Elections and Freedom

Well, it is done and the votes in Iraq are being counted. Counting the votes and the independent certification of the election may still take a few days, but the vote is in, and I can already tell you who won.

The Iraqi people.

Current estimates are that 60-70% of eligible voters turned up at the polls to cast their votes. With many of them walking miles to reach the polls. One elderly Iraqi reportedly traveled 3 miles in a wheelchair so that he could vote.

Very good news indeed … this shows that, despite ‘naysayers’ the Iraqi people ARE interested in freedom and in choosing their leaders. Despite reports that predicted widespread violence, the Iraqi people chose to exercise their freedom and vote. Despite media report depicting the mission in Iraq as a failure, the elections of Jan 30, 2005 were a success.

Now … let’s take a step back and look at something. We just elected a new president back in November. Americans went to the polls just as the Iraqi people did on Sunday and voted on who would be our new leader. However, in the US, less than 60% of American voters actually went to the polls. In the 2000 presidential election only 51% of voters bothered to cast their ballot.

Yes. Here in the US where we are safe and secure, where we are not threatened by terrorists, where we are protected and free. Here almost half of us can’t be bothered to go to the polls. And too many of those that do, couldn’t pass a simple civics test if you were to require it to vote (as I think there should be … if you can’t take a test and show that you at least understand the basics of how the government functions I don’t believe that you need to be voting).

Now there are allegations here in the US that voters were ‘disenfranchised’ in the November elections. That their right to vote was taken away because they didn’t want to wait in long lines, or because a police car passing by ‘intimidated’ them into leaving, or that they had to show picture ID to vote.

To vote in the US you HAVE to do 3 things – Be a legal citizen of the US, register to vote, and show up to vote (or if circumstances make that impossible request and cast an absentee ballot within the appropriate timeframe as described by law). If you are not willing to wait in a long line, you have not been disenfranchised … you’re just too lazy to vote. If a police car passing by ‘intimidates’ you then I have to wonder what you’re hiding from police, but unless the officers physically keep you from voting you have not been disenfranchised. And I’m sorry, but a picture ID is how we prove that you are who you say you are, and that you’ve met the first two requirements … if you are unwilling to do that then I’m sorry but you can’t vote because we can’t confirm that you’re a citizen or that you’re a registered voter.

I have yet to see ANY evidence of people not being ALLOWED to vote. Yes, there is some evidence that for various reasons some people CHOSE not to vote, but they are free people … they are allowed to make that choice for themselves.

If the Iraqi people can vote under threat of death by terrorists and in some cases by their own countrymen, then the American people need to take notice. Our freedom is a wonderful thing; we shouldn’t allow anything to keep us from legally voting. And if you do CHOOSE not to vote … don’t blame it on something else … take responsibility for the choice, don’t complain because you don’t like the outcome.

Just over 40 Iraqi people died because of Election Day violence; these are some of the true heroes of Iraq … the people that went out to cast their vote for freedom and gave their lives in that effort. But it is a statement to the success of the efforts in Iraq that the violence was as limited as it was. Iraq is entering a dangerous stage in its democratic development, and I believe that it is in the interests of all free people in the world to help this new government emerge and flourish, to shelter this new flame so that it may be a new light in the darkness.

The Will to Fight

Has the US lost the will to fight? Have we lost the will to stand up for what we believe in? Some have … I call them the ‘peace at any price’ crowd.

They are willing to throw our hands in the air and come home in defeat rather than fight a difficult battle to achieve victory. They are willing to encourage our enemies with their words even as our troops struggle to bring order and peace to another people. They are willing to sell out the sovereignty of this county and its people out to the anti-capitalist UN.

You have Senator Ted Kennedy calling for US Troops to be removed from Iraq because “There will be more serious violence” if we don’t. Leaving aside the fact that without a crystal ball no one can KNOW what’s going to happen if we stay, there is only ONE way that troops should be removed from Iraq – with their job completed and the new Iraq government established and secure.

Anything else is tucking our tail between our legs and retreating … not for military or strategic reasons, but because of caving to political pressure and fear.

Never mind the fact that a US withdraw from the region is strategically BAD. Never mind the fact that it would leave Iraq in a situation of vulnerability and the region more unstable than it was. Never mind the fact that it would equate to a victory for the terrorists which would embolden them further and endanger American lives around the world.

Most of that is, after all, based on a projection of the current situation … Just as Senator Kennedy’s statement is.

Let us take a look back at some of the other conflicts that we have pulled out of for political reasons. Specifically, let’s look at Vietnam and Somalia. Many veterans of these two conflicts hold some bitter resentment, not because they didn’t feel that they should be there, not because they didn’t agree with the mission, but because they were pulled out and kept from completing their mission because of politicians that didn’t have the spinal fortitude to let them complete the job.

But Senator Kennedy isn’t interested in the well being of our troops … he doesn’t care that a significant majority of US Military personnel in Iraq agree with the mission and feel that they are helping to appreciably improve the living conditions of the Iraqi people. He doesn’t care about any of the strategic analysis that I mentioned before.

He has one goal in mind - A US Military failure. He WANTS Iraq to be another Vietnam … he WANTS the troops to come home defeated, not by the enemy, but by political pressure. He wants it because it would hurt Bush and the Republican Party and he is willing to encourage terrorists around the world to do that.

To be fair, Senator Kennedy is not alone in his goals, Senator Kerry, Senator Boxer, and an American Mainstream Media that refuses to show the successes in Iraq all support the cause, as do many special interest and protest organizations in the US and abroad.

Kennedy is entitled to his opinion, and is certainly free to say it, but I believe that people in leadership positions have a responsibility to take care in what they say. What is said by Senator Kennedy, or any of the others, is reported around the world … to our allies, to our enemies, and to our troops. Statements like that embolden the enemy and lower the moral of our troops … they BECOME self-fulfilling prophesy.

This is not going to be an easy fight. I didn’t think it was going to be easy when we initially invaded … these types of things are never easy. US troops occupied Germany for about seven years, fighting hold outs of Nazi forces and SS after WWII. Will things get harder for our troops in Iraq? I expect that they will, especially with the media breathing down their neck, questioning everything they do and ignoring success. With reports of an Al-Qaeda member trying to buy nuclear material in Germany of late, I dare say that the terrorists are looking to ‘up the ante’ so to speak.

An animal fights the hardest when it is cornered, as the attacks increase it is likely because the enemy is getting desperate and wants us to withdraw … hoping that we don’t have the strength, the guts, the will, to fight it through and achieve our goals. Now is not the time to withdraw, it is the time to press for victory and show that we have the strength to stand up to our enemy and defeat it … to show that will stand against their attacks and that we will not falter.

Now is the time for victory.

Emanate Domain

Emanate Domain – the power of government to condemn and seize privately owned property in order to use it for government purposes.

While this will be my first rant on the subject here, those who know me know that this is not the first time I’ve been fired up on this particular subject. Over the last several years there has been a dramatic increase in the use of ‘emanate domain’ … with MANY of the cases involving city councils condemning private property under emanate domain and selling that property to private developers for the development of private businesses.

