Quotes

I love the Patriot Post. Some great quotes from this week:

"Once a nation under a Constitution that restricted government intrusion, we now want government to provide for our 'needs' by calling them 'rights.' We now ask government to prop up failing businesses, make student loans, guarantee mortgages, build and maintain public housing, financially support state education from preschool though graduate school, fund private research, provide disaster relief and aid, pay 'volunteers' and on and on. Many in our nation happily submit to this bargain. They consider the Big Three entitlements -- Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid -- 'rights,' their absence unimaginable in a modern 'caring' society. It is out of the question to expect people, families and communities to plan for retirement. It is beyond reason to expect medical care, like any other commodity, to follow the laws of supply and demand -- for prices and choices to allocate resources and for competition to drive down prices and improve quality. It is simply too much to expect the compassion, morality and spirituality of humankind to aid those unable to care for themselves." --columnist Larry Elder

"The Care therefore of every man's Soul belongs unto himself, and is to be left unto himself. But what if he neglect the Care of his Soul? I answer, What if he neglects the Care of his Health, or of his Estate, which things are nearlier related to the Government of the Magistrate than the other? Will the magistrate provide by an express Law, That such an one shall not become poor or sick? Laws provide, as much as is possible, that the Goods and Health of Subjects be not injured by the Fraud and Violence of others; they do not guard them from the Negligence or Ill-husbandry of the Possessors themselves." --English philosopher and political theorist John Locke (1632-1704)

"Bernie Madoff took money from people who thought he'd invested it, gave some to others who thought it was a partial return on their earlier investments and kept much for himself. That's called a Ponzi scheme, and his $50 billion fraud was called the biggest ever. But it wasn't the biggest. Social Security and Medicare are much bigger ones. These are trillion-dollar scams. Medicare has a $36 trillion unfunded liability. Social Security's is $8 trillion. There's no money to keep those promises. But Congress isn't investigating this scam. Congress runs it. That FICA money you thought government had saved for your retirement is gone. There's nothing left but IOUs backed by nothing. Your money was spent not only on current retirees but on wars, welfare, corporate bailouts, earmarks and all the other stuff Congress wants. For years, this was possible because the FICA tax brought in surpluses that allowed government to pay retirees more than they contributed and still help buy those other things. Those days are gone. ... Our forefathers would be appalled. After the American Revolution, when the new government was debating how to pay its bills, George Washington said this about a national debt: 'We should avoid ungenerously throwing upon posterity ... the burden we ourselves ought to bear.' Well, we sure are dumping my generation's debt onto posterity. I wish we had more politicians like George Washington." --columnist John Stossel

"As the night follows the day, the VAT cometh. With the passage of Obamacare, creating a vast new middle-class entitlement, a national sales tax of the kind near-universal in Europe is inevitable. ... As Obama has repeatedly insisted, the real money is in health care costs -- which are now locked in place by the new Obamacare mandates. That's where the value-added tax comes in. For the politician, it has the virtue of expediency: People are used to sales taxes, and this one produces a river of revenue. Every 1 percent of VAT would yield up to $1 trillion a decade (depending on what you exclude -- if you exempt food, for example, the yield would be more like $900 billion). It's the ultimate cash cow. Obama will need it. By introducing universal health care, he has pulled off the largest expansion of the welfare state in four decades. And the most expensive. Which is why all of the European Union has the VAT. Huge VATs. Germany: 19 percent. France and Italy: 20 percent. Most of Scandinavia: 25 percent. American liberals have long complained that ours is the only advanced industrial country without universal health care. Well, now we shall have it. And as we approach European levels of entitlements, we will need European levels of taxation." --columnist Charles Krauthammer

"The Patriot Post (www.patriotpost.us/subscribe/ )"

Quotes

Redistributing Knowledge: The Greed Question

Fantastic post by Liberty Belle. Elegant in its simplicity, which makes it all the more poignant.

Redistributing Knowledge: The Greed Question

Redistributing Knowledge: The Greed Question

Private Charity vs. Government Welfare

In this time of year, as we spend some necessary and traditional quality time with our family and friends, and celebrate our loving ties by giving gifts to one another, some - the more thoughtful of us - tend to think of those who're not able to do these things, for whatever reason. Those thoughtful souls extrapolate what their life would be like, not having what they have around them, and they feel sympathy for anyone living life in such a way. By tapping into their generosity (the effect of the causes of thoughtfulness and sympathy), they decide to try and do what they can to improve the situation of those who don't have what they have. This is generally heralded as a noble pursuit, which I will generally agree with, as long as certain qualifications are present; however, that's a topic for another time. What I want to highlight here is the choice made - the choice to give.

