In honor of Presidents’ Day this week, I thought I would take a few minutes to examine and list those who rank as “the greatest” in our nation’s history.
After perusing almost twenty different surveys dating from 1948 to today, and including expert and non-expert opinions on both the Left and the Right, I was surprised by the near unanimity in the rankings. With only a few exceptions, the Top Ten is relatively the same presidents in every poll just different arrangements.
In order to come up with a final Top Ten of my own, I created a system of rating each president using three main criteria: peace and prosperity; inspirational ideas; and, leadership for the times.
Perhaps the most interesting aspect of this analysis was how “leadership” dominated the rankings. We always hear about “peace and prosperity” but that was the least important category by the judgement of history. At the end of the day, it is a president’s ability to lead and inspire through difficult times that seems to attract the most respect and regard. It’s also the one thing no president can truly prepare for, or anticipate.
Leading the list is the “Father of our Country,” George Washington. I rank him ahead of Lincoln because of his indispensable value as THE Founding Father. I also give him credit for the relative “peace and prosperity” that existed throughout his self-imposed, two-term Administration.
Second is Lincoln. War and deprivation reigned during his time, but “Honest Abe” persevered through the anguish of the Civil War with an unrivaled instinct for determined leadership and inspiration that saved the Union and freed the slaves.
Coming in third is FDR. Again, it was war and deprivation, on a scale not seen since the Civil War, that challenged our nation’s survival. Franklin Roosevelt was able to inspire America through the challenges of both the Great Depression and WWII with a fearless and charismatic leadership that gave hope to millions.
Number four is Jefferson. Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, remains one of the most politically inspirational figures of all time. His ideas of individual liberty and democracy are the foundations for limited government and freedom the world over. His overall leadership in other matters, however, was a bit lacking.
Fifth on the list is Teddy Roosevelt. Bully! In some ways TR was like Jefferson- idealistic and unstoppable. He was the inspirational leader for his time, busting up big monopolies and initiating a conservation movement to preserve our natural resources. His policies, however, didn’t always meet with favorable results.
Sixth is Jackson. Andrew Jackson was perhaps the most stubborn of all men to serve as Commander-in-Chief. “Old Hickory” founded the oldest, continuing political party in the world today- the Democrat Party. He’s also the father of the Jacksonian Era that dominated American politics for a generation. Despite economic and political failures he re-created the office of the presidency, making the Executive Branch the undisputed, most powerful instrument in the Federal government.
Number Seven on the list is Ronald Reagan. Reagan did some re-inventing of his own ushering in an era that’s been called the “Reagan Revolution.” Reagan, like Jackson, had the tenacity to exert a strong military pressure on America’s enemies. The Reagan Doctrine brought an end to the Cold War, and “Reaganomics,” (lowering the top marginal rate from 70% to 28%), lifted America out of an economic “malaise” yielding an economic expansion of record proportions.
Eighth on the list is Eisenhower. What Dwight D. Eisenhower lacked in inspiration he made up for in “peace and prosperity” and solid, stoic leadership. Eisenhower represents a trend in the Top Ten: of generals or war-time leaders making the list. Ike has been the biggest mover in all the rankings over the years! At first, his Administration was viewed as average, now he is a consistent Top Ten pick.
Ninth is JFK. Primarily, it is John F. Kennedy’s inspiration and idealistic leadership that keeps him a perennial Top Ten favorite. The Bay of Pigs and the Cuban Missile Crisis serve to demonstrate his Administration’s weakness in foreign affairs. Cutting taxes, initiating the space program and moving the country forward on race relations remain important parts of his overall legacy.
Number ten is Truman. Harry S. Truman became president after Roosevelt died and was left with the difficult task of winning WWII. He dropped the bombs on Japan and secured victory for the Allies ending the worst war in human history. He initiated what would become known as the Truman Doctrine- the containment of communism around the world. Though not as inspirational as other Top Ten presidents, Truman’s homespun, no-nonesense style endeared him to many as a refreshing change from normal politics.
Those presidents who were not war-time leaders or generals in the Top Ten are: Jefferson, Reagan and JFK. I think what sets them apart is their ability- minus an overt national emergency- to articulate and inspire a political movement. When one considers the “Declaration,” the “Great Communicator” and “Camelot” it’s easy to see a pattern of uncommon inspiration.
So, what can we take from this little exercise? I think it can shine some light on our current choices for president. Is there someone in the running for 2008 that has the exceptional traits of: securing “peace and prosperity,” providing “inspirational ideas” or demonstrating “leadership for our times?” Reflecting upon this impressive list of America’s greatest presidents, can we see Hillary, Obama or McCain someday fitting the bill? (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757)
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Swing to the Left
Is America ready for a political swing to the Left? Probably so. Even with the failure of the Liberal Democrat Congress, (approval ratings in single digits), the people seem undeterred in their desire for “something different” from the status quo. “Change,” whether for good or for ill, is most definitely in the air.
Unfortunately, that’s the historical trend following periods of war that challenge the public’s resolve. It happens for whatever party’s in power. Even the conservative icon Winston Churchill, after leading the British people through their “finest hour” in WWII, met defeat at the ballot box in a landslide election that swept the Labor party into the Majority for the first time ever. The new Prime Minister, Clement Attlee, initiated a bold program of change consisting of: Full Employment, Tax-funded Universal National Health Service and a “cradle to grave” Welfare State!
Sound familiar?
As a general rule: a wartime era is followed by a domestic era with new inward focus for internal improvements. This swing of the political pendulum favors the Liberal Democrats in this year’s upcoming elections.
In this drift Leftward, there are a couple of things concerning the campaign rhetoric one should keep in mind:
First: The Economy.
We are not in a recession yet! Technically, a recession is two consecutive quarters of negative growth. Yes, the fourth quarter of last year was abysmal, (.6% growth), but it was positive, not negative.
One should remember that we’ve been on a war footing since 9/11/2001. It’s amazing that we’ve had an expansion at all, much less, a record 52 consecutive months of job creation! Since 2001, our average GDP growth has been a healthy 2.8% per year with low inflation and relatively low unemployment. The Bush tax cuts have been an economic stimulus, reducing taxes for everyone who pays them, while simultaneously yielding the highest amount of tax revenues in history- proving, once again, that “Supplyside” works.
Our deficits point to another misconception. The current rate is 1.2% of GDP, or 50% below the 40-year average. Our deficits have grown the national debt during the Bush years at a rate of 8.4% per year since 2002. This is similar to the 10.5% annual rate from 1990 to ‘94. What’s interesting, is that in the intervening years, 1994 to 2001, we had an overall 3% reduction in the overall deficit. This was the period of the much-maligned, “spend-thrift” Republican Congress. The substantial difference between these two most recent periods of deficit increases can be reduced to two factors: War and a unified, Liberal-Democrat government. For further perspective, consider the fact that growth in this decade’s spending is at 1/4th the rate of the 1970s. It has gone up, when compared to the 90s, but only by 23%. The increase in the deficits this decade is actually 2/3rd below the average rate per decade since the 1970s. That’s not much considering the huge expense of this war.
