On Repealing the 17th Amendment...

This blog will be short and sweet, I hope.  The message is certainly simple:  Repeal the 17th Amendment and return the States’ voice to our federal government.

When the 17th Amendment passed, it probably sounded like a great idea to have Senators elected by “we the people” in a direct vote.  When I first learned about the Amendment in school, I remember thinking that direct election was surely a more democratic method than being chosen indirectly (by the state legislatures).  And, surely, the more democratic the government, the better…right?  Not really.

First, we are not a democracy; we are a Republic.  The founding fathers had a good reason for that choice.  Democracies will invariably victimize the minority segments of their society.  We see it in the Middle East on a regular basis…and will even more so with the spread of Sharia law.  Under such systems, those of other minority religions are often harshly persecuted.  In a pure Democracy, if the majority decided that all brown-eyed babies must be slaughtered, then that would be the law.  As a Republic, however, we hold to various rights which cannot be abrogated by the rule of the majority.  Some of those rights are rights of individuals; some are rights held by the States.

Little did I realize (as that youngster) that removing this voice of the States would be so destructive of States’ rights and of our country.  Who is there to speak for the States in the federal government today?  No one!  Through conferencing, our Governors have tried to create an artificial voice, but there is no real power there.  The people already have a direct voice through the House of Representatives.  The Senate was designed to protect the States’ rights and give the States a voice in how our country works.

We need to repeal the 17th Amendment and restore the Senate to a body whose loyalties lie with the States that they represent, not with the special interest groups who fund their campaigns.

On Repealing the 16th Amendment

The Constitution originally required that any direct tax levied by the federal government had to be levied proportionally to the population of the several states.  Essentially, any direct federal tax was to be a truly flat dollar amount per person.  So, if you think about the “flat tax” which so many are calling for (i.e. taxing income at some flat percentage rate), even that flat tax is a progressive tax in that, the higher your income, the more tax you would pay.  Having a tiered income tax is actually a hyper-progressive tax.  (If you’ll allow me a self-indulgent aside, I am amused by the hypocrisy of unions on the issue of a progressive tax code; hypocrisy…because most, if not all of them, charge a flat percentage on their dues, not a “hyper-progressive rate”.)

The 16th Amendment reads thusly:

    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.

The 16th Amendment was intended to allow, for the first time, a direct federal tax on individual income and is almost surely more subversive of Constitutional principles than most people realize.  Can we, now, even imagine a United States in which there was no direct taxation of the people or where any direct taxation of a family was on a per capita basis (i.e. some set amount per family member)?  But… The income tax, itself, may not even be the most harmful aspect of the Amendment.

The second half of that Amendment (“…without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration”) essentially gutted Article 1, Section 9, paragraph 4 of the Constitution, which says:  “No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.”  It is the 16th Amendment which has become an insidious tool for social engineering and which has empowered our federal government to pick winners and losers in the consumer market as well as punish success in the labor market.

To establish a little background… There was a time when much of the federal budget was paid through duties or tariffs on imports (…and it could be once again).  I, for one, believe in America!  I believe that we are completely capable of being a self-sustaining nation without any importing or exporting.  This is NOT to say that we SHOULD become so isolated from the economies of the world.  What it says, instead, is that “…doing business in America is a privilege and foreign businesses need us more than we need them.”

Despite the cries of “protectionism”, one impact of a revenue system based more heavily duties/tariffs is that it levels the playing field somewhat for American workers who may have to compete against what could essentially be called a foreign “slave labor” market.  But the real motivation for duties/tariffs is more fundamental…  Why should we tax the American worker at all when we could be taxing others for the privilege of doing business with us?  By allowing Congress the power to tax our own workers, our own corporations, or our own economy, we are, in fact, assuring that foreign labor markets have an enormous advantage over our own people.  Also, understand that every consumer dollar we spend on foreign merchandise is another dollar drained from our own economy.

All of these unhealthy economic conditions inexorably stem back to our form of taxation and ultimately, therefore, to the 16th Amendment.  A lot of people hate the IRS and hate income taxes and would like to repeal the 16th Amendment for those reasons alone, but even those are not the primary reason for such a repeal…

When the 16th Amendment was passed, the whole taxation dynamic was changed.  Congress was basically given the power to tax without considering fairness in any way.  Congress was given the power to socially engineer through taxation!  We would like to think that “it could never happen”, but there is nothing to prevent Congress from taxing any income above, say, $20,000 at a 100% rate, then giving back to us some small portion of those funds…as Congress sees fit.  I’ve often complained (as Congress has raised taxes and fees back through the years) that they wouldn’t be happy until they are taxing us at 100%…and where do you go from there?  Flatly, the 16th Amendment needs to be repealed.