I'd wager that the vast majority of us love having a choice when it comes to being faced with a situation that presents different possible paths (though, we probably take it for granted). They love having this choice, because it's the opposite of not having a choice - being forced into a particular path by some other entity. We love being able to decide how to live our lives, choosing where to live, who to love, what to do, what to buy; we love picking the one favorite flavor of ice cream among the 31, even if we don't consciously recognize it at the time. However, we don't like when we're not given a choice over our personal life, whether in part or in whole. We don't enjoy when we're mugged at gunpoint, given a "choice" between our life and our valuables; we don't like to pay taxes, given a "choice" between incarceration and our hard-earned money. Maintaining a person's sovereignty over their own life requires they be free to choose and act in any situation they face; to maintain a person's serfdom, deny them the ability to choose and act by threatening them with the use of force.

The welfare state rests on the idea that we are all our brothers' keepers (whether or not certain individuals under that "we" don't wish to be), and that government is the framework for dispensing that care. Those of us who produce, who pull our own weight in order to live our lives without want for the basic necessities and little luxuries, have the weight of others attached to us, in the form of taxes that the government appropriates from us. This money is taken with the "choice" of jail, becoming a citizen in another country (though, I don't know of a country on earth that doesn't tax its citizens), or foregoing the money we've earned. This money then goes to programs designed by bureaucrats for the distribution to those who satisfy the requirements of those programs' standards of need (not counting the money snatched along the way, being used to satisfy the "needs" of the bureaucrats and special interests). Gross misrepresentations of the purpose of the welfare state, intended to hide the actual function of achieving its ends, come in platitudes like "the greater good" and "the good of society". However, there can be no mistake when you stand back and look at how the money flows: money is taken from those who are productive, funneled through and whittled down by the vast maze of government, and dispensed to others. What physical or moral good is being done to those who're milked, by force, for the benefit of others? "The good of society"? Try the good for a few at the expense of the many.

If you argue that it was originally the choice of the majority of people in this country to create the welfare state, that is arguable. Taking it to be true though, for a moment, the thoughts behind the motivation for that majority are less likely to be, "sure, I'll give up some of the money I've earned to help those in need" and more likely to be "all those rich people will be taxed to make things better for the little guy!" If you would be in the former group, I encourage you to fight new entitlement programs and tax increases for social projects, and instead give any money saved privately. If you're in the latter group: what right do you have to the money made by those who've made more than you? Who are you to dispense with their property rights - foundational rights supporting our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? By doing so, you've already given up your own, because the same will apply to you. So don't be surprised when your life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness are infringed upon for someone else's.

Furthermore, the side effects around the choice of charity and the coercion of wealth redistribution must be considered. Charity, given to an individual or group, often recognizes the personal connection that's made between the giver and the receiver. The receiver, hopefully possessing some amount of self-worth, ambition to fix their own circumstances, and gratitude, does not want to become a burden on the giver, or feel perpetually indebted to the giver. This further motivates the receiver's desire to pull themselves up, making them much more likely to do so. In contrast, welfare given to an individual or group, often obscures the true source of the funds - since it appears it's coming from this giant, limitless entity of government - and can foster no personal connection between the true giver and the receiver. The receiver is then much less likely to feel gratitude and indebtedness, unable to fix it upon any one place in that giant entity of government. And even if they were able to, it would be a false gratitude and indebtedness, as the government is just a middleman in the transaction. So, why give up a good thing, if you're getting free money from this amorphous source? Pulling oneself out of welfare requires work and risk; why not just sit back and collect? The welfare state creates a group of dependents, and reinforces their dependence, by design.

Taking both systems to their logical ends results in one with more productive individuals (with little-to-no poverty), and a more self-reliant, yet generous, culture. The other results in catastrophe, when there are no more producers to feed from, all of them having given up to become dependents themselves, or having been taxed out of existence.

There is nothing wrong with charity, for safety nets in society for those who fall through the cracks, no matter the cause. However, it can be and should be done privately, by the personal choice and generosity of those able to give.

Private Charity vs. Government Welfare

Stop!

I sent this to my representatives.

"I am a concerned citizen - a citizen concerned about the direction this country is moving in, and the steps this government is taking in moving us there.

