Know the Bounds

I read a recent opinion piece in the New York Times titled, Let’s Give Up on the Constitution.  In the article, the author advances the idea that the root of the problem with the American government is “our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic, and downright evil provisions.”  The author, Louis Michael Seidman, a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University, wrote, “Our obsession with the Constitution has saddled us with a dysfunctional political system, kept us from debating the merits of divisive issues and inflamed our public discourse.“ 

I strongly disagree with Mr. Seidman.  Mr. Seidman and, I fear, many in America don’t get it.  The purpose of the US Constitution is not to define the rights of Americans; its purpose is to limit the power of the US government. 

The delegates that drafted the Constitution at the Constitutional Convention had reason to fear powerful national government; they had declared independence from a British government they believed to be abusive and tyrannical the previous decade and fought a war to retain that independence.  The Treaty of Paris which ended the American Revolution was signed only four years before the Constitutional Convention.  Because the new constitution, which replaced the weak and ineffectual Articles of Confederation, provided more power for the federal government, many people were against its ratification.  In order to sway public opinion, John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison wrote a series of 85 essays, known as The Federalist Papers, which explained the various provisions of the Constitution and the rationale behind them.

In the 45^th essay of the Federalist Papers, titled "The Alleged Danger From the Powers of the Union to the State Governments Considered", James Madison wrote, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined.  Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.” This sentiment is reflected in the 10^th Amendment, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”  In other words, the US Constitution limits the power of the federal government to only those defined; all other powers belong to the states and the people.

It is not our obsession with the Constitution that has resulted in a dysfunctional political system.  It is our willingness to elect and re-elect leaders that disobey or ignore the Constitution and adhere to party politics instead doing what is good for the country that has caused the problem.  We, the people, are the problem. 

Mr. Seidman wrote, “Even without constitutional fealty, the president would still be checked by Congress and by the states.”  Really?  Congress passed President Obama’s Affordable Care Act without reading it and then the Supreme Court upheld the government’s power to force Americans to buy health insurance as constitutional.  The people we elected created and passed that legislation aided by justices appointed and consented by people we elected.

The US government derives its power from the people it governs. We must ensure that “government of the people, by the people, for the people” continues.  In order to do that, we must exercise our power as voters and elect officials that operate within the bounds of the Constitution.  

The republican form of government, as defined by the US Constitution with its emphasis on separation of powers, limited government, checks and balances, and the rule of law, is essential to protect individual liberties.  Absolute power corrupts just as much today as it did in 1787, and we need the Constitution to limit the power of the government.  Without a written constitution, there is nothing to keep the authority of Congress or the President in check.  If we choose to throw out the Constitution, then what happens to our rights and freedoms?  If we, the people, don’t hold on to our power by being educated, informed, and engaged, then we’ll surely lose that power, just as if we had thrown out the Constitution.

Educate yourself on the Constitution and the limits of government.  Be aware of when it is misinterpreted or misapplied and speak up.  Contact your elected officials and let them know that you understand the Constitution and expect them to abide by it.  

Laws

A month after the Connecticut school shootings, the debate over gun control continues.  In response, many want tougher gun control laws; some want an outright ban on weapons; and others are resisting change to gun control laws.  Many people are purchasing firearms to protect themselves while others are protesting that the right to bear arms, codified in 2^nd Amendment, is outdated and no longer applicable. President Obama established a gun violence task force, led by Vice President Biden, to address gun violence.

Biden has said that there is no single to control gun violence.  At the same time, he has indicated that the task force’s recommendations may include a ban on assault weapons.  CNN is predicting a battle in Congress over a weapons ban.  Gun-rights advocates say a ban violates the 2^nd Amendment while others say a ban is needed to make us safer.  Will a law banning assault weapons make us safer?

As I’ve written before, the shooter in the Connecticut tragedy broke multiple laws before firing the first shot at the school.  For instance, by law, schools are gun-free zones, and the shooter stole legally-purchased guns and illegally transported them.  This incident demonstrates that laws themselves do not make us safer.  If laws don’t ensure our safety, then what is their purpose?

Laws are a collection of rules and instructions which are enforced through social institutions to govern public and corporate behavior.  Many laws define limitations or rules of behavior.  The legal philosopher H.L.A. Hart acknowledged that for laws to work, people must voluntarily accept the authority of those laws.  Without acceptance of the authority and the willingness to obey the laws, what is left is the authority to administer punishment for disobedience.

