Love Your Neighbor Politically

When Jesus was asked what is needed to inherit eternal life, he replied, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind; and, Love your neighbor as yourself."

There are many ways for believers to love their neighbors as themselves. There are also many ways to withhold love from neighbors. Some of the ways to love or withhold love from neighbors is over-the-fence, around-the-corner, down-the-street, across-town, and other one-on-one type care and activities. However, just as important, and usually more consequential, is the affect of public policy on our neighbors.

When the new country of the United States of America was formed, it was formed as a country that would be governed “by” and “for” the citizens of the United States. America is not a country where the citizens have only a vote and a say in the affairs of government; America is a country where the citizens ARE the government.

As citizens, and therefore members of government in the United States, it is the duty of believers to participate in the creation and changes of public policy through political activity because every penny that is taken through taxes and every penny that is spent by government has an affect on our neighbors; sometimes good, but often times bad, as government increasingly comes under the control of special interests that are not interested or concerned with the welfare of our neighbors.

Purpose Driven Believer

I try to live a purpose driven life. For me, “purpose driven” is the only logical way to approach decisions and set priorities. Purpose driven methodology is a series of questions and answers that lead to a goal and an appropriate level of commitment made to reach that goal. “What”, “why”, “how”, and usually “when” questions all need to be answered before the right decision can be made, the proper priority determined, and the appropriate level of commitment made.

There is no doubt in my mind that spreading the Gospel message should be the top priority of Christians and Christianity in America. When we get to heaven, we will all be at the mercy of God for salvation. Non-believers need to know what Christians believe and why Christians believe what they believe in order for them to also have the opportunity of eternal life through the grace and forgiveness of God.

Christianity is not just about the afterlife, though. While on earth, everyone has some control over the society they share with others. By spreading the Gospel message and defending the faith, Christians can maintain a just society while helping others understand the traditional Christian view of salvation and everlasting life. Before departing earth, Jesus told his disciples to teach others what he had taught them. Believers are expected to follow His example and do what He said.

The “how” question regarding the spread of the Gospel message is not as easily answered as the “what” and “why” questions. While this is not the only issue that divides believers, it is a Christian purpose that can have many different approaches. From my perspective, many of the different approaches to spreading the Gospel do as much harm as good in reaching the unsaved, but my perspective has many limitations. Therefore, I am careful not to criticize anyone who is going about spreading the Gospel message the way they think is best and most effective.

However, when forming their own view and opinions, most people are just as observant of the actions of others as they are considerate of the views of others. Therefore, it is mandatory for Christians to be accurate in facts, clear in explanations, and consistent in actions because living the Gospel in a transparent way is an essential component of spreading the Gospel.

Living the Gospel means behaving and acting in ways that are consistent with the Gospel message being proclaimed. Some behaviors are mandatory. Some behaviors and actions will vary depending on the abilities, circumstances, and tolerance for risk of the believer. Some behaviors are not absolutely mandatory, but should be a part of the life of the mature Christian. Praying, fasting, and giving are all obviously part of this list of behaviors Christians should be doing. In my next post, I will make the case for why political participation also belongs on the list of behaviors of mature Christians in America.

The Reagan Myth

It’s good to see one columnist who is fair to President Bush when comparing the size of government now to the size of government in the President Reagan years.

Hats off to Fred Barnes.

Selected excerpt:

With Reagan in the White House, spending reached 23.5% of GDP in 1984, the peak year of the military buildup. Under Mr. Bush, the top spending year is 2005 at 20.1% of GDP, though it is expected to rise as high as 20.7% this year, driven upward by Iraq and hurricane relief.

Mr. Reagan was a small government conservative, but he found it impossible to govern that way. He made tradeoffs. He gave up the fight to curb domestic spending in exchange for congressional approval of increased defense spending. He cut taxes deeply but signed three smaller tax hikes. Rather than try to reform Social Security, he agreed to increase payroll taxes.