By that way, it’s a war not of our choosing. It’s impossible to believe the claims of the Democrat candidates who say they will single-handedly “end the war” when they should realize the conflict necessarily involves the active will and participation of our enemies! Do they have some secret power to nullify the motivation embodied by Islamic jihad?
Second: John McCain.
Does John McCain have any worthwhile conservative credentials, if he does happen to be the Republican nominee?
There’s a rebellion brewing now on the Right that is rejecting the notion of supporting John McCain. McCain has stabbed conservatives in the back repeatedly over a multitude of issues, from Amnesty to Campaign Finance Reform to Bush’s Tax Cuts. It’s a long, annoying record and one conservatives find very hard to support.
Some conservatives have gone so far as to claim that Hillary Clinton would be MORE conservative than John McCain. As they say down in Arkansas, “that’s Hogwash!”
Given this cultural swing to the Left, conservatives may just have to swallow hard and accept the consequences of a more moderate alternative.
How moderate is McCain? Is he really that close to Hillary or Obama? McCain has a lifetime conservative voting record of 82.3, (as compiled by the American Conservative Union). That is just two points below the GOP average. By contrast, the Democrat average is 13.8. Hillary and Obama share the exact same lifetime average of 8.0. That is a dramatic difference in the parties and significant evidence for establishing a real choice this November. But, what exactly are these differences?
Looking on a vote by vote basis used by the ACU, the discrepancy involves five main categories that all voters should be aware of: Tax and Spend policies, Iraq and the War on Terror, Market vs. Government solutions, the appointment of Judges and Abortion. It may not be enough for some conservatives to get excited about, but it is a very real difference that will manifest itself in the governing actions of these prospective administrations. Finally, one can’t forget that McCain did support the Surge at its critical, introductory stage when others were wavering.
As the political winds blow Left, conservatives may want to start thinking more clearly about the “lesser of two evils.” It doesn’t have to be forever. Remember, Churchill did make a come back! Maybe for conservatives, it’s time to “punt and play field position” for a while, at least until more favorable winds come along. (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757)
Unfortunately, that’s the historical trend following periods of war that challenge the public’s resolve. It happens for whatever party’s in power. Even the conservative icon Winston Churchill, after leading the British people through their “finest hour” in WWII, met defeat at the ballot box in a landslide election that swept the Labor party into the Majority for the first time ever. The new Prime Minister, Clement Attlee, initiated a bold program of change consisting of: Full Employment, Tax-funded Universal National Health Service and a “cradle to grave” Welfare State!
Sound familiar?
As a general rule: a wartime era is followed by a domestic era with new inward focus for internal improvements. This swing of the political pendulum favors the Liberal Democrats in this year’s upcoming elections.
In this drift Leftward, there are a couple of things concerning the campaign rhetoric one should keep in mind:
First: The Economy.
We are not in a recession yet! Technically, a recession is two consecutive quarters of negative growth. Yes, the fourth quarter of last year was abysmal, (.6% growth), but it was positive, not negative.
One should remember that we’ve been on a war footing since 9/11/2001. It’s amazing that we’ve had an expansion at all, much less, a record 52 consecutive months of job creation! Since 2001, our average GDP growth has been a healthy 2.8% per year with low inflation and relatively low unemployment. The Bush tax cuts have been an economic stimulus, reducing taxes for everyone who pays them, while simultaneously yielding the highest amount of tax revenues in history- proving, once again, that “Supplyside” works.
Our deficits point to another misconception. The current rate is 1.2% of GDP, or 50% below the 40-year average. Our deficits have grown the national debt during the Bush years at a rate of 8.4% per year since 2002. This is similar to the 10.5% annual rate from 1990 to ‘94. What’s interesting, is that in the intervening years, 1994 to 2001, we had an overall 3% reduction in the overall deficit. This was the period of the much-maligned, “spend-thrift” Republican Congress. The substantial difference between these two most recent periods of deficit increases can be reduced to two factors: War and a unified, Liberal-Democrat government. For further perspective, consider the fact that growth in this decade’s spending is at 1/4th the rate of the 1970s. It has gone up, when compared to the 90s, but only by 23%. The increase in the deficits this decade is actually 2/3rd below the average rate per decade since the 1970s. That’s not much considering the huge expense of this war.
By that way, it’s a war not of our choosing. It’s impossible to believe the claims of the Democrat candidates who say they will single-handedly “end the war” when they should realize the conflict necessarily involves the active will and participation of our enemies! Do they have some secret power to nullify the motivation embodied by Islamic jihad?
Second: John McCain.
Does John McCain have any worthwhile conservative credentials, if he does happen to be the Republican nominee?
There’s a rebellion brewing now on the Right that is rejecting the notion of supporting John McCain. McCain has stabbed conservatives in the back repeatedly over a multitude of issues, from Amnesty to Campaign Finance Reform to Bush’s Tax Cuts. It’s a long, annoying record and one conservatives find very hard to support.
Some conservatives have gone so far as to claim that Hillary Clinton would be MORE conservative than John McCain. As they say down in Arkansas, “that’s Hogwash!”
Given this cultural swing to the Left, conservatives may just have to swallow hard and accept the consequences of a more moderate alternative.
How moderate is McCain? Is he really that close to Hillary or Obama? McCain has a lifetime conservative voting record of 82.3, (as compiled by the American Conservative Union). That is just two points below the GOP average. By contrast, the Democrat average is 13.8. Hillary and Obama share the exact same lifetime average of 8.0. That is a dramatic difference in the parties and significant evidence for establishing a real choice this November. But, what exactly are these differences?
Looking on a vote by vote basis used by the ACU, the discrepancy involves five main categories that all voters should be aware of: Tax and Spend policies, Iraq and the War on Terror, Market vs. Government solutions, the appointment of Judges and Abortion. It may not be enough for some conservatives to get excited about, but it is a very real difference that will manifest itself in the governing actions of these prospective administrations. Finally, one can’t forget that McCain did support the Surge at its critical, introductory stage when others were wavering.
As the political winds blow Left, conservatives may want to start thinking more clearly about the “lesser of two evils.” It doesn’t have to be forever. Remember, Churchill did make a come back! Maybe for conservatives, it’s time to “punt and play field position” for a while, at least until more favorable winds come along. (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757)
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Playing Politics with Race
It’s been said, “the greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he doesn’t exist.” The truth behind that statement lies in the power to deceptively trap your opponent by framing the debate around pre-cooked assumptions.
Liberals have been operating this Orwellian Magic for years, suggesting, for instance, that the only political choices we have across the spectrum are Socialist-communism on the Left, or Socialist-fascism on the Right. Either way, the choice is Socialism. Pretty nifty, huh?
Hillary Clinton’s latest controversy involves comments she made about Lyndon Johnson and civil rights. It’s another case in point for this political trickery. The deception here involves the Democrat party’s exclusive claim to be the only ones who care about African Americans.
Hillary said, “it took a president to get it done,” suggesting- in that annoying self-serving manner of hers- that presidential leadership, (ostensibly the kind she would provide), is a better qualification than the “I Have a Dream,” hopeful work of such folks as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. or Barack Obama!
