Ten Reasons I Hate Politics and One Reason I Don’t - Part 4

4.  I Bet You A Trillion Dollars I Can Spend More Money Than You

At one time, it seemed there were at least a few politicians who took balancing the federal budget seriously. Today, those type of people would be laughed out of DC. “You believe WHAT?” To be fair, much of the problem stems from the citizenry. People want way too much from their government and aren’t willing to pay for it. We want low taxes and high spending. Hey, I want that too, but you know what, IT WON’T WORK! And because we want so much for so little, oftentimes the candidate that gets elected is the one that promises to provide the most. Basically, we have become a nation of debtors, living beyond our means in so many ways.

Think about it. What does it mean for our country to be nearly $20 trillion in debt? Well, at its base level, it means that our country has bought $20 trillion of stuff that we couldn’t afford.

In 2015, our federal government took in about $3.3 trillion in revenue; the highest amount in history. This would be like a person who makes $33,000 a year owing the bank $200,000. You might say, “There are plenty of people like that given many people have mortgages, car loans, and credit card debt.” Yes, but hold your horses, partner. Most people take out these loans and then start paying them back out of their income stream without borrowing any more. But not the federal government. In 2015, they borrowed $440 billion to make up for their shortfall. That would be like our theoretical person who earns $33,000 and owes $200,000 borrowing another $4,400. And then continuing to borrow that much year after year.

But wait, you say. The federal deficit is coming down. Eventually it will be zero and maybe go into a surplus. THEN, we can start paying off that debt. To that I say in a gravelly Steven Tyler voice, “Dream on.” When has THAT ever happened? Well, actually it did happen to a small extent back at the end of the Bill Clinton presidency and the beginning of the George W. Bush presidency. We actually ran a modest surplus for four years. But the problem is that when politicians get a whiff of extra money, a spending zeitgeist kicks in and they start adding new programs or spending more on existing ones rather than paying down the debt. Then suddenly, to everyone’s seeming surprise, all that extra money is gone and they have to start borrowing again. It seems to be a never-ending cycle. A deficit reincarnation scheme. Each time our leaders are naughty, they are reincarnated as even naughtier leaders. Given this scenario, our nation will never reach debt-free Nirvana.

To see the problem, all you have to do is listen to a typical politician’s speech. It will go something like this: “Yes, we need to reduce the nation’s debt. (blah, blah, blah) We need to have free college for students. We need to have free healthcare for all. We need to have the most powerful military in the world. And so on, and so on, and so on, almost ad infinitum.

Occasionally, some spaced-out reporter will actually challenge these politicians by asking how they will pay for all those programs while at the same time paying down the debt. And the answer is almost always, “Well, under my leadership, the nation’s economy will grow by leaps and bounds, increasing the tax base, thus bringing in more revenue. Why, we’ll have so much money flowing into the federal treasury, we won’t know what to do with it.” Uh, we all know that’s a lie. Politicians ALWAYS know what to do with extra money.

If asked whether it’s a good idea for the federal government to get involved in all those new programs, the answers will be something like this:

“The American people deserve it.”

“It is every American’s right.”

“We can’t afford NOT to pay for those things.”

"We're the richest nation on Earth. Why not?"

“We’ll save so much money having the government manage this program rather than the private sector, it’ll pay for itself.”

To all of those statements I respond with that famous double positive that means a negative, “Yeah, right!”

Folks, nothing is going to change until “We The People” begin to realize that we can no longer live beyond our means and start voting for fiscally conservative politicians. Otherwise, bye-bye country.

The Fundamental Question: Who Owns You?

When it comes to how people should interact with each other and with their government, there is a wide array of opinions. Some are liberal, some conservative, some libertarian. Some are statists and some individualists. Some are socialists; others capitalists. On listening to all these different viewpoints, it can get extremely confusing. There are good points to be made all around. I know that I personally find myself wavering as I hear the arguments coming from the various camps. Yet, through all that confusion, I keep coming back to one fundamental question that is foundational in choosing one's political persuasion.

