American Spirit

I’m no longer a runner and the only races I watch anymore are when my family members are participants.  But, after last year’s Boston Marathon tragedy, I was interested to see how Americans would respond at this year’s Boston Marathon.  What I found out was the things that made America so great are still alive.

I can’t imagine the terror people felt after the bombs, left by two cowards, exploded.  In spite of the terror and tragedy, this year more than a million people lined the race course and there were 9,000 more entrants in this year’s race than last year.  One runner, when asked why he was running after last year’s events, responded by saying, “I’m running to make a simple statement: Acts of cowardice will not stop me from exercising my rights as an athlete and a human.” Some of this year’s runners were last year’s victims; they showed that Americans may get knocked down and hurt, but they don’t stay down. 

It’s a sweet irony that this year’s winner of the men’s division is the first American to win the Boston Marathon since 1983.  Meb Keflezighi, who was also the first American to win the New York Marathon in 27 years, when he won it in 2009, is an American success story.  Keflezighi emigrated with his family at the age of 12 from Eritrea, to escape poverty and war.  In a post-race interview, he said, “my life would have been a soldier. I would have been dead in the war. The life that I have is just beyond my dreams.”

Keflezighi trained long and hard and used his talents to run a smart race, putting himself in a position to win.  Did his win involve luck? Probably so, his best marathon time was two or three minutes slower than some of the other entrants.  But he ran every step of the way; no one did it for him. His win shows that hard, hard work, talent, perseverance, and a little bit of luck leads to success.  But his career also shows us that even with all those things, success is not guaranteed; how many races did he enter and not win?

When asked how he would respond if he received a phone call from President Obama, he said, “Thank you for the opportunity that the US has given me.”  And that’s all anyone should expect, opportunities and equitable laws.  Everyone who ran the Boston Marathon ran the same distance.  No one was allowed to start earlier than others or run a shorter distance or given any advantage over other runners because of some disadvantage or quota.  The same rules applied to all runners.

Obviously, not everyone could win.  Not everyone has the same level of talent or ability.  Not everyone trained the same length of time or with the same intensity.  And some runners were injured or beset with other problems like exhaustion, things that sometimes happened in spite of their preparation.  Because of those things, not everyone will have the same finish.

And there are different goals and definitions of success.  Some entered with a goal of just completing the race.  Others raced to set a personal record.  Although there were different measures of success for each race participant, the rules were the same for everyone giving all an equal opportunity to achieve their definition of success.  That’s the way it should be in our society.  No one should be given an advantage over others, all allowed to compete with the same rules as everyone else.  No quotas, no discrimination, just a common set of rules applied to all.

Another example of the American Spirit occurred near the end of the race.  A runner collapsed from exhaustion just blocks from the finish line.  Four runners stopped to help him, physically carrying him across the finish line.  No one ordered them to help him and there were no rules that said they must help him.  Their kindness and compassion, not government intervention, helped a runner cross the finish line when he had exhausted all his ability and energy, and could go no further.  More importantly, he started the race and went has far as he was able.  He didn’t demand that they carry him the whole race and was grateful for the help he received.  I wish more in our society were grateful for any assistance instead of demanding more.

America is the land of opportunity.  Not everyone will have the same success or level of success.  But when the rules are the same for all, at least everyone has opportunity to cross the finish line.

Don't Think We're Weak

by John Galt

Don’t think because we have a weak, ineffective president that this country is weak.  The majority of Americans support the right to own a gun.  “Don’t mess with Texas” bumper stickers adorn many of the automobiles in the state, and they mean it.  Although many states aren’t quite as overt, we all take our freedoms seriously.  Regardless of our leadership, we, the American people, are a force to be reckoned with. 

This country is founded on the desire for freedom and the willingness to endure great hardship to obtain and maintain freedom.  Regardless of the political bickering that seems to have mired our political leadership and allowed this country to languish over the last four years, we, the people are not so inclined.  Polls show that we are dissatisfied with our leadership, or rather, lack of leadership.  The economy is still drowning, unemployment is still high, and any growth in technology has stalled.  Seems our country is biding our time until the next presidential election.

The thing is, our leadership has forgotten that they work for us.  Where they lead, we may not follow.  They serve at the pleasure of the American people.  If we feel threatened, regardless of their position, don’t expect us to cower passively in fear.  In our country’s history, when the government was unable to maintain the freedoms of the people, the people formed militias to protect ourselves.  So, do the math.  People with guns.  Add people with a strong sense of country.  Add an outside aggressor.  And what you get are united states, or rather, The United States of America. 