Of course, it was wrong for Hillary to discount the more important work of Dr. King- as Obama correctly pointed out it was “ill-advised and unfortunate.” But, even more interesting, is the convenient omission of Sen. Everett Dirksen and the Republicans in Congress who voted, in greater numbers, (80 to 60 percent), to get the bill passed over Southern Democrat objections.
Johnson gets credit for signing the bill, but that shouldn’t excuse his well-known hostility towards African Americans. As a senator, his record was perfect. He voted against EVERY civil rights bill that came before him, even anti-lynching legislation!
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was JFK’s weaker version of an earlier GOP bill. As senator in 1957, he voted against civil rights. This bill of 1964 was modeled after the Republican Civil Rights Act of 1875. The old Act contained almost identical language, but was made ineffective due to the lack of enforcement in the Democrat South.
The 1964 bill was necessary to reverse the government prejudice first practiced by Democrat President Woodrow Wilson. Wilson, whose favorite film was the racist “Birth of a Nation,” removed African Americans from Federal positions and appointed KKK member Hugo Black to the Supreme Court over Republican objections.
The 1964 bill was filibustered by Dem. Sen. Robert Byrd for 14 hours. “Grand Kleagle” Byrd had been an official recruiter for the Ku Klux Klan. He also lobbied against military integration, calling African Americans “race mongrels.”
By contrast, Sen. Dirksen, a Republican who helped draft the 1964 legislation, fought consistently for civil rights beginning in the 1950s. It’s fair to say, that without his help, the bill would have never passed. Johnson reportedly told Hubert Humphrey, “you know this bill can’t pass unless you get Ev Dirksen.”
It’s fascinating how successful the Left has been over the years in painting Republicans as racists, while simultaneously ignoring their own blatant record of slavery, Klan terrorism, bigotry and segregation.
Bill Clinton’s political mentor was segregationist Sen. J. William Fulbright. Sen. Al Gore, Sr. not only voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but tried to sabotage it behind the scenes!
This week we are celebrating the life and work of Martin Luther King, Jr.- a Republican who fought for Equal Rights based upon the concept of judging, not by the “color of one’s skin but by the content of one’s character,” (i.e. a difference between individual behavior that is chosen versus circumstances of birth which are not). The King Holiday was signed into law by President Reagan in 1983.
It’s interesting to note that JFK was opposed to Dr. King’s 1963 “March on Washington” that was initiated to promote civil rights legislation. The event, organized by black Republican Phillip Randolph, was thought to be harmful to Kennedy’s 1964 re-election prospects.
One shouldn’t forget that it was Kennedy who authorized wire-tapping on Dr. King. King once referred to JFK as “schizophrenic on civil rights.”
Other prominent African American Republicans, in addition to MLK, include:
Frederick Douglas, Harriet Tubman, Booker T. Washington, George Washington Carver, Hiram Revels (first black senator), Joseph Rainey (first black congressman), Ida Wells, Carter Woodson, Jackie Robinson, Colin Powell, Rod Paige, Clarence Thomas, Alphonso Jackson, Lynn Swann, Thomas Sowell, Denzel Washington, Condoleezza Rice and Dr. Alveda King, the niece of Dr. King and founder of King for America, Inc.
Liberal Democrats continue to enjoy nearly 90% African American support by propagating the myth that their party is the sole friend of civil rights. They have been running our inner-cities for decades, and yet there has been no significant improvement. The so-called “War on Poverty,” begun by LBJ’s Great Society, has managed to spend $7 trillion over the years without diminishing the poverty rate. What they have created since the Sixties, is a cycle of government-dependency that has decimated the once strong African American family. This is the very opposite of Individual Empowerment.
Liberal welfare policies, in effect, actually have more in common with the paternalistic plantations of old. In the words of Don Henley, “you can check out, but you can never leave!”
Someday, all the lies of the Devil will be exposed for what they are, and with That Truth, all will be set free. Until that day, I guess we can still Dream! (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to P.O.B. 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757)
Liberals have been operating this Orwellian Magic for years, suggesting, for instance, that the only political choices we have across the spectrum are Socialist-communism on the Left, or Socialist-fascism on the Right. Either way, the choice is Socialism. Pretty nifty, huh?
Hillary Clinton’s latest controversy involves comments she made about Lyndon Johnson and civil rights. It’s another case in point for this political trickery. The deception here involves the Democrat party’s exclusive claim to be the only ones who care about African Americans.
Hillary said, “it took a president to get it done,” suggesting- in that annoying self-serving manner of hers- that presidential leadership, (ostensibly the kind she would provide), is a better qualification than the “I Have a Dream,” hopeful work of such folks as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. or Barack Obama!
Of course, it was wrong for Hillary to discount the more important work of Dr. King- as Obama correctly pointed out it was “ill-advised and unfortunate.” But, even more interesting, is the convenient omission of Sen. Everett Dirksen and the Republicans in Congress who voted, in greater numbers, (80 to 60 percent), to get the bill passed over Southern Democrat objections.
Johnson gets credit for signing the bill, but that shouldn’t excuse his well-known hostility towards African Americans. As a senator, his record was perfect. He voted against EVERY civil rights bill that came before him, even anti-lynching legislation!
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was JFK’s weaker version of an earlier GOP bill. As senator in 1957, he voted against civil rights. This bill of 1964 was modeled after the Republican Civil Rights Act of 1875. The old Act contained almost identical language, but was made ineffective due to the lack of enforcement in the Democrat South.
The 1964 bill was necessary to reverse the government prejudice first practiced by Democrat President Woodrow Wilson. Wilson, whose favorite film was the racist “Birth of a Nation,” removed African Americans from Federal positions and appointed KKK member Hugo Black to the Supreme Court over Republican objections.
The 1964 bill was filibustered by Dem. Sen. Robert Byrd for 14 hours. “Grand Kleagle” Byrd had been an official recruiter for the Ku Klux Klan. He also lobbied against military integration, calling African Americans “race mongrels.”
By contrast, Sen. Dirksen, a Republican who helped draft the 1964 legislation, fought consistently for civil rights beginning in the 1950s. It’s fair to say, that without his help, the bill would have never passed. Johnson reportedly told Hubert Humphrey, “you know this bill can’t pass unless you get Ev Dirksen.”
It’s fascinating how successful the Left has been over the years in painting Republicans as racists, while simultaneously ignoring their own blatant record of slavery, Klan terrorism, bigotry and segregation.
Bill Clinton’s political mentor was segregationist Sen. J. William Fulbright. Sen. Al Gore, Sr. not only voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but tried to sabotage it behind the scenes!
This week we are celebrating the life and work of Martin Luther King, Jr.- a Republican who fought for Equal Rights based upon the concept of judging, not by the “color of one’s skin but by the content of one’s character,” (i.e. a difference between individual behavior that is chosen versus circumstances of birth which are not). The King Holiday was signed into law by President Reagan in 1983.
It’s interesting to note that JFK was opposed to Dr. King’s 1963 “March on Washington” that was initiated to promote civil rights legislation. The event, organized by black Republican Phillip Randolph, was thought to be harmful to Kennedy’s 1964 re-election prospects.
One shouldn’t forget that it was Kennedy who authorized wire-tapping on Dr. King. King once referred to JFK as “schizophrenic on civil rights.”