The myth would have it that Reagan was tireless in shrinking the size of government, a weak partisan always ready to deal with Democrats, and not the hardliner we thought he was. The opposite is true. Reagan compromised, as even the most conservative politicians often do, to save his political strength for what mattered most--defeating the Soviet empire and keeping taxes low. Today, the latter still remains imperative, and the former has been superseded by a faceless death cult. We can't understand George Bush if we distort the real Ronald Reagan.

Narrow Gate

• Deny Self
  
• Take up Cross
  
• Follow Christ

Doesn’t sound like prosperity to me.

Doesn’t sound like Church either.

Sounds like a narrow gate.

An Air Force Colonel's View of Marines

Thanks Michael. I loved reading this.

An Air Force Colonel's View of Marines

Dear Dad, If I ever hear airmen griping and complaining, I jump into them pretty quickly, now. Most people over here have nothing to gripe about compared to Marines. Marines are different. They have a different outlook on life. One Marine Private was here for several days because he was a lower priority evacuation patient. He insisted on coming to attention and displaying proper military courtesy every morning when I came through on rounds. He was in a great deal of pain, and it was a stressful to watch him work his way off the bed and onto his crutches. I told him he was excused and did not have to come to attention while he was a patient,and he informed me that he was a good Marine and would address "Air Force Colonels standing on my feet, Sir." I had to turn away so he would not see the tear in my eye. He did not have "feet" because we amputated his right leg below the knee on the first night he came in. I asked a Marine Lance Corporal if there was anything I could get him as I was making rounds one morning. He was an above the knee amputation after an IED blast, and he surprised me when he asked for a trigonometry book. "You enjoy math do you?" He replied, "Not particularly, Sir. I was never good at it, but I need to get good at it, now." "Are you planning on going back to school?" I asked. "No sir, I am planning on shooting artillery. I will slow an infantry platoon down with just one good leg, but I am going to get good at math and learn how to shoot artillery". I hope he does. I had the sad duty of standing over a young Marine Sgt. when he recovered from anesthesia - despite our best efforts there was just no way to save his left arm, and it had to come off just below the elbow. "Can I have my arm back, sir?" he asked. "No, we had to cut it off, we cannot re-attach it", I said. "But can I have my arm?", he asked again. "You see, we had to cut it off." He interrupted, "I know you had to cut it off, but I want it back. It must be in a bag or something, Sir." "Why do you want it?" I asked. "I am going to have it stuffed and use it as a club when I get back to my unit." I must have looked shocked because he tried to comfort me,"Don't you worry now, Colonel. You did a fine job, and I hardly hurt at all; besides I scratch and shoot with my other hand anyway." God Bless the Marines!
Col. Brett Wyrick

Two Nations

An old friend has started a new blog named Two Nations.

Excerpts from first piece:

• As a Christian, a passionate conservative, a soldier, and an American, I grow increasingly alarmed at what I'm seeing happen to my country; I fear we are more deeply divided than we were in 1861 with as little or less possibility for compromise. On the one side, you have folks like me who actually believe that there is such a thing as objective truth, that there is meaning, and that words actually contain plenty of said meaning. It is therefore axiomatic to me that documents such as the Bible contain meaning - original intentions - of authors spanning centuries in time, and that that meaning can be ascertained by readers centuries later if they will respect that fact and seek to ascertain their meaning bearing in mind historical context, grammar and usage, etc.
  
  
• If we're going to have a productive debate, we have to at least agree on some common ground. I may believe that the Framers intended one thing in the 1st Ammendment, for example, and you may stand by another conclusion. But at least we're both in agreement that something like "original intent" exists, and we're therefore in the same "ball park". But consider this: If the Steelers and Patriots show up at the stadium they need to both agree on the basic rules of the game their playing, hopefully football. What would happen if an umpire decided that the offsides rule was out of date and sought to throw it out, particularly on a crucial play? Fans would have his head!
  
  
• What I'm saying is this, those who do not adhere to the idea that the Constitution and the Declaration contain the values and rules, the covenant, if you will, between those in government and the governed may call themselves many things, but . . . they are no longer Americans!

