Spreading The Wealth

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/shared-gen/ap/Presidential_Elections/Spreading_The_Wealth.html?cxntlid=homepage_tab_newstab

Spreading the wealth? US already does it (in which I fisk Charles Babington's AP article about it!)

John McCain is pouncing on Barack Obama's call for shifting more wealth from richer Americans to poorer ones, likening it to socialism.

socialism, in which the gov't distributes the wealth as it sees fit, always taking it from the taxpayer; always claiming to spread it around to the disadvantaged.

His remarks win applause at campaign events. But they ignore the nation's long tradition of redistributing huge amounts of wealth through tax-and-spending policies.

They do not ignore our nation's bad habit long tradition of redistributing wealth; they ( whoever they are) oppose it now and I hope, opposed it during the long, traditional march.

Placing a heavier burden on the wealthy has been a cornerstone of the federal income tax since its inception in 1913.

Duh. That was the Progressive point of Income taxes. That does not make it right, wise, efficient, or beneficial to anyone.

Under its "progressive" formula, in which the wealthy pay higher tax rates, the richest 5 percent of Americans now pay well over half of all federal income taxes.

Which is IMO not a good idea. Everyone should be paying something for gov't services, but even if one thinks letting the poor pay nothing towards gov't services is a good idea, one should be able to recognize that using the "pay their fair share" excuse for raising taxes on the 5% who already pay "well over half of all federal income taxes" is contradictory. If we wanted them to pay their fair share we would drastically cut their taxes.

Meanwhile, they benefit from various social programs aimed at low-income households, another feature of a system that redistributes money.

A new "they". This time "they" are the 40% who do not pay income taxes. any income taxes. 40%. do. not. pay. any. income taxes. Yes, it is another redistribution of wealth with too long a history in the US and another one I wish McCain opposed. But he does not.

Conservatives, citing such statistics, say the country needs no more top-to-bottom shifts of wealth.

I agree. We do not need "more top-to-bottom shifts of wealth." We never "needed" any.

McCain, the Republican presidential nominee, has hammered the issue since Obama, talking to an Ohio plumber, said he would raise taxes on the wealthy and cut them for lower-wage workers, adding: "I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

Since lower wage workers do not actually pay income taxes, one cannot cut their taxes no matter how much one raises the taxes of the wealthy.

Oh. and spreading the wealth around does not do anything good for anybody, but if The One would like to provide evidence for his assertion that it is good, I think we would all be eager to listen. even the Obamedia, which, like this author, has suspended disbelief for the duration of the election.

Many Americans think that sounds "a lot like socialism," McCain said in a radio address Saturday. "Barack Obama's tax plan would convert the IRS into a giant welfare agency," he said, "redistributing massive amounts of wealth at the direction of politicians in Washington."

And right he is. BO's tax plan will have the IRS send checks to people who did not pay any income taxes. They will not be receiving a rebate of taxes paid nor will they be getting a pre-bate on taxes they would be expected to pay next April. No. The IRS will send them a check because they do not earn enough money, just as the old Welfare agencies send out checks to those who do not earn enough money. This is in addition to the Earned Income Tax Credit which a large chunk of this "they" has been getting for years. McCain is wrong. It was the Earned Income Tax Credit which turned the IRS into a Welfare Agency. This new set of checks just continue a too long tradition.

McCain accused Obama of "class warfare." But McCain is the perpetrator, argue Democrats, who contend he is trying to fuel middle-class resentment toward poorer people with inflammatory words like "socialism" and phrases reminiscent of Ronald Reagan's attacks on "welfare queens."

Democrats are, as usual, engaging in class warfare. The "rich" are not paying their fair share. BO will cut taxes on all but the highest 5% is a blatant " punish the rich" ploy. He knows 40% of Americans do not pay income taxes so obviously they are not paying too much, and he knows the top 5% already pay more than half, yet he says they are not paying enough! "Fatcat bankers" wasn't enough of a clue? "Greed" caused the credit crisis? 823* different proposed bennies for the middle and lower classes to be paid for by raising taxes on the top 5% is not class warfare? Get your gov't bennies here! But we can only give you something for nothing if you agree we should punish those way richer than you. It is their fault you are not rich like them. That's why they should pay even more and you should get a "taxcut" on taxes you did not pay and all these other gifts from the gov't!

But McCain is the perpetrator, argue Democrats, who contend he is trying to fuel middle-class resentment toward poorer people with inflammatory words like "socialism" and phrases reminiscent of Ronald Reagan's attacks on "welfare queens."
What phrases reminiscent of RR's "welfare queens"? I have not heard any. Have you? The author does not provide any evidence so I am going with " none". "Socialism" is an inflammatory word here, because most Americans are viscerally opposed to the gov't determining the winners and losers in the economy. However, most Americans think upperclass white kids or Europe when they hear "socialist"and McCain is not talking about changing welfare or any programs for "poorer people". He is merely talking about not increasing taxes on the 5% of taxpayers already paying more than half of all income taxes.