Other prominent African American Republicans, in addition to MLK, include:
Frederick Douglas, Harriet Tubman, Booker T. Washington, George Washington Carver, Hiram Revels (first black senator), Joseph Rainey (first black congressman), Ida Wells, Carter Woodson, Jackie Robinson, Colin Powell, Rod Paige, Clarence Thomas, Alphonso Jackson, Lynn Swann, Thomas Sowell, Denzel Washington, Condoleezza Rice and Dr. Alveda King, the niece of Dr. King and founder of King for America, Inc.
Liberal Democrats continue to enjoy nearly 90% African American support by propagating the myth that their party is the sole friend of civil rights. They have been running our inner-cities for decades, and yet there has been no significant improvement. The so-called “War on Poverty,” begun by LBJ’s Great Society, has managed to spend $7 trillion over the years without diminishing the poverty rate. What they have created since the Sixties, is a cycle of government-dependency that has decimated the once strong African American family. This is the very opposite of Individual Empowerment.
Liberal welfare policies, in effect, actually have more in common with the paternalistic plantations of old. In the words of Don Henley, “you can check out, but you can never leave!”
Someday, all the lies of the Devil will be exposed for what they are, and with That Truth, all will be set free. Until that day, I guess we can still Dream! (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to P.O.B. 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757)
Thursday, December 27, 2007
The Ron Paul Factor
In the famous Robert Bolt play “A Man for all Seasons” there’s an interesting quote by Sir Thomas More. It is a reply to what may be described as William Roper’s “Dirty Harry” inclinations of “cutting down every law to get at the Devil.” More rebukes the idea with the rejoinder, “and when the last law is down and the Devil turns round on you where would you hide?”
The implication is clear: the Law exists to benefit us all, even as it may sometimes benefit those forces of evil among us. (think: waterboarding) It’s a tempting argument, but one that fails the practical test of a higher calling. The ordained authority of law and government exists to punish evil and to protect the innocent. Sometimes this power must be wielded outside the normal channels of our constitutions and laws in order to serve the higher ideals of our sense of justice. Serving the law at the expense of justice may seem honorable in the twisted logic of Liberals in their pursuit of legalistic perfectionism, but it’s not serviceable for the Rights of the helpless victims who become victimized twice by an unfeeling and uncaring judicial system that allows “the perfect to be the enemy of the good.”
U.S. Congressman Ron Paul of Texas is a Republican candidate for president. Although his support remains a flat line of single digits in the polls, his followers are very committed and persistent in their devotion. His campaign, though unlikely to win the nomination, is making ideological waves in the national debate.
Paul has received incredible contributions amassing as much as $6 million in one day, and collecting $18 million in three months. He is a past candidate for president on the Libertarian ticket and generally holds to a firm non-interventionist policy for both domestic and foreign concerns.
Paul likes to talk about the Constitution and rightly describes our drift away from the principles of our Founding Fathers. He’s for abolishing the IRS, the Dept. of Education, the War on Drugs, foreign aid to Israel, the Federal Reserve and a host of other programs on the federal level. He’s opposed to the war in Iraq and would bring troops home immediately despite the conditions and consequences for that region. He’s also interested in disengaging ourselves from almost every trade deal, NAFTA, GATT, etc. and would bring troops home from bases all over the globe including Korea and Europe too.
I find a lot of philosophical agreement with Paul on a variety of these and other issues. He’s pro-life, pro-Second Amendment, pro-Sound Currency and pro-active on reforming Social Security and other Entitlement programs. But, there’s an important difference in academic purity and real-world pragmatism.
In the world of purists like Paul, we can have a federal government as small and limited as the pre-Civil War days. By the way, Paul is no Lincoln fan. He would rather have the Idealistic Purity of States Rights over Unionism in all of the chaos that would result, rather than the type of united government Lincoln left us with. Remember, Lincoln had to suspend parts of the Constitution (habeas corpus) in order to save it. Alas, Sir Thomas More would not be a fan of Lincoln either.
Paul is proud to have voted against the Iraq War and the Patriot Act, but he fails to acknowledge the consequences of doing nothing in the face of Islamic Fascism and rogue states like that of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. If we hadn’t gone to war with Iraq we would have surrendered to defeat in terms of the first Gulf War and in terms of allowing Saddam to shoot down our planes in the No Fly Zone. History teaches us that appeasement doesn’t work, it only encourages evil from the likes of tyrants such as Saddam. And, as we now know, it was weakness- i.e. Clinton’s retreat from Mogadishu- that inspired Osama bin Laden to attack us on 9/11/2001. Has anyone noticed? There hasn’t been a similar attack on our shores in the six years since then. I think President Bush and his policies deserve at least some of the credit. Don’t you?
Paul reminds me of another presidential candidate- Michael Dukakis. In one of the 1988 debates Dukakis was asked if he would support Capital Punishment in the instance where someone raped and murdered his wife. Without flinching, and reflecting the dogmatic rigidity of Sir Thomas More, Dukakis coldly stated his unwavering opposition to the Death Penalty in all cases. Such idealistic convictions may win high praise in the court of liberal, academic Puritanism, but it’s brutally disastrous in the court of presidential politics!
Ron Paul is a great debater and a wonderful Constitutional scholar worthy of much serious consideration, but his devotion to the “letter of the law” in the face of real world threats like Islamo-fascism makes him unfit to be Commander-in-chief. (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com, or POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757)
The implication is clear: the Law exists to benefit us all, even as it may sometimes benefit those forces of evil among us. (think: waterboarding) It’s a tempting argument, but one that fails the practical test of a higher calling. The ordained authority of law and government exists to punish evil and to protect the innocent. Sometimes this power must be wielded outside the normal channels of our constitutions and laws in order to serve the higher ideals of our sense of justice. Serving the law at the expense of justice may seem honorable in the twisted logic of Liberals in their pursuit of legalistic perfectionism, but it’s not serviceable for the Rights of the helpless victims who become victimized twice by an unfeeling and uncaring judicial system that allows “the perfect to be the enemy of the good.”
U.S. Congressman Ron Paul of Texas is a Republican candidate for president. Although his support remains a flat line of single digits in the polls, his followers are very committed and persistent in their devotion. His campaign, though unlikely to win the nomination, is making ideological waves in the national debate.
Paul has received incredible contributions amassing as much as $6 million in one day, and collecting $18 million in three months. He is a past candidate for president on the Libertarian ticket and generally holds to a firm non-interventionist policy for both domestic and foreign concerns.
Paul likes to talk about the Constitution and rightly describes our drift away from the principles of our Founding Fathers. He’s for abolishing the IRS, the Dept. of Education, the War on Drugs, foreign aid to Israel, the Federal Reserve and a host of other programs on the federal level. He’s opposed to the war in Iraq and would bring troops home immediately despite the conditions and consequences for that region. He’s also interested in disengaging ourselves from almost every trade deal, NAFTA, GATT, etc. and would bring troops home from bases all over the globe including Korea and Europe too.
I find a lot of philosophical agreement with Paul on a variety of these and other issues. He’s pro-life, pro-Second Amendment, pro-Sound Currency and pro-active on reforming Social Security and other Entitlement programs. But, there’s an important difference in academic purity and real-world pragmatism.
