Greed!

After I put forth the argument that those who are unwarranted recipients of government dole are responsible for their predicament because of they don’t take personal responsibility, I ask a couple of questions. Which person is greedier, the one who works all his life for his millions/billions or the one who covets those riches? (Keep in mind that the government takes those riches through a progressive tax system then they redistribute them to these recipients through the dole.) What would be the surest way of returning the equilibrium of the taxpayers in this country?

The first question is rhetorical. The second takes some thought into human nature. A person who is unscrupulous enough to receive an unwarranted dole from the government, doesn’t care what happens to the rest of the money the government takes in as long as he gets “his share”.

Up until the 16^th amendment and the institution of the income tax, everyone in the country paid an excise tax on imported goods. No one knew just what he or she was paying because there was no disclosure. Therefore, there wasn’t a “class warfare” based on taxes because everyone was responsible for their own upkeep and paid excise taxes on the foreign goods they purchased. (By the way, if you were so poor you couldn’t afford any foreign goods, you didn’t have any excise taxes to pay.)

Since the inception of a graduated income tax (part of the Communist Manifesto), the idea has spread that those who make more should pay a larger percentage of what they make in taxes. According to this logic, these people should have a greater say in what goes on in government than those who pay a lower percentage. Just for grins, why don’t we use something like the 3/5ths rule in reverse? Let’s give those who pay 3 times as much in taxes 3 times as many votes. Just kidding. However, on a serious note, what would happen if everyone had to pay the same percentage with no loopholes? The rich would still be paying more of the cost of government, but now those who make less would also pay, and they would have a greater sense of concern for how the government uses their tax money. I know this sounds lame, but it is human nature. If you pay for something, you have a vested interest to see that you get what you pay for.

This would do very little for those who are unwarranted dole recipients. They wouldn’t really care if they had to give back some of the money the government gives them, but for those who aren’t on the dole and now pay taxes would definitely not want to see that money go to support those who don’t do anything for what they receive. (Just a side note, if the military has to pay taxes on the tax dollars they receive in pay; shouldn’t those on the dole have to do the same?)

One option is to abolish the tax system altogether and opt for a federal sales tax on the goods consumed. Everyone would receive their entire paycheck (there would be no withholding taxes taken out). Taxes would be on new, final goods only. The same percentage is charged on the amount of each purchase. This would restore equality. Everyone would have an equal share of the responsibility for supporting the government.

I know the arguments for and against the “Fair Tax” proposal (like the one mentioned above), but none of the academic arguments take into consideration the psychological effects of paying a fair share of the government’s bills. All of a sudden, people become more conscious of where it is going and who gets it. It would do a lot to restore personal responsibility and choice as well. For a simple example, let’s say the tax is 10%. A rich man may choose to buy a $500 shirt and he pays $550 for it while the poorer man chooses to buy a $10 shirt and pays only $11 for it. Who is paying more in taxes? Even though the rich man is paying more in taxes, the poor man can feel just as proud because of what he is doing to support the government.

Somewhere down the line, someone introduced the idea that it isn’t fair to ask someone who makes a living at or below the poverty line to pay taxes. What does it do to the sense of personal responsibility toward supporting the country, when nothing is required in return for the freedoms that we enjoy? When someone gives support, they have a vested interest in the outcome. Where there is no investment, there is no interest in the outcome.

We need to ensure that everyone has a vested interest in what happens to this country. All need to have a sense of urgency in fiscal responsibility for our country. Each paying his equal fair share would do that.

Personal Responsibility the Key to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness

Personal Responsibility the Key to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness

I recall when I was growing up that there were several times that I received something that I hadn't worked or paid for (including Christmas presents), of which I didn't take proper care. What I received became subject to abuse and neglect. However, those things I had to work for or I had to pay hard-earned money for, I would take care of and they would last a long time.

The lesson I have learned from that is that I had a sense of ownership for those things that I obtained by the sweat of my own brow. I am not alone in this. Everyone who works for what they get has a sense of responsibility toward those possessions. On the other side of the coin there are those who don't have a sense of "ownership" or responsibility for what they receive.

