“This is America, the richest country in the world.” I hate that saying! I hear it often from those on the left, usually in defense of some half-baked plan to care for another down-and-out segment of society or to “give” some other entitlement to “all Americans.” There are two problems with this idea.

First, America is not rich. At least not America as the left usually defines it. You see the left sees the government as the great checkbook in Washington. They don’t understand that the government has no money and no source of producing it. I’m not talking about printing money because they can do that, but those greenbacks are only a symbol of someone’s tax burden. All wealth in this country is created by those who produce products—meaning anything of value: widgets, services, information, et al. The government pays for nothing and provides nothing. All they can do is redistribute wealth by taking it from those who earned it (and therefore deserve it) and give it to those who did not earn it (and therefore do not deserve it). The government does this through coercion. They come to your home or place of business and require that you report exactly how much money you have made and give them a proportional amount. This is acceptable when one considers what the government does appropriately. When the government spends seized money on the military it is protecting all of us from enemies. When they spend this money on police they are protecting us all from those who would steal and kill. Entitlements are a different story.

Government efforts to champion the poor by providing for the have-nots would be fine if they spent their own money, but all their money comes from us. They must first coerce it from the rightful owner before they can give it to another. Of course they take their cut off the top to finance the bureaucracy. This is actually theft because the person taxed loses money that he earned and gets nothing in return. Actually what the government does is far worse than simple theft. Robert Nozik (Nozick, 1974, p. 169) says, “Taking the earnings of n hours labor is like taking n hours from the person; it is like forcing the person to work n hours for another’s purpose.” This forced labor is, in effect, government sanctioned slavery. When you consider the money is given to those who did not work for it you can only conclude that the producer is made slave to the unproductive. Those who work hard to build wealth must work even harder to make up for what the government forces them to provide for those who choose not to work, or not to work as hard.

Second, with our progressive tax system no program benefits all Americans the same. Like I said taxation is appropriate for things that only the government can or should provide. We would not want private armies roaming the land or police working for the highest bidder so the government provides these and must tax to do so. However, when money is taken and nothing is given it is easy to see the wrong that is done. Lately, the problem is another type of entitlement. We are not faced with one that only benefits the poor but it is claimed that its implementation will benefit all Americans. The debate I am speaking of is healthcare. The plan, right now, is to create a government safety net for those without insurance, but the details put forth show a deeper desire to create a government program meant to spread and grow until its tentacles entwine all Americans. The final goal is a one-payer system in which all people will be on the government plan. Many see this as an acceptable use of tax power because those who pay the taxes will participate in the program—getting something in return. Actually, the problem with this view is that only those who work and can afford it will pay for the program that is meant to cover everyone. Those who currently pay for their own insurance and care will continue to do so, but they will send the check to the Federal government along with a hefty additional sum to cover their neighbor. This is not a program for all Americans but one more example of the productive subsidizing the unproductive.

This brings up a major problem to consider. With our progressive tax system, those who produce wealth pay for their own police and military protection and also for the protection of those who do not produce. This is still a subsidy of bad choices. The only fair tax is one that is totally flat and shared by all Americans, rich and poor, big and small alike. Any attempt at a graduated tax system gives higher value to some Americans by taking away from others.

America is not a rich country. Among the American people are rich and poor. Like all nations we only have the wealth produced by our people. Each American is entitled to the wealth he produces and none other.

Works Cited
Nozick, R. (1974). Aarchy, State, and Utopia. Basic Books.

In the debate on healthcare one of the chief arguments being given by the Obama administration is that the government option will be voluntary and those who currently have coverage will be able to keep it. It is also claimed that this is not an effort to do away with private coverage, but to care for those who cannot currently afford coverage. A few days ago I downloaded a copy of the bill (all 1000+ pages). I did this because whenever someone tells me that the bill says this or that, in this section or that, I like to go directly to the source and find out what it says or does not say.

In perusing the bill I found section 102: Protecting the Choice to Keep Current Coverage. This section must not be missed by anyone who considers this issue. In this bill those who have current coverage will be allowed to keep it. However, 102(a)(1)(A) forbids those offering coverage from enrolling any new clients on or after the first day the law goes into effect. This means that you can keep your coverage, but anyone who does not have coverage will be put into the government system with no option for private insurance.

