Do Americans want to be free people?

Anything and everything worth doing takes effort, time and money to get done. Nothing has ever been free and nothing will ever be free. Everything has a cost.


Free people pay their own way, sometimes with saved money and occasionally with borrowed money. Dependent people expect others to pay for the things they want.

Do Americans want to be free people?

If we want to be free, we can’t continue to punish hard work through higher taxes and we can’t continue to reward laziness through entitlements.

Fair Competition

All of the major sports leagues in America have a commissioner to ensure fair competition between the various teams in each sports league. These commissioners make decisions based on what is best for the long term interests of each league. For the most part, each commissioner remains neutral as to which teams succeed or fail.

Government in America works best when those in positions of government authority act as commissioners; ensuring fair competition between individuals, businesses, and industries. When government remains neutral and makes decisions in the interest of all citizens, individuals and entities prosper or fail by competition. Those with the best ideas, best products, best services, and best prices win while those who are inferior lose.

Would anyone in their right mind ever claim the commissioner of a league should also own a team in the league in order to keep the competitors honest? Of course not; the job of the commissioner is to arbitrate and the job of the competitors is to compete.

Likewise, only a knucklehead would claim government should create an enterprise to compete with the private sector.

If government would do a better job of ensuring fair competition between health insurers and health care providers, perhaps our glorious leaders could get back to doing something important like investigating steroids in professional sports.

A tale of two narratives

Bernie Madoff is rightfully receiving universal condemnation and ridicule for swindling investors out of 50 billion dollars. He is always described, among other things, as a rogue, thief, scoundrel, and criminal, . His financial “victims” are said to be “ruined” and “suffering”.

Meanwhile, Michael Jackson is receiving universal acclaim as a musical genius, even as his financial records indicate a negative net worth of over 500 million. Apparently, Michael Jackson swindled creditors out of over 500 million dollars. His financial victims are never mentioned or even acknowledged in media reports.

Perhaps 1 billion dollars is the line of demarcation. Probably not. Expecting the media to be fair and truthful is always expecting way too much.

Cultural Evolution

Can Free Markets Survive In a Secularized World?

The 18th Century English cleric and theologian John Wesley was troubled by a paradox that emerged as his teaching spread. He, like other Protestant thinkers stretching back to Calvin, taught that one could honor God through hard work and thrift. The subsequent burst of industry and frugality generated by Wesley’s message improved the lot of many of his working-class followers and helped advance capitalism in England. But, “wherever riches have increased, the essence of religion has decreased in the same proportion,” Wesley observed, and subsequently pride and greed are growing more common, he complained.

The emergence of what Max Weber described as the Protestant ethic represented an important point in the evolution of capitalism because it combined a reverence for hard work with an emphasis on thrift and forthrightness in one’s dealings with others. Where those virtues were most ardently practiced markets advanced and societies prospered. And, as Wesley foresaw, what slowly followed was a rise in materialism and a reverence of wealth for its own sake.

We Want a King

19 But the people refused to listen to Samuel. "No!" they said. "We want a king over us. 20 Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles." 1 Samuel 8: 19 – 20

Less than a week after President Obama took his oath of office, most of my fears about his presidency have been confirmed. I could probably spend the next four years criticizing President Obama and his administration just like so many others spent the last eight years criticizing President Bush and his administration.

However, just like the criticism of President Bush was misplaced, my criticism of President Omaba would also be misplaced. President Obama seems to be mostly doing what he was elected to do by a majority of the voters. The majority of Americans want to feel like their security and livelihood is in the hands of someone who is loved and popular throughout the world.

I could criticize President Obama, but the real culprit is the majority of Americans who need a wake up call before secular, and then Islamic, values become American values. America is catching up to Europe way too fast for my tastes.

Stimulus or Burden?

Government deficit spending can stimulate an economy. However, most government spending, most of the time, is a burden on the economy and our lives, not a stimulant.