WHO OWNS YOU?

Have you ever thought about this question? If so, have you ever settled on a definitive answer? I have asked this question of a number of people. Some of the religious folk answer, "God." Okay, that's fine, but I'm actually talking about ownership as it relates only to humans. With this criterion, most people would probably answer, "Me, of course." Yes, indeed. You own you, and I own me. It seems quite obvious to most people. Yet, most people do not fully understand the deep meaning of this answer and how it should play into their understanding of their place in the world and their relationship with others.

Throughout all of history, even into the present day, there have been places on this Earth where slavery existed. Yet, I believe that most people today would readily admit that slavery is wrong, even immoral. Why? Because we tend to believe that each man is an individual worthy of living his own life. I too believe this. Yet, in so many ways, people fail to understand how this belief should play out when living in a civil society.

Let us suppose that after the civil war Section 1 of the 13th amendment to the US Constitution was written to say:

"Slavery and involuntary servitude within the United States shall not exceed 40% of a person's productive life."

rather than:

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

In other words, a person could own up to 40% of another person, but no more. The remaining 60% of a person's life would be his own. How does this settle with you? Nonsense, you say? Yes, well, I agree. No one should be allowed to own even a small percentage of another person. One's life is his own. If he wants to choose to work for another man, that's his prerogative. But no man should be able to force another to work for him even a short time, let alone 40% or 100% of his time.

Of course, even though slavery ended in 1865, many laws remained on the book for 100 years that allowed whites to treat blacks as second class citizens, thus, at least in part, permitting whites to have partial ownership of blacks. Yet, even this level was considered heinous and unworthy of an enlightened nation. It took a civil rights movement to get things changed.

Another egregious form of slavery that remained in effect after the civil war was conscription. After all, how is forcing someone to serve in the military not involuntary servitude? Yet, mandatory drafts were used as "needed" until they were abolished in 1973. It was then that the US went to a voluntary military. I know that there are differing opinions about mandatory drafts across the entire spectrum of American life. Many people argue that a mandatory draft is absolutely necessary when our country is under attack and we are in need of protecting our freedom. But, how does one justify taking away some citizen's freedom by involuntarily conscripting them into the armed forces in the name of protecting freedom?

But there is a more subtle form of slavery that occurs in our society that many people simply ignore: taxation. Yes, taxation. How is this slavery? Well, think about it. If the 13th amendment had read, as I stated above, that citizens could be enslaved up to 40% of their time, we would consider this immoral. Yet, isn't having 40% of the fruits of your labor taken from you essentially the same as enslaving you 40% of your productive time?

Okay, some of you are probably saying, "But that's different. Slavery entails one person owning another. Taxation comes from a government elected by the people." Fair enough. So, how many people have to come together to enslave you such that it will be okay? The people on your block? The whole neighborhood? Your entire city? The state? The whole nation? At what point along this continuum does enslaving you go from being immoral to moral? Let's suppose the 13th amendment had been written this way:

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except at the behest of the duly elected officials of the federal government or as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

Is this wording satisfying to you? Would you be okay with the government being able to enslave you, even partially, as long as no individuals could? I kind of don't think you would. But taking your hard earned wages, in essence, is the same thing. To this you might counter, "But I am willing to pay a part of my income to the government to provide essential services and to help others less fortunate than me." Well, there would be nothing to prevent you from sending that money in voluntarily just like young men and women voluntarily join the military.

The founding fathers of the United States of America understood well the power that government could wield over its citizens and were understandably dubious of having one. Many of them, or their ancestors, came to the colonies to rid themselves of the tyranny of government in other parts of the world. Yes, unfortunately, slavery was encoded into the original Constitution, but that was mostly a compromise position in order to get the country started. It took an extremely bloody war to correct this problem. Yet, the founding fathers also understood that some level of government was essential to a nation's preservation since there needed to be an ultimate authority to settle disputes, provide law and order and justice, and to protect citizens from foreign invaders.