When this happens the insurance companies will find that they have all the customers they will ever have. They cannot expand their businesses and according to 102(a)(3) they can never raise rates on those who are covered or according to 102(a)(2) can never change what they do or do not cover. This last one also prevents them from entering into any new cost-sharing arrangements to reduce costs. The companies can never expand, or raise rates to offset inflation or higher expenses. The only time a new policy could be written is when someone with private insurance, before hand, changes policies.

Understand what this means, if this bill passes those who are not covered by private insurance will have no choice but the government system—none other can be sold. Those who have coverage can keep it until the company goes out of business or they lose or drop the coverage another way—job change or economic downturn. Once this happens they too will be on the government system, for life, and the government that has proved its inefficiency and incompetence in so many areas will be able to let us down where it matters most. Higher prices, rationing, lower quality and early death for millions will be the legacy of this president. How’s that for Change!

From time to time we hear of some terrible scourge to civilized society that the government must do something about. Of course the government in question is always the federal government. The media doesn’t seem to even realize that this country has multiple layers of government so everything gets made into a federal issue. Beyond the problem of always looking for a federal solution, there are difficulties with the problems to be fixed. Many times things need a solution, but is legislation the only solution?

Every time a law is passed it chips away freedom. If the law forbids some action then you are no longer free to take certain actions. If the law requires an action then you are no longer free to refrain from acting. For this reason, I often point out that the freest time in America is when Congress is in recess. This nation has, on the federal level, 535 people paid full time to do nothing more than make laws and seek reelection. I know some will point out that the job of our Senators and Representatives includes meeting with constituents, but these meetings are primarily for three reasons: reelection, build support for legislation and get ideas for other legislation. With the majority of their time consumed with keeping their job and enacting laws the greatest threat to the freedoms we so love is Congress.

So what is the solution? Is it to be found in making Congress part time, similar to many state legislatures? This will actually change little. The best thing is to elect officials who understand the Constitution and honor their pledge to uphold it. For example, earmarks would not be a problem if constituents stopped electing people who shell out federal dollars to get reelected. Of course this is hard when many who balk at earmarks attack their own representative for not bringing home enough project money. Most Americans oppose earmarks, except for the ones that come home to line their own pockets. We need elected officials who are statesmen first and foremost. Such people do the right thing, even if the next election means a job hunt.

We also need passion on the floor of the Senate and House where those who believe strongly for and against any legislation are encouraged to fight it out tooth and nail—verbally of course. Instead of pandering to the CSPAN cameras, let’s have heated debates with partisans (yes, I said partisans) fighting to the point of exhaustion to prevent anything unconstitutional from leaving either floor. Breaking a sweat in defense of one’s beliefs has been replaced with looking good for the cameras.

The next thing we need is an informed electorate that will hold its representatives responsible by demanding for each vote the constitutional grounds upon which that person voted. If a politician is unable to give good constitutional reasons for a vote he or she should look for other work. Until the American people realize that this is our government that has been allowed to rob us of wealth and chip away at our freedoms there will be no meaningful change. I hear complaints all the time about how bad politicians are. Can you imagine any business owner having nothing but complaints about an employee continuing to employ that person? We must realize that the politicians are our employees and if they are not performing up to standards (the Constitution) then we must fire them.

The latest news buzz has been on Barack Obama’s plans for universal healthcare. It is easy to bring out sad stories of people who seem to fall through the cracks in the system and go without care, but before we scrap the greatest healthcare system in the world we must make sure we have the facts straight. It is seldom helpful to base laws on emotional appeals.

(more…)

The election is over, the confetti is gone, signs are down and the speeches are fading from our ears. The new Congress has been sworn in with expanded majorities for the liberal machine and the leadership of the House of Representatives, the body meant to speak for the people, has discovered their Orwellian tendencies. Despite promises to get to the people’s business and leave partisanship behind the Democrats have taken steps to insure the Republican minority has even less impact than even their paltry numbers would permit. This should not be a surprise because the guy in any debate decrying partisanship is either the biggest partisan in the room or your drunk neighbor who thinks Obama would give him a job if everyone would just get along. (more…)