Our lives are not improved simply by having more money circulating in the economy and lower unemployment numbers. Our lives are only improved when our time spent working can pay for more of the things we want or when we can spend more time doing the things we enjoy and consider important. Hard work has its own value, but very few of us consider employment the ultimate goal.

Economies grow when more goods and services are purchased during a defined period of time than where purchased during the previous defined period of time. Therefore, if government borrows or prints money to increase spending for the period, the economy will be considered to be growing as long as the private sector does not reduce spending by more than the government increased its spending.

If government spending alone could improve our lives, why not just have government pay for everything? Because there are also negative consequences of deficit spending, that's why.

When government borrows money, less money is available to be borrowed by the private sector without an increase in the amount of interest paid to service the loans. This has not been a problem in the United States recently because China has been willing to take the money they have made off of their exports to America and lend it back to America at reasonable rates, but if the United States decides to start printing money to pay for the deficit spending, China is not likely to lend money back to America if they believe they will be paid back with a cheaper currency. When government prints money, the money supply increases, and the value of each denomination decreases because more are available. This is called inflation which hurts those who save and invest.

Government spending rarely comes with an expiration date. New infrastructure that gets built during recessions needs to be maintained long after the economy recovers. Money spent on social programs creates a dependency from recipients who learn to love handouts more than self reliance. Bureaucracies created by government spending have a life of their own which includes the survival instinct.

Citizens end up paying for government spending with higher taxes or lower purchasing power or higher costs for debt or all of the three. In the end, we may have more actual money, but less real purchasing power and less time doing what we enjoy.

The only real ways the government can stimulate the economy would be to start a business and then the sell the business to private investors or start selling government assets like land and buildings. The citizens of the Untied States really don’t need any more long term obligations/burdens to go along with Social Security and Medicare.

America needs more workers, more affordable housing, and more places to create attractive communities. It's time to start developing government land in places like Utah and Montana. It's time to open America to more immigrants who want to prosper in the land of the free. It's time to really stimulate the economy. Sorry Robert Redford and Ted Turner. You don’t get to hog the best places for yourself anymore.

Best Practices

There are many different ways a team, or enterprise, or person can compete to win. Superior God gifted talent and physical assets provide a great head start or advantage, yet rarely does the first or most gifted competitor persevere until the end. Some teams, like the Dallas Cowboys of the early 90’s, some companies, like Microsoft, and some athletes, like Michael Phelps, can simply overwhelm anyone and anything that gets in their way, but most of the time, the difference between the winners and the losers is a matter of small intangibles, not complete superiority.

Competition is the key to economic success in any free market system. In fact, a free market system with competition is the only path to widespread individual economic success. New products get invented and improved processes get developed when innovation is rewarded at an individual level. Countries, companies, and individuals stagnate when innovation is ignored or discouraged.

The current worldwide recession has renewed the old debate regarding government regulation. Those on the left claim our governments were asleep at the wheel as BIG business raped and pillaged the citizenry. Those on the right claim the mortgage crisis that initiated this recession was a result of BIG government mandates, not unfettered capitalism.

As with most difficulties in life, a symptom of our economic problems is getting all of the attention while the real problem is barely mentioned or acknowledged. Government regulation, or the lack of regulation, is not our root problem. Our increasing unwillingness as individuals to compete with each other is the root cause of our economic problems.

BIG business spends more time and makes more effort to agree with competitors on sets of industry wide “best practices” than on actually trying to be better than the competitors. BIG Unions reward conformity for employees willing give up individual rewards for group rewards. BIG government is more than willing to enable many of these best practices through rules and regulations.

Why should we be surprised when Newspapers and Automobile companies are no longer profitable when every company in their industry is just like every other company in their industry. They all build the same kind of cars the same way and they all tell the same stories the same way and they all look alike and they all sound alike and they all act alike.