Then, what should our tax plan look like?  While I really like Herman Cain, I hate the 9-9-9 tax plan.  The Ryman tax plan is much better!  It is the 0-0-0 tax plan!  “Makes no sense!  Where would we get our revenue?”  The Ryman tax plan would be revenue neutral and yet no individual or corporation would pay any direct federal tax.  Intrigued?  For more info on the best tax plan you’ve never heard anything about, I would encourage you to read my “de-centralized tax plan” blog in: “On Taxation…”

On Taxation...

The debate rages on over the most “fair” way to tax America.  Some suggest a flat tax, eliminating all loopholes.  Many others think that the Fair Tax plan is the way to go.  One Presidential hopeful (whom I like) proposes the “9-9-9 plan”…not realizing the way Washington works (…meaning that it would soon become the 12-12-12 plan, then 20-20-20 plan).  A few political-dinosaurs want only minor changes (up and/or down) to the tax rates on individuals and/or corporations.  Some good ideas… Some bad… But all wrong…

Which plan is the best?  Answer:  None of the above!  Nowhere have I heard what I believe to be the best plan…the FOuRTH Party plan!  Instead of having the federal government dictate the best plan for all of America, we believe that the best plan would be to:

1)  Repeal the 16^th Amendment and specifically remove the power of the federal government to directly tax any individual or corporation.  (Constitutionally deny Congress the ability to pick winners and losers in the business world; constitutionally deny Congress the ability to socially engineer the American tax system.)  Then…

2)  Have the federal government equally tax each of the states on a per capita basis, allowing each state the freedom to decide the best plan for their own state in meeting the state’s federal obligation.

The economies of our various states are not the same.  Some states might find it advantageous to use property taxes, others income taxes or sales taxes, and still others might tax their tourism industry more heavily.  Personally, I would like to see most states double their sales tax, then give sales tax exemptions for all American-made (or State-made) products.  But…  Such decisions should reside with the states.

Under such a “de-centralized” tax plan, each state could experiment and follow its own convictions.  More importantly, it would further exploit the value of competition which already has some impact through just state taxes.  Under a de-centralized tax plan, citizens and industries, alike, would be free to “vote with their feet” as to which states truly used the most fair tax system!  It wouldn’t be long before it became abundantly clear which states had the more sound fiscal policy and the best method of taxation…which makes THIS de-centralized tax plan the best tax plan.

On Illegal Immigration...

So, I watched a Republican debate awhile back (not a huge Dolphins fan or Patriots fan, I guess, although the parts that I saw were exciting).  The question of illegal immigration and whether or not to build a fence came up.  Oddly, one might think, the border state governor, Rick Perry – Texas, said “No” to building a fence the entire length of the border, while non-border state candidate, Santorum, and others insisted quickly that “Yes”, we must build a fence…a belief shared by many conservatives.  Now, I like both of these gentlemen, but…

The reason why Santorum and so many conservatives are just wrong on the fence issue is quite simple:  What are you going to do right now about the “coyote” (i.e. a smuggler of humans) who right now is climbing over, digging under, or cutting a hole in the fencing that is already there?  Are you willing to have a National Guardsman or Border Agent walk up and shoot this man (...and, if necessary, those who are being smuggled across the border by him)?

If you are willing to have these Agents or Guardsmen use bullets to stop someone from cutting a hole in the fence, then just use the bullets to stop them from crossing the border!  Why do we so desparately need the fence?  What…just to slow them down long enough to shoot them?  And...if you're NOT willing to use bullets to stop the destruction of the fence then, again, the fence is just as useless because it won't be there long.  In the end, the fence is a boondoggle designed to make it “look” like we’re doing something.

Let’s get to the real issues of illegal immigration:  illegal employment and housing.  Illegal immigration would end tomorrow if we took away the incentives that we offer folks to cross the border illegally, including social programs.  I hear some people say, “Just enforce the laws that we already have.”  Well, no, that’s not good enough either because the price is not high enough.  Let’s look at some serious steps toward solving the problem…

Step 1:  Militarize the border.  This is actually only intended as a stop-gap measure until we complete the “dis-incentivization” process.  We would use deadly force, if necessary, to immediately stop the invasion of our nation by unknown persons.  This would include use of geological equipment (similar to what is used in searching for oil) to detect and destroy tunneling operations.  The probability is that the military would have to use force very few times before the message was received.

Step 2:  Asset forfeiture.  Small fines are ineffective against large corporations who routinely hire illegal immigrants.  As with drug trafficking, any corporation or individual found guilty of knowingly hiring or housing illegal immigrants should face a forfeiture of any assets directly involved in that activity(i.e. the whole facility is seized.)  Any executive and/or board member of a corporation which is found guilty of such hiring or housing practices a second time should face forfeiture of all corporate assets, as well as their personal assets (i.e. a “corporate death sentence”).  Proving that such people have “knowingly” hired or housed illegal immigrants can be difficult because employers make claims of false documentation, but evidence of the under-payment of individuals and/or the failure to use an easy Social Security verification system (which employers and landlords must be able to access) should be considered sufficient proof of the employer's knowledge.

