CONSERVATISM—A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

Throughout history, many names and adjectives have been used to describe those involved in politics—Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, liberal; even “liar,” “cheat,” “disingenuous.” But there’s one descriptive name that I, and millions of my fellow Americans, are proud to be called: “Conservative.” However, as with so many names, there is a great deal of misunderstanding of what this word means. I don’t claim to own the market on an exact definition of “Conservative,” but for the past few months I’ve been attempting to define the term from a historical perspective. Here are some of my thoughts.

Ronald Reagan once said, “All great change begins at the dinner table.” Unfortunately, the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue seems to have the view that “most great change begins in Washington.” As the stimulus bill was steamrolling through the capitol last year, the president said, “…at this particular moment, only government….can break the vicious cycles that are crippling our economy.” Common sense logic seems to have just one word to say to his comment: “Bull.”

Government is an important and necessary part of any healthy society. The United States has an amazing representative republic governmental system. But in any society, governments go wrong when they attempt to do what they were never designed to do—when they defy William Boetcker’s sentiment that “You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.” One of the greatest things America could do today to get back on track would be to revisit the wisdom that guided the great men who established this miraculous government in America. I would like to take a short journey back to the 1700’s to begin this description of Conservatism.

For 250 years, America has been a shining light in this world, bringing relief and hope in times of trouble; leading the way in technology, manufacturing, and agriculture; providing security and protection to the rest of the free world. We have been able to do this, not because the government led the way, but because the great people of this country led the way, supported by a limited government that, for the most part, stayed out of our lives and primarily provided safety and a foundation in which WE THE PEOPLE could change the world. How tragic that we now have an administration that seems to want to reverse two and a half centuries of prosperity and freedom and replace it with Washington power and control.

In the late 1700’s, James Madison, principal author of the Constitution, summarized one of the fundamental concepts that would lead to America’s greatness when he said, “The powers that are delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined.” As I consider where we are today in regard to this concept, something deep inside tells me that health care and auto industry management and cap and trade and bank bailouts don’t even come close to falling under the category of “Few and Defined.”

In studying the history of America’s founding, one thing becomes very clear—the early Americans who established our governmental system were incredibly wise and quite prophetic. The foundation they established and recorded in our Constitution was full of great foresight and insight. They wrestled long and hard to establish a system in which all people were guaranteed equal protection of their rights and by doing this they insured that all would have the freedom to prosper and succeed. America was designed to provide equal opportunity, but not necessarily expect equal results; equal freedom and protection but not necessarily equal possessions or status. The great statesman Alexander Hamilton stated that “Inequality would exist as long as liberty existed….it would unavoidably result from that very liberty itself.” What sense does it make to deny the liberty of some in a futile attempt to bring some level of sameness to everyone? In the big picture, does bringing down one person ever help to bring up another?

With this unique concept of freedom exemplified by the government providing equal rights, not equal things, America, in a very short time, became the most prosperous, best educated nation in the world; and also one of the freest and most generous.

That being said, here is a simple, Midwestern American’s description of what Conservatism is all about:

A Conservative recognizes that the federal government’s highest priority is to provide its citizens with safety and security, not to control as many aspects of our lives as possible. Thomas Jefferson said, “The way to have good and safe government is not to trust it all to one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to every one exactly the functions he is competent to (perform best). Let the (federal) government be entrusted with the defense of the nation, and its foreign and federal relations.…” He went on to say that most of the other responsibilities in America are best handled by states and individuals. More on this shortly.

A Conservative realizes that tax cuts across the board are what invigorates and grows an economy. History has shown that the best answer to a struggling economy is to cut taxes and cut spending. Presidents Harding, Coolidge, Reagan, Bush, and even the Democrat’s own John F Kennedy all cut taxes to great effect. One has to wonder why this administration won’t even consider across-the-board tax cuts. Could it be that higher taxes and more entitlements nurture, not greater freedom, but a dependent class of citizens who must rely on the government for much of what they have, thereby endowing Washington leaders with more power? Just a thought, but a thought that greatly disturbs me. And by the way, if the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire at the end of this year, all classes of Americans, from the poor to the rich, will see their wallets hit.

In our current economic struggles, why do so many think that more government involvement, resulting in more of our money being skimmed off of our paychecks, is the answer, especially in light of the fact that it was largely government involvement that got us into this mess in the first place? I’m not an economist, but in my simple understanding of the free market and basic economic principles, capitalism can be summed up in this phrase: “The consumer needs it—the supplier supplies it.” Government involvement is mostly unnecessary, and often detrimental.

If results are an indicator of success, the question should be asked: Has last year’s economic stimulus plan helped our economy? I suppose if a good economy is defined by how many big green signs adorn our highways announcing that the roadwork is being brought to you by the “American Recovery and Investment Act,” the plan is working well. But I don’t think that 9.6% unemployment—the highest since 1983—a $1.5 trillion dollar deficit, and a $13 trillion dollar national debt are signs of a healthy economy (and please don’t blame this on President Bush—that line is getting very old).

Instead of the government trying to fix our problems with more programs, wouldn’t it be great to have a leader in the White House who would stand up and cheer on the millions of American workers and encourage us that we have within us the means to get through this difficult time? To remind us that for hundreds of years it has been the sweat and toil of the American worker, working in a society that was, for the most part, free from the entanglement of government, that has built our economy into the greatest in the world. To encourage us that better days are ahead—not that we’re in for a long-term mess unless he steps in to save the day; unless he steps in to “spread the wealth around.”

I’m concerned that so many Americans don’t seem to realize the lesson from so many Socialistic and Communistic countries: SOCIALISM DOESN’T WORK—IT NEVER HAS WORKED—IT NEVER WILL WORK—because it defies human nature and freedom! In Hungary in the 1940’s, it most likely sounded great to the peasants who slaved away to scrape out a living that the new regime would distribute the aristocrats’ land among the poor and rich alike. But how good did it sound to them a few years later when the government came after that very same land so they could redistribute it again to set up government communal farms? Our American Founders knew that the minute the federal government begins to start leveling the possessions of the rich in order to “spread the wealth” for equality, that government begins to gain the power to deprive ANYONE, rich or poor, of their rights to freedom and property.

America actually tried a form of Socialism in the 1600’s and one fact quickly became clear—it didn’t work. In the 1620’s the early colonists were instructed to work hard and store all of their goods in a common storehouse for all to share in. It sounded like a great idea. But human nature prevailed and those who worked very hard to produce most of what went into the storehouse became quickly frustrated and quit working so hard because their efforts were being equally shared by those who worked very little. It wasn’t long before there was a great shortage of food. Governor William Bradford recognized the failure of the system and decided that each family could work as hard as they wished, keep what they produced, and trade it as they deemed best—in other words, free market capitalism. The result? Within a short time, the colonies were thriving. These early pioneers recognized this economic truth: Freedom of the individual, unencumbered by over-government involvement or regulation, is the key to economic success. It has been for hundreds of years of American history and it is a key to our survival in the future.

John F Kennedy said, “The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived and dishonest – but the myth – persistent, persuasive and unrealistic.” It is a great myth that President Obama’s plan of spreading the wealth is good for this country. No matter how persuasive and persistent he is, that socialistic concept is an enemy of our freedom and our future.