Give 'em Shelter

Good news for the homeless.
by William Tucker

Selected Excerpts:

• At a remarkably underreported conference in Denver in May, advocates for the homeless met to discuss a pattern of falling homeless populations across the country. In the past six months, New York has announced a reduction of 13 percent, Denver 11 percent, Portland 20 percent, Miami 30 percent, Philadelphia 50 percent. The story merited squibs in the Denver Post, the San Francisco Chronicle, and the Rocky Mountain News. The New York Times ran a page 19 story almost a month later. Beyond that, silence.
  
  
• One factor now motivating local officials is a realization of how much the homeless are costing them. "In San Diego, researchers tracked a population of 20 homeless people for almost two years, measuring what they absorbed in free medical care, ambulance services, emergency-room hospital visits, and law enforcement," says Mangano. "They were astonished to discover that every individual was costing the city an average of $200,000 per year. For that kind of money, the city could have bought them each a penthouse apartment. The most dismaying thing was that in the end the people were right back where they started."
  
  
• "Housing First" has now returned to the original idea--that housing is the problem--with a twist. The problem is not that the federal government is not building public housing. The real problem is that cities have been very efficient in eliminating bottom-rung housing through building code enforcement, zoning restrictions, and (in cites such as New York and San Francisco) rent control. All these "reforms" were supposed to upgrade "substandard" housing and improve opportunities for the poor. In fact they worsened conditions for the very poor.
  
  
• "We made progress that is visible, measurable, and quantifiable," says Mangano, anticipating that Ph.D. students will soon be lining up to study this rare public policy success story. Now if only the press will pay a little attention.
  
  

Don't Believe the Hype

Al Gore is wrong. There's no "consensus" on global warming.

So, presumably, those scientists do not belong to the "consensus." Yet their research is forced, whether the evidence supports it or not, into Mr. Gore's preferred global-warming template--namely, shrill alarmism. To believe it requires that one ignore the truly inconvenient facts. To take the issue of rising sea levels, these include: that the Arctic was as warm or warmer in 1940; that icebergs have been known since time immemorial; that the evidence so far suggests that the Greenland ice sheet is actually growing on average. A likely result of all this is increased pressure pushing ice off the coastal perimeter of that country, which is depicted so ominously in Mr. Gore's movie. In the absence of factual context, these images are perhaps dire or alarming.

They are less so otherwise. Alpine glaciers have been retreating since the early 19th century, and were advancing for several centuries before that. Since about 1970, many of the glaciers have stopped retreating and some are now advancing again. And, frankly, we don't know why.

So what, then, is one to make of this alleged debate? I would suggest at least three points.

First, nonscientists generally do not want to bother with understanding the science. Claims of consensus relieve policy types, environmental advocates and politicians of any need to do so. Such claims also serve to intimidate the public and even scientists--especially those outside the area of climate dynamics. Secondly, given that the question of human attribution largely cannot be resolved, its use in promoting visions of disaster constitutes nothing so much as a bait-and-switch scam. That is an inauspicious beginning to what Mr. Gore claims is not a political issue but a "moral" crusade.

Lastly, there is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition. An earlier attempt at this was accompanied by tragedy. Perhaps Marx was right. This time around we may have farce--if we're lucky.

BTW, Mr. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.

Surprise Drop in Oil?

Larry Kudlow knows economics and oil.

The economic principles at work here are very simple: Markets work. Supply and demand works. Higher prices are gradually slowing consumption. At the same time, those high prices continue to stimulate outsized profits and investment returns. So capital is pouring into all the energy sectors, providing a strong foundation for new energy production. Chevron, for example, is reinvesting virtually all its profits in new oil-and-gas exploration and drilling. The drilling industry, meanwhile, has recovered from last year’s Hurricane Katrina shock and is once again producing near peak capacity.

The Beginning of the End of the PCUSA?

Mark D. Roberts has posted his thoughts on today's General Assembly two historic votes.

Church and Sin

Hammer left a comment on my last post with a link to an article by Al Mohler about the need for Christians to truthfully confront the sin of homosexuality. Trinitarian Don also makes some very good points today about sin, objective truth, the Church, and homosexuality.