Step 3:  Worker program.  Only AFTER Steps 1 & 2 have been FULLY implemented, we could reform our immigrant worker program to allow non-citizens greater legal access to the American job market.  This program should provide only temporary access to the job market (perhaps 6-12 months at a time), should come with an identification system of its own which requires the payment of an income and Social Security tax but which does not provide a Social Security benefit unless the person actually becomes a citizen.  Conviction for a felony would terminate the individual’s current and future use of the program; conviction for a third misdemeanor would do the same.  Overstaying one’s time limit for the program would be considered such a misdemeanor, but an employer’s continued employment of an individual beyond the permitted period would result in the asset forfeiture sanctions discussed above.  Such a program should also take into account the current unemployment rates and shift immigrant access rates accordingly.

These three steps would effectually end illegal immigration for “friendly” reasons, allowing us to focus on protecting our borders from those with less than friendly intentions.

Incidentally, very few people seem to be aware of the 11th Amendment which might have interesting applications as regards States’ Rights with respect to illegal immigration measures.  (It's worth some exploration.)

We also need to correct the assumption of the courts (and many other Americans) as regards the right of citizenship of those born to parents who are in this country illegally.  It was not the intent of our Founding Fathers to provide an “anchor baby” excuse for illegal immigration and being born on American soil is not the only requirement for citizenship according to our Constitution (14th Amendment).  There is also a clause which reads “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof…”  There is a need to clarify the meaning of that phrase and, perhaps, even amend the Constitution further to state plainly that citizenship requires that a child be born to parents who are, themselves, citizens…not just residents, legal or otherwise, thus incentivizing the path to legal citizenship.

There is one other question to consider…  Why is it that nothing ever gets done about “illegal immigration”?  The answer is actually very simple:  Neither party REALLY wants to control illegal immigration.  The Democrats have a long history of recruiting immigrants to their ranks and desire amnesty for these millions of potential future voters.  The Republicans desire illegal immigrants for the cheap labor that it provides to their “big business” buddies.

If you want illegal immigration to stop tomorrow, militarize the border and start seizing corporate/personal assets gained through the illegal activity, stop granting citizenship just because moms make it across the border before having a child, and illegal immigration will end.  And, incidentally, we won’t have to worry about “deporting” anyone at tax-payer expense.  If a man can’t find work and can’t find housing, he will find his own way back across the border.

On Education...

Education is a classic example of where the Federal government has usurped the powers of the States.  Constitutionally, the Feds have no authority over the education of our children.  The Feds do not have the power to regulate it, nor even demand it.  They do not have the authority to tax us in order to fund it (at any level).  They do not have the power to dictate what must be included in the curriculum, nor what cannot be included in the curriculum.  ALL of these powers are reserved, Constitutionally, to the States.

Reagan, who was generally considered by others to be a Conservative, actually let us down in this area.  After campaigning on the promise to abolish the Department of Education, he failed to do so.  The power of that department has, instead, been extended drastically to the point that the Department of Education reportedly now has its own armed enforcement division.

Even the Federal court system has no jurisdiction in these areas, beyond infringements upon the Constitutional rights of citizens on other various issues.  One such example would be the right to “equal protection under the law” as was infringed by having a supposedly “separate but equal” education system for black Americans, something challenged successfully during the civil rights era.

“But why…” one might ask, “Why is federal involvement a bad thing?  We all want a good educational system for our kids, right?”  Okay, the first and most obvious rebuttal would be, “Is that what we have?”  A centralized bureaucracy is seldom the best way to handle ANYthing, much less something so personal as the influence over the minds of our children.

The true irony is that we think of those who support increased federal funding for education as being “pro-education”…when exactly the opposite is true.  Federal funds for education come from…where?  From you!  But… The State is already taking tax money from you to pay for education, as is the local school district in most cases.  And… With each new level of bureaucracy, there are more expenses.  One of the few legitimate reasons for having even that state layer of involvement in funding is to equalize opportunities for poor school districts.  But… The more money we get from the Feds for education, the less money that actually gets spent on education.  Let’s do the math…

Let’s say, for example, that you send (through your taxes) $100 to the school district and they use $10 for administrative costs; $90 would actually go toward the educating of your child.  If you send $100 to the state, they might have $10 in administrative costs, so they would send $90 back to your school district which would have another $10 in costs, leaving $80 to educate your child.  When you send $100 to the Feds, they will take $10 for costs (or $20) and send $90 to the state, which will send $80 to the school district, which will take its part and spend the remaining $70 on educating your child.  The more money we get from the Feds, the more money they siphon off from the local area through taxes that never make their way back.

