Is Anarchy and Tyranny knocking at the door?

In reading Mark Levin's book The Liberty Amendments, I know that I have fallen off discussing the proposed Amendments to which I will return to them soon, I stumbled upon a curios passage Levin quotes of John Adams. The passage appears in Chapter Eight: An Amendment to Protect Private Property (p 139-140):

"Suppose a nation, rich and poor, high and low, ten millions in number, all assembled together; not more than one or two millions will have lands, houses, or any personal property; if we take into account the women and children, or even if we leave them out of the question, a great majority of every nation is wholly destitute of property, except a small quantity of clothes, and a few trifles of other movables. Would Mr. Nedham be responsible that, if all were to be decided by a vote of the majority, the eight or nine millions who have no property, would not think of usurping over the rights of the one or two millions who have? Property is surely a right of mankind as really as liberty. Perhaps, at first, prejudice, habit, shame or fear, principle or religion, would restrain the poor from attacking the rich, and the idle from usurping on the industrious; but the time would not be long before courage and enterprise would come, and pretexts be invented by degrees, to countenance the majority in dividing all the property among them, or at least, in sharing it equally with its present possessors. Debts would be abolished first; taxes laid heavy on the rich, and not at all on the others; and at last a downright equal division of every thing be demanded, and voted. What would be the consequence of this? The idle, the vicious, the intemperate, would rush into the utmost extravagance of debauchery, sell and spend all their share, and then demand a new division of those who purchased from them. The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If "Thou shalt not covet, " and "Thou shalt not steal," were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society, before it can be civilized or made free."

John Adams wrote that passage originally in "Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States." The United States is a Republic and not a true Democracy a concept that retards the Progressive ideals; unfortunately it doesn't eliminate them. Despite living in a free society, governed by representative rule, liberty and protections of private property are eroding. The erosion isn't a recent occurrence; yet it has been kicked into overdrive in recent decades.

Our National Debt has topped $17 TRILLION! A number trivialized by Progressives and Big Government Spending Conservatives while ignored by the vast majority of journalist ( a term I use loosely). One must hand it to Big Government types though. While Mr. Adams crafts precepts restraining the poor, idle, vicious and intemperate, Big Government has crafted precepts more enterprising; entitlements. The current continuing resolution calls for the United States Federal Government to spend $3.4 TRILLION of which, roughly, $2.5 TRILLION is entitlement spending. That $2.5 TRILLION earmark does not include the subsidies dolled out for ObamaCare.

The foundation of a free society is the right to private property free from government intervention and seizure as well as protected by the same said government from others in society. Taxation, entitlements, and willful idleness are all elements causing the erosion of ones right to private property. The rich have the means to relocate while the Middle Class and poor do not. What happens when the Rich are no longer an option? Anarchy and Tyranny will take hold - That is the legacy the Baby Boomers, Gen X and Gen Y leave for those born in the 21st Century.

Hennipen County goes overboard

Okay, no one will deny that smoking is bad for ones health. At the same time, one cannot deny the fact that tobacco is a legal product and a cash cow for adding taxes to the coffers. That being said, the County Commissioners in Hennipen County, by a vote of 6-1, enacted a new ordinance that bans smoking from all county property with the exception of roads. The new ordinance is reported to potentially cost those taxpayers in Hennipen County $120,000 for new signs.

The costs of the signs is not really the issue; rather the issue is more government intrusion into our lives. One of the Commissioners who voted for the measure said that taxpayers rights end at "our" property lines. Mr. Commissioner I ask you, "Who is it that you refer to when you say 'our'?" My impression would be that all Hennipen County property really belongs to the taxpayer and not to the any elected official. Perhaps I am mistaken and I missed that part of my training to be City Council.

What will be next? What aspect of our lives that is legal for us to do will be banned? Did we not learn anything from Prohibition?

What would you do?

Okay, I know I mentioned posting something this week on Sharia Law but I have not completed my research on the topic enough to post anything. That being said, I have a hypothetical situation that I struggling with and seek guidance from my devoted readers; and others of course. Let's say one was born into a family of four that had a household income of $30,000. While one grew up within that household things were tight and there was not a lot of extra's to be enjoyed. After successfully completed High School and avoided any pitfalls one is faced with two options:

1. To go onto college, earn a degree and obtain a career with unlimited upside potential.
   
2. To skip college, obtain a minimum wage position and look for public assistance at every opportunity.
   

 

Now, I'd like to think that everyone would chose option A. Here is the caveat though, as one earns more money and improves their lot in life one is expected to shoulder more and more of the burden of paying for entitlement programs and other public assistance to ensure those that did not go onto college, or a trade school, are taken care of. A friend of my on Facebook is always spouting, "Spread the Wealth". What type of society will exist if we "spread the wealth"? I understand that many of the richest people in America are pledging to donate 50% of their wealth to charity upon death. Well, imagine how much more they'd be able to give if the inheritance tax doesn't back up to 50%. Generational wealth is one thing but what incentive do we leave our youth if they are given two paths: work hard, keep less or work less, get more?