While I fully agree with the truth of what both Don and Al wrote, I don’t like how homosexuality often gets singled out by Christian leaders when referencing and discussing sin. Al stated, “The church is not a place where sinners are welcomed to remain in their sin.” It sounds like Al hasn’t been to Church lately. Churches nowadays are packed with greedy, lustful, deceitful, proud, selfish, and sexually immoral believers who are quite comfortable in most of their sins. Pastors and other Church leaders are just as comfortable in some or all of these sins. I’m sure I also have blind spots in regard to my own sins.

Some sins are worse than other sins and all sins have gradations of evil. Homosexuality is no different. A homosexual relationship with one partner is different than a homosexual relationship with many partners. Advocating homosexual marriage is different than advocating acceptance of homosexuals. Struggling and failing to overcome a homosexual lifestyle is different than proudly proclaiming a deviant sexual orientation. If Christian leaders and lay believers wish to demonstrate the love of God towards homosexuals, they need to place homosexuality and the gradations of homosexuality on the list of all other sins where it belongs and quit singling homosexuality out as the worst of all sins.

Additionally, if Christian leaders and lay believers wish to be taken seriously when proclaiming the truth of homosexuality, they need to increase the references to the sins of greed, lust, deceit, pride, and selfishness. Perhaps they could start by proclaiming the truth in their own Church and make a few believers a little uncomfortable.

Truth and Love

Brad at The Broken Messenger has written today about the inseparability of truth and love.

What’s my take? Truth and love appear to be inseparable partners. At least until Paul places love over the great pillars of a rebirth in Christ: hope and faith (1 Cor. 13:13). But Christ proclaimed himself as the “truth” and also said that you “shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free” (John 8:34). Is that truth God's love? Absolutely, it must be according to Paul's defense of the absolute need for love in faith (1 Corinthians 13).

But I don’t have a firm position right now as to which is "higher", other than to say that I don’t think that I need one. In other words, I don’t think that my ability to properly order one over the other is critical to my faith in Christ. As long as I am embracing both and apply all revealed truth in love, within faith and for Christ, I obey Christ and glorify him.

What I can say with confidence is that love and truth are certainly are not mutually exclusive. In fact, I am convinced daily that the love of God is the greatest of all truth. Why? First, we have the great command to love God with all heart, mind and soul. Second, we have the command to love others in proof of our love for God:

Great work Brad, I love how you have revealed the truth.

Global Warming Fever

Debra Saunders analyzes Al Gore and Global Warming. I agree with her entire piece. Here are some excerpts:

There is a conceit among the American left that the American right cleaves to bad science out of deference to religion, while the left is all-science, all-the-time. Former Veep Al Gore's new movie, "An Inconvenient Truth," however, shows how unscientific -- and downright faith-based -- the left has become.

Gore was wrong in 1992 when he wrote that 98 percent of scientists agreed with him on global warming. Witness the survey cited above. Now, he is wrong when he argues in his movie that there is a complete consensus on global warming today. As proof Gore cites a 2004 study that looked at 928 climate abstracts and found none that refuted global-warming dogma. That says more about the researcher than the scientific community.

There are a number of well-known scientists who don't believe that global warming is human-induced, or who believe that if it is, it is not catastrophic. Hurricane expert William Gray of Colorado State University believes the Earth will start to cool within 10 years. Neil Frank, former director of the National Hurricane Center, told The Washington Post that global warming is "a hoax." Climate scientist Robert Lindzen of MIT believes that clouds and water vapor will counteract greenhouse gas emissions.

So you have to ask yourself: Why does Gore pretend that apostates do not exist? Scientists acknowledge contradictory data. But the faith-driven Gore argues that all scientists agree with him -- well, except for those who are bought and paid for by big polluters.

Because this is a crusade -- and not about science -- Gore is drawn not to the most reasoned scenarios, but the most apocalyptic.

I thought Gore's chart comparing carbon-dioxide increases to temperature spikes was dramatic. But because Gore omits what he does not want to see, I have to listen to former NASA scientist Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama, when he tells me: "It is an alarming chart, but there are so many alternative explanations for what he's showing. He's giving it one possible explanation and making it sound like the only explanation." Spencer says it is "more likely" that the higher temperatures increased carbon dioxide levels.