Now, how ridiculous is this practice!  Why would anyone be in favor of such a silly scheme?  The reason is simple:  control!  The money we send to Washington comes back with strings and mandates.  It is the Feds way of dictating every aspect of our educational process, despite the fact that education is not within the Constitutional powers of the federal government.

“So what!  Why is a federally-controlled educational system a bad thing?”  Apart from the fact that it is clearly unconstitutional, you mean?  There were schools (mostly religious schools) when our Founding Fathers framed the Constitution and yet they chose to leave control over education with the states, closer to home, closer to the direct control of the parents whose children were being taught.

The more insidious problem is that the power to control education is the power to control the minds of all future voters.  That presents a horrific conflict of interest for any government, but especially the federal government!  Indeed, communist nations have a very centralized form of education; it is an important part of indoctrinating their societies into accepting their form of government.  But in a free society, our educational system must also be free!  To whatever degree that education is controlled by the Feds, to that degree it will be distorted to embrace the federalist view of its masters.  (For a little enlightenment, search YouTube for “school children praise Obama” like the following:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qp-ot_vChlU)

And there is a still more-important factor to consider.  Much to the disdain of liberals, progressives, socialists or whatever you choose to call those who seek control over the minds of our children, the education of our children is a basic parental right.  Education simply cannot be disconnected from our worldview, and the right of a parent to raise their child in the traditions of their own faith is a Constitutional right, under the freedom of religion (if no other).

What does religion have to do with education?  Quite a lot, actually…  Even now, it is the squeals of atheists and religious bigots that you are hearing in the background as they chant their mantra, “Dark ages… Dark ages… Dark ages…”  The dark ages were not caused by religion, per se’, but by power…with those in power (many of whom were religious leaders of the time), wishing to stay in power, denying what science had proven to be fact.  It is not “religious” leaders who are in power today, but rather…it is tenured professors and politicians who are more than eager to deny fact in order to maintain a godless educational system.

The problem today is the declaration of things to be “fact” that simply are not proven as such (…global warming, evolution, big bang, etc.).  “Why, every respectable scientist believes…whatever…”  In the days of Columbus, every respectable captain feared they might sail off the edge of a flat earth, but that one very religious man felt led of God to prove them wrong.  Many of us who are both spiritual and intellectual consider the teaching of evolution, big bang, global warming, and other theories as “fact” to be false science.  It is just intellectually dishonest to call any “theory” a “fact”.  It is a theory, nothing more…and, often, one of any number of competing theories.

We also consider detestable the theft of innocence and the raping of our elementary school children’s minds through sex education (or worse), especially in light of public school’s apparent inability to teach the fundamentals like Math or Reading or accurate history.  We who are of faith recognize that religion played a major role in the settling and founding of this nation, a fact of history which is increasingly stripped from our schools’ versions of history, as demanded by the atheists who are apparently threatened by that reality.  Again, the dark ages resulted from the denial of reality, not from religion.

If “separation of church and state” is such an issue for some, then perhaps they should insist instead that the state get out of the education business which, frankly, has historically been a function of the church.  And…go figure…the church is STILL doing a far better job of educating our children than the state, and with a fraction of the resources.  Private/religious schools have given us a model of excellence to follow.  Why impose federal mediocrity upon successful  educational models?  Can it be for any reason other than control…and control to what end?

On the 2nd Amendment...

I am not a member of the NRA, nor do I even own a gun at the time of this article, but one of the most dear rights to me is immortalized in the 2^nd Amendment:

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

If I might begin by slaying the “expert arguments” about whether the 2^nd Amendment enumerates a right of individuals, of the militia, or of the state…  Again, from the Amendment:  “…the right of the people… shall not be infringed.”  Those who twist and contort and wrangle over words miss the trees, much less the forest.  It was this individual right that made the “necessary”, “well regulated Militia” feasible.

It’s always hard for me to know if…A) “gun control” types are just so naïve as to think that men in power would NEVER scheme or abuse that power, or…B) that the scoffer is actually more sinister and is actually a part of such a scheme to increase the tyranny.  I’m sure there are some of both persuasions in the gun control crowd… (i.e. those who think an armed citizenry is just silly paranoia and those who actively seek a disarmed citizenry so that a federal/socialized tyranny can be freely imposed upon us).

Chairman Mao Tse-tung (Zedong) said:  “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”  It might surprise you to know that our Founding Fathers believed a very similar thing, except…  Mao believed that those guns were to be held by the military and, thusly, commanded by his communist government… “Our principle is that the Party commands the gun, and the gun must never be allowed to command the Party.” (Mao)

Our Founding Fathers, on the other hand, believed that, for a people to remain free from tyranny, the guns must be held by all able-bodied men in the nation (i.e. we the people).  Thus, the guns our forefathers were protecting through this 2^nd Amendment were not guns meant for hunting, or for sport, or for even for self-defense, per se’.  The very intent behind the 2^nd Amendment was to allow citizens to protect themselves from the tyranny of their own government run amok or from foreign incursions to which the federal military might not be able (or the federal government might not be willing) to respond to in a timely fashion (e.g. illegal immigration).  Having a well-armed citizenry was intended to deter the ill ambitions of politicians or would-be tyrants at home and abroad.