A Conservative asks why the rich pay higher tax rates than others, a policy that sends a message to Americans that if you work hard, achieve your goals, and climb the ladder of success, when you get up that ladder, you’re going to be essentially penalized by having a greater portion of your money taken. Remember, our country was founded on the concept that equal distribution of rights was foundational; equal distribution of “things” was repressive and unconstitutional. The great statesman Sam Adams said this: “The Utopian schemes of leveling (re-distribution of the wealth)….are as….impractical as those which vest all property in the Crown. (These ideas) are arbitrary, despotic, and, in our government, unconstitutional.”

Why do so many in leadership not understand that the rich are indispensable in this country and should be applauded for what they have accomplished? 150 years ago, Abraham Lincoln said: “That some should be rich shows that others may become rich and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another, but let him work diligently to build one for himself ….I take it that it is best for all to leave each man free to acquire property as fast as he can. Some will get wealthy. I don’t believe in a law to prevent a man from getting rich….” And, to expound on Abe’s sentiment, I don’t believe in a law that takes a greater percentage of a rich man’s assets simply because he is rich and surely can afford to share it.

I find it so ironic that the same party who accuses Conservatives of propagating class division are the very ones who, by their “Us vs. Them” policies, are the ones perpetuating class warfare. Do they not realize that so many of their so-called “rich” are small business owners who hire a huge portion of the American workforce? Do they not understand that these wealthy ones are the very ones who purchase the goods made by the lower and middle class and who invest in our economy and who hire the unemployed? So many of the wealthy in this country got to where they are by hard work and wise investments and by knowing how to handle money. They are very good for America and it is so tiring to hear this administration demean them and essentially penalize them for doing the very things our country needs today.

A Conservative believes that America needs minimum government, not a minimum wage. The economy functions best with market-driven wages that reward hard work, not government-imposed mediocrity.

Conservatives believe that all life, even pre-born life, is incredibly precious. In the big picture, when we devalue life in the womb, we risk devaluing all of life.

Conservatives understand that the First Amendment grants all Americans freedom of religion, not freedom from religion in public, and that the separation of church and state, a phrase not even in the Constitution, has been distorted by many beyond recognition of its original purpose.

Conservatives recognize that the Fairness Doctrine, which essentially attempts to govern Conservative speech on the airwaves, is completely absurd and unnecessary in a free market system that will, by its very nature, bring all the fairness necessary.

A Conservative believes that diversity and equality are not defined by the government or businesses establishing quotas of acceptance, but by encouraging a level playing field so all qualified people have an equal opportunity to exhibit their strengths.

Conservatives understand the value of Patriotism and recognize that to bend our principles and requirements to accommodate illegal immigrants is to slowly, gradually watch those principles, and the freedoms which have undergirded them through the years, and for which so many have given their lives, seep away into oblivion to the point where the very foundation of who we are as a nation—a foundation that drew those millions of immigrants here in the first place—is a distant memory. Immigrants come to America because of who we are as a country and because of the life they can live here. And what we are is based on our principles and the foundation on which we stand. Diversity and open-mindedness are basically good; but what sense does it make to greatly alter our principles for the sake of diversity and to morph into something that defies our nature as a people? Will this not slowly destroy the very nature of this country and corrode the essence of what immigrants came here to be a part of? The words of Thomas Paine ring true: “Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must.…undergo the fatigue of supporting it.” It would be of great value to say to all immigrants who are here illegally, whether they be hard-working or are looking for a free ride: “don’t try to change America into a version of where you came from.”

Conservatism recognizes that welfare in the hands of a massive bureaucracy like the federal government is a bad idea and that the true answer for helping the needy is found in the federal government getting out of the way and out of our pockets and letting good-hearted Americans and generous businesses keep more of their money to be better able to help those who need it—in a much more efficient, effective, and accountable manner than the government ever could. Thomas Jefferson said, “If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretense of taking care of them, they must become happy.” For most of America’s history, help for the needy came primarily from the private sector, each community, and sometimes from the states. President Grover Cleveland said that “….Federal aid (to relieve fellow-citizens in misfortune) encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character….”

Are federal government welfare entitlements full of good intentions? Most likely. But can we really expect a group of bureaucrats in Washington to best know how to meet the needs of those who are struggling all across this country? Consider these two accounts:

In the 2003 Financial Report to the United States Government, issued by the Department of the Treasury, there is a section that notes that “unreconciled transactions” totaled $24.5 billion. Unreconciled transactions are funds that can’t be accounted for. In other words, the government knows that $24.5 billion was spent somewhere in 2003, but auditors cannot account for it.

In Washington’s desire to meet the real needs of the victims of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, one individual collected 18 emergency payments of $2,000 each by giving the same name with 18 different Social Security numbers and 12 fake addresses.

It’s just not possible for an entity in Washington to be able to carefully monitor the needs of an entire country then try to meet those needs. A system that attempts that task is fraught with potential mismanagement, inefficiency, lack of knowledge of true needs, and even corruption. If government is to get involved in this, it would be best to keep it at the state and local levels where it can be better managed and maintained.

It is so important to remember this key fact: the government doesn’t make money like most citizens—it gets its money by taxing our paychecks. So, any increase in government spending is an increase in the money they take from you and me. Yes, there are true needs in the world. But Conservatives believe that compassion is not defined by what we’re required to send the government to care for the needy but by what we’re willing to give, out of our own spirit of caring and out of our knowledge of the needs around us.

It would be well to note that America’s primary goal in regard to helping those in need should not be to provide better welfare; it should be for our economy to grow to the healthy point where welfare programs are needed less and less. And that happens best in an environment of limited government involvement, limited regulation, and putting an end to spreading the wealth around.

It doesn’t take a very deep study of history to recognize that our Constitution came close to being scrapped before it was ratified because so many of the early citizens felt it still gave the federal government too much power. These men and women had lived under, and had family and friends who died to get out from under, an oppressive ruling class in England. They passionately knew the dangers to liberty and freedom; the out-of-control taxation; the lack of choice that came as a result of too much power invested at the top. So they fought and struggled and persevered and died to be free. When freedom prevailed, they worked tirelessly to establish a governing system in this new land they loved so dearly that would never come close to the dominating power they had lived under before.

I encourage the leaders in this administration to re-read 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.” Remember, this was written by men who witnessed firsthand the devastation to individual freedom that results when those at the top assume powers that belong to the people. Can you imagine what these great men would do if they witnessed Washington today? Particularly in light of the passage of the travesty known as the Health Care Reform bill.

Conservatives understand that Health Care is not a fundamental right because a true right does not impose on others an obligation to pay for the right. Professor Walter Williams gives a great example of this: you and I are granted the fundamental right to free speech—we can head to the nearest street corner and say what we want. But we can’t demand that someone buys us a microphone and rents an auditorium for us. The only right granted to all Americans in our Constitution in regard to this is the right to equal access to health care, which we all have. When government steps in to try to provide everything it feels we need, where will it stop? To quote John F. Kennedy again, “Every time that we try to lift a problem from our shoulders and shift that problem to the hands of the government, to the same extent we are sacrificing the liberties of our people.”