Circuit City had a great business for many years by hiring experienced and knowledgeable salespeople to assist consumers wanting to buy consumer electronics. Circuit City made money, their employees made money, and their customers were happy with the great service at Circuit City. All was good at Circuit City until Best Buy started building bigger stores and hiring younger less experienced sales people at a lower wage rate. Rather than continue to do what Circuit City did best, their management decided the way to compete with Best Buy was to be more like Best Buy so Circuit City started cutting experienced staff and hiring inexperienced staff. Circuit City is now in bankruptcy court because the consumers of electronic goods didn’t need another Best Buy.

Government regulations are not necessarily and impediment to competition, but regulations do tend to place a bigger burden on smaller companies than on BIG business. We won’t break out of this recession if our government leaders enact rules that require conformity. The only way out of this or any recession is to revive the competitive spirit by allowing the nonconformists and contrarians to compete with the established companies and all of their “Best” practices.

A World Where...

My friend posting a comment as anonymous wrote, “I feel it in my bones that something cataclysmic is coming.” Hyperbole? Perhaps! Written after the writer has spent two tours of duty in Iraq; maybe not.

Most of us living in America now have learned about the range of human achievement and depravity through books of history and the reporting and experiences of others. Most of us living in America now have never come close to the depravity end of this spectrum. Most of us feel immune to the worst of what humanity has to offer, but my friend, serving in Iraq, did experience and live depravity up close and personal. He no longer feels immune.

I don’t yet share his pessimism, but I do know depressions and wars and heartaches are just as normal for humanity as prosperity and peace and happiness. Americans have enjoyed many years of relative peace and prosperity. Could we handle the depravity end of the spectrum? Could we even imagine a world where laws are routinely ignored, where justice is a quaint concept, where poverty is most common, and where wealth and power rule supreme?

Change and Hope

The American electorate, as a whole, has chosen to have a future of safety nets, while rejecting a future of liberty. Not that Senator McCain ever advocated, or would ever advocate liberty, but the election of Senator Obama should be interpreted mostly as a vote to relieve the fear many Americans have. Fear of losing their ability to earn an income, fear of not being able to afford health care, and fear of a future run by corporations. Our choice of President-elect Obama may not be the most principled choice, but it is a pragmatic choice when considering all of the uncertainty exposed by the financial crisis, executive pay, and the loss of jobs to outsourcing.

Americans have rejected opportunity in favor of certainty. When we go to bed at night, we want to know we will be able to sleep in a bed the next night, regardless of our ability to earn a living for ourselves and our families. Most Americans, including many Republicans, are tired of being afraid.

Perhaps in 4 or 8 or 12 years, the majority of Americans will vote for the pendulum to swing back in favor of liberty, but I suspect that individual liberty, as envisioned by the signers of the American Constitution, is a fading concept of the past. The world is too complex, governments are too powerful, and corporations are too unprincipled, for individuals to ever again feel free to determine their own destiny.

President-elect Obama ran on change and hope. Washington will change from a central government that debates and determines individual rights to a government that debates and determines group rights. Future legislative fights will be group against group.

I can’t imagine ever joining a union or any other group. I don’t even feel comfortable describing myself as an evangelical because it sounds like I have joined a political group.

I may be spending the rest of my life preparing to die as a dinosaur. I hope not.

Election Prognosis

I’m usually not in the prediction business, but why do we have these big elections every four years if pundits can’t take advantage of the opportunity to make fools out of themselves? Since I fancy myself a pundit, here goes:

Modern presidential elections are decided by undecided boobs who vote for the most attractive candidate as well as devious insiders who game the system to their candidates advantage. Almost always, the best looking, best sounding, and best funded candidate wins regardless of the issues.

John McCain and Barrack Obama are both easier on my ears than Bush, Gore, or Kerry. John McCain is more clear and more specific when he speaks while Barrack Obama is more pleasant, more eloquent, and less prone to verbal mistakes. Slight edge Obama.