In fact, Obama supporters note, the gap between rich and poor Americans has grown markedly in recent years as middle-class wages remained largely stagnant while corporate profits and high-earners' salaries soared. The nation's income inequality now ranks among the world's largest, reports show. The richest 10 percent earn an average of $93,000 a year; the poorest 10 percent make $5,800 on average."

I gotta ask, since obviously the US does not have the World's Greatest Income Inequality, which nations rank above us?

I am disappointed to hear that a small, auto repair shop owner is among the top 10% of income. Remind me to lord it over y'all. That the poorest 10% make only $2.90 per hour ( because I assumed they worked 40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year like most taxpayers) really surprises me. Not because I manage to do that working sporadically, but all these years and such a long tradition of spreading the wealth and yet the Minimum Wage bill never got passed?

Various economic and regulatory factors have fed that gap.

Gee. I wonder what they might be and why they were not delineated?

But tax policies play a role, too, because some major revenue sources are far less favorable to low-income people than the income tax is.

For most Americans, the biggest tax burden is the payroll tax that funds Social Security and Medicare. The tax rates are the same for everyone, and the Social Security levy does not apply to incomes above $102,000, a boon to the wealthy.

A "boon to the wealthy"? SS is supposed to be a supplement to one's savings/investments/other retirement plans to keep hunger away. Granted, too many Americans think it replaces savings/investments/ other retirement plans, but even the Nanny State cannot force people to believe what they do not wish to believe. SS is a great ponzi scheme but that is irrelevant to this article. SS payments are supposed to be investments. Because it is part of the long tradition of redistribution, one becomes fully vested after a very short period of time and ones benefits are determined bythe whims of politicians not earnings, costs, risks, or anything else quantifiable. My husband, the aforesaid owner of a small auto repair shop, not quite 48 years old, has paid into SS and Medicare $200,000.00. If he retires at 65, after which he will likely have paid in another $200,000.00, he would have to live another 20 years at $20,000 per year to make up what he paid in- forget the interest he could have earned on that money or the investments he could have made, or the businesses he could have started, or the down payment on a house he could have given his children. OTOH, those like myself, who have rarely earned above minimum wage and did not work continuously,will, if we live to retirement, take in way more than we paid in. People like my husband have paid for us, so the argument that SS taxes are regressive is untrue. Those low income worker will get more for every dollar they paid in than the high income worker will.

Moreover, Social Security benefits go to rich and poor retirees alike. That means low-income workers' payroll taxes are partly shifted to wealthier people, a reverse of the income tax's topdown construct."

see above.

Federal excise taxes on products including gasoline and cigarettes are more regressive still, as are sales taxes levied by many states.

Fed excise taxes on cigarettes are not regressive as they are purely optional. I choose to smoke, therefore I choose to pay. Fed taxes on gas - and state taxes- are regressive in the sense that they are a greater cost to lower income people, but they are exquisitely fair in that they tax how how much each person uses of a finite resource. Sales tax can be regressive, but usually is not as essentials are usually taxed at a lower rate than non-essentials. The more well to-do spend more and pay more tax. The Yacht tax in the 90's was not aimed at the poor. OTOH it hurt the working stiff because fewer yachts were purchased, so fewer workers were needed, so many workers were laid off. Predictable - and predicted- consequences of trying to punish the rich, aka class warfare.

Despite the nation's income disparity, McCain sees Obama's exchange with "Joe the Plumber" as a means to appeal to anyone who resents paying taxes to subsidize less wealthy people. His running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, criticized "Barack the wealth-spreader" in a campaign speech Tuesday in Reno, Nev.

Obama responded while campaigning in Florida. He said McCain, like President Bush, wants to "give more and more to those with the most, and hope prosperity trickles down to everyone else." He said McCain has accused him of being "more concerned with who gets your piece of the pie than with growing the pie."

After eight years of "Bush-McCain economics," Obama said, "the pie is now shrinking."

Forget that Bush and McCain do not actually have the same policy. Neither Bush nor McCain are trickle down supporters. Neither has ever proposed "giving" anything to those with the most ( they have proposed allowing those who earned the most to keep a bit more of what they earned) Obama's stated plans will not grow the pie. they will shrink it. His plans would shrink it even in good economic times. McCain's tax plans will help to grow the pie. ( Not anywhere near as much as my plans, but that is not the question tonight)

Obama has proposed higher taxes on the wealthy, and tax cuts for most other households. He would end the Bush administration's tax cuts for people making more than $250,000 a year, he says. He also would impose a new Social Security payroll tax on incomes above $250,000 a year.