And how insightful are the words of Thomas Paine, stated over 200 years ago: “The greatest tyrannies are always perpetrated in the name of the noblest causes.” Is it a noble cause to wish for everyone to have good health insurance? Is it a noble cause to keep automakers from going bankrupt? Is it a noble cause to protect the environment? Yes to all of these—but at what cost to freedom? Why are so many Americans willing to ignore or overlook so many fundamental truths, basic financial principles, and to deny freedom itself, all for the convenience of simply letting the government take care of it?

One more comment on the Health Care Reform Bill: In spite of what the supporters say, I believe this bill is unconstitutional. As noted earlier, the 10^th Amendment says that the specific powers not stated in the Constitution are reserved for the States and the people, not the federal government. And please don’t be fooled by the “Welfare Clause” argument. This clause, located in Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution, states that Congress has the power to “provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.…” But if that clause isn’t taken along with the 10^th Amendment, then just about anything that is even remotely related to taking care of people would be permissible for Congress to undertake. It seems clear that the “general welfare” phrase is related to the welfare of Americans as it relates to the other specific duties listed in the Constitution. To use the Welfare Clause to justify the health care bill represents a great misunderstanding of one of the fundamental purposes of the Constitution: to ensure that our federal government remains limited in carrying out its clearly defined duties.

The past two years, the current administration and leadership in Washington have been making so many decisions and passing legislation as if much of the Constitution doesn’t even exist. It is so crucial to the future of our republic to remember that if we feel the Constitution doesn’t apply any more in a particular area, we have a logical and legal process in place for changing it—it’s called “amending,” not “disregarding.” It’s a sad day when the leaders of the greatest country on this earth defy the very principles that not only define us, but that have led to our greatness. John Adams wisely stated that if we abandoned the freedom gained by the adoption of the Constitution, it would be “treason against the hopes of the world.”

Americans do not need government controlling the health care industry; it needs the government to get out of the way and out of our wallets so that, in the big picture, more and more Americans can afford health care in an already fantastic health care system that simply needs some market-driven adjusting (Conservatives across America have offered many great ideas that will bring about valuable change to make health care more affordable for Americans—for two examples of this, see www.just2simpleguys.com and www.bobby2010.com).

There is no question that America is struggling economically right now. So just how would Conservatives bolster the economy? How about this for a start: Repeal the health care bill and many other entitlement programs (there are much more efficient means to help those in need than by getting the federal government involved to the degree currently advocated in Washington), get the federal government out of the bailout business where they don’t belong, keep the Bush tax cuts in place—for all income levels—and lower taxes elsewhere, and I have every confidence that the unemployment rate will tumble and the economy will rebound in record time.

Here’s the bottom line on the Government nanny issue:The federal government does not exist to fill in the gaps where individuals fail or have needs—it exists only to carry out the limited functions, defined in the Constitution, that can’t practically be handled by individuals. Gerald Ford said, “A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.” But please be aware: this potential takeover won’t happen overnight. It will happen one freedom or right at a time. It may start by requiring you to purchase health care when you don’t want it (which the health care bill requires); it may continue by raising your taxes to take care of someone who refuses to work because they found out they can make more money by not working; then you may lose your right to own a gun, or your freedom to eat fattening foods without a penalty, or to smoke in your own private place, or to pray where you wish. The words of James Madison are becoming such a reality today: “….there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations…. This danger ought to be wisely guarded against.”

In his inauguration speech, the president said, “The question isn’t if the government is too big or too small, but will it help….” No Mr. President, the issue IS that the government is far, far too big. History has shown that the New Deal was not such a good deal and the Great Society idea didn’t turn out so great. Can anyone honestly say that Social Security, Medicare, Disaster Relief—not necessarily bad plans but all programs run by the federal government—have been successfully managed? Would you trust your personal finances to an investment firm that managed your money this way? But millions of Americans support the idea of willingly sending a huge portion of each paycheck to Uncle Sam Investment Financing and trusting that the Uncle will spend it wisely.

General Douglas MacArthur showed great insight when he said: “There are many who….believe in a form of socialistic….rule, a sort of big brother deity to run our lives for us. They no longer believe that free men can successfully manage their own affairs. Their thesis is that a handful of men, centered in government….can utilize the proceeds of our toil and labor to greater advantage than those who create it….” He went on to say that “The object and practice of liberty lies in the limitation of governmental power.” Great words and great insight, General.

We are at such a critical time in our history. Far too many Americans have been taken in by this administration because it appears they have the good of the people at heart. Alexander Hamilton was quite prophetic when he said, “….it is a truth, which the experience of all ages has attested, that the people are commonly most in danger when the means of injuring their rights are in the possession of those (toward) whom they entertain the least suspicion.”

We’re in a battle today; a battle for the future of this beloved country we call home; this lighthouse that provides hope to a world troubled by storms of terrorism, famine, disasters. There are many in leadership, whom far too many Americans trust, who are trying to transform this land into something never intended; a transformation that will destroy who we are as a people; that will snuff out this lighthouse in a way that no war from outside our shores ever has.

Someone once said, “As long as an enemy is perceived by his appearance, his victory is assured.” I believe with all my heart that two years ago, Truth in America lost to perception and appearance. It’s time for us to bring common sense Truth back to Washington; back to America; back to our families; back to our dinner tables.

(Please see www.just2simpleguys.com for more on this topic.)

 

I’m very sad today, and frustrated, and a bit confused. With last weekend’s passage of the House Health Care Reform Bill, I’m left wondering where the America I love is heading and what has happened to freedom. It seems as though we have entered an alternate land in some strange Twilight Zone episode—a land wholly different from the one that has helped shape the course of this world for over two centuries.

The past few weeks I have spent a great deal of time reading portions of the 1990-page House Bill and a summary of the Senate’s Baucus Bill that passed the Senate Finance Committee three weeks ago. I’ve seen enough to nearly make me ill. I have always been very opposed to the whole philosophy and concept of government-sponsored, and government-managed, health care, but I wanted to go beyond what others were writing about it and develop my own specific conclusions by analyzing the actual words that have been voted on. So, after many hours of reading, thinking, and yelling at my computer screen (and with an understanding that the final bill brought before both the House and Senate will most likely vary significantly from the bill passed this weekend), I would like to present 7 questions, plus one, that have been churning in my mind the past few days.

QUESTION 1 – Why is the federal government even getting involved in the health care business?

Here is what I believe is the root of this issue: America was founded by an amazing group of people who wanted to live in a place free from the entanglement of government in their lives. They recognized, through experience, the dangers of a governing body having too many fingers in the pie, even when it may seem like those fingers are giving things away. They seemed to recognize the truth of what Barry Goldwater would later state, that “the government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away.”

For this reason, they designed a governing document (the Constitution) that clearly defined very specific guidelines for the roles the federal government would play in daily life. With this document as our foundation, America has thrived for over 230 years. We need our government to fulfill those limited roles, but sadly, most of the health care reform being discussed today is contrary to the Constitution. In Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress is authorized to do about 21 things, with the rest of life left up to individuals and to the states. But so much of what Congress does today, and taxes us for, is nowhere in that list. And without a doubt, managing and running a business like health care (the public option will very possibly be in the final bill) is nowhere on the radar of Constitutionally-mandated responsibilities. In other words, regulating this industry to the point of massive intrusion into personal and business affairs (see below) is bad enough; but it is beyond my comprehension to understand how it can be good for America to have our federal government become a health insurance provider.