There's no possible way that the healthcare reforms being proposed and debated in both the House and the Senate are going to help average Americans. For the sake of around 8 million Americans without healthcare, the current proposed legislation will force every other taxpaying American to support a giant government intrusion into the healthcare market, with a distinct possibility of the government taking over the healthcare industry entirely, down the road. Healthcare will become more expensive for the average American, with more regulation in the healthcare industry, and adoptions of public, government-run insurance plans. This is not what was promised, and is not fair.

From a self-interested perspective, don't you actually want to lower healthcare costs for average Americans? These people are your constituents - they're your voters, the people who put you into office. And they are wising up to what's happening. Why be an agent against them, when you can be one for them? America is by the people, for the people - America is the people. Don't sacrifice them.

Beyond that, is the power to regulate an entire economic industry in the powers enumerated to the federal government? Such an intrusion betrays our trust, and the trust given by the Founding Fathers that what they created was good - that their experiment was an experiment in freedom. This would take us down the road journeyed by so many states dominated by their governments, by so many states unfree precisely because of these sorts of intrusions. We, the people, aren't stupid as a whole - we know what our Constitution says, what our Declaration says. The actions of this government will be held to account, whether now or in the future.

So please, please - in the name of what this country stood for, in what it should stand for - fight this. Side with the people, and renew our esteem of our country and our government."

Stop!

What is the Difference Between 'Debt' and 'Deficit'?

'Debt' and 'deficit' are two words that are used often when talking about government finances. However, they are not one and the same.

Debt is the net cumulative borrowing - debt - since some established baseline, like a government's inception. It's a running total of the difference between the amount of revenue (taxes and fees) collected and the amount of money borrowed. The current federal debt, for example, is about $12,000,000,000,000 (12 trillion dollars).

The deficit is the amount of debt incurred in a year's time. It's the difference between the amount of revenue collected and the amount of money borrowed in a year. The current federal deficit, for the year to date, is $1,400,000,000,000 (1.4 trillion dollars).

The budget deficit value is added to that running total of debt to calculate the new total of debt at a given year.

So, if you spent more money than you had in a year - let's say you made $60,000, but you spent $70,000 - your deficit would be $10,000. But, that's not necessarily your debt. If you've done the same thing for the past 5 years (inclusive), your debt would be $50,000.

The deficit can be looked at as a measure of how much money the government is currently spending. Deficit values mean the government is spending outside its means; surplus values mean the government is spending less than the amount of taxes its collecting. The rate of change of the debt can be looked at as a measure of the acceleration - or deceleration - of the year-over-year spending of the government.

A key fact to remember is that that total debt must eventually be repaid. Those loaning the money always come to collect, sooner or later. But the government doesn't have coffers of gold it can draw on to settle the bill; it must collect the funds from its constituency. That means you, and every other citizen like you, are the people really holding the bill. The debt hasn't been called in yet, which means that the bill may be passed to your children, or even their children - but make no mistake, it will eventually be repaid.

What is the Difference Between 'Debt' and 'Deficit'?

Permanent Defense on Initiative 1033

This is just fantastic.

I'm being sarcastic, of course. That website's answering website. Here's some more information, presented in a nonpartisan way.

Let's examine some gems from the first link here.

"What is Initiative 1033 and why should I be opposed to it?

Initiative 1033 is the latest ill-conceived proposal from perennial initiative sponsor and right wing zealot Tim Eyman. The initiative is designed to lock in all the budget cuts that state and municipal governments are currently making, thus potentially killing thousands of jobs in the years to come. That's no exaggeration and no joke.

Starved for revenue, our government will have no choice but to continue to lay off public servants, destroying any chance of an economic recovery and creating a ripple effect that will lead to additional job losses in the private sector.

Simply put, I-1033 is a jobs killer."

Actually, this is a joke. This FAQ entry not only employs slander (attacking the person, not the issue), but makes several false conclusions based off incomplete and false premises. They want the reader to think the initiative is bad, without supplying any facts about why it would be bad. The fact is, the initiative would lock the current budgets of the state, county, and city governments; though not to a static level, but one that adjusted with inflation and population growth.

If the budgets are essentially set - i.e. the size of government is capped - then that doesn't mean public sector jobs would necessarily be reduced at all. All things being the same, there would be the same amount of public sector jobs 10 years from now, as there would be today, when the cap went into effect. If the government decided to get rid of some of those jobs to move money around within in its sphere, that would be their decision then to get rid of those jobs. But nothing about this initiative cuts those jobs. More jobs could even be created - say, if wasteful levels of bureaucracy (overhead) were eliminated, and the savings used to create more public sector jobs.