With all that is going on with Russia, and other aggressors in the world, don’t think us weak.  Hopefully, calmer minds will prevail and sovereignty will be restored.  But, if aggression should spread in our direction, a sleeping giant will awaken.  Our leadership should never put our freedom and safety at risk in their dealings with other countries.  Those in our leadership we consider ineffective should start packing when elections roll around.  If they display a sense of weakness or remain passive as terror plays out across the globe, we won’t wait until elections.  So Americans, if you think our leadership should deal differently with the situation in the Ukraine or with other aggressors, send them an email or call their offices and make your opinions known.  They work for us.

A Taxing Proposition

My aunt was a very cost-conscious shopper. I can remember, as a kid, riding all over town just so she could save a nickel on a loaf of bread or a dime on a gallon of milk.  Now, I’m not inclined to drive across town just to save a nickel, but I do want to get the best quality at the lowest price.  I don’t think any of us want to pay more than we absolutely have to for bread, milk, or anything else for that matter.

Now imagine, if you will, a store that charges you for a loaf of bread based, not on the cost of the bread plus any profit the store hopes to make, but on the size of your salary.  Would you shop there?  I know I wouldn’t.  What if the price of the bread and the size of the loaf were dependent on the size of your salary?  The more you earned, the more expensive the bread and the smaller the loaf?  Sounds crazy, right?

Unfortunately, that very thing happens.  Instead of paying for bread, consider how we are paying for our government through our income taxes.  The more you make, the more you pay.  And chances are good that the more you make the less government services and benefits you require so the less you get.  Recall that there is a large segment of the population that receives more benefits from the federal government than they pay in income taxes.  And if you are the thrifty sort that saves or invests the money you earn, an interest or dividends earned are also taxed--a double taxation.

Under our current tax laws, we punish the successful and the thrifty by taxing their gains.  Doesn’t that undermine the incentive to work, save, and invest?  And our tax laws are so complex that the IRS estimates that 16 hours is required to collect information and complete the 1040 tax form, or costs, on average, $152 for a tax professional to prepare the forms.  Add to that the cost of the IRS itself, more than $11 billion, and it should be apparent that our tax system is defective.  We tax those that work more than those that don’t, and the entity that reviews the tax collection costs billions to operate.

There are lots of ideas about how to fix the tax code.  Some say close the loopholes; others want a flat tax, a tax rate that is the same regardless of earnings.  Others want to raise the tax rate on the rich, although the definition of rich is a somewhat ambiguous, depending on who is lobbying for it.  These are all attempts to repair a tax code that is fundamentally flawed.  Personally, I like the idea of a national sales tax.

The Cato Institute (http://www.cato.org) has long been an advocate for a national sales tax to replace the current tax codes.  Their proposal is to scrap the individual and corporate income tax, the capital gains tax, and the estate and gift tax with a national sales tax on the final purchase of all goods and services at the retail level.  When you buy goods or services, a federal tax will be collected at that time, just as state and county taxes are collected now in most areas. Their proposal includes a universal rebate for every household that, in effect, exempts consumption up to the poverty level.

Furthermore, the state revenue departments of the 50 states could collect the revenue, which is sent to a small agency within the Department of Treasury to fund national assets.  The IRS would no longer exist; its budget available for other government agencies or left in the pocket of the taxpayers.  Because the national sales tax would tax only spending, there would no longer be a double taxation on savings or investments; this would make more money available for economic growth.  It would also simplify corporate taxes, negating the need for armies of accountants and tax lawyers and would make business capital easier to acquire, further stimulating economic growth.  Simply, if you choose to make a purchase, expect to factor in the tax.  If you don’t want to pay the tax, don’t make the purchase.

A national sales tax has a lot of attractive features.  It would make savings and investing much more attractive, stimulate economic growth, and virtually eliminate the IRS.  But there is one subtle feature of a national sales tax that I particularly find attractive.  Under the current tax code, taxes are withheld from your paycheck before you receive it, so it’s not obvious to most American’s just how much they pay in income taxes.  With a national sales tax, the cost of the federal government is printed on the receipt; everyone will know the costs.  When you see the cost of the federal government in each purchase, we may be more inclined to demand a smaller, more efficient government.  Do the research and then contact your Senators and Representative and let them know what you think about the IRS and a national sales tax.  Maybe, then April 15^th becomes just another day.

A Big Enough Stick?

