling. One cannot effectively ask a person with a 70 IQ to perform the tasks of a person with a 160 IQ and achieve similar results. Instead, it is only possible to limit the 160 IQ person to the 70 IQ task. Conservatives understand we each can only achieve our highest potential in life, however our fathers and mothers have proven your highest potential is as high as YOU allow it to be. Your ceiling is up to you.
Charity. We believe in a self-sufficient people, but we understand there are people who physically cannot do this. Charity is the proper way to handle this situation. Social programs that rob one person to cover the needs of another are an infringement of freedom. Charity that is forced upon a tax payer is not charity at all, it's robin hood, and only serves to foster resentment. Wise people have often said that when one freely gives of his time and resources, that person benefits more than the recipient. When citizens freely give money and/or other gifts to organizations/people, when citizens are in charge of their dollars and time, they ensure that their resources are being used in as efficient manner as possible to stretch the impact of every dollar.
Medicine. Again, we believe in free market. No state issued bureaucracy can make better, more informed decisions about your treatment plans than you and your physician. Nor can a state controlled health system provide the expediency desperately needed in this field. If you need more information, read the policies of English or Canadian Healthcare; waiting lists dictate who will receive healthcare. Currently, our government does subsidize healthcare for many people, namely citizens below a government established poverty line and residential non-citizens. The government dictates to the physicians and hospitals the amount they will pay for prescribed procedures on these people, often this amount is only 50-60% of the market rate. Physicians are then forced to charge health insurance companies more money because they must make up for the underpayment from the government. That, in turn, raises health insurance rates for the end consumer. Instead of using the government to control healthcare rates, we should let the private market dictate the value of procedures. Competition promotes quality and efficiency.
Immigration. We believe everyone who is ambitious and has a dream for prosperity should come to the United States. We have a process for this. We are aware the line is long, but that is because we have so much opportunity. Illegal entry into this country is not only a violation of our laws, but a national security risk. With the rise of Mexican drug cartel violence along the southern border, we really should be building a fence. As for those people who are here illegally, they ought to be processed and given the chance to apply for asylum. Those who are denied ought to be sent back to their countries of origin and encouraged to apply through the established process for reentry.
Jobs. We understand that jobs are created by the middle and upper classes. Cutting corporate tax rates will give companies more capital. Companies with excess capital expand and create new jobs. Cutting personal tax rates puts more money in the hands of citizens who will then either invest their money in stocks (Corporations) or in the consumer market by purchasing goods and services. Expanding government programs to create jobs is a false idea. Government does not produce goods or services, they regulate and control. These two things are restrictors of freedom.
Education. If we want to improve the quality of education, we must introduce choice. Currently, the field is imbalanced. As a parent, you can choose to send your child to the local public school subsidized by your tax money, or you can pay additional money in the form of tuition to a private school for a private education. Like everything else, conservatives want more free market influence. Let individual schools determine curriculum and policy, the ones that make the most sense will be rewarded with more students and more tuition money. Currently, the method that makes the most sense is a voucher program. In this system, your tax dollars follow your child to whichever institution you choose.
Conservatism is not bigotry, homophobia, racism, xenophobia, etc. Conservatism is not socialism. Conservatism denies the authority of government to invade your life. Conservatism denies the government the authority to invade the free market except in the case of removing themselves further by lowering taxes. Conservatism restricts the Federal Government to the duties outlined in the preamble of the constitution: "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote [not secure] the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." Conservatism is what your grandfather called Common Sense. Conservatism is Personal Freedom.
Thank you to everyone
Wow. I'm not sure how this works, but I'm glad that M525, Josiah, and, oddly enough, my recent readings of Laura Wilde's blog have convinced me that this is a great outlet for all of my Social/Political/Religious/Random musings.
I often have sleepless nights where I find myself dissecting recent events with what I hope is some sort of clarity...
If you happen to stumble upon my musings... thanks. If you feel moved to respond to something I say... perfect. Hopefully, through our exchange of ideas, we can come to a common clarity on the issues important to us today.
I often have sleepless nights where I find myself dissecting recent events with what I hope is some sort of clarity...
If you happen to stumble upon my musings... thanks. If you feel moved to respond to something I say... perfect. Hopefully, through our exchange of ideas, we can come to a common clarity on the issues important to us today.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)