Archive | April, 2011

Tags: , ,

Color Me Happy

Posted on 10 April 2011 by Editor

Originally posted 2010-01-21 18:17:51. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

Smiley
by Nancy Morgan
RightBias.com
January 20, 2010

————————————————————————-

I’m smiling. A grin that just won’t quit is plastered on my face because of the stunning upset last night when a, gasp, Republican won the bluest of all Senate seats, thus throwing sand in the gears of the Obama machine’s march towards socialism.

Republican Scott Brown whipping the pants off Coakley last night is cause for rejoice. As is the delicious schadenfreude of seeing the left in disarray, pointing fingers and laying blame for the historic repudiation of leftists, Obama and everything they have been trying to force down our throats for the last year. It appears America may survive Obama after all. And what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger.

As Rush Limbaugh noted, many Democrats are headed for the tall grass. If a vote was held today on Obama’s health care bill, at least 5 formerly sure votes wouldn’t materialize. Last night’s wake-up call has the ‘less elite’ Democrats being brought face to face with the stark reality that they are accountable to ‘we the people’ instead of the Obama machine. And a vote for Obama could very well mean they will be enjoying their lucrative pensions much sooner than they thought.

Scott Brown’s historic upset doesn’t mean America is home free. I predict the Democrat leadership will continue ignoring the will of the American people and probably enact an unconstitutional health care bill. And I expect they will also continue taxing us to death as they redistribute our wealth to their union buddies and politically connected rent seekers. The good news is, the American people have shown that they will not stand for it.
Advertisement

Nancy, Harry and other political ‘elites’ have a terminal case of inside the beltway syndrome- also known as cognitive dissonance. They have bought into their own version of reality. A reality that doesn’t allow for the possibility that their own narrow world view isn’t the universally accepted view they believe it is. And any version that doesn’t comport with theirs is, well, invalid. And one election in Massachusetts isn’t going to change their minds.

Case in point: Noticeably absent from all talking points today, is any serious discussion by leftists of the fact that this election was a referendum on Obama. A stunning rebuke. A warning bell that Americans don’t want what he is selling.

Leftists, instead of learning from their mistakes, will continue doing what they do so well. They will ignore unpleasant realities in hopes they will go away. If that doesn’t work, they will re-define them, spin them, repackage them and trot out a new improved version of the same old same old. But their tactics are wearing thin, as is Obama’s charisma and ability to influence. As is the old media’s ability to control the discussion.

I know what Obama and crew still don’t know. That the American people have finally seen the light and they don’t like it one bit. And they are not going to sit back and let Obama turn this country into another failed socialist state. The people have spoken, but the Democrats still have waxy yellow build-up clogging their ears. Or something…

The left will continue their path towards assisted suicide due to their complete inability to allow for the possibility that the American people know better than than political elites what is best for America. And when Democrats are thoroughly repudiated again in the next election cycle, they’ll continue to blame Bush or race or sexism. They will not change. And they will lose again.

I must admit to a certain satisfaction in the fact that one of my truisms is coming true. I’ve always said ‘Give the left enough rope and they’ll end up hanging themselves.’ Nice to know some things never change.

————————————————————————-

Nancy Morgan is a columnist and news editor for RightBias.com
She lives in South Carolina

Article has been published with the authors permission

————————————————————————-

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Comments (2)

Tags: , , , ,

Let’s Not Confuse Equality and Fairness

Posted on 10 April 2011 by Editor

Originally posted 2009-06-13 19:56:44. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

“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.”

With this opening statement in our nation’s Declaration of Independence, its 56 signers, represented by such great minds as Benjamin Franklin, John Hancock, and John Adams, established a core founding principle for what was to become a new nation; a nation different in its beliefs, values and government structure than any other at the time.

As is the case with many words in the English language, the word “equality” lacks certain precision and has historically been interpreted through different lenses. For example, mathematical equality assures sameness in quantity, but does not ascribe value to the equal results. An equal amount of rain having fallen over a rain forest and over a desert, although mathematically equivalent in volume, does not produce an equal effect. Nor is the magnificence of Niagara Falls’ cascade of water the same as that of a lazy river flowing through the plains, though again the volumes of water may be equal.