One could argue that laws make us safer, using traffic laws as an example.  But, it isn’t the law that makes us safer; it’s the obedience to the laws that keep us safe.  Laws themselves cannot force drivers to drive safely.  Posted speed limit signs don’t deter many drivers from speeding.  If caught speeding, the driver expects the consequence to be a ticket and a fine.  The traffic laws provide the limitations of behavior and the framework upon which to penalize the drivers who disobey.  Nevertheless, annually, tens of thousands of injuries and fatalities result when drivers exceed the speed limits.  The traffic laws haven’t eliminated auto accidents nor ensured the safety of the public.

I am not advocating the repeal or suspension of laws.  Laws are necessary; providing not only rules and instructions for the public, but also limitations on authority.  Laws set boundaries for behavior and as long as a person acts within those boundaries, those who hold authority are restrained from penalizing or punishing the person.  Legal authority cannot simply fine us or incarcerate us simply because they do not like our actions or behavior unless we break the law. 

My point is that we should be cautious when creating new laws.  Before a new law is passed, we must understand both the intended and unintended consequences.  And we should be aware of the burdens of having too many laws.  Over 2000 years ago, the Roman statesman Cicero wrote, “The more laws, the less justice.” The more laws created the more restraints on our behavior and the closer boundaries are set. 

As with many things, having too much of something is not a good solution either.  When the number of laws is large, both the enforcer and the citizen cannot remain aware of all of them and how they apply.  So, it is hard to avoid crossing the lines on lawful behavior if you aren’t aware of where the lines are drawn.  This allows disobedience through ignorance to be commonplace. James Madison wrote, “It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man who knows what the law is today can guess what is will be tomorrow."

When local and national leaders advocate new or stricter laws, contact them and urge restraint.  Request that they study and thoroughly understand the consequences of the proposed statutes and all that already exist.  Take the time yourself to learn what restraints these laws place upon your liberties and freedoms and make your voice heard.

Fair Share

In a video released by the White House on January 2^nd, President Obama gave his explanation of the fiscal cliff agreement and what it means to Americans.  Much of it was disingenuous, implying that the agreement avoided a middle class tax increase, when, according to the Tax Policy Center, 77% of taxpayers will pay more in taxes this year. He avoided mentioning for every $1 of budget cuts there are $41 in tax increases.  He also didn’t mention that buried in the agreement is an extension of tax breaks for Hollywood, expected to cost the government about $430 million in lost tax revenue (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/01/fiscal-cliff-deal-also-doles-out-millions-for-hollywood-railroads-rum-producers/). And, more importantly, he did not mention that the Obamacare provisions that became effective January 1^st will cost taxpayers more due to a lower cap on flexible spending accounts and an increase in the threshold for the tax deductibility of medical bills (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/27/obamacares-costly-new-year/).

I am not surprised by what Mr. Obama did not say.  One thing he did say worries me, however.  He said, “I’m willing to do more, as long as we do it in a balanced way that doesn't put all the burden on seniors or students or middle class burdens but also asks the wealthiest Americans to contribute and pay their fair share.”

What is the obsession with taxing or punishing the wealthy?  The Occupy Wall Street movement was a protest against economic inequality.  The protestors’ slogan, We are the 99%, alluded to the fact the top 1% of income earners had a greater concentration of wealth than the other 99%.  The overall message of the protestors was, according to Bloomberg Business Week magazine, “They want more and better jobs, more equal distribution of income, less profit (or no profit) for banks, lower compensation for bankers, and more strictures on banks with regard to negotiating consumer services such as mortgages and debit cards.”

In order to have more jobs, there must be an increased demand for employees.  That requires an increase in demands for goods and services from the employers.  That’s basic economics.  Better jobs come from having the skills and education demanded by employers.  It’s the law of supply and demand.  There is a higher demand for employees with degrees in health and medical fields or engineering and computer science fields than there are for those with a comparative literature or art history degrees.  In addition to higher demand, the difficulty or specialization of knowledge required for the job will result in higher pay.  Skilled labor jobs pay better than unskilled labor.  Simply demanding more or better jobs without amassing the skills in demand in the job market is ludicrous.