( ie. good bye any idea that SS is not Welfare)

Currently, all annual income up to $102,000 is taxed at 12.4 percent for Social Security, with employers and workers splitting the cost evenly.

As for the claim that Obama might turn the Internal Revenue Service into a "giant welfare agency," liberal groups note that the number of Americans on welfare fell by more than 60 percent after a 1996 overhaul of the program approved by President Clinton.

Liberal groups which oppposed that overhaul, as did Clinton ( he vetoed it and the Republicans passed it over his veto, IIRC and as a reporter you should have mentioned all of that since you brought it up) and predicted grave consequences - starvation, more poor people etc, none of which happened. No part of which has anything to do with the IRS becoming yet another Welfare agency. It is the plan to have the IRS send checks out to people who have not paid income taxes because O thinks taxpayers should pay to improve the welfare of non-taxpayers that makes the IRS a "giant welfare agency".

For several years, a strong economy and social safety net programs helped many families avoid poverty. However, the liberal Center for Budget and Policy Priorities says the recent economic downturn "has coincided with a sharp increase in food prices, which has exacerbated hardship for many low-income families who also face high gas prices (and will face high home heating bills this fall and winter)."

duh! Let us all stand in awe of their perspicacity!

The group's chief economist, Chad Stone, says the degree to which U.S. tax policies favor the poor over the wealthy "should not be a concern to people."

Because he thinks US tax policy should favor the poor and punish the wealthy.

"We still have too much poverty," he said.

There is no such thing as the right amount of poverty, so yeah.

And if it were not for the progressive nature of our tax system, it would be much worse."

Evidence for this hypothesis?

taxation and shared sacrifice

All of my adult life the discussion has been about bringing more "fairness" to taxation. Obama has even said he would raise taxes on the rich, not because it would bring in needed revenue - it wouldn't- but because it would be more "fair". In a Mr. Rogers moment, he or Biden ( I forget which) said it would be "neighborly" for the rich to pay more. Forget for a moment that I am unalterably opposed to the Federal Gov't regulating neighborliness. and patriotism (Biden) . What is fair? Everyone paying the same amount? the same percentage? Both of those seem fair on their face. 5% of the people paying half of the bill while 30% pay nothing? Fair to middlin class envy with a large side of freeloading is what that sounds like. But that is where the search for more "fair" taxation has led us.

In the meantime, the Federal government continues to increase the amount it spends on everything and everyone. It spends so much that it would be impossible to pay for it with a head tax - everyone paying the same - or even everyone paying the same percentage, so true "fairness" is out of the question. As Reaganites have been saying for 25+ years, It's the spending, stupid! and yet, even with Republicans in power spending goes up,up, up. We all know that candidates are buying votes with the combination of tax cuts and gov't bennies and yet, we do not see that cutting taxes for more and more citizens increases the value of those bennies.


A little while ago, Instapundit posted this:

Personally, I'd like to see everyone pay at least some income tax, and I'd like to see the amount of tax paid, by everyone, go up or down every year in tandem with federal spending. That would encourage fiscal discipline directly. It would also make it harder for politicians to promise everybody a free lunch, but hey -- why shouldn't they sacrifice something, too?

What does increased gov't spending matter to someone who pays no income tax? Nothing. How about to the many middle class Americans who pay a few thousand? Not very much, especially since it is paid in bits through withholding and they might "get something back" after they file.
I like Instapundit's idea - especially if it is combined with abolishing withholding. Every head of household should have to write the check and send it in; preferably on Election Day ( another great Instapundit idea) . Link taxes directly to spending. Make everyone question how the gov't spends their money.

Compulsory volunteering is again being touted as a fix to some perceived social problem. Forget the oxymoron. What is important is that elected officials who have the power to compel us are seriously proposing forcing Americans - Americans who have not been convicted of any crimes- to do things those elected officials want done. I do not care if the things they want done are the top 3 things I want done. Compulsory labor is slavery. period. full stop. Do Not Go There. ( see Civil War).

That should be enough to stop it but it won't be. Too many people think it would be a good thing . . . as long as they are not the ones being enslaved. Enslave our youth! only temporarily. and for the good of the community. Not like those evil slave owners who enslaved others for their own gain. No. Slavery will be good for them! It will teach them to volunteer. To appreciate others . . . who are not enslaved. To see service to their communities as . . . golly gee . . . a government thing.