The ABUSE of emanate domain is on the rise in this country and the American citizens need to WAKE UP and smell the coffee while we still have some private property rights.

The state government in Florida tried to pass a bill last year that would have given any state, county, or city government in Florida the right to seize any land through emanate domain if they could show increased tax revenue. So if the government (city, county, or state) can show that it could get more tax revenue from a new BMW dealership than it can from your house it can seize your house and sell that land to the BMW dealership. Now they do have to provide ‘reasonable compensation’ to the private property owner for the property seized. But it is the government that is seizing the land that determines what ‘reasonable compensation’ is, and it does NOT have to be ‘fair market value’.

Of course … the government maintained its right to use emanate domain for the traditional ‘public use’ as well. So if the Florida government needed a new police station, some new government sponsored housing, or a new road, they could still seize the needed land as normal.

In other words … they could seize your property for virtually ANY use.

Thankfully the word about the bill got out to the people of Florida and the bill was withdrawn without a vote by the state legislature. I can only HOPE that the name of the sponsoring politicians got out as well and that they will find themselves out of a job next election.

Well, now it seems its Georgia’s turn.

It seems that State Senator Eric Johnson has written up a lengthy piece of legislation currently referred to as SB5. The brief given by Senator Johnson seems innocent enough at first glance:

“The New Georgia Infrastructure Act (SB 5) proposes a sensible way to meet the needs of the citizens of Georgia in coming years without having to implement tax increases at the state and local levels. It would encourage the use of future anticipated fees and revenue to leverage construction costs by private companies today. This is the same mechanism used by business to finance their projects and developments”

But, as always, the devil is in the details. In and of itself, the bill doesn’t increase emanate domain specifically. It doesn’t give that power to private developers. Rather it gives private developers a way to specifically ask the government to use its police power to seize private property that they can not buy or are unwilling to pay the price that the owners are asking.

Unlike normal government projects where the government would have to propose the project, hold a vote, and go through a bid process to find a contractor. Here, the contractor comes to the government and proposes a project and part of that proposal is:

(C)A statement setting forth the method by which the operator proposes to secure any necessary property interests required for the qualifying project. The statement shall include:

(i) The names and addresses, if known, of the current owners of the property needed for the qualifying project;
(ii) The nature of the property interests to be acquired; and
(iii) Any property that the responsible public entity will be asked to condemn;

Replace the words ‘responsible public entity’ with ‘government’ and remember that ‘condemn’ is effectively ‘seize’. Now … what can they use this to build? “Any property which any public entity is authorized to construct, erect, acquire, own, repair, remodel, maintain, add to, extend, improve, equip, operate or manage under the laws of Georgia.” Oh … nice broad terms, and given Georgia law that equates to roughly anything from Apartments to Strip Clubs to Schools to Office Buildings.

So this effectively boils down to “Private developers can submit a project to build anything and let us know what property that they want seized to complete the project, and they can do so with a streamlined process that avoids public notification.”

Come ON people … Personal Property Rights are one of the main pillars of our freedoms. What GOOD is freedom of speech if the government can walk up and seize your house … well I guess it means that they can’t put you in jail for all the things you say when they do it.

This is an issue that EVERY American needs to be aware of and pay close attention to because it CAN happen to you, and there’s a pretty good chance that if you don’t stand up NOW and do something to prevent it, sooner or later the government will come knocking on your door.

Government abuse of ANY of its powers should not be tolerated … we have to remember that the government exists to serve us, NOT the other way around. The ONLY powers government has are what WE give it.

Eternal Vigilance……

The price of freedom

What is the price of freedom? Well, there are a lot of answers to that question … But I will go back to a quote from one of the Founding Fathers of this country to start with:

“The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.”
Thomas Jefferson - 3rd president of US (1743 - 1826)

Eternal vigilance … why, you ask? Because there will ALWAYS be someone out there who will try to take away your freedoms. There will always be those whose goal is the subjugation of all others. It may be a person, a religion, or government and the threats to freedom can come from outside the country, or from within its boarders.

Unfortunately I feel that there are those in this country who, over the years, have not been as vigilant as they should have been. We, the citizens, have allowed the government to erode our freedoms, allowed the government to take some things that it was never intended to take from us. There is a growing population even within our own country that have no love of freedom … who would willingly surrender all to the government or, worse still, the UN.

There are many out there that believe that they can trade away freedom in exchange for peace. But not only is that exchange a terrible price, but the peace found with it is only temporary and short lived for there is greater conflict among repressive governments than among the free countries of the world. Iraq and Iran, for example, were nearly constantly at a state of war fighting over land and oil. Yet countries that value freedom value it not just for themselves, but for others as well, and respect the freedom of others.

Does this mean that there is never conflict among free countries? Of course not. There will always be conflict among people … the difference is that free people, governed by the rule of law, can usually work things out with less violence, and can, more often, come to an agreement that can benefit both parties.

I still believe, however, in the views of the Founding Fathers. I believe that we have rights, not as citizens of the United States, but as human beings. These rights are held by every person on the planet. There are those, however, who live under governments that take these rights away. Our rights are not given to us by the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights … our rights are ours by virtue of life, and NO government should have the ‘right’ to take that away.

Some ask, ‘when is the cost too high?’

Freedom is priceless; no ‘price’ can be attached to it … not in US Dollars or in human lives. No price is too high because the alternative is subjugation and oppression, the loss of liberty and of human rights.

Is it the job of the US to ‘spread liberty to the world’? I would argue that if the Free do not make it their job to spread freedom, than those that would oppress freedom will make it their job to take it. Freedom in the world can grow and prosper, or recede and fail. I, for one, would rather live in a world where freedom is growing, and economic and personal liberty being brought to more people. I would rather see a world that valued freedom and human rights, a world ruled by law where anyone can work hard and succeed in the ‘American Dream’.

I salute our soldiers in their duty … and I mourn those that give their lives in the name of freedom. I salute our allies in their support of freedom. I also salute the people of Afghanistan, who late last year defied the threats of terrorists and took their lives into their own hands, voting in free elections. I salute the people of Iraq who will do the same in a few days time … they are all heroes. They will face many threats, now, and in years to come, and I hope that with our help and the strength of their own will they will weather the test of time and flourish in the freedom that they now have.

I will pay the price of freedom. Will you? Or will you accept the shackles of the oppressed?

Shards of Truth

Okay, I’m a little behind. Working too much and just getting too many good things to rant about lately … so this is a few days later than it should have been.

Listening to President G.W. Bush’s inaugural address last Thursday I caught the line “There can be no human rights without human liberty.” There is a lot of truth in that statement for much of the ‘rights’ that we celebrate here in the US require liberty and freedom to really prosper. However there is another requirement to true human rights … personal responsibility. (You’ll find that this tends to be a recurring theme here … as I feel that Personal Ownership rights and Personal Responsibility are two of the most important things in this country … and both are things that I feel no longer receive the respect that the deserve)

When a person ceases to be responsible for themselves … for their actions and choices in life … then a fundamental freedom has been taken away from them. That freedom is the freedom of self destiny, the ability to shape themselves into who they truly are. Without that central freedom none of the others can be attained. Without personal responsibility, the muscle of the other freedoms is useless … a body without bones.