Neither McCain nor Obama would ever be mistaken for a Kennedy or an Eisenhower, but both seem equally presentable. Both also have attractive wife’s. However, since Cindy McCain is beyond attractive; she is gorgeous, slight edge McCain.

Personally, I could easily sit down and have a beer with John McCain and listen to stories about his life, while if I ever had contact with Barrack Obama, I couldn’t get away from him quick enough. However, I can’t judge undecided’s by how I feel, so I give likeability a tie.

Campaign money and campaign operatives are where this election will be settled. A little grease in the palm of the right campaign official in a few key states may turn a state or two and a horde of lawyers ready to challenge any and all polling irregularities can shine the media focus in the wrong places. (The media would probably cover the wrong events anyway without the lawyers, but the lawyers will make sure it happens.)

I don’t trust the polls, but I do trust the money. Big edge Obama.

McCain needs a miracle.

Update: Bob Krumm is calling Pennsylvania for the lawyers.

Hole Rule

When we find ourselves in a hole, it is usually prudent to stop digging.

The shovel for many holes is the good intentions of the digger.

Way back in 1977, the United States Congress enacted a new law called the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). The purpose for this new law was for the Federal Government to monitor and ensure that local banks were making loans to home buyers in low and moderate income areas. Then in 1992, congress passed the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act which allowed Freddie Mae and Freddie Mac to assume responsibility for home loans made to low income buyers.

FHEFSSA established risk-based and minimum capital standards for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And, it established HUD-imposed housing goals for financing of affordable housing and housing in central cities and other rural and underserved areas.

Low income buyers are not at all responsible for the current financial mess, but as low income buyers were approved for home loans that did not meet traditional credit standards, the demand for houses and the asking price for houses increased [basic economics]. As prices increased, fewer buyers qualified for traditional home loans which meant that more and more home buyers needed sub-prime loans backed by the Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSE’s) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. As more and more low and middle income buyers took advantage of sub-prime loans, more and more middle and high income buyers took advantage of lax lending standards to purchase new homes. Many of these buyers were investors and speculators. This Ponzi scheme finally reached a point where many buyers, not even able to pay their interest only loans, walked away from their property and mortgage with nothing to lose but their credit rating. Prices plummeted, banks ended up with more debt than equity, and new lending stopped.

The solution to the problems caused by easy credit seems to be more easy, perhaps even easier, credit for banks and businesses.

At some point we will have to suffer the consequences of easy credit. Perhaps it is time to stop digging.

Taxpayer Bailout

I am amused at how the word “taxpayer” gets attached to the word “bailout” when referring to the Paulson Plan and other congressional proposals to loosen the credit markets. Add another word, “crisis”, and we have created a narrative that makes the solution for relieving the tight credit markets unacceptable to the general public.

I don’t recall the 200 billion dollars the Federal government pledged to rebuild New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina as a “taxpayer bailout” of greedy home owners who chose to live in a flood zone. I don’t recall the words “taxpayer bailout” ever being used in regards to the way FEMA spends money and guarantees loans after any natural disaster. Social Security, for those who fail to plan for retirement, Amtrak and farm subsidies, and most every other extra Constitutional program of the Federal government are never referred to as “taxpayer bailouts”. Can you even imagine National health care being referred to as a “taxpayer bailout” for those who don’t want to pay for health care?

Only about 60% of American adults pay Federal Income taxes in any given year and the top 1% of taxpayers pay about 33% of the total. So if the taxpayers were to pay for the Paulson Plan, the rich would be bailing out the rich. However, since there isn’t a relationship between federal taxes and federal spending, the idea that taxpayers are really paying for anything specific nowadays is laughable. The verbiage “taxpayer bailout” is a hyper-narrative to create controversy, and nothing more.

I can live with worthless investments and meaningless money. I will still get up and go to work in the morning and hug my wife and kids when I get home from work at night. What really bothers me though is living in a society where words have become meaningless.