 Demanding more equal distribution of income is not only ludicrous; it is Marxist (“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” – Karl Marx). If wages are unequal, how can income be equal without a redistribution of wealth?  If a person goes to college or trade school and works hard to acquire the education or skills necessary to get a job that pays well, should that person be punished for having a job that pays well?  Should those who consume but create nothing and do nothing be rewarded with the wealth of those who create and work?  Thomas Jefferson didn’t think so. He wrote, "To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

President Obama, Senator Reid, and others have said “millionaires and billionaires” should pay more but increased the taxes on those making $400,000 or more.  Redistribution of wealth is already in place in the way we pay taxes.  It is the categories and percentages that they continue to debate.  What’s to prevent them from changing the definition of wealthy to $100,000 or even $50,000 the next time around?  

A warning appeared in a 1909 New York Times editorial opposing the first income tax.  It said, "When men get in the habit of helping themselves to the property of others, they cannot easily be cured of it."  If we don’t cure Congress, and America, of the habit, we won’t have to worry about the gap between the haves and have-nots; we’ll all be have-nots. Heed the warning.  This is your hard-earned money they are talking about.  For too long, we, the taxpayers, have complied and provided them with an endless supply of funds without demanding fiscal responsibility.  Let them know it is time to break the habit or we will start calling it what it is, stealing.  

Zombie Apocalypse

Today's post is written by guest blogger John Galt.  It's a humorous warning about a serious concern, mindless taxation and spending in Washington.

The zombie apocalypse has arrived.  In movies and on TV, zombies shuffle along in pursuit of mindless gratification at the cost of others.  There is no plan or coordination or end.  They feed off the flesh of others without remorse.  I’d say the same lack of remorse is true in the people that feed off the work of others.  There is no appreciation or compensation.  There is only the insatiable desire for more and more.  They are merely consumers providing no service or benefit. 

The zombie apocalypse is playing out right now in Washington, DC.  Our government demands more and more from the American workers in the form of fees and taxes.  Have you ever looked at your pay check and wondered who gets so much of it before you do?  Do you know where your tax dollars go?  What about sales tax, social security tax, user fees, road and bridges fees, hospital tax, metro tax, and taxes on utilities, alcohol, and gas?  Almost everything you do has a fee or tax taken off the top.  Where does that go and how does it really benefit you?   Would you like to have a say where your money goes? 

Well, you are feeding the zombies.  You have no control over how much you give and who gets it.  The more you work, the more you earn, the more that is taken.  You can try to outsmart the zombies, but at some point, they will get you unless you act.  For as long as you can, keep your head and alert the others.  Use your mind to prioritize what is important to you and where your money should go.  Tell everyone to send a letter to their representatives in Congress and the Senate.  Tell the President that enough is enough and you want a real, fiscally-responsible plan.  Use your mind while you still have one to find a cure for the zombie apocalypse. 

Just like in the movies, they will feed until there is no more to consume.  Lying down and covering your head won’t make them go away.  The people that take action and push back are the survivors.  Well, I challenge you to be a survivor.  Ask questions and make our elected officials accountable...before it is too late. 

Kicking the Can

A couple of hours into 2013, the Senate passed the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 by a vote of 89 - 8. This is the result of compromises between the Senate and the White House that is supposed to avert the looming financial crisis known as the “fiscal cliff”.   After much debate, the House also approved the bill. CNBC’s headline reads With Final Vote, Congress Resolves 'Fiscal Cliff'. Does this legislation really resolve the crisis?

The bill extends tax credits and tax rates for all but those in the highest tax bracket.  It also extends certain tax credits for businesses. The act makes changes to the Alternative Minimum Tax to prevent nearly 30 million middle- and upper-middle income taxpayers from being hit with higher tax bills.

However, the measure restores the Social Security payroll tax back to 6.2%.  It raises the income tax rate for individuals earning more than $400,000 and couples earning more than $450,000 from 35% to 39.6% and the tax rates on capital gains and dividends from 15% to 20%.  It also extends the limits on itemized deductions and the phase-out of the personal exemption for individuals making more than $250,000 and couples earning more than $300,000.  So let’s put a face on this and picture two married doctors with a family of kids headed to college giving Uncle Sam $180,000 of their $450,000 income.  Then subtract living expenses, utilities, mortgage, college tuitions, car payments, homeowner insurance, health insurance, malpractice insurance, etc. out of the remaining $270,000.  Makes all those years of medical school, student loans and sleepless days and nights really appealing right now, right?