Part of the freedom of personal responsibility, however, is the freedom to fail, and as a result people tend to let this central freedom be impeached.

Stand up for yourself as an individual, take charge of your life and accept the responsibility of your actions. You will be a freer person in the end, whether you succeed or fail.

“Whoso would be a man must be a nonconformist”
Ralph Waldo Emerson

The 'evil' rich

Okay … While surfing around Blogger the other day I happened across the blog of a young college student. She was studying Political Science and wrote a piece on the misconceptions of where our economic problems lay.

In short her conclusion was that the economic problems were not caused by ‘cheap undocumented labor’ or ‘over ambitious Jews’ but rather on the greedy corporations and rich people who fight against minimum wage increases … who increase their prices while trying to pay less for labor. All of our economic problems stem from these ‘evil’ rich people. (No, those are not her words, but it is in essence what she was saying.)

Why do I sense that this is a Poly Sci major that would whole heartedly agree that this country should operate under the auspice of the quote “From each according to their ability, to each according to their need”?

I hate to break it to people … but a business … any business … exists for one single purpose – to make a profit. They are going to do whatever is in the best interest of succeeding in that goal. If a worker wants more money than an employer is willing to pay for a set of skills then the worker can look elsewhere for employment. The problem you run into is minimum wage laws …. Minimum wage laws artificially inflate the wages of entry level positions (and thereby everything above them as well) often leading to a situation that we’re seeing in the US economy now … Companies moving non-skilled positions to other countries where they can pay a lower wage.

(Oh, and quit with the “They’re shipping our jobs overseas!” nonsense … they are the employers jobs, not yours. You have skills to offer employers to fill jobs … you don’t have jobs to offer employers … if you had jobs to offer, you’d be an employer. You do not have a ‘right’ to those jobs.)

Okay … a couple of things real quick. We live in a capitalist economy. That is an economy in which people build wealth by capitalizing on the laws of supply and demand. Everything falls into that model. I have skills … the more people that have those skills, the less they are worth (Greater supply = lower value … the Law of Supply) The more people that need the skill the more the skill is worth (Law of Demand) … so if you have a very common skill and there are only a few jobs you have a High Supply, Low Demand situation … and you will be lucky to give your skills away.

In the US we have a situation where a large part of the workers have, over the years of economic ‘boom’ priced themselves out of the market. One field this has hit particularly is the Computers field … early on this field was growing rapidly, much more rapidly than skilled workers could be found to fill the need. The result was huge salaries and great benefits. However, as economists predicted, the field could not maintain that rate of growth as the market began to saturate. Combine this with the fact that, due to the large salaries and benefit packages a large number of college graduates were entering the workforce … the result … the boom went bust and people who had once made six figure salaries were thrown back into the job pool … where they were competing with more people than there were jobs. (This is the danger of chasing the current trend in search of riches.)

Remembering that a business exists to make a profit, if I can hire 3 people to work 10 hours a day for $4 an hour (thus getting 30 man hours for $120) or 1 person to work 10 hours at $6 an hour (10 man hours for $60) which is the better value? Am I ‘evil’ for preferring to hire the 3 workers at $4 an hour to the one that wants $6? Am I exploiting them in their willingness to work? If I don’t employ them then they remain unemployed, doing no one any good and helping neither themselves nor the economy. If I offer the job to the guy that wants $6 an hour at the $4 an hour rate, and he declines to work for that amount that is his choice.

Any increase in minimum wage increases a company’s expenses (both in terms of pure payroll increases and in terms of higher payroll taxes) this, in turn, causes a raise in the cost of the company’s product. Since a minimum wage affects all employees in the country that means an increase in the cost of all products … this helps neither those who work for minimum wage, nor does it help those who are already making more than minimum wage.

As for companies raising their prices … well a company may raise its price on goods for several reasons. Increased taxes, increased wages due to increase in the minimum wages or general cost of living, increased material cost, increased utility costs, etc. Just because a company is increasing its prices does not mean that the company is making more profit.

The ‘Evil’ rich are the ones in this country creating jobs. If you want to raise their taxes, then expect them to create fewer jobs … if you hit them hard enough, expect them to stop creating jobs, or worse, fold their companies and close all those jobs. Do they become richer as a result of this? OF COURSE THEY DO. I’ll give you a little hint about life out there … if they didn’t (say it with me now) THEY WOULDN’T DO IT. Should the ‘rich’ give up the pursuit of wealth simply because they have more of it than others? Should the government take their wealth and distribute it to those that have less? (“From each according to their ability, to each according to their need”) Heck … why don’t we just do away with the who concept of private ownership and give everything to the government … we’ll all live in government housing, collect government paychecks, eat government rations and stand in government lines for them….

There is a sound reason that socialism doesn’t work on a large scale … if I’m going to get X whether I work for it or not … WHY would I ever WORK for it? Socialism/Communism can work in small groups that are in relatively small areas. Like in villages where everyone knows one another and relies on each other for the things that they can’t make themselves. Once you start getting to a point where you have more people than are needed or that don’t have a ‘job’ that are living off the work of others it begins to fall apart.

No, thank you. I’d rather live in a country where I can work hard, earn money, and own private property. I prefer a country where I can be free to speak my mind without fear, where I can invest MY money into businesses and in return receive a profitable return on that investment. Sadly there are many in this country that would rather live off the government and would prefer that the government just give them everything so that they don’t have to work for it.

Change can be good (Part II)

Okay ... President G.W. Bush has been re-inaugurated, whether or not you feel that he should have been doesn't matter at this point, the deed is done, and we don't need to discuss it here. Now the President has made statements in some of his speeches that have some people on edge. Specifically he wants to make some serious changes to the Social Security program and he wants Tax Reform.

First, on the subject of Social Security - currently Social Security tax is taken out of your paycheck and sent to Washington where it is doled out to pay the people currently collecting a Social Security check. Now ... what happens with anything left over? It's rolled into the general fund and used to fund highways, work programs, welfare, or any other program that the government wants to spend it on. Social Security is the government’s slush fund and your guarantee of being able to collect Social Security when you retire is zero.

Since the system, as it stands now, is using current income to pay current debts, the money paid into the system by individuals does not guarantee the individual paying the money anything. And, as more people begin to retire over the coming years (and the fact that on average people are living longer than they did when the system was established) we are likely looking at decreasing Social Security benefits and possibly eventually reaching a point where the system simply can no longer support itself. At which point the people currently paying Social Security could well find themselves with nothing to show in return, and nothing to retire on.

There are a few ways to 'reform' Social Security ... you can increase the amount people pay into the system by withholding more from their paychecks. This method, however, gives less money to those people working for a living which in turn gives them less to spend which harms economic growth and the overall prosperity of the county ... it also simply gives the politicians more money in their slush fund for the present and, while it may prolong the system's life, it doesn't fix the problems inherent in the system.