It's also completely erroneous to believe that government jobs are what stand between us and economic recovery, as the passage implies. Those salaries are paid with monies appropriated from ordinary people like you and me - most of us being private sector workers - and include huge overheads, entitlement programs, etc. If anything, the money put back into the hands of the people (and let's be clear here - there are far more people who stand to gain in this manner, because there are more private sector workers than public sector workers - however, they would also stand to gain, as they're subject to the same taxes) in the form of the initiative's property tax reductions (if the government exceeds the cap), and the stemming of further increases in taxes would do more to bolster the economy than permitting the government to grow more and more (the exact opposite of bolstering an economy, since governments have to extract money from the economy - e.g. you and me and the businesses we run or work for - in the form of taxes, in order to subsist). That extra money could go into your HSA, or go towards a vacation you've been planning, upkeep on your house, to your favorite cause of choice... whatever you want. Point is, it's your choice and your money.

That, really, is what the opponents of this initiative don't want you to realize. You're essentially voting on a initiative that helps you keep your money in your pocket, where you have a choice about how it's spent. Once it's taken from you by the government, you have very little, if any, choice about how it's spent. And most of the opponents of this initiative have an interest in seeing it shot down, as they are government workers, stand to benefit from government contracts, or are a special interest in cahoots with the government.

Finally, if any of those public sector jobs are lost, it's not like those ex-state employees will be left out on the street. In the more prosperous economy that would result, the job pickings would be even better than they are now. Or, those ex-state employees could even start a small business perhaps, since the cost of starting and owning would be capped. In 99% of cases, it will be a win-win.

"How does I-1033 lock in budget cuts?

By making it illegal for our state and our communities to spend more than what we spent the year before on services like schools, parks, police, fire, or hospitals."

I wonder, did they even read the initiative? It won't be illegal for our governments, at all levels, to spend more than what they spent they year before. The inflation/population factors previously mentioned are evidence to the contrary, as well as the initiative's allowance for revenue increases beyond the cap to be put to a vote by the people.

It seems crazy, but maybe they don't want us, the people, to authorize the government's ability to take more of our hard-earned money; maybe they'd rather not ask permission, and enjoy the ability to just take it. No one could be that sinister... right?

If our government were forced to live within its means, maybe they would stop spending money they don't have, and creating huge deficits for the state that will eventually have to be paid by taxpayers (you and me). Maybe Gregoire would close her checkbook, and they could start working on the projected 9 billion dollar deficit she's created?

You know what's crazier though - this law was essentially enacted 16 years ago, in 1993. I-601 created spending limits tied to inflation and population growth, but was slowly eroded and hamstrung by the legislature. This brings back what already existed, but makes it stronger.

"the reality is that the whole concept of contrived, artificial limits on revenue is completely unreasonable to begin with"

Why? How is it artificial? How are tax levels, tax increases, and the things those monies are used for, not artificial?

"If public services are not strengthened as new development occurs, quality of life gets weaker and weaker."

Oh? How is this? Is the measure of my quality of life directly proportional to the amount or quality of public services available? Why do these "services" have to be public? Obviously the idea here is that as areas are newly developed, or existing areas are added to, certain services will be needed: police, fire, hospital, sewer, garbage, water, electricity, roads, etc... While that is true, several of those services listed are offered by private concerns (usually at less cost), and nearly all of them could be. Government need not provide them, and in most of those cases, shouldn't provide them. This statement also seems to forget that the initiative provides for the people voting for revenue increases to pay for the government services they want, at all levels of government (state, county, and city). If a newly developed area needs a police department, or sewer lines extended, or what-have-you, the people can vote to increase the amount the government can take from them in taxes to provide those services. They are the intended beneficiaries of these services - so shouldn't they decide whether or not they want to pay for it?

Secondly, couldn't the government be made to operate within a budget, forcing it to be more efficient? Could, perhaps, levels of bureaucracy be reduced, taking all that savings in overhead and putting it to the proliferation and improvement in quality of public services? Could alternative schemes for revenue generation be devised, schemes that weren't taxes?

What, exactly, is wrong with promoting responsibility and liberty for all?

"And what happens if we discover a cure for a disease that was previously difficult or impossible to treat? That cure is no use if we've bankrupted ourselves and cannot afford to mass produce it and or administer it to the people who need it."