In the world of purists like Paul, we can have a federal government as small and limited as the pre-Civil War days. By the way, Paul is no Lincoln fan. He would rather have the Idealistic Purity of States Rights over Unionism in all of the chaos that would result, rather than the type of united government Lincoln left us with. Remember, Lincoln had to suspend parts of the Constitution (habeas corpus) in order to save it. Alas, Sir Thomas More would not be a fan of Lincoln either.
Paul is proud to have voted against the Iraq War and the Patriot Act, but he fails to acknowledge the consequences of doing nothing in the face of Islamic Fascism and rogue states like that of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. If we hadn’t gone to war with Iraq we would have surrendered to defeat in terms of the first Gulf War and in terms of allowing Saddam to shoot down our planes in the No Fly Zone. History teaches us that appeasement doesn’t work, it only encourages evil from the likes of tyrants such as Saddam. And, as we now know, it was weakness- i.e. Clinton’s retreat from Mogadishu- that inspired Osama bin Laden to attack us on 9/11/2001. Has anyone noticed? There hasn’t been a similar attack on our shores in the six years since then. I think President Bush and his policies deserve at least some of the credit. Don’t you?
Paul reminds me of another presidential candidate- Michael Dukakis. In one of the 1988 debates Dukakis was asked if he would support Capital Punishment in the instance where someone raped and murdered his wife. Without flinching, and reflecting the dogmatic rigidity of Sir Thomas More, Dukakis coldly stated his unwavering opposition to the Death Penalty in all cases. Such idealistic convictions may win high praise in the court of liberal, academic Puritanism, but it’s brutally disastrous in the court of presidential politics!
Ron Paul is a great debater and a wonderful Constitutional scholar worthy of much serious consideration, but his devotion to the “letter of the law” in the face of real world threats like Islamo-fascism makes him unfit to be Commander-in-chief. (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com, or POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757)
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
The Totalitarian Impulse
Modern Liberalism is nothing more than Totalitarianism by another name.
Totalitarianism comes from the word “total” meaning a complete political control over a nation’s institutions and culture. Political Correctness is the method by which modern Liberals have been attempting to radically change America- transforming our country into a Godless, Socialist State.
Islamofascism is also a type of Totalitarianism. The goal for these jihadist radicals is to force the world into compliance regarding their particular brand of ‘controlling’ faith and religion.
So, should we be surprised then to find that Left-wing, Kool-Aid Drinking Liberals are constantly on the side of the Islamofacists in this War on Terror? No. They are in perfect agreement based upon their shared hatred of America. It remains their unifying “shared religion” espoused by all those who hate America: al Qaeda, Iran, Hugo Chavez, Ted Turner, Sean Penn, etc. As has been noted before: “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”
Liberals like to point out that it is the “Religious Right” that is wishing to impose some sort of Theocracy on America. This is like the pot calling the kettle black. Have you ever stopped to consider what their twisted idea of “separation of church and state” really means when you combine it with their goal of an ever-increasing state? Taken together, if the church, (i.e. those expressing a belief in God), is sequestered from any inclusion in the state, then, necessarily, as the state grows larger, then the church MUST grow smaller!
Don’t let Liberals fool you. They have a religion. Their belief system disavows any consideration for evil or original sin in the world. They prefer to propagate the fantasy that “evil” only comes in the form of “oppressive” Institutions like: Capitalism, Christianity and the Military. Their catechism is one of abolishing: Profits, Morality and the U.S. Defense Dept. By so doing, they sincerely believe they can usher in their version of a holy Millennium.
Likewise, the Jihadists believe that an “ultimate paradise” is something that’s within their grasp as well- if they could just obtain more control over society. That’s why they show such little concern over the carnage resulting from their methods. It’s a simple trade-off in the Marxist tradition of “the ends, justifying the means.” Karl Marx, by the way, believed he could create “Heaven on Earth” too!
Both Islamofascists and American Liberals hold to an essential doctrine that says the world will be a better place once America- in its traditional form- is no more! When Christianity, Capitalism and the Military is made impotent, then they will have achieved their Utopia dream for the human race!
Skeptical? Just listen to the Liberals ranting and raving about America’s religious traditions, military strength and private profits. They hate them all! It represents to them the impediments to the idealistic things they seek: secularism, world government and collectivist programs!
For the Totalitarians in our midst, nothing ever changes. They always say they need a little bit more power and just a little bit more control. Witness the debate over our health care industry. The absolute worst parts of our health care today come from Liberal malfeasance that is: Medicare fraud and frivolous malpractice suits. In the religion of the Totalitarians, evidence for “sin,” or failure, serves only to substantiate their claims for “more control.” They never admit to any previous “control” or “power” errors. To admit a mistake would be to encourage more scrutiny from the masses who- after all- shouldn’t be allowed the opportunity to peer too intently behind the Temple curtain!
Human Nature is the enemy of all Totalitarians. Human beings yearn to be free as much as they yearn to fulfill their lusts. What Totalitarians fail to understand is that you can’t attempt to eradicate one aspect, without equally, eradicating the other.
Christianity, or the Judeo-Christian Ethic as it exists in Western culture, offers the only reasonable solution. Freedom of the individual must be tempered by the encouragement of self-discipline. The State or the Mullah can’t absolve you of this personal responsibility. Each sovereign individual must accept this challenge for himself. The Holy Bible, more than any other thing the world has ever known, offers the best instruction for facing that challenge successfully. Unlike the Totalitarians, those who consider the full panoply of Scripture accept the revealed reality that we will never overcome our Fallen Nature within ourselves. It will remain a spiritual battle until Christ Himself returns to restore His Kingdom.
So, why do Totalitarians war against the Bible? The Bible gives the glory for self-improvement to God, not to the State, or not to the Mullah! It also denies the notion of mankind being able to evolve toward some sort of “perfected” social state on his own. The selfish tyrants who desire control and power through the auspices of false religion: whether it’s Islamofascism, Socialism, or some other manifestation, resent and resist the competition. They- like Hillary- want the glory for themselves!
In this, the Season of our Savior’s birth, we’d be remiss if we didn’t consider that there are- most definitely- some competing “saviors” out there- desirous of our souls. (send comments to: WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to P.O. Box 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757)
Totalitarianism comes from the word “total” meaning a complete political control over a nation’s institutions and culture. Political Correctness is the method by which modern Liberals have been attempting to radically change America- transforming our country into a Godless, Socialist State.
Islamofascism is also a type of Totalitarianism. The goal for these jihadist radicals is to force the world into compliance regarding their particular brand of ‘controlling’ faith and religion.
So, should we be surprised then to find that Left-wing, Kool-Aid Drinking Liberals are constantly on the side of the Islamofacists in this War on Terror? No. They are in perfect agreement based upon their shared hatred of America. It remains their unifying “shared religion” espoused by all those who hate America: al Qaeda, Iran, Hugo Chavez, Ted Turner, Sean Penn, etc. As has been noted before: “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”
Liberals like to point out that it is the “Religious Right” that is wishing to impose some sort of Theocracy on America. This is like the pot calling the kettle black. Have you ever stopped to consider what their twisted idea of “separation of church and state” really means when you combine it with their goal of an ever-increasing state? Taken together, if the church, (i.e. those expressing a belief in God), is sequestered from any inclusion in the state, then, necessarily, as the state grows larger, then the church MUST grow smaller!