Spencer, who also writes for TCS Daily (which receives some funding from ExxonMobil), believes that some global warming is human-induced, but "I don't believe in climate catastrophe. And, "It comes down to whether you believe the climate system is fragile or resilient." It all comes down to belief -- and that is the problem. Global warming has become so politicized that scientists must believe in it. If they predict dire consequences, they win praise from true believers and grants for their important research. Scientists who question the prophecies of doom can expect to be marginalized.

Now Gore is the know-it-all teacher -- and woe to any scientist who does not agree with him, not just on global warming, but on a 20-foot rise in sea level. It is this alarmism -- this extremism -- that has led many a thinking person to question global warming. It's hard to trust those who believe only the most extreme scenario.
Besides, whenever the establishment says you have to believe something, you want people who question the establishment. Or as global cooling guru Gray once said, "Consensus science isn't science."

Values

Everyone has a certain single value of primary importance or a combination of several values of importance that affects their decisions, actions, and world view.

For some, good relationships trump all other values. For others, the accumulation of wealth is at the top of their list. Some people value achievement over everything else. Others dream of a high social status and will do whatever it takes for popularity. As for me, I value truth above all else.

By valuing truth above all other values, I sometimes have to sacrifice relationships, wealth, achievement, and social status. Likewise, those who value wealth will often have to sacrifice relationships, and truth in order to accumulate a high net worth and those who place the most importance on relationships will often have to sacrifice wealth and honesty.

Our decisions and our actions are mostly derived from our primary values. People who primarily value relationships will seek agreement, compromise, consensus, and peace. These people will be reluctant to take and express a strong position on most matters unless their social network is in agreement. The final agreement or consensus is as likely to come from feelings as it is to come from a rigorous discernment of facts. People who primarily value relationships are not leaders, but are often put in positions of leadership due to their ability to create peace through agreement and compromise.

For the most part, as I observe those who have achieved wealth or success, I don’t observe people I want to emulate. I observe people who are willing to do whatever it takes to attain what they value the most. Often times, family, friends, truth, and integrity are left in the wake. Success, as defined by most, is not for me.

Debate and the earnest pursuit of truth will always be difficult, if not impossible, on blog sites that value relationship above truth. Debate and the earnest pursuit of truth will always be difficult in Churches that value relationship above truth. Marriages where one spouse values relationship above truth and the other spouse values truth above relationship will experience many challenges.

I doubt very many believers would choose the life of Elijah if they had a choice. I certainly wouldn’t. Elijah had too much trouble, too much loneliness, too much difficulty, and too much doubt. However, I am very comforted by the life of Elijah as recorded in Scripture. He trusted God, declared the truth, considered everything else including relationships secondary, and he left the outcome of his ventures to God. I don’t have the truth from God other than my understanding of Scripture, but I am willing to place truth above all else and let God determine the outcome; trouble, loneliness, difficulty, doubt, and all.

Nitpicking

Facts are the building blocks of ideas; ideas are the building blocks of concepts; concepts are the building blocks of beliefs, views, opinions, and ideologies. It is impossible to have a rock solid opinion, belief, or view without accurate facts, clear ideas based on the facts, and clear concepts based on consistent ideas.

Last week I was told by a writer/blogger that the type of comments I leave at his site made him feel like I was only concerned with nitpicking his pieces. Therefore, he didn’t care to respond to my type of challenges. He assured me he wanted dialogue, but he didn’t want to get dragged into a vortex of challenging each other’s facts. He felt like my challenges were a hindrance to his ability to focus on what he was trying to achieve with his writing at his blog.

I don’t know that dialogue is possible without challenges to facts. If you say you are a Methodist and I say I am a Presbyterian, we don’t have dialogue. We may have learned something knew about each other, and we may have the start of a relationship, and we may even have a starting point for dialogue, but we still don’t have dialogue until we reach a point of disagreement in regards to some facts. There is no “iron sharpening iron” until and without challenges to the building blocks of beliefs.