It is an important function of government to protect citizens’ liberty, including their economic liberty and freedom. However, the more government infringes on our personal economics by imposing taxes to pay for programs that may represent good causes, but that could be so much better handled by the private sector, the more our personal liberty is eroded. David Hume observed that “It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once.” I fear that this massive intrusion into our lives known as health care reform is yet another slice of liberty being removed.

I am so tired of our president and his supporters in Congress acting and making laws as if the Constitution didn’t even exist. It is a sad day when America disregards (not amends, which is appropriate, but ignores, which is deplorable) the very principles that not only define our nation, but that have led to our greatness.

QUESTION 2 – Is health care really a right?

Do most Americans wish that more people had health care coverage? Absolutely. This debate isn’t about Conservatives not caring that many of their fellow citizens may not have adequate coverage—we care deeply about this. The debate is about what is the best way to arrive at the goal of greater coverage.

See, there’s a big problem with stating that health care is a right. Economist Walter Williams explains it this way: true “rights” in America—rights such as the freedom of speech and the right to bear arms—do not impose an obligation on someone else. For example, because of our First Amendment, I can say most anything I want in public without fear of imprisonment, but I can’t demand that someone buys me a microphone and rents an auditorium for me. In the truest sense, health care is not a right because it imposes on others the requirement to provide money to pay for it—it requires that the government reach into someone’s pocket to pay for another person’s care.

Having health care is not a fundamental right—having the freedom to obtain health care coverage in a free market is a fundamental right. Few people want there to be millions of Americans without health care coverage, but who came up with the concept that the government should take care of our needs to this extent? The government can’t keep throwing money at the problems of citizens. Where would it stop? Do we really want to live in a country in which big Uncle Sam steps in repeatedly and gradually creates an environment in which more and more people have to lean on him and limp through life in dependence?

My goal is to see the free market left alone, unburdened by excessive taxes—encouraged to make a few adjustments to the existing system (some suggestions are listed later). In this environment, the cost of care will come down, making it possible for more and more Americans to purchase the coverage needed in a healthy economic environment, not in a dependent state of need.

QUESTION 3 – Are we truly in a crisis?

Once again, this issue isn’t about the fact that we want to make health care more affordable for more people—this is about how it is accomplished. We have, arguably, the greatest health care plans in the world. We keep hearing about the 47 (or so) million Americans who aren’t covered—why don’t we hear more about the millions and millions of Americans who are covered by great medical plans (I absolutely love my health care plan). We have a great health care industry in place in America—why scrap the whole thing, or throw such a wrench into it that it will inevitably drive up the costs for everyone? Yes, I know that President Obama says that his goal is to keep the costs down for everyone, but there is more and more evidence emerging that his plan will do just the opposite.

I realize that the argument can be raised that neither the Baucus Bill nor the House bill eliminates current health care plans. But, make no mistake about what appears to be the president’s ultimate wish. In 2003, he stated “I happen to be in favor of a single-payer, universal health care plan…” In April of this year, Democratic Representative Jan Schakowsky (IL) said “…a guy from the insurance company who then argued against the public health insurance option saying it wouldn’t let private insurance compete—a public option would put the private insurance industry out of business and lead to single-payer…My single-payer friends, he was right.” If you read the words of many of the Democratic leaders who are pushing for these new health care bills, it becomes clear that many of them wish to eventually move to a government-sponsored, single-payer system which will, essentially, scrap our current health insurance system that provides amazing care for millions and millions of Americans. If we start down that road now with a public option, I don’t doubt that the power and money it brings the federal government will just motivate the leaders in Washington to move more and more toward a universal, single-payer plan.

QUESTION 4 – Can the federal government do a good job managing this industry?

There’s no question that the federal government is needed for some things—defending our country with a strong military, protecting our borders, a few other functions—because it accomplishes these things in a way no other entity can. However, there is also little question that the efficient spending of money is not one of the things the federal government does well. In fact, examples of their mismanagement and waste are legendary. Consider these stories among thousands that could be told:

In the 2003 Financial Report to the United States Government, issued by the Department of the Treasury, there is a section that notes that “unreconciled transactions” totaled $24.5 billion. Unreconciled transactions are funds that can’t be accounted for. In other words, the government knows that $24.5 billion was spent somewhere in 2003, but auditors cannot account for it.

In 2002, the inspector general of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services testified before a Senate subcommittee that Medicare had paid $8.68 per liter of saline solution while the VA health care program had paid only $1.02 for the same product.The study revealed that it was typical for Medicare to pay excessive prices for many medical supplies.

The Social Security system is on its way to bankruptcy. Story after story emerged about the mismanagement of federal funds provided to victims of Hurricane Katrina. Medicare is in deep trouble. And on and on the examples go.

This is the same government that would like to convince us they can effectively manage one of the largest industries in the country. It amazes me that so many Americans are willing to hand over a large portion of their hard-earned dollars (and don’t be fooled into thinking that it will only be the rich who will pay for this) to an entity that has an indisputable track record of waste and mismanagement. Would anyone trust their retirement account in a financial firm with this kind of reputation? But so many are willing to trust Washington with billions of dollars—why?

Let me pose a fundamental question to those who wish to move to a more government-run system: when is it ever a good thing to remove competition from the market? We currently have hundreds of health insurance companies in America, all competing against each other for our business. This is the basis for a capitalistic society. If the government removes or limits that competition, do we really think costs will go down? A competitive market is one big reason why I can buy a digital watch today for $5 when they used to cost so much more. It’s why I could buy a great laptop computer last month for under $900 dollars. Competition helps keep prices down and quality and innovation on the cutting edge. How much incentive will be removed for medical research to continue to improve medicines, techniques, and devices when the federal government begins fixing prices and removing competition? If the government eventually runs this business, as many are pushing for, it seems that much of the funding for medical research and development will be from increases in taxes—this isn’t the model for keeping America on the cutting edge of medical technology. I am frustrated and amazed that so many are willing to deny so many fundamental truths, basic financial principles, and freedom itself, all for the convenience of simply letting the government take care of it.

Or, if the final solution from government is to simply add one more competitor into the mix (the federal government itself), let me address what President Obama said recently. "Just conceptually, the notion that all these insurance companies who say they're giving consumers the best possible deal, if they can't compete against a public plan as one option, with consumers making the decision what's the best deal, that defies logic.” On the surface this seems to make some logical sense. But once again, the federal government has no business (according to the Constitution and based on their history of inefficient management) being an insurance provider. Also, if they enter this business, what kind of competition would they really bring to the table when much of their plan would be funded by tax increases and fines? It’s just a bad financial model to implement. (One little side note: have you noticed how much time the President spends criticizing businesses like the insurance companies and the auto manufacturers? It leads me to question the respect he has for the very people who provide the jobs that keep our economy going and keep our citizens employed. It often seems as though he believes the federal government is a better business than the thousands of private businesses that make up our economy. I wish he would spend more time praising and building up, rather than cutting down, the very businesses that contribute to America’s financial success.)

QUESTION 5 – Can it in any way be a good thing for government to intrude this deeply into the lives of individuals?