Another option would be to place all the money remaining after paying the people currently collecting their retirement money from the system into a secure general account and not use it for general funds. Technically this is supposed to happen already, but there is no such thing as a government owned account that won't be used for general funds. If congress controls the account directly they'll just 'borrow' the money needed for whatever little projects they need to fund ... saying that they plan pay it back later. Rumor has it that there is a filing cabinet in Washington filled with these IOUs ... that may be an urban legend or it may not I don't know personally.

A third option is ... privatization. There it is ... I've said it ... the word that seems to scare so many people, particularly in regards to Social Security. In a privatized system the money paid into Social Security by Klikhizz Grimscale would go into an account in the name of Klikhizz Grimscale and, upon retiring be paid to Klikhizz Grimscale. In the mean time it would be in some form of account owned by Klikhizz Grimscale earning some form of interest rate. The key being, since it is owned by Klikhizz Grimscale the poly-ticks in DC can't use the funds, and the funds are guaranteed to be there for Klikhizz Grimscale when he reaches the pre-set retirement age. And this is one of the main reasons that those poly-ticks in DC don't want such a system put into place.

As I’ve also mentioned, in a privatized system, since the account is OWNED by the individual the contents of that account can be willed to surviving family members or anyone that the individual cares to pass it to in the eventuality of their death. The money paid into these accounts is, in most forms of these plans, guaranteed to be paid to the individual upon reaching the set retirement age, and usually with a varying interest rate. Such that the individual, through the magic of compound interest, would generally receive much more than the total paid into the account.

A couple of arguments that I often hear from the anti-privatization crowd.....

1 - You'd be cutting off current recipients!

No. Most federal plans 'phase in' the reform. Effectively creating a hybrid system to start where a portion of the collected money is put into individual accounts and the remainder used to pay those people currently drawing on the system. The plans neither end current benefits, nor in any way lower the payments.

This is a scare tactic used to try and get those living on Social Security to vote against privatization. It is a scare tactic to pit grandparents against their grandchildren. It is used by those that would prefer a government that controls people’s financial lives so as to maintain their own power. It is used by those that would rather maintain their power now than concern themselves with the future of this country.

2 - Stocks are risky people could loose everything!

Well, first off while stock market accounts would potentially earn a person the highest return on their Social Security investment, it is, by most plans, considered too risky for this type of plan. Most privatization plans call for simple savings accounts or secure investment accounts with guaranteed returns. These are low-to-no risk plans. In some cases the plans allow for some minor control on the part Klikhizz Grimscale and may give him some options in how his money is handled, possibly even allowing him to invest a portion (but not all) of the money in his account into stocks for a potentially higher return on the investment.

Besides ... you aren't guaranteed anything under the current system anyway. If you keep that in mind even a privatization system that just stored the money and returned to you what you’d put in over the years would be a better system than what we have now.

3 - It would require too much manpower, it would only increase the size and cost of government!

Well, realistically the best way to do these plans is to contract out to a private organization. The private organization hires the people needed to handle the job of managing these accounts ... in so doing it employs people, which in turn will help the economy grow. Besides, name one thing that the government does better than private companies ... I can only think of one thing that the government is better at ... creating inefficiency, they've got that down to a science. The company handling these accounts would, of course, be under government contract, subject to government regulations, auditing, etc, etc, etc.

4 - It's never been done before!

Wrong again. In the late 1970s there was an 'opt out' clause in the Social Security Administration allowing local governments to withdraw from the system with a 2 year notice, and between 1981 and 1982 three counties in Texas opted out of the system (The clause was removed by a 1983 reform to the system that raised taxes, increased the retirement age and lowered benefits to allow the system to continue to function.) These three counties in Texas each set up their own privatized 'Social Security' systems which are still operating to this day.

While I haven't found specific numbers from the other two counties I did find published numbers (and comparison to Social Security payments) for Galveston County...

"A person retiring today at age 65 with 40 years of deposits and an annual salary of $20,000 would retire with $383,032 in a personal account."

And

"A retired $20,000-per-year worker with the personal retirement account would receive $2,740 each month at current interest rates, while Social Security benefits would be about $775 per month." (Yes someone who had made 20,000 a year could retire and start making 32,000 a year)

This is from a plan investing in annuities with a highly rated insurance company, though the interest rate may vary from year to year, the company must guarantee a rate for the year.

(More info on Galveston's system can be found here: National Center for Policy Analisis and Texas Public Policy Foundation)

Privatization CAN be done and it CAN work, but until public awareness of the options forces the poly-ticks in DC to get out of the way of reform, we the people are going to continue to wallow in an out dated system. It should also be noted that the DC poly-ticks have their own retirement plan and neither pay into, nor collect Social Security - they're already set for life. (*Ground shakes* 'umm, you guys stay here in the top of this high rise, we're going to get in this hot air balloon and tell you that you can't redesign the building you in.')

Now certainly any plan for privatization or reforming Social Security needs to be looked at in detail, but my point is that people shouldn't start running around and panicking at the mention of the word 'privatization'. Undoubtedly the poly-ticks will try and wrap any plan to their advantage and will take credit if it succeeds and blame their opponent if it fails.

Look into proposals about this with an open mind, but look closely ... this could affect you and your children's lives directly and shouldn't be taken lightly, it's your money.

I’ll tackle the issue of Tax reform in another piece because I believe two of the biggest issues facing this country today are the need for immediate and meaningful reform of the Tax and Social Security Systems

Change can be good (Part I)

Social Security reform … to a degree I’ve stepped around this subject … I’ve wanted to wait until I had done some more research and had some more recent numbers to give you, but given recent discussion I think I should at least say something.

I’ll likely have more to say on this subject later, but for now I want to address some things that I’ve heard recently in the news. I don’t have exact quotes, nor do I know specifically who said them so I’m going to keep it to a discussion of the concepts and why, in my opinion, we are seeing the political opposition to Social Security reform that we are.

‘Social Security can run as it is for 50 more years … we don’t need reform’

First off the person that said this is spreading misinformation. There are laws in place that automatically kick in at points where the Social Security outflow reaches a certain percentage of the Social Security income … these laws automatically CUT benefits in order to maintain the system. Current projections show a 28% reduction in benefits within about 15 years. That is a 28% reduction from CURRENT benefits within 15 years … folks have you watched the cost of living? Do you think that the cost of living is going to go DOWN 28% in the next 15 years? I don’t.

Even if we take that cut in benefits out of the equation basically you have a politician saying ‘well it isn’t going to be a problem while *I* am in office, why should I bother to FIX it?’

‘There is no Social Security crisis; it doesn’t have to be fixed now.’

Okay … again ‘I’ll be dead by the time this is a problem, why should I worry about it? I’ll just let my kids or grandkids worry about it.’ Or ‘Sure the boat is taking on water, but I’ll be off it before it sinks why should I worry about patching up the holes?’

Aside from the sheer irresponsibility of such a statement, let us take a look back 8 years. What were then President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore saying on the subject? Why, they were saying that Social Security was in a crisis and congress needed to fix it … problem was … no one could agree on HOW to fix it.