More Slavery

While we are on the subject of slavery, does it occur to anyone else, or just me, that National health care, like the Obama plan, is still another form of slavery where the young and healthy will be forced by law, to pay the bills of the old and unhealthy?

No Taxation Without Representation

Many, if not most, American citizens who will be paying for my retirement have not even been born yet and won’t be voting for at least another 18 years. Not exactly the American way envisioned by our American founders.

Young and healthy taxpayers will be forced by the Federal government to pay for my well being in old age. Not exactly the end of slavery envisioned by Abraham Lincoln and the abolitionists.

The Republican Soul

Has there ever been a major Presidential candidate more terminally constipated than Mitt Romney? If you answered Al Gore or John Kerry, you might be right, but do Republicans really want their own version of a poll-taking, script-reading, position-parsing, consultant-driven, image-building, hair-coloring, privileged-class pretzel of a candidate? Do Republicans really want a candidate who is capable of buying an election without ever demonstrating the willingness to fight for or finance any of the positions important to Republican voters? Apparently some Republican voters do, but so far, not most. Apparently almost all of talk radio does, but not me.

Character still matters to many Republican voters. We celebrate politicians who become life-protecting, tax-cutting, government-reducing, freedom-protecting, law-enforcing legislators, once they fight to reform government, not when they are trying to buy our vote in an election; especially a Presidential election.

The Republican Party is left with some very flawed candidates this Presidential election cycle. Our Party needs to be tweaked and our nominating process needs to be reformed before the next election cycle in 2012. This year we go to the general election with the candidate we’ve got. If Mitt Romney becomes the Republican nominee, the positions of the two major Parties will be different, but the soul of the two major Parties will be the same. Is that what we really want?

Freedom and Government

In order for the citizens of any country to experience freedom, the government of their country must be limited in scope and small in size.

Freedom is incompatible with big government. Government can be small in scope (limited), yet still be big enough to restrict freedom when resources are taken from tax payers and spent by bureaucrats. Very small government is also incompatible with freedom. Government must be large enough to protect the innocent without being so large it encumbers the freedom of its citizens.

In the following graph, freedom is assigned a value between 0 (No freedom) and 12 (Maximum freedom). Taxes are assigned a value between 0 (No taxes at all) and 100 (Every citizen turns their entire paycheck over to the government).



As long as tax revenue is collected and spent by the government in a way that prevents one citizen from preying on another citizen, the tax revenue collected will be used to ensure and increase freedom. Citizens are allowed to do whatever they want, suffer the consequences and enjoy the benefits of their freedom, just as long as they don’t impede on the freedom of others.

However, once tax revenue is used for any purpose other than the protection of freedom, citizens begin to have less freedom, regardless of the intentions or morality of the stated purpose. Every last penny taken by government and spent by government has reduced the amount of money available for the taxed citizen to freely spend and has most likely also created a restriction against a certain free choice by the tax payer.

Of course citizens of most modern countries do have a right to restrict the freedom of their fellow citizens, but let’s be clear what is happening when we allow government to borrow, tax, and spend; the majority is practicing tyranny over the minority.

Déjà vu not named Hillary

I don’t want a President of the United States who will say and do whatever it takes to become President. A good President needs to have a soul and an ideology beyond getting elected.

Mitt Romney may have won the Michigan Primary last night, and he may have improved his chances for obtaining the Republican nomination, but he also may have revealed his true colors, and in effect, diminished his chances for the nomination.

It doesn’t matter how many times Romney is described as a true conservative by the conservative establishment, he still looks like Bill Clinton to me, and after his speeches in Michigan last week, I am beginning to think Romney and our former President are interchangeable. Both are professional panderers. Romney, just like former President Clinton, seems more concerned with getting elected than with advancing freedom and justice.

The term “conservative” may not mean the same thing to everyone, but if the term “conservative” doesn’t include the value of honesty, then I am not a conservative, true or otherwise. I suspect there are many other voters like myself who are finding Mitt Romney harder and harder to vote for because truthfulness is more important than being on the winning side.