Paranoia?  Someone once said, “It’s not paranoia if they’re really out to get you!”  And… If it IS paranoia, then it was a paranoia shared by our Founding Fathers for that was their intent in the 2^nd Amendment as expressed in other contemporaneous documents.

As James Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers (#46), “Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops.”

Madison, our 4^th President and the Founding Father largely responsible for pushing the idea of a division of powers between the states and the federal government, and a further division of powers within the federal government, was saying that…at any given time, our own people should be capable of defeating any standing army that our federal government might send against us.

Despite how some modern interpreters twist our founding documents, the Militia was NOT the National Guard, but rather…the Militia consisted of virtually all men – every able-bodied white male…18-45 years of age (1 U.S. Statute 271).  Indeed, there WASN’T a National Guard back then and, even when the National Guard did come into existence, the law made a clear distinction between the Guard and the militia.  US Code bears out that distinction…

US Code: TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > §311. Militia: composition and classes. (emphasis added)

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are —

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

And lest there be any doubt created by those who would edit and contort ¶a to say that the militia was only “all males…and females who are members of the National Guard…” No.  All male citizens are in the militia and…females who are in the Guard are also in the militia.  ¶b2 clearly points to an entirely separate class of the militia who are not in the National Guard, so Guardsmen clearly do not include the whole of the militia…which, in truth, is actually irrelevant to an individual’s 2^nd Amendment right. (…which you probably knew, but idiots have to be shown…and even then…)

I will caution 2^nd Amendment supporters, however, to be careful about the quotes they read on-line.  There are a number of sites with quotes that are apparently false.  Their use is unnecessary, even detrimental, to the cause.  That is why I have used only the most irrefutable quotes I could find on verifiable university or government sites.  These, I believe, are more than ample to shut the mouths of the ignorant and the subversive.

On the Conservative Movement...

One of the more interesting political lessons I have learned in life came in the form of a term paper for a Political Science class.  The paper began as a comparison of political party platforms over the past 100 years.  It turned into a study of something very different from my original intent.  It morphed into a study in how the Republican Party has suppressed the Conservative movement in America for well over 100 years.

My first discovery was that of a little known third party called the Prohibition Party.  Sure, you’ve heard of Prohibition…and the repeal of Prohibition, but what most Americans are completely unaware of is that there was actually a long-standing political party called the Prohibition Party that went far beyond just the alcohol issue.  During its modest rise, it was the voice of what Liberals today would call “the Righteous Wing”.

The Prohibition Party was the first party to call for the abolition of slavery in its party platform.  The Prohibition Party was the first party to call for women’s suffrage.  They were on what we today would call the right side of any number of social issues.  Unfortunately, the Prohibition Party was also the first party to call for an income tax.  To their credit, they soon recognized the error of their ways and became the first party to call for a repeal of the income tax.

The Prohibition Party was, essentially, the conservative right wing movement of the mid 1800’s to early 1900’s, though it still exists marginally to this day.  They were and are distinctly Christian in tone and, much like the current Constitution Party, every Prohibition Party platform has begun with an acknowledgement of God and His blessings.

What I discovered about their political platforms…and those of the Republicans…was that virtually every single significant plank of every single platform of the Prohibition Party showed up four years later as planks in the platform of the Republican Party.  It was a fascinating "coincidence".

Understand that this was the very era during which the Republican Party was infamous as being the party of big business (which holds true to this day despite the best efforts of Conservatives).  But…in order to bring more voters under its tent, the Republicans essentially absorbed the social conservative movement, undermining their independent efforts by commandeering their positions on social issues…and all other issues just for good measure.  “After all”, as the Republican reasoning went, “it isn’t like it matters what we put in our platforms.  Platforms are just words and promises that we have no intention of keeping anyway!”  As with the Democrats of today, their philosophy was, "SAY ANYthing to gain power, then you can DO anything you wish."

There is a tendency among well-meaning folks to believe that we should always work together to bring about “change from within”.  We have seen this attitude reflected in the modern conservative movement over the past 30 years as they have worked to change the Republican Party from within during the Reagan era and beyond.  At times they’ve even been "allowed" some impact.

What these neo-conservative folks need to realize, however, is that…it’s not going to happen!  This has been the Republican political tactic for well over 100 years and they have gotten exceedingly good at “appealing” to the moral majority…at “appearing” socially or even fiscally conservative…only to go to Washington and end up “supposedly compromising” and voting with moderates or even liberals.