If you take a good look at the "projects" (government subsidized housing), you will see in almost every situation, they have been abused and neglected and have become run down. This validates my position. They are living there free or almost free therefore, they have no sense of ownership and don't feel that they have a responsibility to care for where they live.

On a grander scale, we have people who are participating in activities like "Occupy Wall Street" all over the country. They have abused the generosity of their host cities, they have even engaged in degradation of the parks and other locations where they are staying. They have also engaged in illicit activities and have abused each other. They have no sense of responsibility for their surroundings, the country who has given them the freedom to engage in protests, or themselves. These groups are mainly made up of those who haven't had to work for a living yet. They are students and others who call themselves the 99%. It makes them sound as though they have an overwhelming majority and in one sense, they have. They are engaging in the largest "project greed" that I have seen in my lifetime. They want what the "haves" have earned but they don't want to put out the same effort to get it.

A majority of our politicians, including our current president, have picked-up on this and made this "something for nothing" attitude the center of their focus of pitting the have-nots against the haves. Expounding a philosophy of because the haves have more, then they should share more, and if they don't or won't then their excess should be taken from them and be given to the have-nots.

Where this really becomes unbearable is in the fact that those that govern have concocted a legal way to do it called the income tax. Since its inception, it has been a tool to drive a wedge between the different "classes" in this country. It follows the second point of how to overthrow a capitalist system given in the Communist Manifesto. It reads: “2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.”

This philosophy implies that those who have more should give all but, what they need to subsist to those who don't have as much thus making them equal. How long would be, under this philosophy, before those who are working to have more stop working because what they have gained "more" through their hard work gets taken from them and given to others.

This is the very thing that our government, especially under the current president, is doing. They tax the wealthy more, and propose to tax them even more. Then they redistribute this confiscated wealth to those who haven't worked to get it through welfare programs such as Medicaid, government housing, food stamps, free meals at school, etc.

This philosophy breaks down under the realization that, just as I abused the things I didn't have to work for when I was growing up, people in general show no respect for what they receive nor for the giver when they don't have to work for it. This is the reason for the condition of the government housing projects, the food fights in the school lunchrooms, the defecation on government vehicles during the Occupy Wall Street protests and the list goes on.

The realization that personal responsibility is the only thing that guarantees the unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If these things aren't worked for, then they are not unalienable. In essence, those who depend on the government for their support and well being become slaves to that government and lose their freedom to choose. They can only live where the government says they can live. They can only get medical care from where the government says they can and only the procedures approved by the government. They can only buy as much food as the government stamps buy. They can't earn more money than the government says they can otherwise they are cut off, yet it is not enough for them to live on without the government assistance.

Dickens Had It Right

It is Christmas day and I sat down to watch A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens with my wife. We have watched it many times, but this time it hit me. The United Stated has been "Scrooged."

Take a close look at the relationship between the attitude expressed by many people from welfare recipients to government officials in Washington and you will see that they all think, like Scrooge, that the taxes that are paid should take care of everyone that can't or won't take care of themselves. (Can't because they failed to get the education equivalent to maintain a lifestyle that they desire or are now in need of, or won't because they have become so accustomed to having the welfare check, government housing, Medicaid and unemployment compensation that supports their lifestyle.) Initially Scrooge expresses his disdain for Christmas as a holiday of exploitation. (Which it has become in this country based on the number of people that are killed or injured just trying to be the first to get the newest Nike(R) Air Jordan (T) sneakers.)

In the end, however, Scrooge begins to see the light when he is shown "his children", "Ignorance and want." He begins to realize that just because he pays his taxes, he isn't showing the compassion that is his to show. Today, we have politicians that tout that the rich must pay their "fair share" even though thy themselves have legislated a higher percentage of taxes on income for the rich than any other class pays. At the same time they incorporate loop-holes in the tax code so that they themselves, and anyone who is rich enough to have tax lawyers working for them, won't have to pay the high percentage. Then we hear from the Oval Office that the rich aren't paying their fair share and need to be taxed even more.