The US has no lack of volunteers. It is still the most volunteering country in the world in hours spent per capita. By a long shot. Nor is the targeted age group - teenagers and young adults - less likely to volunteer than any previous group of young Americans. So why the push to enslave our teens? Because getting those punks off your lawn and doing something "for the community" appeals to those who worry about gangs, drugs, violence, teenage sex and treacherously low-slung pants and think that directing said punks to "good works" will overcome the horrid parenting those punks obviously had. And because getting the government to control it will direct all that chaotic volunteerism Americans have been doing for centuries to the Right Sort of Community Building.

What? You thought there would be no bureaucratic determination of what constitutes valid compulsory volunteerism? You thought there would be no new bureaucracy paid to run all these slaves; to force them into the Right Sort of service? Puhleeze. You cannot leave volunteering up to volunteers!

While perusing websites on this issue I ran into this from "Betty" who accidentally visited Reason.com. Once she found out it was a libertarian site she ran away quickly - probably screaming, frightened by all the freedom running rampant there.

Much of the call for national service must be based in an attempt to combat the me-me-menness that has developed in our society. There was a time when people would bring each other casseroles and take care of each other's kids when the neighbor needed it. Much of the neighborhood-based safety net is gone now.

There are at least two reasons kids are specifically targeted: kids live and eat largely for free, and, far more importantly, kids who volunteer turn in to adults who volunteer.

Other advantages include exposing kids to people whose lives are different than their own in the formative time when they decide if they're going to be a stockbroker or rural doctor when they grow up, building compassion for people with different life experiences, and teaching things that can't be as easily learned anywhere else: compassion, flexibility, setting aside judgment, and so much more.

And, frankly, volunteers will tell you that they get more out of their service than they give. It's good for your health, it makes you a better thinker, it gives yo a chance to learn thing you might not have the chance to know about otherwise. It lets you feel good about what you leave behind in this world.

Social engineering? I sure hope so.

Keep in mind that in her later post she stated proudly that she is paid to run volunteers. Do I need to repeat that?


The Me Generation wants to force Generation X to stop being so "me" oriented and serve them.
The very generation that is proud of refusing to serve when it was the targeted age.

Neighbors still bring casseroles and even Jello when needed.
If Betty and her neighbors do not, it speaks ill of them, not of the rest of America.

Kids do not eat free. Their parents pay. Oh. Do you think she meant kids who get free school lunches and whose mothers get foodstamps? Me either.

It is true that kids who volunteer - and kids whose parents volunteer - volunteer as adults. Slavery has nothing to do with this correlation.


Sound like she has some ideas as to where these kids should be slaving. I guess it won't be sufficient to bring a casserole to your neighbors and babysit their kids when they need help. And it sounds like she does not want to make their slavery temporary either. They will choose The Right Sort of career!

Kids used to learn these things at home dealing with siblings. Now that single child families and helicopter parents are de riguer, kids have to be enslaved to learn "compassion, flexibility, setting aside judgment and so much more". Do not even think about asking how being a part of a government bureaucracy could promote " flexibility". Anyone see compassion at their DMV recently?

This part is true:
"And, frankly, volunteers will tell you that they get more out of their service than they give. It's good for your health, it makes you a better thinker, it gives yo a chance to learn thing you might not have the chance to know about otherwise. It lets you feel good about what you leave behind in this world."

But again, it is irrelevant because we are not talking about volunteering. We are talking about forcing.


For a better rant about this go here:
http://southbend7.blogspot.com/2008/07/compulsary-voluteering.html

Reading about Obama's decision to forego taxpayer funding of his campaign during the general election I came upon this comment:

After this election, we need a bi-partisan commission with a co-chair from both parties to draft meaningful campaign finance reform. This in tandem with another bi-partisan commision to sort out and shorten the primary season. We’re spending far too much time and far too much money on this process.

Where to start?

The only campaign finance reforms I support are those that allow unfettered freedom for the electorate. Scrap the laws on the books and allow any and all American citizens to donate to the candidate or party of their choice, whether in cash or time or services. Merely require each candidate to itemize all donations on-line on an official, publicly accessible website as they come in. Let each voter decide if $100 Billion from one man or one group means the candidate has been bought. As for PACs and 527's, they are Americans practicing their unalienable rights to Free Speech , Free Association, and Petitioning the Government and as such should be unregulated and celebrated. As should single issue advocacy groups and voting record check lists. What we need is more participation, not less. More information and opinion; not less.