Don’t let Liberals fool you. They have a religion. Their belief system disavows any consideration for evil or original sin in the world. They prefer to propagate the fantasy that “evil” only comes in the form of “oppressive” Institutions like: Capitalism, Christianity and the Military. Their catechism is one of abolishing: Profits, Morality and the U.S. Defense Dept. By so doing, they sincerely believe they can usher in their version of a holy Millennium.
Likewise, the Jihadists believe that an “ultimate paradise” is something that’s within their grasp as well- if they could just obtain more control over society. That’s why they show such little concern over the carnage resulting from their methods. It’s a simple trade-off in the Marxist tradition of “the ends, justifying the means.” Karl Marx, by the way, believed he could create “Heaven on Earth” too!
Both Islamofascists and American Liberals hold to an essential doctrine that says the world will be a better place once America- in its traditional form- is no more! When Christianity, Capitalism and the Military is made impotent, then they will have achieved their Utopia dream for the human race!
Skeptical? Just listen to the Liberals ranting and raving about America’s religious traditions, military strength and private profits. They hate them all! It represents to them the impediments to the idealistic things they seek: secularism, world government and collectivist programs!
For the Totalitarians in our midst, nothing ever changes. They always say they need a little bit more power and just a little bit more control. Witness the debate over our health care industry. The absolute worst parts of our health care today come from Liberal malfeasance that is: Medicare fraud and frivolous malpractice suits. In the religion of the Totalitarians, evidence for “sin,” or failure, serves only to substantiate their claims for “more control.” They never admit to any previous “control” or “power” errors. To admit a mistake would be to encourage more scrutiny from the masses who- after all- shouldn’t be allowed the opportunity to peer too intently behind the Temple curtain!
Human Nature is the enemy of all Totalitarians. Human beings yearn to be free as much as they yearn to fulfill their lusts. What Totalitarians fail to understand is that you can’t attempt to eradicate one aspect, without equally, eradicating the other.
Christianity, or the Judeo-Christian Ethic as it exists in Western culture, offers the only reasonable solution. Freedom of the individual must be tempered by the encouragement of self-discipline. The State or the Mullah can’t absolve you of this personal responsibility. Each sovereign individual must accept this challenge for himself. The Holy Bible, more than any other thing the world has ever known, offers the best instruction for facing that challenge successfully. Unlike the Totalitarians, those who consider the full panoply of Scripture accept the revealed reality that we will never overcome our Fallen Nature within ourselves. It will remain a spiritual battle until Christ Himself returns to restore His Kingdom.
So, why do Totalitarians war against the Bible? The Bible gives the glory for self-improvement to God, not to the State, or not to the Mullah! It also denies the notion of mankind being able to evolve toward some sort of “perfected” social state on his own. The selfish tyrants who desire control and power through the auspices of false religion: whether it’s Islamofascism, Socialism, or some other manifestation, resent and resist the competition. They- like Hillary- want the glory for themselves!
In this, the Season of our Savior’s birth, we’d be remiss if we didn’t consider that there are- most definitely- some competing “saviors” out there- desirous of our souls. (send comments to: WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to P.O. Box 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757)
Friday, November 30, 2007
MEXAMERICANADA
We just celebrated Thanksgiving- a uniquely American holiday. It’s a special time when we Americans acknowledge our thankfulness to God. We give thanks for our personal blessings, but we also give thanks for our national blessings too.
Lincoln made this day a national holiday for the purpose of establishing a more firm sense of unity among all Americans going through the chaos of civil war. In his proclamation of 1863 it was called a “national and fixed Union festival…an American custom and institution” to rally the citizens.
This is just one example of America’s cultural distinction, but it points to an important foundation from which so many other American institutions spring. It all adds up to our common heritage as a people and a nation. The sovereign unity of our people is always a delicate balance to maintain, but now- more than ever- there seems to be threats to that social equilibrium.
Besides the Liberals, who detest America in its current form and want to change it radically, there are also “Big Government Conservatives” who are equally radical in their desire to embrace change. Their cause is: the North American Union.
Beginning with NAFTA in 1993 and continuing in 2005, both the Clinton and Bush administrations have worked to bring about a disastrous assault upon our national sovereignty. What they want is a type of “European Union” for North America.
The proposal, if successful, will unite Mexico, the U.S. and Canada into one integrated, governmental system! Quoting from the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) 2005 report: “Creating a North American Community”-
“We propose the creation by 2010 of a community to enhance security, prosperity and opportunity for all North Americans. The boundaries of the community would be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter. Within this area, the movement of people and products would be legal, orderly and safe.”
On March 23, 2005, a joint statement was issued:
“We the elected leaders of Canada, Mexico and the U.S. (Martin, Fox and Bush) announce the establishment of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America. It will help consolidate our action into a North American framework to confront security and economic challenges.”
Another CFR report from May of 2005, “The Building of a North American Community,” states:
“The three governments (Canada, Mexico and the U.S.) should commit themselves to the long-term goal of dramatically diminishing the need for the current intensity of the governments’ physical control of cross-border traffic, travels and trade within North America.”
This helps explain why there has been so much frustration and inaction when it comes to the issue of illegal immigration. Many of our political leaders- on both sides of the aisle- have simply bought-in to this North American Union nonsense and want “open borders” between our nations.
What they fail to realize is how the pursuit of this initiative means the erosion of our cherished, national sovereignty. A country without borders is no longer a country!
America- for those who know its history- is more than just some nondescript, trading bloc comparable to China, Europe or Latin America! Our existence as a nation thrives on the continuance of our own cultural distinctions, and to add to that mix, indiscriminately, without discerning the consequences, is the same thing as cooking a stew using a pantry full of poison! (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to P.O. Box 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757)
Lincoln made this day a national holiday for the purpose of establishing a more firm sense of unity among all Americans going through the chaos of civil war. In his proclamation of 1863 it was called a “national and fixed Union festival…an American custom and institution” to rally the citizens.
This is just one example of America’s cultural distinction, but it points to an important foundation from which so many other American institutions spring. It all adds up to our common heritage as a people and a nation. The sovereign unity of our people is always a delicate balance to maintain, but now- more than ever- there seems to be threats to that social equilibrium.
Besides the Liberals, who detest America in its current form and want to change it radically, there are also “Big Government Conservatives” who are equally radical in their desire to embrace change. Their cause is: the North American Union.
Beginning with NAFTA in 1993 and continuing in 2005, both the Clinton and Bush administrations have worked to bring about a disastrous assault upon our national sovereignty. What they want is a type of “European Union” for North America.
The proposal, if successful, will unite Mexico, the U.S. and Canada into one integrated, governmental system! Quoting from the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) 2005 report: “Creating a North American Community”-
“We propose the creation by 2010 of a community to enhance security, prosperity and opportunity for all North Americans. The boundaries of the community would be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter. Within this area, the movement of people and products would be legal, orderly and safe.”
On March 23, 2005, a joint statement was issued:
“We the elected leaders of Canada, Mexico and the U.S. (Martin, Fox and Bush) announce the establishment of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America. It will help consolidate our action into a North American framework to confront security and economic challenges.”