At the same time those who are the recipients of the government dole are being bated into class warfare to demand that the rich pay more to sustain them in their self-indulgence. Our government refuses to take any responsibility for the financial state we find ourselves in. Those who are the major contributors to our national debt are desperate to continue the government programs which are draining our financial pot because they have promised all of this government aid to pay for the votes from the dole recipients that keep them in office. All the while government, through the medium of the Department of Education and other government agencies, are ensuring that any mention of Christ or Christmas are taken from our textbooks, schools, classrooms and many other public venues.

It took the apparition of three spirits to convince Scrooge that he needed to mend his ways. What will it take to turn an entire nation around so that we don't suffer the fate that was staring Scrooge in the face before he changed?

How do we get it back?

It's been a long time since I entered a blog. I've been busy working with a group called Independence Caucus whose objective in existing is to ensure that individuals of good moral character with a solid understanding and adherence to the Constitution of the United States get elected to office. This group wants to see a return to constitutional principles in Washington DC so that this country can return to the greatness it achieved by following them.

Things that have happened that indicate to me that those who are in office are not there to "support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic." When the leading Justice and the president elect both botch the oath of office (while the president elect has his hand on the Bible) and then laugh about it, there is something wrong. However, when the oath was repeated in private, President Obama didn't have a Bible anywhere in sight. To me that indicates one of two things. First, he wasn't sworn in in accordance with protocol that the previous presidents were sworn in with therefore his inauguration was not valid. Or, second, he intentionally left out that part because he doesn't believe, as the Pledge of Allegiance states, that this is "one nation under God." Either way it indicates to me that he never intended to adhere to his oath of office.

Since then, there have been many times in which President Obama has been quoting from the Declaration of Independence to make a point about our unalienable rights and has deliberately left out the words "by their Creator" just before "with unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." This leads me to believe that he feels that unalienable rights don't come from our "Creator" but from the governing body that he is leading at the present time.

Ever since Barak Obama began "electioneering" he has always made it a point to stress his idea of "redistribution of wealth." No one has thought to ask him whether he feels that the part of the Declaration of Independence that states that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" was intended to include all men. It seems to me that if all men are created equal and are endowed with the same rights, that both the poor man and rich man are entitled equally to every dollar they earn. If that is true, where does the doctrine of progressive income tax come from where the rich pay a substantially higher percentage of their income than the poorer people come from? I can answer that. It comes from the Communist Manifesto.

Now to a different but related subject. Recently I watched an old movie, The Scarlet Pimpernel. It is about the French Revolution. It explains how the common people rose up against the aristocracy and started the "French Republic." It shows how those who were in power or even suspected of having anything to do with the aristocracy were put to death by the guillotine. Now after President Obama took office General Motors was about to declare bankruptcy. President Obama stepped in and took over, gave 51% of the company to the unions and then shut down many of the dealerships that he deemed as not being viable for the future of his newly acquired "private" industry. Many of the dealerships that were shut down were not in financial difficulty, as a matter of fact, they were prosperous in spite of GM's difficulties. However, their political persuasion was different than the new "chief Citizen" and therefore their dealerships were put to the guillotine. History does repeat itself.

I could probably go on for an entire chapter of one of Stephen King's novels with things that are not right. It is abominable how this administration has been usurping the authority of the people and throwing it in our face as though they were the sovereign and we the servants. One thing we must not do, we must not fall into their trap and follow the Europeans in the riots and mayhem that is going on there. If we do, then they will take control as totalitarians and do away with the Constitution for sure. We have to remain calm and throw them out of office constitutionally, replacing them with those who know what it was intended to do. That means we have to educate the masses that have been on the dole for so long that they feel that the "government" owes them a living. That is going to be a very tricky job, but if they riot because they are not getting what they feel is their due, they will take to the streets and take what they feel is theirs from those who have been paying their way for so many years. In this instance, they turn into the totalitarian's tool to crush those of us who still feel the Constitution is the law of the land.