“I am a Democrat” - “I am a Republican”, is not dialogue. “I am a Democrat because Democrats care about the poor” - “I am a Republican because the Republicans actually help the poor”, still is not dialogue. “I am a Democrat because Democrats care about the poor by creating government programs to assist the poor” - “I am a Republican because the Republicans actually help the poor by reducing taxes and government regulations”, is getting close to being dialogue, but it is still missing the challenge that is needed for dialogue. Up until this point, we have only made statements of belief. Dialogue begins when the Democrat challenges the Republican to demonstrate how reducing taxes has helped the poor and the Republican challenges the Democrat to demonstrate how government programs have helped the poor. Through the challenges, we may both reconsider the possible fallacy to our belief.

I like getting comments on my site and I like most of the people who comment, but I especially like the challenges I get from Hammer and Derek. Both of these men have impeccable integrity to go along with a professional ability to nitpick. I still have a long way to go, but I think I am a clearer thinker as a result of the challenges I have received from Hammer, Derek, and others. Without their challenges, I may have been able to improve my writing skills, but I would not have been able to improve my thinking or my communication skills.

Although I have a high tolerance for being nitpicked, it seems like most writers are offended when they are challenged. I don’t know why I like it and others don‘t, but it probably has something to do with being contrarian. I can see where nitpicking can go too far when criticism becomes the stubborn repeating of the same debatable point. Several months ago I had to tell an old friend to leave me alone. We couldn’t have a conversation without him claiming that “Bush Lied”. Of course I don’t believe President Bush lied to convince Americans of the need for war or even if he did lie regarding a few facts it would change what needed to be done. My friend is certainly entitled to an opinion and he is entitled, even encouraged, to express his opinion to me. However, he should have realized that at some point, I did not agree with his facts and it was time for him to give it a rest.

Occasionally I may cross the line of what is acceptable and I may become obnoxious. I hope my friends will honestly let me know when I have gone too far without telling me to leave them alone. I also hope all of my readers will nitpick with all of their energy and ability because I do still have a long way to go in writing and thinking clearly.

Haditha Hoax?

Evidence accumulates of a hoax in Haditha.

Is Al Gore a Brave Truth Teller?

Robert Tracinski did not have much trouble contradicting some of Al Gore’s claims.

Selected Excerpts:

Everyone knows that the global warming theory is the dogma of the entrenched establishment. We know this because we are relentlessly barraged with global warming hysteria from political leaders, the mainstream media, and the government-scientific complex. We are constantly told that we are in imminent danger of dying from everything as catastrophic as massive flooding or as trivial as runaway poison ivy.

What the general public may not have heard about is the courageous band of researchers who are the ones actually speaking up for science in the face of this global warming juggernaut. Ironically, some of the reporting prompted by Gore's film has allowed some of these scientists to be heard--and we ought to listen.

But the truth about this claim is very inconvenient for Al Gore and the environmentalists. The Washington Times published an article surveying a number of top hurricane scientists, whom it found to be "divided" on the merits of Gore's claim. Chris Landsea of the National Hurricane Center even doubts that hurricane intensity has increased as much as claimed over the past thirty years, pointing out that scientists couldn't accurately measure hurricane wind speeds until 1984. We don't know how much of the increase in Category 4 and Category 5 hurricanes recorded in recent years is due to an actual increase or whether it is, as he puts it, an "artificial increase," an illusion produced by our improved ability to measure hurricanes.

Meanwhile, Phil Klotzbach, a hurricane forecaster at Colorado State University, points out that increased hurricane activity in the Atlantic has been balanced out by a decrease in the number of tropical storms in the Pacific. "When these two regions are summed together, there has been virtually no increase in Category 4-5 hurricanes."

So if the splashy movie-poster claim of An Inconvenient Truth turns out to be dubious and hotly contested--very far from an established "truth"--where does that leave Al Gore's status as the brave truth-teller? A fawning New York Times profile on Gore admits that he avoids "making direct causal links that most scientists say are impossible to substantiate" but instead "uses imagery and implication" to make his case. That's about the most tasteful description of the methods of a flim-flam artist I have ever read.

I guess some of the truth is starting to get a hearing--no matter how inconvenient that might be for Gore and company.