Equality as a doctrine in the 18th century was indeed a revolutionary concept. Not since the ancient Greek and Minoan cultures has equality been written into a societal code of beliefs. So therefore, the opportunity to build a new nation on such beliefs was in and of itself a revolutionary step forward.

In order to understand the intentions of our founding fathers, we have to understand the psychology of the times in which this concept of equality was being presented. Indeed, we need to use the prism of an 18th century intellectual to affix the proper meaning to the word. In particular we know that such prism would filter out any notions of equality in the context of modern day social systems such as welfare or affirmative action.

A reasonable and arguably most credible interpretation of the founding fathers intended meaning of equality is one where the goal of equality is defined as one of opportunity and not necessarily of results (or outcome). This is fundamental, in that it underscores the principle of giving each individual an equal opportunity to improve his own state but does not mandate that the results of such efforts be held to the same standard of equality as for others. In fact, an argument can be made that enforcing equality of results is fundamentally unfair in that it unjustly rewards low performance and is eerily akin to Marx’s “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” formulation, which would not be written until 100 years later (1875, Critique of the Gotha Program). The distinction between opportunity and results equality was recently taken up and extensively discussed by British Business Secretary Peter Mandelson at the 2009 Fabian Conference at the Imperial College in London.

In our modern society we can observe countless examples of divergence from the principle of equality of results.

  1. Affirmative action, previously mentioned, is perhaps the most glaring example of the up-side-down interpretation of equality, where results trump all other objectives – a starkly Marxist construct indeed
  2. Progressive taxation, though widely accepted as fair and equitable, in fact is not ubiquitously fair as it creates disincentives to higher productivity and redistributes the output of the individual’s labor to those who have not contributed to its creation
  3. Compensation pay grade systems such as within the government and many older companies, where rewards are defined within pay scale boundaries, regardless of the value of an individual’s contribution

A society which does not respect equality of its citizens is frail and cannot sustain itself indefinitely without the degeneration of its social fabric, inevitably leading to massive resentment of government and eventually social unrest. By misinterpreting our founders’ meaning of equality, we are at risk of steering our social policies toward the statist objectives of government welfare and control over our means and our lives. Our Constitution is a finely tuned and time proven instrument of democratic government with ideals interwoven such that in concert they support and amplify each other’s meaning and value. A misinterpretation or misapplication of one of these fundamental ideals not only diminishes its individual value, but also jeopardizes the document’s role as a compilation of our guiding values.

Next time you’re engaged in a discussion with someone who is justifying their position with arguments of equality, make sure to ask them: “What do you mean?”

* * * * *

We welcome your comments and suggestions, either directly inline, or via email to editor@nakedliberty.com. If you would like to have your article published in Naked Liberty, please contact the editor at the above email address.

Subscribe to Naked Liberty by Email

Comments (3)

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Know Your America – The 16th Amendment

Posted on 10 April 2011 by Editor

Originally posted 2009-08-09 22:28:43. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

norbertatwork2by Norbert Sluzewski
Editor
NakedLiberty.com
August 9, 2009

In the late 18th century a truly unprecedented series of events were occurring on the American continent. A juxtaposition of historical events never aligned as then, presented a unique opportunity for the young American colonies to embark on a new social experiment never heretofore tried on the scale of a nation. The circumstances were unique and the time was right to seed the experiment. And never was the chance of its success greater than at that time.

The young American colonies were determined to create a nation out of the principles which brought their citizens to this continent in the first place. These principles included fundamental rights in which the colonists believed so strongly that they left their ancestral homes, families and countries to support and ultimately defend. Foremost among these rights was the right that citizens should determine the makeup of their government and that no government should place its needs ahead of those of the citizens’.