And now we get to the crux of the matter … HOW to fix the system …

You see … there’s the REAL problem. The left doesn’t want to fix the system now for a couple of reasons.

1) There is a Republican in the White House and the House and Senate are controlled by the Republicans. To fix the system now would be a feather in the hat of the Republican party and specifically for President George W. Bush.

2) George W. Bush and the Republicans favor a privatization option that the left doesn’t want to see passed.

Now, why don’t they just present their plan to the American people and let us decide which we’d prefer? Simple, really … their plan is to patch the system the same way they have every other time … raise Social Security tax rates and/or cut benefits to current recipients … and they know that this option is not going to receive popular support.

Recent polls show that a majority of Americans agree that Social Security needs to be reformed … most current American workers believe that Social Security will not be there when they retire.

Currently the system takes the money paid into the system and uses that money to pay those who are currently receiving benefits under the system. Technically any money that is left is supposed to be put into a trust fund. The trust fund, however, is a myth … the excess money from social security is siphoned into the general fund to help pay for various projects and an IOU is put in the file. … Sooner or later those IOUs are going to come due … and when they do Social Security will collapse.

Whether that day be tomorrow or 50 years from now doesn’t matter … if I know that a volcano is going to erupt and kill millions in 50 days should I wait till the day before the eruption to tell them or to start getting them out? No … that would be irresponsible.

Why are these people opposed to privatization?

Well … mainly because it reduces the dependence of the society on the government and promotes individual ownership and rights. It gives individuals a personal account with a guaranteed benefit upon retirement (or disability as provided under the plan) since this money was earned by the individual and they own the account the benefit can be willed to surviving family members in the eventuality of the individual’s death … before or after retirement.

I will be gathering together some more information and writing something up specifically about privatization plans and common criticisms by the media and the left.

But for now I will say, privatization is not just a theory … it has already been done. Chile modeled their Social Security plan after the US … and realized several years ago that it was a flawed plan and adopted a privatization plan in its place. Also, in the US, Galveston county and a few other counties in Texas opted out of Social Security through a loophole in the plan in 1981 (Congress closed the loophole in the 1983 Social Security reform act … which also cut benefits) … in both cases retirees are getting considerably more in terms of benefits than the plan they left would have provided.


A couple of pieces if you care to know a little more about privatization:

How Galveston Opted out of Social Security

Some Americans already have Privatized Social Security

“Things aren’t the same anymore”

Okay … today’s observation got started as the result of a series of calls to the Neal Boortz show (http://boortz.com/) while I was driving in to the office. The content of the calls is of little importance really, but a brief run down was that a father of a boy in 6th grade in a local government school was calling in for Neal’s advice about how he should go about handling a situation in the school of bullies on the basketball team (of which his son was a player) that had shoved his son’s head in a toilet.

Neal’s advice was simple … tell the son to suck it up and keep playing and that the next time the boys do it … grab something heavy and clobber one of the bullies. He also said that the father should maybe have a quiet word with the team coach to make sure he keeps a better eye on things so that it doesn’t become something worse than a ‘swirly’.

Several callers, however, disagreed with this line of advice. Primarily using the argument that the world has changed and “things aren’t the same anymore.”

And they are right … things are not the same. Kids with weapons in schools are more prevalent than the have been in the past. In general things are more violent and the violence is more wide spread than it was in the past. This is true in government and private schools … while gangs are nothing new – particularly in the cities – their presence is more wide spread than it has been in the past and the mind set and culture of many young people is considerably different than it used to be. (Particularly in Hip Hop and Rap dominated areas)

However, ultimately I have to stand by Neal’s advice. It is true that ‘things aren’t the same anymore’ … but it’s also true that some things never change.

One of those things that never change … is that the son NEEDS to learn to stand up for himself. Because in the real world … when he’s out of High School … there isn’t going to be anyone else that will do it. Fighting isn’t always the best answer … but there are times when it’s the ONLY answer. If he doesn’t learn to stand up for himself now … he may as well tattoo “Welcome” on his chest and lay down on the floor.

If dad goes in there and raises hell over this, things will NOT get better for his son … bullies will see that they got to him and he will become a regular target. That’s NEVER going to change … bullies will ALWAYS go after the weak. In MOST cases the one that stands up to them will be passed over … bullies aren’t looking for a fight … they are looking for a victim.

In fact I would argue that BECAUSE ‘things aren’t the same’ the lesson of standing up for yourself is even MORE important today. We don’t live in a ‘kinder, gentler world’ we live in a world where the strong prey upon the weak, where crazy people will strap bombs to themselves or fly planes into buildings. We live in a world where the only person that can protect you IS you.

And, yes, standing up for yourself can get you hurt or killed in some situations, but rolling over and being a victim will only encourage it to happen again and again.

That’s a lesson that repeats in many aspects of life … and in many world issues as well.

The Separation of Church and State

Okay … looks like we need a lesson in the meaning of the ‘separation of church and state.’ Because it seems that there are a LOT of people out there that have no clue about the concept.

What is behind the myriad of challenges out there that cite violation of the ‘separation of church and state’?

Mainly … bad education.

Let’s go to the supreme law of the land … the US Constitution … specifically the Amendments to the Constitution, as the Constitution itself only addresses Religion by saying that “but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

Article [I.]
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Article I (Also known as the First Amendment) is the ONLY mention of Religion and is the basis for the ‘separation of church and state’.

So there it is … “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

That is IT. Period. End of statement.

So let’s look at a couple of the recent ‘separation of church and state’ suits filed by the ACLU and others.

10 Commandments displayed in courthouses across the country.

Well … unless there was a LAW passed somewhere that required the display of the 10 Commandments it does NOT violate the protections of the First Amendment, and in fact could be considered protected by the First Amendment as the ‘free exercise thereof.’

The presence of “Under God” in the pledge of allegiance.

The California Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declared this ‘unconstitutional’ a few years ago … however, what they declared unconstitutional was not the phrase OR its presence in the pledge of allegiance, but rather the LAW that added it to the pledge. In effect the court determined that the law signed in 1954 by President Eisenhower was unconstitutional and therefore school children could not be required to recite it. The court further noted that this law was passed for the sole purpose of “advancing religion at a time when the nation was engaged in a battle against the doctrines of atheistic communism.”

Keep in mind that they did not rule that you could not SAY the phrase … they said that you could not REQUIRE the phrase to be recited (thus government funded schools could not use it in the pledge because students are required to recite the pledge) as part of the pledge.

[OMG did I just agree with a California court ruling? WHAT is the world coming to??]

The current attempt to disallow a prayer during the Presidential Inauguration.

There is no law stating that there HAS to be one, nor is there any law stating that there can NOT be one (which would ALSO be a violation of the First Amendment) , therefore .. guess what … if President Bush WANTS to have a prayer as part of his Inauguration ceremony he can have one. He can not REQUIRE people to pray, but there is nothing preventing him from doing so, and nothing preventing him from doing it publicly as part of the ceremony.

He is free to express his religion in ANY way he sees fit so long as it does not prevent anyone else from their free exercise of religion. The President is not exempt from the rights held by the citizens of this country; he has every right that any of us have … so if you restrict his rights you have to restrict everyone’s rights.