Wealthy Americans are not the enemy and will not bring down the United States; rather they will simply move out your state or our country if we continue to use them as ATM machines. Now, I am not a member of the wealthy class but I aspire to get there someday. When I do get there, I want to be in control of my money and to whom it is doled out to. I read the demonizing of Wall Street for the excessive bonuses. What people fail to see is that these people are paid on performance of the company and some of the decisions they make will not be popular. Other's rail against them because of the bailouts and that is one to bring up. Our Government should not be in the business of bailing companies, union pensions, or any other public or private institution out. If these groups cannot prosper and be held accountable then why on Earth would anyone want to choose option A above?

Entitlements need to go. Public employee Unions need to go. I am not advocating that those that in the system now be completely shut off from them; rather I am saying we need to phase them out. The bulk of the money that was given states for "Race to the Top" is being funneled into Union pension funds. The bailout of Detroit was to ensure Union pensions. Don't get me wrong Unions have their purpose but they also hold companies and America hostage. So I go back to my original question above. Which option would you choose?

Letter from Rep. Kline –March 12, 2010

 

Just wanted to share an email I received from Rep. Kline about a concern I have with the growing size of government. I encourage every reader of the blog to contact their Congress member to voice their concerns as well. These people are elected to represent us. We are their bosses. Let's start acting like it. 

March 12, 2010

 
 

 
 

Dear Mr. Lund:

 
 

Knowing of your concerns regarding out-of-control government spending, I would like to share some information that may be of interest to you.

 
 

On Thursday, March 11, my Republican colleagues and I took an unprecedented step toward curbing excessive spending by the federal government.  By voting for an earmark moratorium, House Republicans sent a clear message that the days of runaway government spending, taxing, and borrowing are numbered.

 
 

In these challenging and uncertain times, no amount of economic stimulus or reform will solve our economy's ills without action to address out-of-control government spending.   Over the years, the congressional earmarking process has evolved into a corrupt and broken system with no regard for merit.  While both political parties share the blame for this wasteful practice that has eroded public confidence in our ability to marshal our nation's financial resources, House Republicans are leading the way by imposing an immediate ban on all earmarks.  Washington needs to end the corrupt process of pork-barrel spending, and this is a good first step toward wiping the slate clean and reforming the process.

 
 

As you may know, in 2007, I made the decision not to submit any earmark requests until Congress implements reforms to ensure transparency and a merit-based system of awarding federal funds.  I am proud to see all my Republican colleagues taking the same course of action.  I am hopeful that by standing together, we can address the real challenges currently facing our nation.

 
 

If you would like to stay informed with the latest happenings on Capitol Hill, please sign-up to receive my E-newsletter at http://Kline.house.gov.

 
 

I appreciate your attention to this issue.  Please feel free to contact me on any issue of importance to you.

 
 

 
 

Sincerely,

JOHN KLINE
Member of Congress

This e-mail box is unable to accept responses. If you would like to send a comment to Congressman Kline, please visit: http://kline.house.gov/.

Blue Print to Sustained Growth and Job Creation

At the Federal and State level we are hearing the phrases "job creation" and "job growth" being tossed around. Thus far the bills tied to either phrase are increasing the debt load of the Federal or State government to only create temporary work. My son was working on Social Studies the other night. The topics were the Soviet Union, Lenin, Stalin, Communism and the Cold War. The book noted how class warfare led to the fall of the Czar and the rise of Lenin. People of Russia embraced Communism because it took control of the farms and factories and gave the people (lower and upper class) an equal share of the output. In theory the ideals of Communism work in so far as people will be no better or worse than any other member of society. The trouble, as the Russians soon discovered, is that the focus is placed to heavily on durable goods while consumer goods are ignored. Plus, with output being evenly distributed the need for excessive output (growth) was not required.

A lot of discussion is taking place on how to get America back to work. President Obama is using the old adage of Big Government, increase spending, and the expansion of entitlement programs to accomplish this. The result has been an unemployment rate that rose above 10%. Even though the unemployment rate has trended down in recent months, do not be fooled by the trend as it is merely an illusion of facts. While the unemployment rate has dropped below 10% the number of part-time and/or disenfranchised (those no longer counted as unemployed) workers has increased to heights not seen before. A friend of mine reminded me that consumerism is the key to a robust economy and sustained recovery. To counter the lack of new job creation, President Obama wants to give small business tax-credits for hiring new workers.

On the surface that is great news for the small business owner but when we dive deeper bigger questions are raised for the small business owner. What will these new workers do? How do I pay their salary in the future if business doesn't pick up? How will additional workers increase traffic for my wares? All valid questions, ones those Ivy League educated politicians seem to not address. Many have touted Obama the most intelligent of all Presidents even if he cannot read from a teleprompter all the time. Remember the last Bush we had was from an Ivy League school too. Now I was not as highly educated, true I do have my MBA but it is not from Harvard or Yale, as the recent men to hold the office of President but I do have a solid education in business, economics, history, philosophy and ethics.