Most of the colonists were adamantly opposed to a central form of government. Their experiences, after all, vividly recollected the injustice and excesses of the governments which they fled. So afraid were they of recreating another monarchy or oligarchy, that most would choose anarchy over any form of central government. As a result the colonist’s first attempt to create a form of governance was a weak alliance of states codified in the Articles of Confederation, the final draft of which became the de-facto constitution in 1777 (finally ratified in 1781). The Articles placed all governing power in the hands of the individual states, with only specific and very limited provisions delegated to the Confederation. These included, among others, the right to wage wars, negotiate treaties and resolve territorial disputes.

 

The shortcomings of the Articles (lack of central taxing authority, inequalities between the influence of large and small states, etc.) were soon exposed and an effort to create a federated type of central government was undertaken.

A remarkable group of statesmen (the Federalists) emerged to lay the foundation of this new government structure, one which would preserve the authority of the states, while giving enough power to the central core so that it could effectively act as a national government. These principles were assembled into a document which on June 21, 1788 was signed to become the US Constitution.

But what was most remarkable about the Constitution’s structure was that it created no single source of power. With the distribution of authority among the executive, legislative and judicial branches, this distributed structure of checks and balances recognized an inherent human flaw that:

If given the opportunity to avail himself of excesses,
man inevitably will.

Even the most benevolent monarchy or dictatorship eventually succumbs to this flaw. The Founders uniquely understood this and sought to establish a Republic in which no single man, group, state or other entity could dominate or unduly influence the direction of the nation.

The Constitution survived and remained largely unchanged into the first decade of the 20th century. During this time the American experiment had grown to become hugely successful and the United States of America became the most prosperous nation in the world, envied for the liberty and freedom that its citizens enjoyed. The Federation survived every test of its Founding Principles. Amendments to the Constitution throughout this period were carefully crafted to not upset these Principles. That is, until the 16th Amendment in 1913, which established the central government’s right to tax the income of citizens (previously this right was reserved to the states).

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”

While until then various taxes were levied in support of specific government initiatives (e.g. the Revenue Act of 1861 levied a 3% tax on high-wealth citizens to fund the Civil War), these would be repealed upon completion of the initiative. The 16th Amendment for the first time institutionalized the government’s right to collect income taxes. The rate was innocently set at 1% of incomes above $3,000 and 6% surcharge for incomes above $500K.

The federal income tax quickly became eye candy for politicians looking for funding to support their favorite programs. And the government as a whole saw it as a cash machine from which funding for social programs, wars, and other initiates could be secured. To no surprise, by 1918, five years after the 16th Amendment was ratified, the top income tax rate skyrocketed to 77%. During his presidency Franklin D. Roosevelt even tried (but failed) to impose a 100% rate on incomes above $25,000 to fund the war effort. Through the 1960’s the marginal tax bracket stayed at 90% and it wasn’t until the administration of Ronald Reagan which reduced the top rates to 28%.

To no surprise to any free market capitalist, history shows that the performance of the stock markets, the rate of employment, size of the GDP and other measures of national prosperity all positively and directly correlate to the rate of taxation. The wealth of America, its prestige around the world, our ability to extend the experiment in liberty which our Founders blessed us with, all has been affected, and in fact jeopardized by the enactment of the 16th Amendment. I will write about other reforms (e.g. immigration), which have also had significant detrimental impact, in an upcoming new article.

The enactment of the 16th Amendment significantly changed the character of the American experiment. It took a big bite out of the forbidden fruit that is influence over wealth distribution. One of our founding freedoms — that the fruits of our labor should be ours to enjoy and dispense with according to our own conscience and convictions — has been trampled on without recourse and consideration. This is perhaps one of the most fundamental liberties we as Americans have enjoyed and expect it to have been protected by the very Constitution which the 16th Amendment has trampled.

Some argue that the Constitution is an “ancient” document written by men of times long passed; that progress necessitates changes, and that we should no more look to our Constitution for answers as we would to ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs for ways to build our skyscrapers. To those I say, give me something better to replace it with. Give me a different anchor to which we can moor our society. And let not that anchor float with the current, but let it stand firm and withstand the storms of progress and uncertainty that is by definition the future. While you ponder this, ponder also where do you get the audacity to think that you have the wisdom and motivation to frame this new society you think you want. While your motivation is political survival, each of our Founding Fathers risked his life and limb to give to us their wisdom and experience.