The very point of this article is to point out that the Republican Party is still today (and will be tomorrow) the party of Big Business.  It is in their interest, just as it is in the interest of the Socialists (I mean, the Democrats), to kill all competition in the form of small business opportunity.  It is a necessary and pragmatic evil to them that they must tolerate those “naïve conservatives” in order to gain power.

As we have watched the collective merger of corporate America, it is almost as though the anti-trust laws don’t even exist anymore.  Both parties clearly favor (in practice) drowning any would be entrepreneurs in red tape and regulations, though out of differing motives of which I will write elsewhere.  (And...don't even get me started on the social issue side.)

I thoroughly enjoyed (and was completely disgusted by) the story out of Georgia about three young girls who had their lemonade stand shut down by police because they failed to secure the necessary business license, peddler’s permit, and food permit…along with paying the accompanying fees of $50 per day.  Can anyone seriously say with a straight face that our nation has a free market economy anymore?  Is this REALLY the kind of nation we want for our children?

It is time for a FOuRTH Party!  Not just “yet another third party”… Not just another party of protest… Not just another party centered around some rich, charismatic personality…  Certainly not just another party of some “lesser evil”…  And, frankly, not some religiously or ideologically narrow single-issue party appealing only to some fractional segment of our free society.  All such attempts represent errors of third parties past!  It's time for the FOuRTH Party!

It is time for a true political alternative that stands for what’s right and true for ALL Americans...a government that acts only upon what we can more or less all agree upon.  It is time for a political alternative that uses social media and new more-open ways of conducting party business so that every person literally does have a voice in the process.  We have the technology to change the face of politics in America, and it is time for people to connect with people and circumvent entirely the back-room dealing, old guard, dysfunctional parties of days gone by.

Welcome to the FOuRTH Party!  YOU ARE at the heart of the foURth party!

On Moral Hazard...

Various economists have talked recently about the bail-outs of banks and other “Too Big to Fail” companies in terms of “Moral Hazard”.  The idea of “moral hazard” is that…if such banks or other companies know that they are going to get a bail-out, they will invariably take greater risks and not fear the consequences.  (There’s a good educational video on this topic at the following link:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SdtoKeFTi0 )  I am, in a way, glad that this issue has arisen, because it forced me to learn about this concept called “moral hazard”.

There is also another aspect of moral hazard called “information asymmetry” in which a “party that is insulated from risk has more information about its actions and intentions than the party paying for the negative consequences of the risk. More broadly, moral hazard occurs when the party with more information about its actions or intentions has a tendency or incentive to behave inappropriately from the perspective of the party with less information.” (source: Wikipedia)

For example, Congress and debt limit increases...!  This is a great example of moral hazard on a Congressional level!  If debt limit increases are virtually automatic (as they have been in the past), then moral hazard comes into play and Congress will just keep spending over any reasonable limit because the consequence of default has been removed…at least, until we get to complete bankruptcy.  Those in Congress know that they are going to bail themselves out of the jam and there will be no immediate consequence.

More to the point, let’s just substitute the debt limit issue into the description of “informational asymmetry” above:  A party (Congress) is insulated from risk (of default and of being voted out of office)…  Moral hazard occurs when the party with more information about its actions or intentions (Congress) has a tendency (like the “buying” of votes) or incentive (like not taking the blame for making the hard but right choices) to behave inappropriately from the perspective of the party with less information (voters).

Didn’t follow…?  Congress has an incentive to not address the spending issue; no Congressman (at least, no Congressman who hopes to be re-elected) wants to be the one to suggest cutting Medicare benefits or Social Security benefits or Education spending or Research funding or any number of other things.  They would be painted as heartless; I believe the phrase “killing old people” was used recently with respect to the Tea Party.  So, Congress has a tendency to not only continue spending on those programs but to add new programs as a way of buying votes from still other constituents.  Voters receiving such benefits are much less likely to vote out the Congressman who made their benefits possible.

Similarly, Congress funds huge projects through various businesses and that benefits those same Congressmen through reciprocation in the form of campaign contributions from those same companies and their employees, campaign contributions that (in turn) insulate the Congressmen from any real danger of being removed from office by voters who must overcome the disinformation about (and character assassination of) the opponents of these sitting Congressmen through the barrage of campaign ads that their “war chest” affords them.

All of these factors add up to a greatly reduced risk to a Congressman of suffering any real consequences at the polls.  The more Congress spends with grateful companies (and the voters that work for those companies) and the more voters that qualify for various benefits, the more all of those voters will be reluctant to remove their benefactor from office.

And what happens when 55-60^% of the voters receive benefits, work for government entities, or work for the companies that hold huge government contracts?  How would we EVER reduce the size of government?  In a very real sense, big government creates its own moral hazard dilemma.