The Internet is a great gift to political activism. It allows anyone to broadcast their views, to find like-minded people, and to band together, to excercise our Rights as well as to inform our fellow citizens without any cost above access to a computer with an internet connection. This should be the era of Freedom of Speech. Everyone on the internet ( and indeed off ) should have the same protections- the same rights- as every newspaper. It is more than disturbing that I am not stating the obvious when I remind Americans that being paid to report or publish your political preferences is not the basis for Freedom of the Press; disseminating your opinion is.

bi-partisan commission with a co-chair from both parties

First off, there are more than two parties. The Democratic and Republican Parties have dominated American politics for so long that too many Americans have forgotten they are not required for governance. These two parties are also united in their determination to maintain their domination. Because of their power, taxpayers pay for these private groups to choose their candidates, not just through the boondoggle Public Campaign Financing funds, and taxpayer money for their so-called Conventions, but for the primaries! The states which use taxpayer money to support these private groups are also giving them an imprimatur; an official governmental seal of approval that I find appalling and which the ACLU would oppose if it were anyone but these two groups.

Second, allowing these two parties to join together to decide the rules for elections obviously authorizes them to continue choosing rules that block any other groups from getting any power. See Above.

This in tandem with another bi-partisan commision to sort out and shorten the primary season.

Each party does, and should, choose its means of selecting its nominee. The government should have no input or say whatsoever and no parties should be allowed to use taxpayer money to do so.

The primary season, IMHO, should not be shorter. While it is not my business, I think the longer season allows more party members to participate and is more informative for those of us who do not belong to the party. The idea that we should spend less time picking the people who will rule us is, frankly, scary. Same with the idea that we spend too much money on it. I do not suggest that spending an infinite amount of time and money is optimal, but shouldn't we at least be willing to spend the same amount of time on who will make our laws and policies as we do watching TV? The same amount as we pay for that TV?

Obama's Race Speech

Having reread and re-pondered Obama's speech on race and his religious mentor, I still think it
did not go far enough but that there were parts that went farther than politicians usually go.

Obviously, Obama did not state , as I think he should have, that Wright was preaching hatred and using lies to arouse hate in his congregation. It is this preaching of hatred - of whites, Jews and America - that requires Obama to repudiate not only the ideas, but the man. That Wright did this in a Christian church, in all of which "love thy enemy" is basic doctrine, should have made Obama walk out the door. That Wright has acquired such a huge following among Christians should have moved Obama to reject not only the pastor but to express concerns about the congregation. Why did so many flock to hear these lies? Do they believe them or do they just want to enjoy the anger rush these ideas must bring on? No amount of good works can erase the distribution of so much vitriol. ( BTW it is a Catholic, not a Protestant idea that good works, er, work for salvation) Do they believe the words of Christ or just that the Bible includes passages about the oppressed?

I understand that, as a community organizer, Obama would have to work with the community institutions, including this church, but would that have required his membership and financial support? For a politically ambitious Chicagoan , one who did not share the history of that community, maybe so. Still, political expediency undercuts his vaunted "Change" platform.

"Absolutely – just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed."

and my father walked out and switched parishes. It took only a sermon in which the priest put renovating the church above educating the children in Catholic schools. Note that Catholics attend parishes by geography, not choice. We do not, in general, pick a preacher or a congregation. If you live in the parish, you go to the parish church. Granted, no Catholic Church I have been to in 49 years and several parishes has had a priest who brought politics directly into the sermon and I do not know if this is common in Protestant churches, but I know I would be more than ticked enough to walk out if the homilist started preaching politics. Even politics I agree with. One's political views have no bearing on the state of one's soul.

On the other hand, I liked this paragraph, in spite of the fact that it whitewashes "the remarks", omits Wright's name, and fails to mention that the intent of the "distortion" was to arouse anger and hatred.

"But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren’t simply controversial. They weren’t simply a religious leader’s effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country – a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam."

This was a good line too:

"The church contains in full the kindness and cruelty, the fierce intelligence and the shocking ignorance, the struggles and successes, the love and yes, the bitterness and bias that make up the black experience in America. "

Perhaps if he could point to efforts he made to erase the ignorance and bitterness, I would not be so sure he should have walked out.

Many have complained about this passage, and rightly so as it equates one mentor who used his position and podium to espouse racism many times with a mentor who "once", in private, confessed a fear so realistic that even Jesse Jackson admitted to it or "uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes"on a few occasions. Point taken. On the other hand, when was the last time you heard a Democrat state publicly that he would not disown someone because of racist statements? Then again, Obama was the first presidential candidate to condemn Don Imus, so we know political expediency is behind both comments. I agree with the sentiment expressed. I agree that Obama is using it to manipulate us.

"I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother – a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love."

Tremendously wrong equation:

"But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America – to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality."

Wright did not merely "simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality. He lied and used those lies to incite prejudice.

"The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we’ve never really worked through – a part of our union that we have yet to perfect. And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care, or education, or the need to find good jobs for every American."