The new House bill requires individuals to obtain health insurance or pay a fine (tax) to the government(Page 296 of the released House bill states: “If an individual fails to obtain qualifying coverage, he must pay an income surtax equal to the lesser of 2.5 percent of modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) or the average premium.”). Also, if a person fails to pay this tax, he or she could be subject to the penalties stated in the U.S. tax code, which include heavy fines and even possible imprisonment. I don’t understand how this one fact alone doesn’t send chills down the spine of every American who loves freedom. The gall and arrogance of this administration and Congress who think they have the right to govern our lives this deeply. America, please wake up to see the road this reform bill is paving—a road that leads to a slow erosion of freedom and a gradual takeover of more and more of our private lives.

President Obama has repeatedly stated that no one would be required to give up their current insurance. Technically, this is true according to the new House bill, but in reality, this statement is a distortion of reality. The new bill imposes such strict regulations on private insurance companies (see pages 91-95 of the bill) that it seems clear one of this administration’s goals in this is to see private insurance companies fade away so the federal government can step in. For instance, a private company cannot enroll anyone new in their plan after the first day of the first year of the passage of this bill, nor can they change their terms or benefits after the first day. In other words, you’re free to keep your current insurance now, but if your insurance company decides to make changes in its policy, or if you change jobs and wish to get new insurance, you will be required to obtain either public-option insurance or insurance covered under the new State Exchanges. How can this in any way be good for a market-driven, capitalistic society like ours?

I have a big moral problem with the government getting entrenched in this very personal area of individuals’ lives. The government has quite a track record of passing laws in an attempt to regulate what they perceive as a problem. Is smoking a problem? Let’s pass a law to ban it from private businesses (and let’s tax it more to provide a little more incentive for people to stop the habit). Is global warming about to doom the earth? Let’s pass a bunch of laws to mandate what private auto manufacturers can produce in their factories. Is it a big leap to project that if the government adopts a huge vested interest in health insurance, then fattening foods will soon be a “problem” to tax or regulate? Long-term care for the elderly could become unproductive and inefficient and therefore regulated by a group of bureaucrats more concerned about the bottom line than about the value the elderly bring to our society. My great concern is that if the government gets more and more into the business of providing health care, they’re going to get more and more into our personal lives—and isn’t this what the founders of this amazing republic feared greatly and sacrificed their lives to prevent? Isn’t the avoidance of that scenario a huge part of what defines America? Could it be that this administration is set on redefining America? If so, I wish for them the greatest failure imaginable in this arena.

Finally, even though the Stupak amendment prohibits public health care money from being use to fund abortions, there is much talk that this language will not find its way into the final bill proposed. If this is the case, what an assault it would be on the consciences of millions of pro-life Americans.

QUESTION 6 – Will only the rich see their taxes increased?

Let’s look at some numbers and estimates, particularly based on the Baucus Health Plan that passed the Senate Finance Committee. Of course, any numbers discussed now are merely projections since there is no final bill yet. I also realize that numbers can often be manipulated to prove many different points, but if the figures discussed below are even close to what would eventually be reality in a final bill, far more than the rich will have to be taxed to cover the costs.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the Baucus Bill would reportedly cost the federal government about $900 billion over the next 10 years. The number keeps growing. The latest estimate for the House bill sits at about $1.2 trillion. According to Douglas Holtz-Eakin, former director of the CBO, “The bill would impose nearly $400 billion in new taxes and fees. A large portion of that burden will be shouldered by those making $200,000 or less.”

The $900 billion or $1.2 trillion will be financed in large part by new taxes and fees such as:

An excise tax on insurance companies’ high-cost, “Cadillac” health care plans that many Americans (not just the wealthy) already carry. Simple economic sense says that these taxes will be passed on to the insured in the form of higher premiums and/or higher health care costs.

An annual fee (about $4 billion according to the Baucus Bill) on companies that make medical devices (including devices such as powered wheelchairs, hearing aids, and prosthetics). Also, a $2.3 billion fee on pharmaceutical manufacturers. Again, these aren’t just fees imposed on the big businesses of the world—these are fees that will be passed down to all consumers: lower class, middle class, upper class.

Currently, medical expenses that exceed 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income are tax deductible. The Baucus proposal would raise this threshold to 10 percent. Is this not essentially an increase in taxes on Americans of all income levels, not just the rich?

Additional limits and restrictions will be placed Health Savings Accounts, including removing the ability to purchase non-prescription drugs with this money and reducing the amount of tax-free money that can be put in the accounts.

The House bill includes a surtax of 5.4% on those making $500,000 or more. That’s a huge tax increase to fund this program. And lest we fall for the class warfare mentality that says “people who make that much can afford it,” please remember that the wealthy in this country are the ones who start businesses and create jobs for the lower and middle class. They are also many of the ones who provide much of the funding for great programs that help the needy. This country will crumble economically if big business keeps getting punished for success. When high taxes and fees are imposed on them, it affects all of us in the form of lost jobs, higher fees (that have to be paid by the very people the supporters of these tax increases claim they want to help), less innovation, and much more. I have to ask the question again: do we really think the federal government will spend Americans’ money more effectively than the American people themselves? I so wish this administration would think long and hard about the words William Boetcker said back in 1942 (sometimes attributed to Abraham Lincoln):

“You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong…
You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down…
You cannot help people permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.”

Do you notice a trend in the taxes and fees listed above? There seems to be a strong tendency with many in Congress to make decisions that lead to stifling innovation and success. “Have you been successful and make a good amount of money? Let’s increase your taxes so we can ‘spread the wealth around’ to those who haven’t gotten to where you are.” “Are you a big business that creates innovative drugs that help cure people? Let’s impose a big fee on you and chip away at your incentive to research and develop new and better medicines.” “Have you worked hard to be quite self-sufficient and able to get your own insurance? Let’s add a fee to that success—you don’t really need all that money anyway.” Those aren’t the words we hear, but that’s the message sent by their actions.

A large number of Americans who are not offered health insurance at work would be eligible for government subsidies to help cover the cost of obtaining insurance. This may sound good on the surface, but the only way the government can afford this is to impose new taxes and fees on Americans. One of those “someone’s” is employers—businesses with more than 50 employees that do not offer employer-sponsored insurance will be assessed a fee for each employee who receives a government subsidy. Once again, where will the employer get the money to pay for this fee? From his or her workers, most likely in the form of lowering wages or laying off workers.

There’s another interesting possible negative side effect of this fee imposed on employers: since an employee’s eligibility for receiving government help with his or her insurance is based on the employee’s family income and size, there is a built-in incentive for employers to hire workers from smaller families with a higher family income. Seems to me like this could have a very negative effect on the hiring of lower class individuals, workers with children, and those who need work the most. Also, do we employees really want to have our privacy invaded to the point of being required to disclose our family income to our employer? Finally, with the bill’s requirement that individuals, health insurers, employers, and government health agencies report detailed health insurance information to the IRS, how much will this cost taxpayers for the added administrative costs. All of these issues expose this entire reform idea as yet another example of the many inherent problems of government getting involved where they have no business.

Independent financial consultant PriceWaterhouseCoopers released a report in October in which it analyzed many of the elements of the Senate Finance Committee’s health care reform bill (many of these elements are also in the House bill). In its findings, they analyzed such items as the new taxes imposed by reform and the cost-shifting that would occur as a result of Medicare cuts. The study estimates that, if a health care reform bill similar to the Baucus Bill is passed, the cost of obtaining private health insurance could increase by as much as 32% more (for all income levels—not just the wealthy) between 2009 and 2019 than a normal increase in the absence of any reform bill. If these numbers are anywhere close to being accurate, so much for the administration’s plan to lower health care costs for everyone.I just can’t help but wonder if this whole issue, from the government’s perspective, isn’t so much about helping those without insurance as it is about gaining more and more power in Washington. Just a thought.