Appropriate Reaction

Doesn’t it seem like the News and commentary regarding the assassination of Benazir Bhutto is out of proportion to the significance of the event?

Ralph Peters has a Contrarian view of former Prime Minister Bhutto’s significance to the democratization of Pakistan.

Appropriate Force

[PREVIOUS]

Almost daily, I will observe someone using an inappropriate amount of force. Sometimes, it is one of my daughters as they learn a new activity or skill, but often it is an adult who doesn’t understand the relationship between force and success or has yet to learn the proper amount of force for the job at hand.

A good way to view the proper amount of force is to visualize what happens when hammering a nail. Someone experienced with a hammer and a nail will start with a few taps to get the nail started in the right direction, continue with a few pounds that are forceful enough to drive the nail, but not so hard the nail bends along its shaft, and then finish with a few taps to bring the nail flush with the board so as not to damage the board. Hammering a nail with appropriate force for each step is a skill that can be learned fairly quickly, but it is a skill that must be learned. First time hammerers rarely get the nail hammered correctly. Another mechanical example is the force needed to tighten a bolt. Too loose and the bolt will not stay in place; too tight and either the threads will be striped or the bolt will get stuck.

Inexperienced salespeople often have difficulty selling a product because they struggle to discern the right amount of pressure to apply to a potential buyer. Motivated newbie’s will tend to oversell and end up repelling a potential buyer while timid newbie’s will tend to undersell and miss some good opportunities.

The word “torture” gives the impression of a one size fits all method of extracting information. This is unfortunate because experienced interrogators need a wide range of rewards and punishments as a way to bribe and threaten an enemy combatant in order to extract the greatest possible useful information. The methods used will depend on various factors including the timeline for needing the information because some threats are more urgent than others, the personality of the enemy combatant, and the history of the enemy combatant.

Many forms of government sanctioned punishment have been discontinued due to mistakes, worse case scenarios, and abuse. Interrogating enemy combatants could also result in mistakes, worse case scenarios, and abuse, but all three can be minimized by allowing very experienced interrogators to use the appropriate force necessary to extract useful information.

Interrogation Toolbox

[PREVIOUS]

The problem with the words “always” and “never” is that neither word leaves any room for the word “appropriate”. Both words demark extreme and inflexible positions.

My wife and I made the decision to only spank our children as a last resort if a child of ours was being intentionally defiant. I can count on my fingers the number of times I have spanked both of my daughters. As a parent, placing one of my daughters over my knees and swatting them on the butt was the hardest thing I ever had to do because I knew it would bring tears to their eyes and screaming to their lips and I couldn’t be certain they would understand why their punishment needed to reach that level of severity. In order to deliver the spank, I had to resist what I felt like doing and do what I knew was appropriate to do.

I will never know for certain whether we spanked too often or too little, but I do know for certain spanking is a necessary part of parenting when done at the appropriate time and with the appropriate amount of force. It is quite easy to compare the behavior of two 3-year-olds, one who has been spanked and one who has not been spanked, and know which one of the two understands the consequences of defiant behavior. If I had to guess, I would say we probably should have spanked a little more than we did, but I prefer knowing we may have under-spanked than worrying if we may have over-spanked.

Enemy prisoners need to know that the decisions they make regarding cooperation with interrogators have consequences. Some prisoners will willingly cooperate in order to receive benefits not given to other prisoners, while some prisoners will not cooperate regardless of the amount of hardship inflicted upon them. However, the majority of prisoners will cooperate based on consequences, both good and bad. Various levels of rewards and hardships must be included in the toolbox used by interrogators in order to extract the maximum amount of useful information from enemy combatants. Not every prisoner needs to suffer extreme hardship, but every prisoner needs to know extreme hardship is a possibility for lack of cooperation.

[NEXT]