First, it is not now or never, but now is as good a time as any to take a new step forward on race. We must begin with acknowledging that Ferraro was right and not racist when she stated Obama would not have come so far in the Democratic nomination process if he were not black. Just as she, as she has admitted, was chosen for the VP slot because of her gender, Obama has been chosen by a large percentage of Democrats because of his race. If he had been white, Hillary would have owned the female vote, the black vote, and the "time to elect an oppressed minority" vote. It is also true that Obama did not, during his initial rise, use race in the old way Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton did and still do. Obama "transcended race" by not being the "black candidate", so he also made strides because of his message and his speaking skills. He spoke of "hope" and "change" rather than "black issues", prejudice, hate , and fear. There is not enough difference between his and Hillary's platforms to energize so many Democrats to vote against the expected Empress. His message of hoping to change through unity would have inspired a few, mainly those who already disliked Hillary. His early supporters were not black leaders. Once he became viable he attracted 90% of the black vote and many black leaders noticed and jumped on the bandwagon. Considering that close to that percentage of blacks usually vote for the Democrat, it is not surprising that they would choose to vote for someone of their race when they do not have to give up their political positions to do so. If I were a black Democrat, I would too.

Obama could help the discussion, and in some ways I think he did. He did not do so early enough to make him a leader. I am not sure that if he had, he would have garnered so many votes, which would have made anything he said a waste of breath. Very few would have listened to or read his speech. There would have been no coverage of a speech made by a 10 percenter.

To be continued . . .

Free Association

Sometimes I get depressed at the constant chiseling away at Freedom. I see only the news of another restrictive law passed and hear only the clamors for yet another law. Then a run of the mill event reminds me that I still live among free people. Tonight, I went to our High School Varsity Football Banquet. Ho hum. Another long boring meeting. Ho hum, football. Hey! There was cake. and steak. and I love football, but that is beside the point. The purpose of the evening was to honor the players, but in the process we also thanked the many parents and businesses who made the season happen, which brought home to me that Free Association is still alive.

The people who put in those hours are exercising their Right To Free Association. They get together to do something they think is important for their community. That football is not particularly important ( bite your tongue!) is irrelevant. Across America neighbors and strangers act together to improve their communities in innumerable ways: organizing and manning recreational sports, 10K runs for charity, roadside and creek bed trash pickup, youth organizations, school fund-raisers, tutoring and mentoring, homeless shelters, rebuilding New Orleans, searches for missing persons, choirs, church councils, PTA, the St.Vincent DePaul society, and veterans support groups. Even Code Pink and other political demonstrations are examples of Americans exercising their Right to Freedom of Association. I could go on -how about the many, many different groups doing all kinds of things to support our troops? - and I hope you will take a minute to think of more examples. Note that our blood supply is secured through voluntary association.

Do you remember back in late 2003, some Iraqis went to the Marines to demand garbage pick-up? Someone remarked, in effect, that, in America we do not call the Marines for something the residents could do for themselves. Why? Because Free People act for themselves and their community. They do not wait for The Powers That Be to come take care of it for them.

I have focused on those Free Associations which have a community or institution building goal, but Free Association does not require that it be done for the community or for any "good" at all. Take Teh Wheel. While its original members did come together for a worthy goal, Sinner established Teh Wheel for us to have fun together. We choose to associate with each other ( some more than others). Sinner, the Internet, and the individual gerbils made it happen. Our Right To Associate guarantees it will continue to happen as long as we want it to.

So celebrate Freedom! Go associate! Or not. Freedom to Associate includes the Right to not join any group.

Dutch Foreign Minister Disavows Free Speech

It does not matter what the content of the film is. It does not matter who is trying to distribute the film. What matters is that the Foreign Minister of a Western country, one which supposedly rejoices in Freedom of Speech, said this:

"It is difficult to anticipate the content of the film, but freedom of expression doesn't mean the right to offend."

OTOH the man who is determined to show his film depicting the evils of the Koran and its destruction thinks that both the Koran and Mein Kampf should be banned. Free Speech for me, but not for Thee.

Link to article: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2243805,00.html

What's wrong with this picture from CNN?

"Recent polls show black women are expected to make up more than a third of all Democratic voters in South Carolina's primary in five days.

For these women, a unique, and most unexpected dilemma, presents itself: Should they vote their race, or should they vote their gender?"

What happened to voting their political beliefs? That odd idea gets a glancing acknowledgment much further down in the article.

Update and Bwahaha! :

	CNN readers respond angrily to 'race or gender' story - CNN.com*

There is hope!