This is like arguing with a brick wall. This idea is not based in reality whatsoever. Government isn't in the business of discovering cures for diseases (though it does give out grants to support research; myself, I'd rather have a corporation spend it's own money to come to the same conclusions, than the government take mine) and shouldn't be in the business of treating diseases. And there's no way that limiting the budget of government would bankrupt you or me. It puts more money in our hands ultimately, as it curbs the acceleration of tax growth. That money could go to purchasing our healthcare, and those monies used by the healthcare companies to provide healthcare and create new drugs. This is how a free market works. Econ 101.

"We need flexibility when budgeting to solve the problems and challenges that confront us. I-1033's rigidity imposes needless artificial barriers that would get in the way."

We need to get off the government teat, and take responsibility for our own challenges and problems. Bureaucrats aren't going to solve them for us. Their track record of failing to do so, especially when compared to the private sector, should be evidence enough. We are the land of the free, the home of the brave, right? Let's be brave enough to depend on ourselves, and thereby be free.

"The problem with this is that the United States is a big country. The national "annual percentage change" is unlikely to be the same as Washington State's. Determining statewide public policy based on national economic conditions is not a sound approach. This kind of thoughtlessness is rather predictable in Eyman initiatives, which have a history of being rudely and crudely crafted."

Not at all. The inflation rate affects the value of all our money, no matter the state you're in. The costs of things differ from state to state, due to the amount of regulation and taxes tacked onto their purchase, as well as the prices those more localized markets set. But the value of a dollar owned by someone in Missouri would be the same as the value of my dollar here in Washington, were they to come to Washington. The inflation rate affects the value of all money and goods equally.

Slander and unfounded claims does not a good argument make.

"For our elected leaders to be able to continue providing services at the current level they'd have to constantly ask voters for more revenue, which ironically would cost money to do, because there are costs associated with holding elections.

More dangerously, voter fatigue would set in. This is no doubt intentional; snake oil salesman Tim Eyman and his partners in self-absorption would love for Washingtonians to become more suspicious and mistrustful of their own government, and even disiullusioned with the very idea of representative democracy."

I'm already disillusioned, as I'm sure most people are. Politicians never seem to keep their promises - Gregoire has been reported to be reconsidering her promise that no new taxes would be levied, in the face of the huge deficit she's created. Our federal government acts without our say - for instance, despite polls claiming that the majority of people are not in favor of the feds "reforming" our healthcare system, they're pushing ahead anyway. Is this a representative democracy still?

I don't believe voter fatigue would set in, and don't actually see how that could ever be the case. Some degree of power will be moved back in the hands of the people, and they will be glad to be making the decisions that affect their lives. In truth, our state democracy would be more representative, if this initiative passes.

" Family farmers, homeowners, and regular folks are patriotically paying their taxes while rich corporations and wealthy Washingtonians, through their lobbyists, push for more exemptions and loopholes for themselves."

Sure they're paying - because it's against the law not to. It's a crime to not let the government take the money they demand from you. Do you think you, or anyone else, would pay taxes if they didn't have to? And there's no doubt that corporations and lobbyists push for exemptions and loopholes. But, wait... who enacts those exemptions and loopholes? The government. There is a collusion between bad corporate citizens and politicians, make no mistake. Putting a brake on the ever faster vehicle of taxation keeps more money in the hands of the "common folk", and limits the effects of those corporations and politicians that seek to use government to further their own interests, at our expense. Business and the free market aren't bad, and keeping more money in their spheres is a good thing; greed is the enemy, and that's only enabled by a government that's willing to tramp on our rights (right to property, in this case), and businesses that want to take advantage of that crushing.

"Look at who funds Tim Eyman: a wealthy, bitter, and deeply conservative investment banker named Michael Dunmire."

It's hard to tell who they hate more, or why; the spite is so thick it's tangible. Let's stick to facts and reason please, not unsubstantiated slander.

I would urge any readers here to vote in favor of this initiative. Take a stand for yourself.

Permanent Defense on Initiative 1033

Republican Plan == Die Quickly?

Representative Alan Grayson (D-Florida) claimed today - aided by very simple visual aids, in case you were deaf, or had the TV on mute, or didn't get it the first time around - that the Republican healthcare plan is for you, the consumer, to die quickly, in the event you get sick.



Of course, this is sensationalism, not based in any sort of reality whatsoever - both his claims that the Republicans offer no plan, and that Democrats will leave everyone who's happy being happy, while opening up access to everyone else.

And yet, liberal bloggers eat this irrational slander up, and even praise and defend it. Why? What is admirable about this man - a grown man, a legislator - acting this way? How does this further us along in solving our problems?

Can we get back to real debate please? Can we start weighing the pros and cons of ideas, and agreeing about those that have logical merit?

Republican Plan == Die Quickly?