A failure to bail out the banks and other companies would have been exceedingly painful, economically, but such pain is necessary in order to maintain the integrity of any free market system.  Ditto with our government!  Not allowing Congress to raise the debt limit would create exceedingly painful consequences for America, but such pain is necessary in order to regain the integrity of our government and remain a free people.

If the U.S. has to fail in order to set things right again, then it has to fail.  I would greatly prefer that Congress simply do the right thing and stop running up the debt in the first place, but if they are irresponsible and will not listen to the American people, then eventually the world will clue them in to the fact that “Enough is enough!”

Debt Limit increases must no longer be automatic.  In fact, the debt limit should not be raised at all for the foreseeable future…and, no, that does not automatically mean that we would default on our debt.  It means that spending would have to be harshly cut back in order to not default, a situation caused by the overspending.

It’s a little like a husband and wife arguing about her excessive shopping (or his) and charging the credit cards up to and over their max.  If she knows that he is going to get mad but, in the end, he’s going to pay the over-charge fees and raise the credit limits every time, then she will just keep charging.

If, instead, he stops getting the limits raised (and stops paying the bill), the credit card company will do what he apparently couldn’t – force her to stop spending what she doesn’t have.  Painful?  Sure.  Bad credit score, steeper default interest rates, having to finally start paying the cards down plus still try to live…and live, now, not just within their means (which they’re not used to doing) but live on even less than that until the debt is paid.

This is where we are as a nation.  The party is over.  It’s time to act with some self-discipline or we will plunge our nation headlong into economic oblivion…where old people…and young…really will die.

On Legislating Morality...

I’ve heard it said, “You can’t legislate morality.”  Usually, the topic is one where a social conservative seeking a more decent society is being chided by a social liberal or libertarian.  “You can’t legislate morality?”  I beg to differ…

Society believes it is wrong to kill, so we have laws against murder.  Society believes it is wrong to steal, so we have laws against theft.  Society believes it is wrong to wear corduroy, so we have fashion police who will ridicule you.  (There’s no accounting for taste. lol)

In truth, I would suggest to you that all proper legislation should be an attempt to set forth society’s moral stance on the issue at hand.  If you show me a law that does not legislate morality, I’ll show you a law that is probably discretely designed to put money into somebody’s pocket.

The real issue is…who gets to decide what is moral?  There was a time when the morals of our citizens were fairly uniform and the stance of the majority was generally an ethical position.  Most Americans held to a fairly Judeo-Christian ethic, even if they were not religious.  That is hardly to say that our national values were always correct.  Just ask someone who only counted as 3/5^ths of a person, constitutionally…not that blacks or women were allowed to vote back then anyway.  But… Should we trade one flawed ethic for a dozen other flawed ethics?  I don’t think so.

It’s a little like the young person who looks at the flawed parenting of their own parents and thinks, “I’m not going to make the mistakes that my parents made raising me!”  No, you’re probably not.  You will discover a whole new set of mistakes to make, often worse mistakes than those of your parents.  And at times, we do make the same mistakes.  Why?  “…because I said so!  That's why!”

Unfortunately, that time of even moderate uniformity has pretty much faded, especially on issues like abortion, gay marriage, capital punishment, entitlements, etc.

There are those who would suggest that the government should just stay out of personal issues.  But…to what degree?  If you believe that theft or murder is not a big deal, should society let you just do your thing?  Of course not.  The argument is made, however, that some so-called crimes (like drug use or prostitution) are really just “victimless crimes” and should not be prosecuted or even outlawed.

But...these are not victimless crimes.  Children and innocent by-standers are, indeed, impacted by such activities.  Even smoking, for instance, victimizes those in the immediate vicinity who are forced to inhale the poison or vacate the area (which is not possible or practicable at times).  Even those claiming to be conservative (Rush Limbaugh, for instance) don’t seem to understand the basic conservative principle that “your personal liberties stop where mine begin.”

So, when there is a conflict between the liberties of one person versus another, whose liberties should prevail?  The “natural state” should prevail.  In the case of smokers, the “natural state” would be the right to breathe clean air.  It’s not that different from a next door neighbor playing loud music in the middle of the night.  Their right to play loud music stops where your right to a night’s sleep begins, because peace and quiet is the “natural state”.

Similarly, a child’s right to a safe environment (and sober, responsible parents) outweighs that parent’s freedom to get drunk (or high).  A driver’s right to get home safely outweighs another driver’s freedom to drive under the influence of alcohol or drugs.  A factory worker’s right to stay safe on the job outweighs their co-worker’s freedom to come to work impaired.  And so on…

Sorry to my Libertarian friends, but no matter how you try to justify it, you are simply wrong on the drug issue and other such issues of personal liberty without consideration for moral responsibility.  There are almost always unintended victims when we do immoral things.  Thus, the government does have a role to play…in legislating morality.