According to Foxnews.com, the legislation will raise approximately $620 billion in tax revenue over 10 years.  Yet, the act contains $330 billion in spending, such as $30 billion to extend unemployment benefits for the long-term unemployed, approximately 2 million people, for one year.  Because of the spending provisions in the measure, the net spending cuts amount to $15 billion over 10 years.

The budget deficit has exceeded $1 trillion dollars for each of the last four years, yet Congress and the President managed to cut only $15 billion over 10 years?  Seems to me that President Obama and congressional leaders aren’t serious about reining in the debt, or incredibly bad at math. Either way, the new law isn’t much of a resolution. Nor is it much of a relief to the taxpayer.  An analysis by the Tax Policy Center indicates that 77% of households that actually pay income tax will see a tax increase.   Recall that only 54% of Americans contribute to the tax revenue.

So what did Congress and the President do?  They didn’t resolve the fiscal cliff, they merely postponed it.  Instead of the mandatory, across-the-board reductions in federal spending occurring on January 2, 2013, as required by the Budget Control Act of 2011, the new law merely changed the date these reductions occur to March 1^st. In addition, Congress and the President still must address the debt ceiling issue I addressed in a previous post.  Because Congress has not passed a federal budget in over three years, it has funded government operations through a series of continuing resolutions. The third issue the next session of Congress must address is the current continuing resolution is set to expire March 27^th. 

With these three financial issues ahead of us, sequestration, debt ceiling, and expiration of the continuing resolution, Congress, along with President Obama,  must make some hard decisions, both long term and short term, to get this country back on sound financial footing.  Unfortunately, I don’t see that happening.  As I wrote in a previous post, Senator Reid has been an obstacle to getting budgets passed. During a December 30^th appearance on “Meet the Press”, President Obama said his second priority was to “stabilize the economy.”

 As I said, I don’t think they are serious about reducing the debt or reforming entitlement spending.  But those things must happen or we risk a weaker economy, higher taxes, higher inflation, and higher interest rates.  Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, co-chairs of President Obama’s bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, warned that “the reckoning will be sure and the devastation severe” should the United States fail to “put its fiscal house in order.”

Tell our leaders it’s time for serious solutions.  They keep demanding more and more money from taxpayers without demonstrating fiscal responsibility.  We cannot allow them to continue to kick the can down the street while tossing our money into the wind.  Contact your Senator (www.senate.gov), your Congressman (www.house.gov) and call (202-456-1111) or email the President (http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/submit-questions-and-comments) and let them know you want fiscally responsible solutions.

Eat the Rich

Many in the media act as if the rich are evil tyrants who prevent others from prospering or who gained their riches by stealing from the poor.  And many think that the rich should be penalized by paying higher tax rates than the rest of us.  But I wonder, if the rich prospered through hard work instead of ill-gotten gains, why should they pay more than the rest of us.

Recently, Senator Harry Reid said, “we will not consign the middle class to higher tax bills while millionaires and billionaires avoid all the pain.”  But in fact, the President’s proposal is to raise tax rates on individuals making more than $200,000 per year to 36% or families making more than $250,000 per year to 39.6%.  What’s more, the President also wants to raise taxes on dividend income for these two groups.

I learned that some types of small businesses such as S corporations, limited-liability companies, partnerships, and sole proprietorships do not pay corporate income tax.  The taxes on these entities are paid by the shareholders in the form of personal income taxes.  Therefore, a change in the top two personal income tax rates also affects small businesses.  I’ve mentioned in an earlier post that small businesses are the backbone of our economy. 

While $200,000 may seem rich to someone making $30,000 a year, it’s not exactly Bill Gates or Warren Buffett kind of riches. But if these tax increases occur, how much more tax revenue is collected and what is the consequence?

CNBC reports that the raising the tax rates would increase tax revenue by $40 – 45 billion the first year.  That’s a lot of money, but without significant spending cuts, $40 billion doesn’t make a dent in the 2012 budget deficit, estimated by the White House to be $1.33 trillion.  So what are the consequences of raising tax revenue this way?