QUESTION 7 – Why does the federal government think they have the right to regulate the decisions of a private business with regard to costs and coverage?

The House bill contains provisions that prohibit insurance companies from having a lifetime limit on benefits paid and would bar them from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions. Though I admit this is a difficult issue for me to sort through, I lean toward believing that these are decisions that should be left up to private business, not government mandate. For those who like to cast stones at big businesses like insurance providers, please consider how you would feel if the government stepped into your line of work and demanded that you make economic, business decisions based, not on what you believed was best for your company, but on what a group of bureaucrats in Washington determined was best.

Similarly, both the House bill and the Baucus bill include a government requirement that employers provide health insurance coverage for their employees (“Employers with 200 or more employees must automatically enroll their employees…”). The House bill also requires many employers to pay a big portion of the premium. A fine is imposed on employers who do not comply (“An employer with more than 50 employees but one that doesn’t offer coverage would be assessed a fee for each employee who receives a premium tax credit.”). What right, under the Constitution or common sense, does the federal government have to intrude into the lives of business owners to that level?

The House bill also requires chain restaurants to post, on their menus adjacent to each food listed, the number of calories of each item. There is also a requirement to post a “succinct statement concerning suggested daily caloric intake…” What? Yes, it’s nice to know this information, and I appreciate restaurants that choose, on their own, to inform their customers. But what right does the government have to demand this of a privately-owned business? And what about the cost to these restaurants of producing new menus? It’s highly likely the restaurant’s patrons will cover this cost.

There are numerous hospital procedures and decisions that will now be under the direct control and influence of the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Again, how can it be wise to leave important medical decisions regarding a private hospital’s effectiveness to administer health care in the hands of those assigned to be in charge in Washington?

The Baucus Bill includes a requirement that, beginning in 2010, health plans would be required to report the proportion of premium dollars spent on non-medical care. Lest we think this is a healthy practice of the federal government to keep business from misusing the consumer’s money, please consider where this micro-managing could lead. We would be wise to think this through to its logical conclusion—when the door to government intrusion into private affairs is opened a little, what’s to stop it from swinging wide open to invite them into every business’ books to mandate and regulate how every company spends its money. Just ask Chrysler if they like Uncle Sam manipulating their business decisions.

FINAL QUESTION – Then just how can we improve our health care system?

Whatever the answer to this question, I believe we need to start with the understanding that freedom and the free market are foundational to any solutions that may be proposed. We absolutely do not need reform that so blatantly runs contrary to the fact that freedom of the individual, and the free market, have defined the success of the American economic system for years. The reform measures that have been proposed by the Democrats flirt dangerously close to moving America to a socialistic health care system—a system that has been, for the most part, a failure in so many places it has been tried around the world. For example, rationing of health care and incredible delays in being referred to specialists are the norm in Canada (I give some specific examples of this in Chapter 8 of my book at www.just2simpleguys.com). Why would we want to even consider the idea of a government-run plan?

So, I’d like to answer this valuable question with a few ideas borrowed from the experts out there. Rather than an entire overhaul of the system we have in place in America today, how about we adjust that system in ways like the following?

Change the federal tax law to allow for greater portability of health insurance when workers change jobs. This will, along with other benefits, allow employees to keep their current insurance when they change jobs.

Expand the availability and benefits of Health Savings Accounts. These accounts allow employees to set aside, tax-free, money into a savings account. This money can only be used for qualified medical expenses and any money that is not used can be utilized at a certain age as retirement income. These accounts provide many valuable benefits that help keep overall costs of health care lower by injecting market principles into the mix.

In conjunction with Health Savings Accounts, encourage the restoring of “price tags” for medical care. By requiring providers to inform patients of the cost of their care, the market and competition would be much more maximized and would invariably bring costs down.

Though I am not a big fan of imposing great regulations on industries, I do believe that true health care reform will involve some measure of tort reform that includes placing limits on lawsuit payments for “pain and suffering.”

For any regulations that may be valuable in the health care and insurance fields, transfer regulatory powers from the federal government to the states and allow them to devise innovative solutions to the problems.

Reform Medicaid by implementing such practices as moving some recipients into private health insurance plans that are funded by tax credits, HSA’s, and possibly some assistance for premiums (monitored at the state level so there is less of a chance of it being taken advantage of).

It seems clear and sensible that the ultimate health care reform will involve a long-term approach that, as described in the paragraphs above, encompasses the philosophical concept that the more the government stays away from our wallets (instead of increasing taxes to “spread the wealth around”), the more money will be available for great Americans to help those in need. In addition to the economic sense it makes for government to limit its influence on businesses, I am convinced that millions of the well-off in this country truly want to help the needy and if their hard-earned money is left alone, many of them will use that money to help in the health care arena. This is borne out in such organizations as Medi-Share (www.medi-share.org), an online community of people that have contributed to a pool of money that is used to provide assistance for those with medical needs. Visit their website to see an example of the great things that can happen when government limits its role and leaves Americans to do what they do so well—produce, grow the economy, and help those in need.

FINAL QUESTION 2 – What can we do about all of this?

Call your Congressional Representative and Senators to express your opinion on this issue. With re-elections coming soon for many of them, they are listening to our opinions. Call the Capitol switchboard number (202-224-3121), ask for your representative or senator, and briefly express your opinion on the Health Care Reform bill. It will make a difference.

One final note: Many of the Conservative concepts addressed in this analysis are described in more detail in my book, “Just 2 Simple Guys—Rediscovering Common Sense in America.” Please visit my website at www.just2simpleguys.com for more information. Thank you.

 I’ve been asked before, “What is a Conservative?” I’d like to express what a simple, middle class, common sense, Midwestern American Conservative believes in.

One of my favorite Ronald Reagan quotes is, “All great change begins at the dinner table.” Unfortunately, our current president, and so many of his Washington partners, has twisted that truth into something like, “All great change begins in Washington.” In fact, the president stated recently that, “…at this particular moment, only government…can break the vicious cycles that are crippling our economy.” My Conservative heart has one word to say to that sentiment: “Bull.”

Government is not a bad thing. We have an amazing representative republic governmental system in America. But the government is a bad thing when it attempts to do what it was never designed to do – when it defies Abraham Lincoln’s belief that “You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.”

I believe the United States is the greatest country on this earth. We got to that position by God’s blessing and by the hard work, strong character and integrity of our people, supported by a limited governmental system that stayed out of our way and provided us the freedom to achieve greatness and to succeed.

So, with that said, here is what I believe a Conservative is:

A Conservative recognizes that our Federal Government is great at providing us with the best military in the world to protect us, but is terrible at managing and spending money – so we ask those in Washington, why are so many Democrats pushing to decrease our military and increase the amount of money the government has control of?

A Conservative believes that government doesn’t make money like you and me – they get their money by taxing our paychecks. So, any increase in government spending is an increase in the money they take from you and me.