SBH also posted this in the comments:

"That is why the U.S. system defines rights as it does, strictly as the rights to action. This was the approach that made the U.S. the first truly free country in all world history—and, soon afterwards, as a result, the greatest country in history, the richest and the most powerful. It became the most powerful because its view of rights made it the most moral. It was the country of individualism and personal independence.
Today, however, we are seeing the rise of principled immorality in this country. We are seeing a total abandonment by the intellectuals and the politicians of the moral principles on which the U.S. was founded. We are seeing the complete destruction of the concept of rights. The original American idea has been virtually wiped out, ignored as if it had never existed. The rule now is for politicians to ignore and violate men's actual rights, while arguing about a whole list of rights never dreamed of in this country's founding documents—rights which require no earning, no effort, no action at all on the part of the recipient."
-Leonard Peikoff

While I disagree with the idea of rights being earned, Peikoff is spot on. The McCain-Feingold law which directly abridges political speech - the very type of Speech the Founders sought to protect - was passed in the same era in which a court expanded Free Speech to include stripping.

I spent too much time this evening reading comments on the Human Rights Commissions in Canada. That these tribunals exist is an abomination. They do not exist to uphold basic Rights protected in Canada's Charter. They exist to come up with new Rights, including a Right not to be offended. That none of the 4 HRCs involved in the Steyn/McClean's and the Ezra Levant cases threw out the complaints with a forceful " As government entities, we have no authority to question, let alone judge, anyone in Canada for writing, publishing or refusing to publish anything ( libel, incitement, copyright infringement, and fraud excluded) " is an abomination. That so many commenters claimed Freedom of Speech should be limited to promote harmony, to prevent offense, or to prevent false ideas from spreading is frightening.

True, the US does not have any of these appalling Star Chambers . . . so far. But we will. Colleges and Universities across the country have them and the Speech Codes and Re-education Penalties that go with them. Private businesses can be required by US courts to prevent their employees from offending each other and often preemptively put their employees through Re-education. We have seen public schools ban controversial speech which dissents from an approved view and more than one temporarily ban American flags to avoid offending students who might not be American. Some of our elites - and a large part of the educational elites - are more than eager to replace Freedom with Socially Acceptable and are working to use the force of government to recreate all of us in their image.

Machinist said...

Democracy by it's nature is rule by man at his worst. A constitutional Republic allows rule by man at his best. It may still not be good enough. History will tell us if man's shortcomings will doom him to rule by force or if he can rise above his base nature. Our founding fathers gave us as perfect a start as anyone has been able to conceive of. It is up to us to carry it forward and I am not optimistic.

I do not know that a "Constitutional Republic allows rule by man at his best". It provides a process for blocking mob rule, but does not prevent it. Those granted the power to veto bad laws or strike down unconstitutional ones must also disagree with the mob and be willing to stand up against it. A Constitutional Republic also provides incentive for elected officials to pander to voters by buying votes with the public purse, as Fatwa noted, and by supporting laws outside the purview of the gov't to please the "there oughta be a law" voters and the "I want my Mommy" voters, as X noted. From Day One of the US under the Constitution, there have been legislators who wanted to use the Federal gov't for more than its authorized purposes and even Lincoln supported Federal intervention in the economy for the benefit of farmers and American workers.

Fatwa provided another apt quote:

"You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in their struggle for independence." - C. A. Beard

and added:

"It's distressing that most Americans neither understand our Constitution nor have read and comprehended the Federalist Papers. (The latter were especially an eye-opener for me. It would be very nice if fully half of the year spent on U.S. history in American high schools was spent on reading - and understanding - select tracts from the Federalist Papers...)"

This was very apparent in the comment section I was reading. These citizens, who either do not understand or do not respect the Constitution, are the ones who will vote for the next abridgement of our Rights and for Star Chambers to punish those of us who dare to exercise them. As, Mac said. I am not optimistic.

Gov't stays limited only as long as the citizens vote for limited gov't.



to be continued . . .

SBH made a very good point in the comments. There is a big difference between claiming a right to do something: speak, assemble, petition gov't, pursue happiness, defend ourselves, live the life we choose, and claiming a right to things: food, shelter, health care, respect, approbation. Those who choose Freedom "do". They take charge of their lives and act to make their lives better. Those who claim a right to things choose to be acted upon; to have someone else "do" for them. To be serfs.* No wonder they must also claim a right to respect; you cannot earn respect if you do nothing.


The problem comes when those who choose to have things done for them get enough political power to use the gov't to force the Free to do for the serfs and to live as serfs too. The American Voter has been chipping away at Freedom, voting for just a little bit more serfdom for all, for a little bit more security, since before the Great Depression. Looking at the present candidates for President, this trend will only get worse.


* More Medieval History: the path to serfdom = trading freedom for safety. At least in the case of Early Medieval farmers, they had a point. The various Barbarians attacking them were too strong and vicious for them to fight successfully. They needed warriors to defend their lives and a division of labor was necessary to produce the warriors. No one expected it to last a thousand years. No one expected that the grandsons of serfs would still be serfs and willing for their grandsons to be serfs. OTOH no one expected that after a thousand years of serfdom, the serfs would choose to live Free again and immigrate to America either.

oops! and Tarnation!