Now, if the catalyst to a robust economy is consumerism then who is it that should be spending money? You and I is who. How do we get more money to spend, legally? We need to have more of our money we earn available to use on discretionary spending. Outside of a raise or lowering our debt, how can we increase our discretionary spending? Rather, how can government help us increase our discretionary funds? Simple, they can lower our taxes.

The trouble is that in a few years when the economy gets going again, the government will want to collect more because they believe it will not harm the economy. That is where the logic falls short. To sustain our robust economy the consumer still has to be able to consume. To ensure we can consume we need to alter our view on taxation. Taxation is a necessary evil to run our government, to keep us safe, and to protect our freedoms. That being said, does it make sense to tax someone more because they have bettered themselves financially through whatever legal means they have, no! A person seeking the American dream ought not to be punished for being successful; rather they should be rewarded for their efforts. At the same time should someone be punished by a rough start to life or a raw deal along the way, no!

So how do we allow both parties pursue their dreams without hindering them or taking away from their efforts? Simple actually, we trash the current tax code and replace it with a flat tax and consumption tax. The consumption tax is simple. We tax every purchase of non-essential items 2%. Now to help with a little social engineering I am open to additional "sin" tax on non-essential items of 3%. That takes care of the consumption tax. The flat tax works like this.

On your first $60,000 you get taxed nothing. For every dollar you make past $60,000, Uncle Sam gets $0.12. So if you made $70,000 this year that would mean that Uncle Sam would get $1200. To make it even easier to monitor, track and control all tax credits would be eliminated. Meaning, that no more credits for mortgage interest, child care, child, education, etc… It would also eliminate a large portion of the IRS as tax returns would be a thing of the past. With no tax credits allowed and a flat tax in place, no one would have to file a tax return. The concept can be applied to Corporations as well. By allowing people to keep all of their first $60,000 we open up the consumer market for health care expense, investment activity, luxury consumption and other desires of consumerism too.

States then can do the same as well. The State, such as Minnesota, can follow suit by establishing a flat tax of 5%. To expand upon the example above, the person making $70,000 would now see their total tax liability to both Federal and State rise to $1700. With the elimination of tax credits so would we phase out Medicare and Medicaid. Those turning 55 or already older than 55 this year (or the year the tax change takes place) will continue along the Medicare and Medicaid process. The rest of us will see our contributions to these programs shift to a Medical Savings account (MSA) that will be tied to our Social Security Number. The amount currently taken out would not need to be changed. It simply will go into a private account that the individual taxpayer can use to offset any expense related to medical needs.

The taxpayer could use the funds for co-pays, medicines, clinic visits, hospital visits, etc. By moving toward a MSA it will allow for greater portability of health care "insurance" and allow the taxpayer to dictate when, where and to whom their medical dollars go to. Imagine the competition it would breed among clinics, hospitals, pharmacies, and other medical facilities if ever they knew every taxpayer determined where their dollars were spent. All of these locations would need to post their fee schedules and will allow doctors and nurses to get back to providing medical care and away from administrative work. Insurance companies will be able to offer tiered plans.

Granted many of those in their late 30's to earlier 50's will not see the greatest benefit but we will set up future generations with a better system for medical as well as taxation. The next phase of this plan is to apply the MSA model to Social Security. When Social Security was crafted the funds collected went into a separate account that Congress was unable to touch. At some point in our glorious history our Congress saw the war chest of dollars being amassed. The temptation was too great for them and a change was approved. The change brought the Social Security funds from a separate untouchable account to the general slush fund. To eliminate or mitigate future destruction and temptation of Social Security funds by our politicians it is time to move it back into a separate account. Just as with the MSA, our own Social Security contributions will be designated by an account with our SSN.

No longer will Congress or any government agency have access to those funds. Taxpayers will have access to those funds just as they have access to them now. All that will change will be the account in which the funds sit. I understand there will be growing pains with this notion but that is what the original intent of Social Security was to be anyway. All I am suggesting is to undo the harm that we have allowed Congress to do over the years. Some of you may be asking yourself, "How will this create jobs?" That is an excellent question to ponder.

The best part is the answer is short and simple. By allowing you, as a taxpayer, to keep more of your first $60,000 earned you will have more money to improve your home, go to the local restaurant, purchase new consumer items, take an trip, etc…Plus if you know that taxes will no longer change one can plan their money better. By fixing the taxation it will allow our members of Congress and State Legislatures to focus on items that a critical to keeping their oaths to the United Sates Constitution and State Constitution they serve under. The switch from Medicare and Medicaid to a MSA will bring down costs through increased competition thus making health coverage affordable to all taxpayers. Combine these: the flat tax, consumption tax, and the MSA with an accounting switch on Social Security and we have a financial core that will be the envy of the World while ensuring the safety, prosperity and advancement of those living in the United States now and in the future.