A Conservative realizes that tax cuts across the board are what invigorates and grows an economy, just as we saw in the 80’s with the Reagan tax cuts and in the early 2000’s with the Bush tax cuts. So, in this current economic situation, why would anyone think that more government involvement, resulting in more of our money taken, is the answer to helping us, especially in light of the fact that it was largely government involvement that got us into this mess in the first place? I so wish this administration would follow the words of their great Democrat icon John F. Kennedy, who said, “Ask not what your country can do for you…” How I long for our president to stand up in these tough times, using his influence to cheer on the millions of workers and encourage us that we have within us the means to get through this difficult time. To remind us that for hundreds of years it’s been the sweat and toil of the American worker, working in a society free from the entanglement of government, that has built our economy into the greatest in the world. To encourage us that better days are ahead – not that we’re in for a long-term mess unless he steps in to save the day.

A Conservative asks why the rich pay higher tax rates than others, a policy that basically sends a message to Americans that if you work hard, achieve your goals, and climb the ladder of success, when you get up that ladder, we’re going to punish you by taking more of your money. We also understand that the rich are indispensable in this country and should be applauded for what they have accomplished and for being the very ones who provide the jobs and the money for the middle and lower class.

A Conservative believes that America needs minimum government, not a minimum wage. We desire market-driven wages that reward hard work, not government-imposed mediocrity.

Conservatives recognize that CEO salaries should be governed by the free market, where the money comes from, not by a government that has nothing to do with the production of that money. We also understand that a government that feels they have the right to go after CEO salaries may someday come after my salary. With this belief, will some CEO’s be overpaid? Maybe – but I stand with Thomas Jefferson when he said, “I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.”

Conservatives believe that all life, even pre-born life, is incredibly precious, and in the big picture, when we devalue life in the womb, we slowly devalue all of life. And life is not something to be taken lightly. An ethical and moral humanity should be protecting life at all cost, not destroying it for the sake, in so many cases, of convenience.

Though perhaps not universal, I believe that a Conservative recognizes that the fact that we’ve had no terrorist attacks since 2001 is directly related to President Bush’s tough stand on terror and his swift and decisive action to bring freedom to Iraq.

Conservatives understand that the First Amendment grants all Americans freedom of religion, not freedom from religion in public, and that the separation of church and state, a phrase not even in the Constitution, has been distorted by the ACLU and others beyond recognition from its original purpose.

Conservatives recognize that the Fairness Doctrine, which attempts to govern the airwaves, is completely absurd and unnecessary in a free market system that will, by its very nature, bring all the fairness needed.

Conservatism recognizes that welfare in the hands of a massive bureaucracy like the federal Government is pretty much a wasteful disaster waiting to happen and that the true answer to the needy is for the government to get out of the way and out of our pockets and let good-hearted Americans and generous businesses keep more of their money to help those who need it – in a much more efficient, effective, and accountable manner than the government ever could. We would be so much better off if we remembered this one principle that should govern welfare: Our goal in America should not be to provide better welfare; it should be for our economy to grow to the healthy point where we don’t need welfare.

You see, Conservatives believe that compassion is not defined by what we’re required to send the government to care for the needy but by what we’re willing to give, out of our own spirit of caring and out of our knowledge of the needs around us.

Conservatives recognize that Government doesn’t exist to fill in the gaps where individuals fail. It exists only to carry out the functions that can’t be fully handled by individuals.

Conservatives understand that Health Care is not a fundamental right because a true right doesn’t impose on others an obligation to pay for the right. Americans don’t need government controlling the health care industry; it needs the government to get out of the way and out of our wallets so more and more Americans can afford health care in an already fantastic health care system that simply needs some market-driven adjusting.

A Conservative believes that diversity and equality are not defined by government or business establishing quotas of acceptance but by encouraging a level playing field so all qualified people have an equal opportunity to prove their excellence.

Conservatives understand the value of Patriotism and recognize that to bend our principles and requirements to accommodate illegals is to slowly, gradually watch those principles, and the freedoms which have under girded them through the years, seep away into oblivion to the point where the very foundation of who we are as a nation – a foundation that drew those millions of immigrants here in the first place – is a distant memory. The words of Thomas Paine ring very true: “Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must…undergo the fatigue of supporting it.”

Finally, Conservatives recognize that our founding fathers understood that America was great because its people were great. So, they designed a limited government that, for the most part, got out of the way of these great people. They knew that to step into their lives too much was to limit the expression and development of that greatness. I pray our leaders get back to recognizing the truth that Ronald Reagan embraced, that “Man is not free unless government is limited.”

Greg Sullivan

www.just2simpleguys.com

In the shadow of Friday’s Senate vote, I’m reminded of the words of two of the heroes of the Democratic Party; words that speak to the heart of this massive government intrusion into our lives known as the economic stimulus bill. In his inaugural address to the nation, President John F. Kennedy stated, “Ask not what your country can do for you….” Though he was not specifically addressing the type of economic difficulties we are facing today, those words echo with prophetic meaning in light of Friday’s decision. That famous quote underlies what is my great concern with the stimulus bill: that the plan looks to the government to bail us out of this mess—a government, by the way, that was largely responsible for creating the mess. I can’t figure out why so many are buying into the president’s belief that only the government’s intervention can save this economy.

Back in January, President Obama stated “…at this particular moment, only government can provide the short-term boost necessary to lift us from a recession this deep and severe. Only government can break the vicious cycles that are crippling our economy…” Where does this thought come from? Consider the track record of this government he is counting on so passionately. How well have they managed the billions of dollars in the Social Security Fund? The system is approaching bankruptcy. How well did they handle relief distribution during Hurricane Katrina? Miserably, when you consider, for example, that one individual collected 18 emergency payments of $2000 each by giving the same name with 18 different Social Security numbers. How effectively does Washington spend our tax money? In 2003, the Department of the Treasury reported that “unreconciled transactions” (funds that couldn’t be accounted for) totaled $24.5 billion. Yet this is the same government that every Democrat (and unfortunately, three Republicans) in the House and Senate, and our new President, wants to put in charge of hundreds of billions of dollars sent to them by hardworking Americans.

I love the governmental system in place in America—I believe deeply that we are a shining example to the rest of the world. But the federal government is at its best when it sticks to its Constitutionally-defined limited duties. President Obama and his partners in the House and Senate are calling on our government to do far, far more than it was ever designed to do, using your money to do it.

I recognize that President Obama has acknowledged that American workers are “…the most productive on earth,” and that he has stated that the true fix lies in the hands of business, but why is he so willing to write off the ability of these workers and businesses to conquer this economic slowdown without an over-intrusion of Washington? Why is he so willing to imply that you and I can’t do it without the big hand of the federal government gripping us?

How much more effective would it be if he used his influence and position to cheer on the millions of workers and encourage us that we have within us the means to get through this difficult time? To remind us that for hundreds of years it’s been the sweat and toil of the American worker, working in a society free from entanglement of government, that has built our economy into the greatest in the world. To encourage us that better days are ahead—not that we’re in for a long-term mess unless he steps in to save the day.

Has the president forgotten the words of FDR: “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself?” His campaign for this package has been built largely on fear: fear that things are going to get worse; fear that more and more of us are going to lose our jobs; fear that if he and his government stallions don’t step in, the “vicious cycle” will only get worse. Being realistic is one thing—being fatalistic seems to be either an incredible attempt to manipulate the public into accepting a wasteful bill or a great mistrust in the people’s ability to rebound.