Another CFR report from May of 2005, “The Building of a North American Community,” states:
“The three governments (Canada, Mexico and the U.S.) should commit themselves to the long-term goal of dramatically diminishing the need for the current intensity of the governments’ physical control of cross-border traffic, travels and trade within North America.”
This helps explain why there has been so much frustration and inaction when it comes to the issue of illegal immigration. Many of our political leaders- on both sides of the aisle- have simply bought-in to this North American Union nonsense and want “open borders” between our nations.
What they fail to realize is how the pursuit of this initiative means the erosion of our cherished, national sovereignty. A country without borders is no longer a country!
America- for those who know its history- is more than just some nondescript, trading bloc comparable to China, Europe or Latin America! Our existence as a nation thrives on the continuance of our own cultural distinctions, and to add to that mix, indiscriminately, without discerning the consequences, is the same thing as cooking a stew using a pantry full of poison! (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to P.O. Box 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757)
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
How NOT to Save a Falling Dollar
The dollar has fallen, and can’t get up. Currencies around the world are making all-time gains on the dollar and people are beginning to get worried about the future of the U.S. economy.
Whether welcomed or not, we are increasingly operating in an interdependent, global marketplace where the activities of one nation directly impact the performance of another.
Capital is the name of the game, and those nations offering capital investors the greatest returns will prove to be the ultimate winners in this quest for a strong currency. The fact is, we are in a global competition for capital, and the high tax proposals by all of the leading Democrat candidates for president is, most definitely, not the way to go!
Many people point to the $600 billion trade deficit, (monetary surplus), as the main cause for our dollar’s decline, but this only tells part of the story. Legendary Economist Ludwig von Mises proved that trade imbalances themselves are not to be feared. Absent the socialist inclination for government intervention, the disparities of a nation’s trade balance will equalize over time with the natural, disciplinary forces of the free market.
When a nation’s imports exceed its exports, there is simply a momentary increase in goods with a simultaneous decrease in currency. Under normal circumstances- when governments don’t interfere- the currency sent abroad formulates a pool of available “capital” that ultimately flows back to the original country in the form of profit-seeking investments.
The key word there is PROFIT, aka “the profit motive” of incentivized capitalism.
With all of the countries now competing so desperately for global investment, it shouldn’t be assumed that those dollars will always find their way back here. It’s especially difficult to attract those dollars when we are currently pursuing two federal policies that are in direct conflict with investors’ demands: (1) low interest rates; and (2), high corporate taxation.
The detriment of the first condition is obvious. Investors are looking for the highest rates of return for their financial investments. This, however, is a catch 22 now for our policy makers in Washington, because there’s an overriding concern to keep rates low in order to help offset the weakness in the housing market. If we raise rates to where they “should be,” in relation to the realities of the market place, we will undoubtedly attract more foreign investment, but we’ll also severely jeopardize an already reeling mortgage industry decimated by the subprime foreclosures. That leaves only one option- the consideration of cutting our corporate tax rates.
Capital will flow to the highest rate of return. Interest rates are always a primary concern, but coming close behind is a favorable tax policy. Since 1993, European Union tax rates have fallen from an average of 38% to 25%. Finland has gone from a 43% corporate tax rate to 25%, Sweden has gone from 60% to 28%, and Ireland has dropped from 24% to 12.5%. In Estonia, the corporate income tax rate on earnings has been lowered off the charts. It’s zero! Most of these, traditionally, socialist governments have discovered, (the hard way), what John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher knew instinctively- that lower tax rates stimulate economic growth by attracting more entrepreneurship and greater capital investment.
There was a time when the U.S. led the world in pro-growth tax policies, but while we’ve been standing still, others have aggressively moved ahead.
Today, the United States is second among industrialized nations for the highest corporate tax rate: 39.4%, (combined Federal and State average). Only Japan is higher at 39.5%.
Of the 30 industrialized economies recognized by the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, (OECD), the U.S. tax rate is 35% higher than the average rate of 28.7%. Since 2000, the average OECD country has reduced their rates by 13%. With the UK’s recently announced plan to cut rates further to 28%, following Sarkozy’s initiatives in France, all of this points to one undeniable fact: we are in the midst of a worldwide, Supplyside Revolution! Available, venture capital is not stupid- it will flow logically to the place of greatest return, and increasingly, that place is not the U.S.
So, what do the Liberals want to do?
Raise Taxes! Hillary Clinton calls Bush’s 2001 tax cuts “irresponsible,” and like her fellow Democrat presidential candidates Barack Obama and John Edwards, she would prefer to allow the tax cuts expire from their current 35% rate and return to the 39.6% rate of Bill’s administration. Sunsetting the Bush tax cuts would also bring back the “marriage penalty,” the “death tax” and higher capital gains/dividend rates. Add to that, the Rangel plan of a 4.6% surtax, plus the new Medicare tax, and the total “effective” Democrat tax rate becomes 48-50% for the top income producers. With other competing nations slashing their rates like a Ronco Veg-O-Matic, this is no time to be “turning back the clock” and embracing Keynes!
Hillary and Obama were among the U.S. Senators who recently voted for the largest tax increase in history, (CQ Vote #172). This initiative, if signed into law, would amount to a tax bill of $900 billion over the next five years, or $3.3 trillion over the next ten. It would mean $2,641 in new taxes for each household in America. This budget proposal also called for a 9% increase, ($18 billion), in new discretionary spending. It is $205 billion more, (not less), than the Bush budget. There’s an old, political phrase for this type of Liberal impulse: “Tax ‘n’ Spend.”
The dollar is not all we have to worry about. There’s another financial crisis looming over the horizon: the Entitlement programs of Social Security, Medicare, et al. These wealth transfers are fiscally unsustainable given our current demographic deficiencies. Simply stated, there aren’t enough workers in our economy to support all of the growing number of retirees. The first wave of baby boomers will be retiring this year and they will be putting enormous pressure on these financial commitments.
The Liberals have no answer for these developing issues, in fact, they want to add to the Entitlement problem by creating more ‘guaranteed’ programs like universal, socialized medicine! The only responsible thing to do, (for those who understand basic math), is to try to honor these past commitments while reforming the system for the future. We must find a way to eliminate these burdensome pyramid schemes from our economy forever. They produce only temporal benefit for vote-buying politicians, while being inherently unfair and immoral to everyone else.
In order to have the money necessary to meet these commitments already made, it’s absolutely essential that we maintain a growing and expanding economy! With the Bush tax cuts, we now have the longest period of uninterrupted job growth on record, (50 months). Since May 2003, 4.6 million new jobs have been created, the unemployment rate is negligible at 4.9%, the growth rate is a healthy 4%, and tax receipts to the government, (despite lower tax rates), are at an all-time high.
Revenues to the government have increased 10%, on average, for each of the last two years, and our budget deficit is half of the 40-year average: 1.2% of GDP, or $163 billion out of a $14 trillion economy. This far surpasses Bush’s pledge to halve the deficit in his second term.