My earlier post on Ezra Levant has disappeared. I did not do it on purpose. I have no idea what button I mashed to do it. stop laughing. Lamerism is nothing to . . . ok. in my case it is something to laugh about, but stop laughing anyway. You do not want to offend me and end up having to go to Alberta . . . in January . . . to tell some bureaucrat what your intent on busting out laughing was.

Back in 1215, when Magna Carta was forced on the King of England, "rights" meant "privileges". The "right to a trial of one's peers", for example, was a privilege which a group - in this case peers of the realm, aka lords - had acquired generations before from a previous king. (BTW, Magna Carta is not a bill of rights. It is a demand that the king recognize the privileges various groups had " in their grandfather's time" which King John had been trying to abolish.)

In my life time, we have started going back to this group-privilege version of rights. There are Americans, self-professed Free Men and Women, claiming everyone has a right to food, shelter, and health care. A right to food, shelter, or health care requires that some person ( let's call him Ezra) make and give another person ( let's call him, Bob) bread, a house, or an MRI, for nothing. What does that make of Ezra? A slave. He is forced to give up his labor for Bob's benefit. What does that make of Bob? A privileged person. He does not need to do anything to obtain Ezra's property and labor, while Ezra needs to work to satisfy Bob's "rights".

Now, think of rights as we understood them 40 years ago. Free Speech. No matter what Bob says, his speech does not require anything of anyone else. Ezra is not required to work for Bob's speech. Ezra is not required to give up his property for Bob to make his speech. Ezra is not even required to listen. Freedom of the Press. Again, Ezra does not have to do anything, or give up anything for Bob to publish his wildest thoughts. ( BTW, Bob does not have to be a member of the Press Corps to possess this right. The signifier "The Press" comes from the wording of the First Amendment. Everyone has the right to publish their thoughts, in spite of the Supreme Court upholding McCain-Feingold. The government did not give us our rights and it cannot then take them away.)

Yes, I am rehashing old news. We all know this. And yet, Ezra Levant was interrogated by his government for cartoons that he published! He has been charged with violating Bob's right to go through life without being offended. OK, fine. That is not how The Alberta HRC put it, but that is what it is. He was required, by law, to appear before a government tribunal to answer to the charge that "Bob" was offended by the cartoons Mr. Levant published.

Obviously enough officials in the Alberta gov't believe that Bob is a privileged person to proceed with the interrogation of Ezra for exercising his rights to Free Speech and Freedom of the Press. Bob has privileges, because he can mobilize the government to force Ezra to be silent. How did Bob acquire these Privileges?

Ezra Levant makes his case better than I can. My favorite part is when he tells the Tribunal that he published the cartoons again, that day.

http://ezralevant.com

Intro

I created this blog, with some help from my friend Mac, to write about political theory and the issues in the present Presidential campaign. I find political discussion in the MSM and the internet tends to deal with the horserace, the personal appeal (or lack) of the candidates, slogans ( Change! Experience!) and minor differences in proposals. I am more interested in the assumptions which undergird policy preferences and the consequences, especially to freedom, which follow them.

I come to the discussion with my own assumptions. I believe in freedom. Not just those freedoms enumerated in the Bill of Rights, but the freedom to live my life as I see fit as long as I do not prevent someone else from living theirs as they see fit. I believe the purpose of government is to protect our freedom. I prefer a strict reading of the Constitution of The United States. It is a glorious blueprint for a gov't. Not only does it balance power among the legislative, executive and judicial branches, as we all learned in school, but it balances power between the national gov't and that of the individual states and between gov't and the individual citizen. Long live the 9th and 10th amendments!

That, of course, is on paper. However elegant a constitution is, it has no power itself. People, not The Constitution, govern. In a Republic, the citizens are the only Power. Only they can prevent the gov't from usurping power but it takes vigilance and a concerted effort to resist the seductive plans of politicians. The Federal gov't is no longer limited to it's powers authorized by the Constitution because we, the voters, have elected representatives who do not feel bound by the Constitution, because we, the voters, did not want the gov't to be limited to it's authorized powers. It was to be expected. It is human nature to seek the easier road; to exclaim "there ought to be a law!"; to demand something be done; in effect to trade a little freedom for a perceived public good.

Obviously, coming from this viewpoint, I do not support most of the policies the candidates are proposing. Equally obviously, my views will not prevail in this election ( nothing new there!), so this blog will not be a set of arguments for one set of proposals or a candidate or a party. It will, I hope, provoke a dispassionate discussion on freedom and government.

First things first

Thank you, Mac, for helping me get started!