I suppose that next they are going to try and say that Bush can not be publicly seen entering a church … or that a person must forgo any religious belief or practice while serving a term as President of the United States.

If you state that THIS public display of religion is not allowed than the public display of ANY religion by ANOYONE has to be disallowed.

This is NOT a separation of church and state issue … this is persecution of religion.

The US is a country based on the Rule of Law … the Constitution is our Law of Laws … it tells us what laws the government can and can not pass, and it says … rather clearly … that the government can not pass any law that REQUIRES or FORBIDS the practice of any religion.

Neither can the courts.

Sources:

US Constitution

Amendments to the Constitution

"Under God" The History of a Phrase

World Police

Someone recently gave me the line that the US shouldn't be the world's police. Not like I haven't heard that line a thousand times before but this time it prompted me to start writing....

Okay ... aside from the fact that, as I mentioned the job of the police is the eternally thankless job ... if you're going to say that the United States shouldn't be the world police ... well that begs the question "Well, then who should?"

You didn't just say the U.N. did you?

Seriously, did you?

What are you SMOKING?

Do you seriously think that the U.N. could actually DO anything? Let’s take a few moments and examine things, shall we?

First, the U.N. has no military of its own. It relies on the military of the member states to enforce its missions and resolutions.... the majority of the military forces used by the U.N. are US Military Units. On top of that a major portion of the U.N. budget is provided by the US.

Second, the U.N. has never actually enforced any of it's resolutions in any meaningful way. Economic sanctions DON'T WORK ... they never have ... especially when you have a body of people that are more than willing to write in loopholes so that in the end the 'sanctions' usually have little to no impact on the ruling government and any real impact is on the people of the country in question. (This usually leads to MORE loopholes to try and get them some relief, which is then siphoned into the country’s government, repeat as needed)

Saddam thumbed his nose at the U.N. resolutions for over 12 years before WE decided to actually go in and DO something about it ... left to their own devices the U.N. would have continued to have passed meaningless resolutions and various U.N. officials and foreign governments would have continued getting fat off of the Oil for Food scandal.

If the US were to do what it should and cut all ties with the UN, removing both the economic backing and military support. Many of the UN leaders would piss themselves as the organization crumbled around them ... Sorry folks ... the UN is a failed experiment, and at some point we're going to need to recognize that fact and start anew.

So ... not the UN. Then who?

Russia - Um ... no.

China - No thanks.

Germany - yeah ... I don't see THAT happening any time soon.

France - Yeah ... THAT will work.

The UK - Sorry ... they can't back it up unless they start the whole empire thing back up ... and they couldn't hold that together last time.

The EU in general - rule by committee rarely works, and I expect that any such attempt would ultimately find themselves in the same problems as the UN.

Do we HAVE to have a world police ... well ... you see ... nature abhors a vacuum ... SOMEONE is going to be on top. Would you rather it be a country ruled by Law, or a country ruled by Men (or in some instances Man)?

If you don't want the US as King of the Hill ... who do you want in our place?

Whose DNA is it anyway?

First let me start by saying that I support the police … I believe that they have probably one of the thankless jobs in the country. Many of them put their lives on the line on a daily basis for less money than an entry level accounting position.

This makes stories such as the one taking place in Truro, Massachusetts, that much harder to take.

The police in Truro, Massachusetts, in an effort to solve a 2002 murder have been collecting DNA samples from the men in Truro. Nothing wrong with that, right?

Wrong.

The only reason that this is even remotely legal is that it is voluntary. But with statements by Trooper Chris Mason that "We have an awareness of the people who fail to consent," and State Prosecutor Michael O'Keefe who, to quote a CNN report, “indicated that investigators would take note of those who decline a swab of the inside of their mouths” one has to wonder just how voluntary it really is in the end.

Since it's fairly obvious that someone who has evaded police for the 3 years since the murder is unlikely to voluntarily submit to a DNA test, anyone who exercises their right to refuse to volunteer can be considered a suspect. With that suspicion it could be reasonably possible to prove 'probable cause' to secure a warrent or court order for a DNA test.

Also, despite the statement that "By law that DNA sample can't go anywhere" ... what he fails to mention is that the REPORT from that sample CAN. And while the report from that sample can not be used as evidence in future cases (as it was given voluntarily so would violate the constitutional protection against self-incrimination), it CAN be used to get a warrent/court order in order to obtain a current DNA sample.

I understand that they want to solve this case ... but is killing the rights of freedom and taking another step in the direction of a police state the right way to do it?

Besides ... this is not the first time that this method has been tried ... and, frankly, it has not been shown very effective:

Nebraska and Virginia have used mass DNA testing to try and solve cases, and have reported little to no success. Authorities in Louisiana tested roughly 1,200 DNA samples ... while they DID eventually make an arrest, authorities reported that it was NOT a result of the mass DNA effort.

Might I remind everyone that this is not a cheap method of investigation ... DNA tests are expensive and particularly in this case fails to take into account that, after 3 years, it is quite possible that the person that they are looking for may no longer be in the area.

Why don't we just install a transponder chip sub-dermally on every man, woman, and child in this country that is monitored and recorded 24/7 ... it will eliminate the need for alibies because the police will simply be able to pull up the record of where you were ... and for that mater pull up the record of WHO else was in the area of the victem just before the crime was commited. Never mind the miriad of abuses that it could lead to, never mind the invasion of privacy that this would be. Never mind ANY of that ... it would help solve crimes.

What are you THINKING?

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

Don't give up your liberties willingly ... there are always those that are more than willing to take them away. Some will do it with a gun or a knife ... others will do it with a suit and a slick smile telling you that it's in your best intrest.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you to my friend Ssark for bringing this story to my attention.

Sources:

CNN

Boston Channel

Bostom Indy Media

CBS

Freedom of Speech

Okay ... it seems that there is a general lack of understanding of the 'Right to Free Speech.'

Did people not pay attention in Civics class? Or, as it seems more and more likely in our current state of education, did they not even HAVE a civics class to pay attention in?

The much cited 'Right to Free Speech' doesn't have the protections that some people seem to think it does.... If your boss fires you because you made a statement that they deemed inappropriate ... they are not violating your right to free speech. If you are a superstar and you say something stupid and people start boycotting your work and/or attacking you in the press ... don't hold up the 'right to free speech' to protect you.

In both of those cases, yes you had the 'right' to say it.... you also have the 'right' to face the consequences of HAVING said it.

The 'Right to Free Speech' protects you from prosecution by the government ... nothing else. If I stand on a street corner and give a speech about how the government is corrupt and leading us to ruin ... as long as I am not inciting a riot, or other wise violating any laws the police (government) can't do anything about it.

Now ... what about those laws? Wouldn't that be the government limiting speech? Well ... yes and no ... the government is free to pass laws limiting the size and location of gatherings ... just not laws on what the content of the speech is. So in my above example, if I was giving a speech to 50 people at the local park ... and local law designated that any gathering at the park of more than 25 people required a permit for a public gathering ... well ... I'd better have a permit.