Electoral College

As a country, America should always strive to be better. Actually, most of the time, America needs to strive just to stay good. However, changing a Presidential Election system that has worked better than every other system on earth would not be an improvement.

The direct election of our President and/or higher voter turnout would probably give us worse government than we currently have. Countries with pure democratic elections of their President or Prime Minister are all more corrupt than America. Countries with higher voter turnout than America, and most countries do have higher voter turnout, all have worse leaders than America. I don’t think this is purely a coincidence. There is a correlation between direct elections, high voter turnout, and bad government.

With the Electoral College, there is no reason to cheat in most states. The outcome in California, New York, Texas, etc., is all predetermined. Cheating is constrained to the few competitive States where the outcome is uncertain. With less reason to cheat, fewer opportunities to cheat, and a greater focus on the States where cheating is suspected, the cheating can be identified, sometimes prevented, and usually fixed. However, without the Electoral College, cheating would happen up and down every state. It would be impossible to identify and correct all of the corruption.

We will never know with certainty who won the 2000 Presidential election. However, we do know it was a photo finish and it was so close that both candidates had a legitimate claim to the Presidency. Without the Electoral College, a legitimate President would not have been possible. President Clinton never won a majority of the popular vote, but he had the support of the majority of the population because of the Electoral College system, and for the most part President Clinton had a successful Presidency.

The Electoral College is a moderating force. Government, in my lifetime at least, has been very centrist. Johnson, Nixon and Carter moved the country a little to the left. Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush II a little to the right. Eisenhower, Ford, Bush I, and Clinton maintained the status quo.

Sure, I would like better government. I would also like a model wife, perfectly obedient children, and a higher paying job. However, I’m not about to get rid of my wife, my children, or my job, because when I compare my wife, my children, and my job to other wives, children, and jobs, I realize I already have it pretty darn good.

Our Presidential election system is not perfect, but it is the best in the world. Changing it would be a mistake. Other countries should copy us.

To vote or not to vote?

The main reason there is so much money and therefore corruption in politics is because of the cost involved in creating and running television commercials and the cost involved in creating and mailing direct mail pieces.

I wish choosing to vote for a candidate was as easy as voting against the candidate who produces the most deceitful ads and literature. However, in most elections this is not an option because all of the serious candidates who have a chance to win are spending lots of money trashing their opponent.

Please do not let money in politics affect your decision to vote today and please do not ever vote if the only information you have is from television or direct mail.

Taxes

One of the best attributes of America is that America doesn’t have a permanent upper class like Europe. Ordinary Americans can still work their way into the upper class by hard work, disciplined saving, and wise investment. Without an inheritance tax, wealthy Americans will be able to use government to protect the “already wealthy” and make it harder for ordinary Americans to work, save, and invest their way into the upper class. Ever wonder why America doesn’t have a wealth tax?

Of all forms of taxation, the inheritance tax hurts the least number of people and has the least affect on the economy. It is much better to tax the dead who no longer need their wealth than it is to tax the living who are still climbing the ladder of success. Ted Kennedy hasn’t had to work a [honest] day in his life, but he is constantly advocating new taxes on those who work.

Of all forms of taxation, income taxes, including Social Security are the least fair. If we have to have taxes, and we do, although not at current levels, then it would be better to eliminate Social Security and increase inheritance taxes.

Children of the wealthy should not have a lifetime pass even if they are only inheriting a small business. If a business is big enough to owe the inheritance tax at the death of its principle owner, then it is large enough to be incorporated.

In addition to keeping the inheritance tax, I would prefer a wealth tax to an income or consumption tax.

Both income and consumption taxes hurt those generating economic activity by penalizing the industrious. If a person spends every dime they earn, they should pay no taxes. They have done their part for America by working and supporting the work of others. Reducing income taxes would also immediately make American workers more competitive in the world economy.

Furthermore, a wealth tax would prevent anyone from just sitting on a pile of money. It would also be the easiest for government to administer and the hardest for cheaters to avoid. Income and spending can be hidden from government; it is much harder, impossible even, to hide property and investments. A wealth tax would still be passed on to those earning income and those consuming goods and services, but earners and consumers would not have to worry about the burden of paperwork.