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.

Human Nature and Government

Within the soul of every human being is a desire to be free; a desire to make the individual choices that create the most individual happiness and fulfillment. However, none of us are islands of individual happiness and fulfillment. Our individual happiness and fulfillment could not exist without the love, affirmation, and support of many other people who also have their own desire for individual happiness and fulfillment.

When two or more people who depend on each other for happiness have different ideas about what makes for happiness and fulfillment, conflict between the two or the group is inevitable. Often times, this conflict results in one, or both, or all of the people in a relationship trying to exert control over the others. This happens in both one on one relationships like marriage and group relationships like government.

Throughout most of history, this conflict for happiness and fulfillment was resolved by the person or persons with the most power and strength, often through devious and evil methods, exerting their power and strength to control others. Governments were controlled by Kings and Leaders with the biggest and usually most ruthless armies. Families were controlled by men who possessed more strength than women. Even the Catholic Church turned into an organization controlled by the powerful. The Greeks and Romans dispersed some of this authority to more of their citizens, but government still boiled down to having those with power making most of the decisions and controlling those without power.

Early Americans had a better idea for allowing more freedom and individual choices. The American founding fathers (and mothers) said every human has certain rights that can't be taken away or abused by government. They said everyone has the right to freedom (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness), not just the humans with power. They believed every citizen in America should pursue their own objectives as long as those objectives did not interfere with the freedom of their co-citizens. Obviously, America never completely obtained this ideal, but it was still a noble idea.

I have come to realize there is no right way for me to make others do the things I want them to do or to make others pay for the things I want. (Thy shall not steal.) Therefore, my view of government is that government should protect it's citizens from force and fraud, but very little else. I believe government should be small and limited. Apparently, most Americans now believe more like the Greeks and Romans where the majority get to use the coercive force of government to get the minority to succumb.

Where did this guy come from?

This story can’t possibly be true, can it?

The Best I Could Hope For

Why would a Republican care if a Democrat is experienced, prepared, or competent, and why would a Democrat care if a Republican is experienced, prepared, or competent? Is someone who is accomplished in the functions of government we oppose better or worse for the country than someone unaccomplished in the functions of government we oppose? I think I would prefer an incompetent leader to a competent leader running government if government is trying to enforce laws I disagree with.

Like most beliefs being promoted by the Democratic Party, I don’t understand the attacks coming from Democrats against the experience and competence of Sarah Palin. However, as an opponent of the beliefs of the Democratic Party, if America is going to have a President from the Democratic Party, Barrack Obama is about the best I could hope for.

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.