All of this economic success, amazingly, has happened during a time of war. The old adage about not having “guns” and “butter” at the same time doesn’t hold true in this case. You’d think people would know about this success, but as a recent Harvard Study has confirmed once again: the news media is overwhelmingly liberal, (90% of reporters vote Democrat). So, everything is slanted “bad,” even when it’s good, during Republican administrations.
The WRONG thing to do now is listen to the media and elect someone like Hillary who’s just dying to raise your taxes. She recently stated “I have a million ideas, but the Country can’t afford them all.” No kidding! As Justice John Marshall once said, “the power to tax is the power to destroy.” If you won’t take action to stop Hillary for yourself, then do it for the dollar! (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757)
Whether welcomed or not, we are increasingly operating in an interdependent, global marketplace where the activities of one nation directly impact the performance of another.
Capital is the name of the game, and those nations offering capital investors the greatest returns will prove to be the ultimate winners in this quest for a strong currency. The fact is, we are in a global competition for capital, and the high tax proposals by all of the leading Democrat candidates for president is, most definitely, not the way to go!
Many people point to the $600 billion trade deficit, (monetary surplus), as the main cause for our dollar’s decline, but this only tells part of the story. Legendary Economist Ludwig von Mises proved that trade imbalances themselves are not to be feared. Absent the socialist inclination for government intervention, the disparities of a nation’s trade balance will equalize over time with the natural, disciplinary forces of the free market.
When a nation’s imports exceed its exports, there is simply a momentary increase in goods with a simultaneous decrease in currency. Under normal circumstances- when governments don’t interfere- the currency sent abroad formulates a pool of available “capital” that ultimately flows back to the original country in the form of profit-seeking investments.
The key word there is PROFIT, aka “the profit motive” of incentivized capitalism.
With all of the countries now competing so desperately for global investment, it shouldn’t be assumed that those dollars will always find their way back here. It’s especially difficult to attract those dollars when we are currently pursuing two federal policies that are in direct conflict with investors’ demands: (1) low interest rates; and (2), high corporate taxation.
The detriment of the first condition is obvious. Investors are looking for the highest rates of return for their financial investments. This, however, is a catch 22 now for our policy makers in Washington, because there’s an overriding concern to keep rates low in order to help offset the weakness in the housing market. If we raise rates to where they “should be,” in relation to the realities of the market place, we will undoubtedly attract more foreign investment, but we’ll also severely jeopardize an already reeling mortgage industry decimated by the subprime foreclosures. That leaves only one option- the consideration of cutting our corporate tax rates.
Capital will flow to the highest rate of return. Interest rates are always a primary concern, but coming close behind is a favorable tax policy. Since 1993, European Union tax rates have fallen from an average of 38% to 25%. Finland has gone from a 43% corporate tax rate to 25%, Sweden has gone from 60% to 28%, and Ireland has dropped from 24% to 12.5%. In Estonia, the corporate income tax rate on earnings has been lowered off the charts. It’s zero! Most of these, traditionally, socialist governments have discovered, (the hard way), what John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher knew instinctively- that lower tax rates stimulate economic growth by attracting more entrepreneurship and greater capital investment.
There was a time when the U.S. led the world in pro-growth tax policies, but while we’ve been standing still, others have aggressively moved ahead.
Today, the United States is second among industrialized nations for the highest corporate tax rate: 39.4%, (combined Federal and State average). Only Japan is higher at 39.5%.
Of the 30 industrialized economies recognized by the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, (OECD), the U.S. tax rate is 35% higher than the average rate of 28.7%. Since 2000, the average OECD country has reduced their rates by 13%. With the UK’s recently announced plan to cut rates further to 28%, following Sarkozy’s initiatives in France, all of this points to one undeniable fact: we are in the midst of a worldwide, Supplyside Revolution! Available, venture capital is not stupid- it will flow logically to the place of greatest return, and increasingly, that place is not the U.S.
So, what do the Liberals want to do?
Raise Taxes! Hillary Clinton calls Bush’s 2001 tax cuts “irresponsible,” and like her fellow Democrat presidential candidates Barack Obama and John Edwards, she would prefer to allow the tax cuts expire from their current 35% rate and return to the 39.6% rate of Bill’s administration. Sunsetting the Bush tax cuts would also bring back the “marriage penalty,” the “death tax” and higher capital gains/dividend rates. Add to that, the Rangel plan of a 4.6% surtax, plus the new Medicare tax, and the total “effective” Democrat tax rate becomes 48-50% for the top income producers. With other competing nations slashing their rates like a Ronco Veg-O-Matic, this is no time to be “turning back the clock” and embracing Keynes!
Hillary and Obama were among the U.S. Senators who recently voted for the largest tax increase in history, (CQ Vote #172). This initiative, if signed into law, would amount to a tax bill of $900 billion over the next five years, or $3.3 trillion over the next ten. It would mean $2,641 in new taxes for each household in America. This budget proposal also called for a 9% increase, ($18 billion), in new discretionary spending. It is $205 billion more, (not less), than the Bush budget. There’s an old, political phrase for this type of Liberal impulse: “Tax ‘n’ Spend.”
The dollar is not all we have to worry about. There’s another financial crisis looming over the horizon: the Entitlement programs of Social Security, Medicare, et al. These wealth transfers are fiscally unsustainable given our current demographic deficiencies. Simply stated, there aren’t enough workers in our economy to support all of the growing number of retirees. The first wave of baby boomers will be retiring this year and they will be putting enormous pressure on these financial commitments.
The Liberals have no answer for these developing issues, in fact, they want to add to the Entitlement problem by creating more ‘guaranteed’ programs like universal, socialized medicine! The only responsible thing to do, (for those who understand basic math), is to try to honor these past commitments while reforming the system for the future. We must find a way to eliminate these burdensome pyramid schemes from our economy forever. They produce only temporal benefit for vote-buying politicians, while being inherently unfair and immoral to everyone else.
In order to have the money necessary to meet these commitments already made, it’s absolutely essential that we maintain a growing and expanding economy! With the Bush tax cuts, we now have the longest period of uninterrupted job growth on record, (50 months). Since May 2003, 4.6 million new jobs have been created, the unemployment rate is negligible at 4.9%, the growth rate is a healthy 4%, and tax receipts to the government, (despite lower tax rates), are at an all-time high.
Revenues to the government have increased 10%, on average, for each of the last two years, and our budget deficit is half of the 40-year average: 1.2% of GDP, or $163 billion out of a $14 trillion economy. This far surpasses Bush’s pledge to halve the deficit in his second term.
All of this economic success, amazingly, has happened during a time of war. The old adage about not having “guns” and “butter” at the same time doesn’t hold true in this case. You’d think people would know about this success, but as a recent Harvard Study has confirmed once again: the news media is overwhelmingly liberal, (90% of reporters vote Democrat). So, everything is slanted “bad,” even when it’s good, during Republican administrations.
The WRONG thing to do now is listen to the media and elect someone like Hillary who’s just dying to raise your taxes. She recently stated “I have a million ideas, but the Country can’t afford them all.” No kidding! As Justice John Marshall once said, “the power to tax is the power to destroy.” If you won’t take action to stop Hillary for yourself, then do it for the dollar! (send comments to WFC83197@aol.com, or mail to POB 114, Jacksboro, TN 37757)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