The House Ways and Means Committee commissioned an independent study by the accounting firm Ernst & Young to look at the long-term effects of changing tax rates.  The Ernst & Young report finds that higher tax rates will result in a smaller economy, fewer jobs, less investment, and lower wages.  More specifically, business output could fall by almost $200 billion; wages could fall by 1.8%, and a resulting loss of roughly 710,000 jobs.

In his fiscal cliff plan, President Obama has proposed another $200 billion in stimulus spending, including extending unemployment insurance.  Raising tax rates that jeopardize the economy and increase the risk of job cuts to raise $40 billion and then spend an additional $200 billion to stimulate the economy doesn’t make sense.

The country is facing a fiscal cliff that will adversely impact nearly every American if Congress doesn’t reach a deal to trim the deficit. As provisions of Obamacare take effect in 2013, employer costs will increase 6.5%, further impacting job growth opportunities.  Do we really want our leaders to further jeopardize the economy in order to tax the rich?

Hearing “tax the rich” being repeated over and over on the news reminds me of the Aerosmith song, “Eat the Rich”.   But once their bones are picked clean, who will provide employment or business opportunities for the country?

Its time our leaders make sensible economic decisions.  Contact your Senator (www.senate.gov) or Congressman (www.house.gov) and tell them what you think.  Better yet, call (202-456-1111) or email (http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/submit-questions-and-comments) the President and let him know you want solutions, not games. 

To Whom Do You Owe Your Life?

Today's post is another one penned by guest blogger John Galt. I hope this one makes you think and appreciate.

To whom do you owe your life?  I’m not talking about the couple that shared a private moment; I’m taking about the people that made the world that you live in.  Some escaped oppression to seek promise in the New World.  Everyone has a family story of how they got here.  What about the people that risked everything to start again and again when crops or businesses failed.  The inventors and the dreamers.  And remember the soldiers that marched off to war; mere boys to start the march and the men that came home.  And sadly, those that didn’t.  The world you enjoy was shaped by all the little pieces contributed by everyone that came before you.  In a time where so many live in the world of “I”, our world is so much bigger than just you.

When you find yourself frustrated when an old man or woman walks too slow, or repeats a story again and again, find patience in your heart and think about how they may have influenced this world you call home.  My pastor’s story in the Christmas Eve service was about the couple, Joseph and Mary, who were turned away from the inn the night Jesus was born.  Later, he mentioned Hall of Famer Hank Aaron’s story about a full hotel and how he was told that there were no rooms available until someone recognized him.  The clerk told Hank he would have given him a room initially if he had known that he was somebody.  Hank replied that everyone is somebody.  Everyone you meet is somebody.  Collectively, all of those somebodies have made the world that molds your life. 

My dad didn’t look like someone extraordinary, but he was.  Mom thought he hung the moon and since I look like him, I’ll admit he was a very good looking man.  He never put on airs.  He wasn’t one to tell stories about himself or boast of his accomplishments.  Actually, he hardly ever spoke of himself.  But, from very humble beginnings, he put himself through college, earned a Bronze Star in Korea while fighting on the 38^th parallel, educated farmers for 34 years on ways to improve their crops as a soil conservationist, and raised three kids to respect America, honor our word and strive to make this world a better place.

 

He’d give you the shirt off his back, pull you out of a ditch or give you his last dollar.  My dad really was a somebody.  And not just to me and my family.  He saved soldiers’ lives in Korea when he carried the wounded to safety.  As an expert marksman, he taught other soldiers how to shoot.  He saved farmers’ farms by making them productive.  More than once, he pulled a car out of the ditch on a snowy night.   The list is just too long, but you get the idea.  He made a difference in so many lives.  You wouldn’t know it to meet him and he wouldn’t take credit for any of it.  It was just the right thing to do.

My dad represents everything good about this country.  He quietly marched through his life, silently performing good deeds along his journey.  I see him every time I see the US flag fly.  He wasn’t just somebody, he was a hero; he made this world a better place.  So, if you find yourself in an “all about me” moment, ask yourself if your actions will make you anyone’s hero?  And before you push your way past the old man struggling with his burden, remember that he is somebody.  Maybe just the somebody that made the life you enjoy possible.