“Can’t we all just get along?”  That was the question, or at least a paraphrased version thereof, that a coworker asked during a conversation about the Russian invasion of the Ukraine.  I expect the young to ask such a question--they usually haven’t yet discovered that world is full of mean, dishonest, and hateful people.  But this coworker is old enough to realize that, regardless of our actions, there are those that hate us and want nothing more than to destroy this country. 

There are a myriad of reason why we, the people of the United States, are hated or disliked by others.  Some of the reasons are truly because of our military actions, but most are because of our belief in democracy, our prosperity, or our religious freedoms.  In fact, the first two targets hit on 9-11 were the World Trade Center Towers, most assuredly not military targets, but symbols of the prosperity of this country.  Regardless, there are those out there that wish to bring harm to the people of this country.

In his recent State of the Union address, President Obama stated that, “America must move off a permanent war footing.” He further stated that our security and leadership “depends on all elements of our power -- including strong and principled diplomacy.”  This sounds good but what happens when diplomacy doesn’t work.

In order for diplomacy to work, all parties must be willing to negotiate in order to reach a peaceful settlement.  That willingness to negotiate is motivated by some logic or reason.  It may be a motivation to avoid war or economic sanctions, or simply to avoid embarrassment. The motivation may be economic or other gains. A more powerful motivation is the threat of military action by the other party.

Theodore Roosevelt, who won a Nobel Peace Prize for bringing about a peaceful conclusion to the Russo-Japanese War, had a foreign policy characterized by the phrase, “speak softly, and carry a big stick.”  The idea behind this policy is negotiating peacefully backed by the threat of military action.  Roosevelt described this as, “"the exercise of intelligent forethought and of decisive action sufficiently far in advance of any likely crisis".

Unfortunately, President Obama’s policy seems to be “speak brilliantly and hope no one calls your bluff.”  He promised dire consequences if the Syrian leader crossed “the red line”, but every time the line was crossed, nothing of consequence occurred.  Furthermore, the Russians threatened action against the US if the US took action against Syria without Russian or international approval.  Obama backed off.  Russian involvement concluded when an agreement was reached for Syria to remove or destroy its chemical weapons.  Obama appeared to be “all talk, no action” and Russian leader Vladimir Putin came out looking like the hero.

When the diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, was attacked and the US Ambassador and three others were killed, the Obama administration at first claimed the attack was a protest over an anti-Muslim film. Once it came to light that the Obama administration’s State Department could have prevented the attack, the President, Secretary of State Clinton, and others seemingly swept the whole mess under the rug.  And it appears that the press, by not vigorously pursuing the story, held the rug while Obama swept.    President Obama promised that “no act of terror will go unpunished.”  Eighteen months have passed since the attack; are we currently trying to find those responsible for the attack?  Or this more “all talk and no action”.

Now Russia has “annexed” Crimea, sending troops into the area.  The US responded by announcing a boycott of the G-8 summit in Russia, suspending trade negotiations with Russia and increasing US military presence in the region, six F-15 fighters to  Lithuania, 12 F-16 fighters and 300 soldiers to Poland.  A senior Russian diplomat said, in response to US actions, “What can one advise our U.S. colleagues to do? Spend more time in the open, practice yoga, stick to food-combining diets, maybe watch some comedy sketch shows on TV. This would be better than winding oneself up and winding up others, knowing that the ship has already sailed ... Tantrums, weeping and hysteria won't help.“

President Obama has pulled our troops from Iraq and publicly announced a time-line for withdrawal from Afghanistan.  Since we left Iraq, Al Qaeda’s presence there has increased.  In the weeks before a Afghanistan presidential election, the Taliban have increased violent attacks in an effort to disrupt voting.  And one has to wonder what will happen in Afghanistan after we leave.  Will the Taliban make a comeback or will the Afghan leaders be able to rein them in?

To add insult to injury, President Obama’s budget proposal for 2015 includes severe cuts to the military--cuts which would leave the military at lowest level since 1940.  Defense Secretary Hagel, in his testimony to Congress, blamed Congress for the mess.  The truth of the matter is the budget cuts are based on budget agreements that Congress passed and Obama signed. Hagel says that the budget “recognizes the reality of the magnitude of our fiscal challenges, the dangerous world we live in, and the American military's unique and indispensable role in the security of this country and in today's volatile world.”  With these cuts, will the military be up to the challenge of protecting America?  Will our adversaries try to take advantage of a smaller military?

The world is full of people willing to do us harm.  But our President should be willing to stand up to these people and protect Americans and American interests around the world.  Flashy rhetoric and empty threats won’t cause a determined enemy to back down.  And if the President does decide to swing the big stick, will it be big enough?