Until you show me this new anchor, I’ll stick to my Constitution – thank you very much.

And remember also that only a fool accepts change for its novelty.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Norbert Sluzewski is a columnist and editor of NakedLiberty.com
He lives in Connecticut

Article may be reprinted with attribution.


Comments (6)

Tags: , , , ,

On the Health Care System We Aspire To

Posted on 10 April 2011 by Editor

Originally posted 2009-06-24 12:22:44. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

Today I got a call from my Mom. She and my Dad both live in the city I was born in – Warsaw, Poland. They are both elderly and live off of a government pension akin to the US social security system. The reason she called was to let me know of an excruciating pain she has recently been suffering from, resulting from a progressively degenerative neurological condition in her wrist. As all Poles are, she is entitled to free medical care in government health care facilities under the country’s universal health care insurance program. Trying to get help for her condition, she has visited with several general practitioners covered under her free plan, all of whom admit she needs to see a specialist. The last one finally crafted a referral for her and she is now scheduled to see a neurologist … in three months. Ouch !

Her options now include continuing to suffer the intolerable pain for the next 3 months or pay out of pocket to see a private specialist. The fee for a consultation with a neurologist in private practice exceeds two months of her pension income, but under the circumstances she will have to do just that. The costs of any resulting treatments, if not covered under the government health care plan, may have a devastating financial effect on her and my dad’s retirement lifestyle.

My parents could have opted to purchase private health care insurance coverage which provides access to services in private hospitals and clinics with the most skilled specialists but, because the government program is so dominant and pervasive, the cost of the private alternative is beyond the reach of most middle-class Poles. As a result, it is accessible to only the most affluent (or motivated by dire circumstances and lacking other options) individuals.

Interestingly enough, in many European countries the Polish medical system as a whole is actually touted as one of the better and when compared with the British system in particular, it receives accolades for efficiency and quality of care. What is underscored is the diminishing role of the public plan option and the progressively increasing percentage of services being offered under private insurance. The availability and increasing popularity of the private health care option is viewed with envy. A good summary of these changes in the Polish medical system can be found in this article from CMAJ (Canadian Medical Association Journal). With this shift, as more competition is introduced in the private sector and the dominance of the government program is lessened (or eliminated), my mom might yet one day be able to afford a private insurance plan and access to the highly skilled medical professionals in Poland, heretofore not accessible to her under her existing plan and her present means.

But in the US exactly the opposite direction is being proposed. There can be very little doubt, and certainly countless examples of dysfunctional government programs across Europe and other countries serve as an example, that a private health care system necessarily offers superior services at a competitive price. As I have written in a prior Naked Liberty article on the Dangers of Comparative Effectiveness, instead of experimenting with proven failed systems, the US should adopt targeted approaches to improving those parts of our current system which offer opportunities for improvement, such as for example the implementation of a national electronic medical records system and tax incentives to support wellness and health awareness.

What’s being proposed is like trading in your comfortable and dependable SUV for a Yugo just because you happened to have gotten a flat tire. Let’s fix the tire and get on with our lives without any more government intervening in it.

* * * * *

Quotation of the Day:

“We should manage our fortunes as we do our health – enjoy it when good, be patient when it is bad, and never apply violent remedies except in an extreme necessity.“

Francois de La Rochefoucauld (1613 – 1680)

* * * * *

We welcome your comments and suggestions, either directly inline, or via email to editor@nakedliberty.com. If you would like to have your article published in Naked Liberty, please contact the editor at the above email address.

Comments (1)

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Delivering the Goods

Posted on 10 April 2011 by Editor

Originally posted 2009-09-15 21:12:40. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building
Image by cliff1066 via Flickr

by Margaret Goodwin
Government is Not Your Daddy
September 14, 2009

The United States rose up from a handful of rebellious colonies to become the richest and most powerful nation in the world. Why? Because we led the world in production. For 200 years, America delivered the goods.