Now ... that same speech ... given in my place of employment ... if my boss disagrees with me ... he is within his rights to fire me (though he may have to pay my unemployment benefits ... but that's a whole different situation) without violating my 'right to free speech' ... a property owner can even call the police and have me removed from their property and/or jailed for trespass if I refuse to leave their property ... but not for what I said.

This brings me to the World Wide Web.... this wonderful media that we flit about and communicate on regularly. All too often ... particularly on the Web Forums of online games ... I see people who have had their posts locked or deleted cry 'their violating my right to free speech!'

In short ... No, they are not.

They are not the government ... and you are on forums owned and operated by them as a PRIVATE company (therefore you are posting on PRIVATE property) ... 'Free Speech' doesn't apply. If they were the government you MIGHT have an argument ... provided you were not breaking any posted rules/laws in your posts ... but even then you'd have to prove specific prosecution and suppression of the question/idea.

While you are free to go up to someone's house, knock on their door, and hand them a letter, pamphlet, or other printed media ... the person you give it too is also free to throw that information into the garbage, refuse to take it, slam the door in your face or any other response (short of causing you harm) that they deem appropriate. Like wise when you post on a web based forum the 'owners' of that forum can lock, delete or otherwise censor your post ... you are, in essence, on private property.

Also remember that the ‘right to free speech’ is not bulletproof. Try yelling ‘FIRE’ in a crowded theater that isn’t burning …. The charge may vary depending on the local laws but there could be public endangerment, inciting a riot, or other charges brought against you by the local government. Threaten to shoot the President and you’re quite likely going to find yourself being questioned by the CIA/Secret Service if it gets to their ears. These are not violations of free speech … these are attempts to safeguard the populace of the country, and that is the responsibility of government.

In this country we have the right to free speech … and that is a great thing. To be able to freely exchange ideas and opinions without fear of the government is something that many in this world would dearly love to have. But it is not the umbrella of protection that many try to make it out to be.

You have the right...

Okay … You’re here in my world … but you since I believe in freedom you’re rights don’t go away just because you’re in my webspace. However, since it is MY webspace I’m going to lay down a few ground rules.

You have the right to your opinion-

I write the articles here and they, of course, reflect my opinion. This is not a news site, I may discuss the news, but I do so from the perspective of my opinion, not as a reporter. The neat thing about opinions, of course, is that everyone has one. Agree with me, or disagree with me … you have the right to your opinion … my goal is to get you to think about your opinion, not tell you how to think.

You have the right to express your opinion-

I allow comments on my articles here (or if you’re reading this on my Guild Portal blog you can make your comments over at http://bonepath.blogspot.com), heck, I even allow anonymous comments. I welcome your comments. Through discussing opinions we may come to understand each other better even if we don’t agree in the end.

However, I ask that if you can not state your opinion in a mature and responsible way that you keep it to yourself. Show each other respect, we aren’t here to call each other names … that doesn’t help anything. You want to call people names, throw temper tantrums and such because I or another poster here doesn’t agree with you … take it to another forum.

You have the right to be shown respect-

As does everyone else here … This is a revocable right, however. If you fail to show respect to me or other posters here, then you forego your right to receive respect. If we stop respecting each other, even when we disagree, we’re not going to get anywhere.

There is no right to not be offended-

What I write is my opinion and I make no apologies for it. It’s not my job to pander to you. I call it as I see it, if that offends you, deal with it. If that means not reading my blog, then I bid you farewell, I’m sure there are plenty of blogs out there that you won’t find offensive.

16 and licensed to kill

While I’m on the subject of driving and responsibility ….

It seems as though twice a month or so I hear another report about a teenage driver killing themselves and/or their friends with a car. Yet we still seem inclined to hand these children driver's licenses before they are really ready to accept the responsibility that comes with driving a metal killing machine.

In fact we seem all too eager to give them their license and get them on the road. Parents not only eagerly take their kids to the testing station to get their license but often buy them cars as well. The state, too, helps in this by allowing the test to be taken repeatedly until it is passed. Maybe it’s just me but the tests (both written and practical driving tests) are not THAT hard … perhaps if you can’t pass the test after, say, 3 attempts maybe you don’t need to be driving ….. Allow them take the test again after 12 months have passed, maybe they’ll have learned enough responsibility to at least study the applicable traffic laws. If they still can’t pass it in 3 tries … well … they can try again when they’re 21.

(Keep in mind that I think the limit on the number of times you can take the test should apply regardless of age … if you too dumb to pass the test after 3 attempts, I don’t want you on the road.)

Driving is NOT a right … it is a privilege … and a luxury. Specifically it is an ADULT privilege with ADULT responsibilities. Cars can kill people … as many of these teens discover by making a mistake that they’ll never have the opportunity to make again, and others discover by killing their friends or family … or someone else’s family.

This brings me to a proposed law (by Neal Boortz (http//boortz.com)) here in Georgia that I support. I don’t have the exact wording of the law in front of me, but in essence it is simply put as: Any person under the age of 18 that is exercising the adult privilege of driving and commits a crime will be held accountable and tried as an adult.

In other words … if you make the choice that you are adult enough to drive, then you are adult enough to face the consequences of your actions behind the wheel in the adult courts. Your actions in these cases will go on your permanent adult record, and, if applicable, you will be sentenced to adult jail time in adult prisons.

Some would argue that a 16 year old is not mature enough to make that kind of decision or face that severe a punishment … in return I would argue that if that is the case then a 16 year old is not mature enough to operate a vehicle on public roads that is capable of killing themselves or others.

I know of a case here in Georgia, and another in Florida, and I’m sure there are others, where this law should have been in effect. In the Georgia case, a 16 year old female driver who was disobeying her parents realized that she was late getting home. She jumped in her SUV and, while speeding through a residential neighborhood, called her mother on her cell phone. In the midst of all this she lost control of the SUV and went off the road hitting a mother out walking with her 5 year old child. Stopping the SUV she looked out the driver’s window and raced off.

Now, never mind the fact that she was disobeying her parents and was somewhere she wasn’t supposed to be … She was breaking the law, both in speeding and, after the accident, by leaving the scene (making it a hit and run). She was tried as a juvenile and given community service … The 5 year old is dead, the mother has a permanent disability.

I’m sorry … maybe I’m too harsh … but she ended the life of one person, and permanently disabled another, at the LEAST I don’t think she should EVER be allowed to put herself behind the wheel of another vehicle and drive it, period. I certainly don’t think that she should have gotten off with a juvenile record (which was wiped clean on her 18th birthday) and community service.

If we are not going to hold under age drivers responsible as adults for breaking the law while exercising an adult privilege, then we should hold the adults responsible for the actions of the under age drivers under their responsibility. Oh, but we can’t have that! They’d have to actually keep tabs on their child’s behavior, location, and judgment … Wait, that’s contrary to why they bought the kid a car and got them a driver’s license ….

But that’s another rant….

Driving (ir)Responsibly

Okay.

Responsibility …. Where has it gone?