So, the founders decided that since a central authority was absolutely needed, they would create one. But a VERY limited one. A constitution was written clearly delineating the powers this government would be allowed to have. In other words, the government operates at the behest of the country's citizens rather than the citizens working at the behest of government. The number of people making up that central government was very small and could be supported by only a very small amount of taxes. Interestingly, the income tax didn't even exist.

However, as the founders feared, government began to grow. Slowly at first, but speeding ever faster as the present day arrived. Congress, with the help of the Supreme Court and the President, now have hundreds of thousands of pages of federal law that gives the federal government FAR more power than we citizens have permitted them to have via the Constitution. And as it grows, funding has to be continually increased to pay for it. Citizens gave the government the right to tax their income at a very low rate with a Constitutional amendment in 1913. Since then the rate has increased dramatically. Other taxes not approved by the Constitution have been authorized by our elected officials as well. Now, the amount of money needed by the government has grown to a point that even those taxes are not sufficient to fund it. Knowing the negative effect of increasing taxes even further, both electorally and economically, our nation now borrows about a TRILLION dollars each year. We are now almost 17 TRILLION dollars in the red.

The system as it exists is unsustainable. We citizens need to help our nation by once again asking ourselves that fundamental question, "Who Owns You?" Once we truly understand the ramifications of the answer, "I own me," and begin to enact it in the real world, we can begin to veer our country off its current path to destruction and hopefully make it once again the land of the free, the home of the brave, and a nation of prosperity.

First Presidential Debate

I thought the first presidential debate between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney went quite well. While both pretty much dominated Jim Lehrer, not letting him get a word in edgewise when their time was up, the debaters remained civil in the midst of making jabs at the other’s platform. While it appears that the pundits have basically declared Romney the winner of the debate by a fairly large margin, I thought it was by a smaller margin.

Obama has been accused of being a teleprompter speaker, meaning that he is a great orator with the words in front of him, but not so good when speaking off the cuff. Actually, I was quite impressed with Obama’s knowledge and point making abilities in this impromptu environment. Of course, Romney was just as good. However, it was obvious that much of what passed as answers to Lehrer’s questions were simply the talking points they use every day on the campaign trail.

While both candidates expressed their views rather well, I have to give the edge to Romney despite a couple of misspoken words.

First, there were times when Romney cited studies concerning the negative consequences of Obama’s policies that Obama left unanswered, deciding rather to move on to other aspects of his policies.  This leaves the impression that he knew of the negative consequences and did not want to address them, or he did not have a good counter argument. Either way, it’s a point loser for the debate.

Second, while both candidates spoke about the prosperity that free enterprise brings to a nation, Romney seemed to back this up more with the plans he has for the future. There was also somewhat of a difference concerning how much regulation is enough, with Romney indicating he thought there was too much in some cases.

That being said, I was a bit disappointed that there was so little difference in Obama’s and Romney’s views of the role of government in society. It is obvious that they both believe in big government. Their differences were more over where the money should be spent rather than how much should be spent. Oh sure, they both gave lip service to reducing the deficit, but I didn’t hear much about any specific substantial cuts. Romney seemed to be on the right track when he talked about cutting funding to the Public Broadcasting System and a few other items, but when it came to education, he said the funding should remain the same, but turned over to the states to decide how to use it. However, there was one ray of hope amongst Romney’s statements. It was when he said that he would judge a program’s usefulness by asking himself “Is this program so important that it is worth borrowing money from China to fund it?” This sounds like an excellent criterion for budgeting decisions, but I fear that there will be too many programs that Romney believes are worth borrowing money for. That has been the trend of federal government regardless of which party controls the presidency.

We desperately need Gary Johnson in these debates to counter the big government philosophy with a true small government view. While I don’t agree with everything Johnson stands for, I believe having a real alternative to a tax and spend government presented in the debates would be quite refreshing. But alas, that might be difficult to pull off given that the Republicans are spending so much time and money to keep Johnson off the ballots in the key swing states for fear he will sway too many Republican voters to turn to the dark side of Libertarianism.