But, in the 1970’s, all that suddenly changed. For the first time in history, the U.S. started having trade deficits. That means our net consumption exceeded our net production. And, every single year since 1975, our nation has consistently consumed more than it produced. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that’s not sustainable.

The depressing truth is America is no longer a world leader in production. We are trailing the pack. We are now a debtor nation, and our biggest creditor is China. — What the hell happened? And how will we ever recover? And, the more disturbing question is, what will happen to America if we don’t?

If we ever want to restore America to its proper place in the world, the first thing we need to understand is why we no longer have a productive economy. It’s pretty simple, really. — Because we no longer produce. Why not? – If we take a good hard look at the nature of production, maybe we can figure that out. The three key elements of production are capital, labor, and raw materials.

First, you need capital for research and development. To develop a new product that meets a real need in the marketplace takes a lot of research. It may take many years to develop. Research and development is extremely expensive, and there’s no guarantee of success. There has to be an enormous potential return on investment to justify that kind of risk.

That kind of return on investment is what our current administration refers to as “excessive profits.” And they have this notion that “excessive profits” should be punitively taxed. When government puts a lid on the potential for return on investment, what happens? The investors take their capital and invest it someplace else, — someplace that welcomes production, and wants to build up their economy and provide employment for their population. (Unlike the United States, it would seem.)

The second thing you need for production is raw materials. No matter what you want to produce, you need some combination of raw materials to produce it, whether wood, paper, metal, glass, fiber, or petroleum products. All raw materials come from the earth; they don’t come out of the air, or some genius’ imagination, or the printing presses at the Federal Reserve. They all come out of the ground, either through timber, mining, or agriculture.

Here, in Southern Oregon, we live in one of the richest areas in the country, in terms of natural resources. We’re rich in timber. We’re rich in minerals. But, if this part of the country is so rich, why is it so poor? Why is unemployment so high? Because we’re not allowed to use the natural resources with which we’re abundantly blessed. Overregulation, and the endless environmental litigation it has spawned, has all but curtailed the timber and mining industries, — the very industries that provide raw materials for every sort of production on which our economy relies. And the overregulation doesn’t stop there. It’s hobbling the manufacturing industries, too.

The third thing required for production is labor. We’ve actually got a surplus of that. Look at our unemployment numbers, nationwide. Private sector jobs are steadily declining because our industries are stymied by excessive regulation and punitive taxation. So how does our government address that issue? It tries to replace the jobs lost due to declining production by creating new jobs in the public sector.

The trouble is those jobs do nothing to restore our national productivity. Public sector jobs and service jobs don’t create any new wealth. They just swirl money around in the economy. And, as that money swirls around, more and more of it leaks out to other countries, as we buy foreign-made products because we can’t or don’t produce enough at home.

As the real wealth leaks out of our economy, the Fed prints up more and more new money, which only dilutes the value of the money we already have in circulation, leading to higher and higher inflation. As long as we consume more than we produce, there is no way to add real value back into our economy, and our currency will continue to lose whatever value it has. We must restore production to have a sustainable economy.

This country was founded on the sacred principles of liberty and freedom. Not just individual freedom, but economic freedom. America became a world leader because America delivered the goods. That’s what it’s all about. That’s what it’s always been about. We have to stay solvent to preserve our liberty. If our economy fails, we’ll lose our freedom. Stifling production smothers the economy. And that’s what our government is doing.

Contact your Congressmen and Senators and tell them we want our economy back. Government can’t solve the problem. Government is the problem. Give us back our economy, and get government out of the way!

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Margaret Goodwin writes for the Government is Not Your Daddy blog.

Article published with the author’s permission.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Comments (0)

Free Subscription to Naked Liberty Articles
* indicates required
Advertise Here
Advertise Here

TradeTrakker


Our Twitter Followers

Friends: Followers:

Recommended









free counters

Contribute

Other Links

EasyHits4U.com - Your Free Traffic Exchange - 1:1 Exchange Ratio, 5-Tier Referral Program. FREE Advertising!

Yavrim.com - Link to a Random Site. Help Promote Free Traffic Exchange
Subscribe to updates

Get Adobe Flash player