Why is it that we as a society seem to go out of our way to divert responsibility for things not only away from ourselves … but away from everyone? Why is it that we seem to look anywhere and everywhere except the individual in question?

Now you’re probably going, “Klik … what in the devil are you talking about?”

Specifically, I’m talking about our tendency, as a society, to excuse people’s behavior and choices and take away their responsibility for their actions … particularly in criminal cases.

I heard a report today about an accident, an adult driver of a car hit and killed a young student getting off a school bus. Other students were involved, but I did not hear if they were injured or simply witnessed the accident. The driver of the vehicle (I believe it was reported as an SUV) was a woman who was prone to seizures and, as a result, had her driver’s license suspended. The woman was not legally licensed to drive a vehicle and knew it and knew that she was prone to seizures … she CHOSE to get behind the wheel of her vehicle and drive it anyway … she had a seizure behind the wheel and as a result a young student is dead.

A witness at the scene was quoted as saying “I’m sure she must have had a good reason” … in other words “I’m sure it’s not really her fault …”

No … I’m sorry … it’s most certainly her fault. It is the result of the choice that she made to drive … she made the choice and someone is now dead as a result.

Or the next time we hear about a drunk driver killing someone we’re supposed to say “well, I’m sure they must have had a good reason ….” Hell, at least they can make the argument that their judgment was impaired ….

And for the record I believe in stronger punishments for drunk drivers, particularly when accidents or death occur as a result of their choice to drive while under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

If she was legally licensed to drive and had a tire blow out that caused the child’s death, then it’s a tragic accident … but that’s not what happened … She knew she wasn’t supposed to be driving … and knew WHY she wasn’t supposed to be driving … she chose to ignore both of those facts AND the danger to herself and others that putting herself in such a position would create … just like a drunk who gets behind the wheel … worse in that her mind wasn’t clouded by the influence of alcohol.

As a society we need to stop looking for excuses for people … and we need to stop accepting them. She made a conscious choice to drive that car illegally and someone is dead as a result of that choice. She needs to be held fully responsible for the result of that choice.

Economic Freedom

Okay … The Heritage Foundation has released its rankings of the freest economies in the world. 161 countries compared on 50 different variables divided into 10 broad categories:

§ Trade policy,
§ Fiscal burden of government,
§ Government intervention in the economy,
§ Monetary policy,
§ Capital flows and foreign investment,
§ Banking and finance,
§ Wages and prices,
§ Property rights,
§ Regulation, and
§ Informal market activity.

The higher the score in any section, the higher the level of government interference and, therefore, the less freedom in the economy, and the findings of this study are straightforward: The countries with the most economic freedom also have higher rates of long-term economic growth and are more prosperous than are those with less economic freedom.

So … why am I bringing all this up? Well …. I bring it up because of a disturbing trend. The Heritage Foundation first released this report in 1995 (with data collected in 1994) at which time the United States was listed as the 5th freest economy in the world. Five years later the 2000 report placed the US Tied for 5th with Luxembourg. The last five years, however, have seen a dramatic change in the list … the 2005 report lists the US as tied for the 12th freest economy in the world with Switzerland.

Out of the top 10 in 5 years … well let’s look at the specifics of the fall. In 2001 the report placed us in a tie for 6th with Luxembourg. 2002 placed us in a 5 way tie for 4th with Luxembourg, Estonia, Ireland, and The Netherlands. In 2003 we fell back to a tie for 6th with Denmark and Estonia, and in 2004 we fell back to 10th all by our selves.

Now … let’s look at the current report a little more …

United States (2005)
Rank 12th
Overall Score 1.85

§ Trade policy – 2.0
§ Fiscal burden of government – 4.0
§ Government intervention in the economy – 2.0
§ Monetary policy – 1.0
§ Capital flows and foreign investment – 2.0
§ Banking and finance – 1.0
§ Wages and prices – 2.0
§ Property rights – 1.0
§ Regulation – 2.0
§ Informal market activity – 1.5

[Scale is 1.0 – 5.0 with higher numbers meaning higher government influence and lower freedom and for a full explanation of the variables under each specific section I recommend reading the report itself at http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/]

Okay … Trade Policy – 2.0 … I understand that a certain amount of government regulation in the dealing with foreign countries it likely needed and probably helpful to a degree. Capital Flow and foreign investment – 2.0 … as part of this again deals with foreign involvement in the economy some rules may need to be put in place by the government for the good of the economy. I will say that I think that we in the US have a tad too much government regulation in these areas … maybe we should look at our policies in these specific areas and work toward lowering our score to 1.5 or so….

Government intervention in the economy – 2.0 … First off … what does this category specifically measure? Well … “This factor measures government’s direct use of scarce resources for its own purposes and government’s control over resources through ownership. The measure comprises both government consumption and government production.” They also list as sub factors, “Government consumption as a % of economy, Government ownership of businesses or industry, Share of government revenue from state owned enterprises or properties, and Economic output by the government”

Essentially, this measures how much of the economy is directly controlled by the government in one form or another … This is a number that needs to come down. Government control of the marketplace is harmful to the free growth of the economy. This amounts to price fixing, government control of supply, and is the direct path to a government control of industry.

Wages and Prices – 2.0 … This is government, through laws and regulations controlling the wages and selling prices within the marketplace. These are minimum wage laws, laws that limit maximum price mark-up, etc. And is essentially the government sticking its paws where they don’t belong. A working wage is an agreement between an employer and an employee … the government should not have any business in this. If I am willing to work for $2.00 an hour someone should be allowed to hire me for that and not have the government come down on them for paying me under the minimum wage … minimum wage laws often hurt the people they are most intended to help by encouraging people to hire ‘under the table’ labor or taking the jobs to other economic markets.

Regulation – 2.0 … this is government regulation of industry through any of a number of laws. A law that requires companies with more than 10 employees to give health care to their employees, for an example. While these are often passed with the best of intentions they need to be looked at carefully … because they can seriously impact the economic growth and hurt the overall economy in the long run … The example above will cause small businesses to evaluate their need to have 10 employees and can lead to job loss, or pay cuts for those employees to pay for the newly required health coverage.

But what’s telling is the biggie …. Fiscal burden of government – 4.0 …. 4?! This category can be summed up in 1 word …. Taxes. Be it personal income tax, corporate income tax (btw – corporations don’t pay tax … they collect tax by passing the cost along to the consumer … when embedded taxes are taken into account most individuals in the US pay in the neighborhood of 30-60% of their income to the government), property tax, etc. On a scale of 1-5, 5 being highest (and worst) the US scores a 4. Higher taxes mean more money removed from the economy and therefore less money remaining to allow economic growth ….

Tax reform people … we need it … for a lot of reasons … but I’ll leave that rant for another day.

You want to know what is wrong with our economy … well there it is … summed up nicely … government regulation and taxation … fix that and there is little to nothing that will stop the growth of this economy.

Happy New Year!

Well ... since today's entry vanished into the great wilderness of the world wide web you get the short and sweet version and I'll see if I can't re-create the rant later.....

May the New Year treat all of you well.

Be safe, think, be informed, and learn .....