Our young nation is trying to “grow up”, and as we pass through this adolescence of national life, we are in the throws of a rebellious period in life.  Hopefully, we will realize that we are not more wise than our forefathers and we will return to some measure of ethical behavior and the ways of old…but without their mistakes.

On Abortion...

Perhaps, more than any other topic in the past 50 years, abortion has been a seminal issue on the stage of American politics.  Though it has been pushed aside to some extent by the horrendous economy, abortion raises the level of emotions in religious circles and in non-religious circles, alike.  It evokes strong, heart-felt responses on all sides, so much so that we start to forget the real issue.

The pro-choice argument has been flawed in that it relies primarily on emotional hyperbole.  Unfortunately, the pro-life argument has been equally as flawed, often relying on religious justifications.  In a land where we acknowledge genuine freedom of religion, an argument based upon one’s religious beliefs simply cannot stand.  Likewise, emotional clichés are hardly a rationale for legislation either.  So, I thought we might be well served to examine the issue from a more scientific perspective.

There is only one major ethical/moral reason why abortion could be considered “wrong”.  If abortion is the taking of a human life, then it has to be considered wrong.  If abortion is not the taking of a human life, then it is nobody’s business but the mother and the doctor.

So, is abortion tantamount to murder? …or is that emotional hyperbole from the pro-life side?  To investigate this from a scientific viewpoint, we should agree upon some semblance of a definition… Murder is to kill (or end the life of) an innocent living human being.  If any of those four elements (innocent, living, human, being) is not applicable to the unborn child, then we cannot rightly consider abortion to be murder.

Is the unborn child living?  Well, the unborn child, in its earliest stages may not have a heartbeat; it may not be breathing or thinking, but there is certainly biological function, of a sort.  There is growth.  There is cell division taking place.  If we found those properties in some something on Mars, we would certainly contend that we had found “life” on Mars.  So, I think the “scientific” answer would have to be that it is at least “living tissue”, but…living tissue of what nature?

Is the unborn child human?  Well, again…from a purely scientific angle, the cells have genes that would clearly distinguish it as homo sapiens.  That argument is pretty straightforward, but…

Is the unborn child a “being”?  Is it an organism separate and distinct unto itself, or is it a part of the mother’s body?  Again, going back to the genetics, the unborn child has a genetic make-up entirely different from that of its mother.  Certainly, at this stage in its development, the unborn child is “parasitic” in form, but that does not make it “a part of the mother’s body”.  If that same mother had another parasite, say, a tapeworm, would we not recognize that the tapeworm was a separate living organism, though parasitic in form?

Likewise, the fact that the unborn child is not yet in its final form does not disqualify it as an “organism”.  Would we say that a caterpillar is not an organism because it is not yet a butterfly?  Ridiculous…

Finally…  Is the unborn child innocent?  Certainly, there is an absence of any guilt for the child who has not yet been born.  Even if the pregnancy was the result of a rape or incest, the child, itself, is innocent, and no civilized people can justly execute the innocent for the crimes of the father.  If we want to execute the father, then we can talk.

It is evidence of the upside-down world in which we live and the twisted minds of the pro-choice movement that they would see the death penalty as some kind of moral equivalent to abortion and call pro-life supporters hypocrites for supporting the death penalty.  The pro-choice crowd ignores the critical factor of “guilt” in proclaiming the capital punishment to be “murder” by the state.  They would have us kill the innocent and let the guilty live.  Plainly, it is “evil”…pure evil.

Still, the unfortunate fact is that even many pro-life proponents are not really pro-life.  If one thinks of (or treats) the unborn child any differently than they would, say, a 4-year old child, then they are hypocrites.  The unborn child is either a living human being or it is not.

So, if a mother discovered that her 4-year old child was actually the spawn of a rapist, would she be justified in killing the 4-year old?  What if it were the result of incest?  Could we, in good conscience, kill that 4-year old?  Oh, but…now it is the so-called pro-lifers that resort to the emotional arguments.  Sorry, but no…  Abortion is either wrong because it is the taking of an innocent human life or there is nothing wrong with it in any case.  Period.

Even in a situation where the life of the mother is involved, we have to consider the fact that we have two patients.  Might we have to harm one in order to save the life of the other?  Possibly.  Doctors run into similar ethical questions in dealing with Siamese twins, occasionally.  This situation is no different.  If both lives can be saved, then every effort must be made to spare both lives.  If they cannot both be saved, then they can’t.  Still, it is a matter of mind-set…  Do we even consider that we have two patients?

At the very least, those who hold a legitimate moral stance against abortion should not be compelled through their tax dollars to pay for abortion.  This, in and of itself, is morally and ethically wrong.  Our government should not ask this of tax payers any more than they should compel drafted soldiers to kill or be killed when they have a conscientious objection to killing.  No federal funding should go to any organization which performs or promotes abortion.