Why doesn’t he understand the valuable boost he could provide by saying that he believes in us enough to get government out of the way by lowering taxes for all workers, letting us keep more of our money, and trusting us to work, invest and spend wisely, and pump our money into the economy as we see fit, not as Uncle Sam deems best? I long to hear the president say, “We’ll do what we do best—keep you safe from harm, keep our country’s infrastructure solid—the rest is up to you, not up to Washington.” Can you imagine what the market would do with a speech like that? I am convinced we would see the reverse of the 430 point plunge the DOW took last week.

A brief look at history is all it takes to see that a reduction in government intrusion (taxes) and a trust in our amazing free-market economy is what boosted the economy in the 80’s with the Reagan tax cuts and in 2001 and 2003 with the Bush tax cuts. And please don’t buy the lie that it was these policies that led to our current problems—this situation was brought about by a whole series of events (beyond the scope of this article) that had nothing to do with tax cuts or supply and demand economics.

In his inauguration speech, President Obama said, “The question isn’t if the government is too big or too small, but will it help….” No, Mr. President, the primary question is whether the government is too big—and it is. If we truly believe that the American worker is the answer to economic success, do we really need the government spending billions of these workers’ hard-earned dollars to try to help the same workers earn back that hard-earned money? Do we need Congress creating jobs that are funded with our tax money or would we be better off if government got out of the way, got out of our pockets, and let us prosper without their interference?

It seems to me that the common sense approach to this financial situation is to let the very people who earn the money that keeps America running keep more of their money; to relieve the already-heavy tax burden; and to let them spend and invest that money in our economy instead of in our government—a government that has proven over and over again that it has great difficulty managing the money entrusted to it. I believe we workers may surprise many on the Washington Hill by doing for our country what our government simply can’t, and isn’t supposed to, do.

To read more about this issue, and related topics, visit www.just2simpleguys.com.

     As Barack Obama prepares for his move to the White House, America would do well to remember his “spread the wealth around” comment to Joe. It will be very interesting to see if he truly will govern with this socialistic (vs. capitalistic) mindset. For some mysterious reason, it seems that much of America doesn’t understand the devastating effects this mindset could have on our way of life. A great lesson from American history will help illustrate what I mean.

     As the early American settlers began to establish their communities, there was, of course, a desire to provide for the needs of each person, in spite of less-than-adequate harvests. In the early days of the settlement, a form of SOCIALISM was established in the colonies in which the profits and benefits achieved by the trade and work of everyone were placed in a common storehouse of the colony. All of the members of the colony then shared in all that was in the common stock. In other words, a person was to put into the common supply shed all he could and take out only what he needed. Socialism in a simplified nutshell.

     At first glance, this system may seem to be a very caring, efficient way to provide for everyone. The reality was that it failed miserably! Instead of taking care of the needs of the colonists, the system led to famine and starvation. Why? Because people aren’t wired to work hard to produce goods, only to be forced to give the goods away. Giving, sharing, and taking care of others are borne out of desire, gratefulness, and compassion, not government mandates. In the midst of this social experiment, William Bradford, the governor of the colony, wrote that the men who were most able, fit, and willing to work hard complained about being forced to “spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense.” It wasn’t so much that they didn’t want to help others—it was that they were tired of working hard and being forced to share the products of their hard work with a family led by a lazy provider. Bradford noted that the strong men who worked diligently began to realize they had “no more in division of victuals and clothes than he that was weak.” This led to a refusal by the strong to work as hard, which in turn led to a great shortage of food.

     In 1623, Bradford recognized the utter failure of this system and decided that each household should be given a parcel of land. Each family could keep what they produced or trade it as they wished. In short, capitalism and a free market were instituted. The result was that the colonies thrived. In Governor Bradford’s words, “This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been….” History shows that this story was reproduced in many of the early American colonies.

     The principle is so clear: Allowing people to reap the natural benefits of their labor is all the incentive needed for most people to work hard, to succeed, to prosper, to achieve great things for themselves and their families. Society will flourish in that environment, and in that thriving society, the general goodness of people will emerge by choice, not by mandate. The truly less fortunate and needy will be taken care of by the hardworking able.

     This principle has so many applications and far-reaching implications. In a society governed by free market and choice, government regulations on businesses are, for the most part, not needed. Welfare mandated by the state is eliminated, or limited to mostly short-term help for more extreme situations. A minimum wage set by the government is unnecessary because the market will reward those who work hard.

     This may seem like an over-simplification of basic economics, but I believe very deeply in the freedom of the individual. In this freedom, individuals have the opportunity to branch out, stretch themselves, succeed and fail, learn and grow from their failures, and achieve extraordinary things. When a society is full of these types of individuals, working hard to better themselves, the direct effect is the betterment of the society as a whole. America to be great, people need to be left alone to thrive, and in their success, America will thrive.

     The causes of the current economic problems are many and a detailed explanation is beyond the scope of this little piece. But one thing is certain: they are not a result of the government failing to get more involved in the financial issues of the American worker. I’m not exactly sure what the solution is, but our own history gives a pretty clear indication that more government involvement in our lives is not the answer.

     Please see our website for more on this and other conservative issues: www.just2simpleguys.com.

I understand much of America’s attraction to Barack Obama. He’s likeable, very well spoken, and he pledges to lead a very generous federal government. But would an Obama presidency be good for America?

I have thought long and hard about this upcoming presidential election. I’ve spent many hours the past few weeks studying Barack Obama’s beliefs and convictions, analyzing his own words and actions. I have come to one crystal clear conclusion: there is no way I can vote for Barack Obama. I’d like to tell you why.

HIS ECONOMIC PHILOSOPHY & HIS TAX PLAN

There is so much confusing rhetoric floating around about who will lower taxes more and whose plan is best. But all the confusion faded into clarity last week with Senator Obama’s answer to the now-famous JOE THE PLUMBER. Joe has done America a great favor—he’s brought out the real Barack Obama in his own words: “It’s not that I want to punish your success, I just want to make sure that everyone who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance for success too…. I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.” That comment is so offensive in a free market society and so revealing about Senator Obama’s misunderstanding of our economic system. It screams of socialism, a system in which the government basically decides who makes too much money then takes some of that hard-earned income and gives it to others who make less—redistribution of wealth, plain and simple.

Senator Obama provided further insight into his philosophy with his scrambling the next few days to undermine what Joe the Plumber had revealed. I was appalled by the sarcasm in Obama’s voice as he stated, “How many plumbers you know making a quarter of a million dollars a year?” How can he hope to be an effective president when he mocks those trying to succeed? I don’t want a president who drips with seeming disdain at the thought of a blue collar worker climbing the ladder of success that so many of us aspire to climb. I want a president who, shown by his words and actions when things aren’t scripted, believes that anyone can make it big—blue collar, white collar, plumber, painter, computer tech, whoever.

And the whole concept that increasing taxes and tax rates on the wealthy is good for the lower and middle class, and for the economy as a whole, is simply illogical and plain wrong. The Reagan tax cuts in the 80’s and the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 greatly fueled the economy. Given our current difficult economic situation, many economists warn that raising taxes during an economic downturn would only make the situation worse.

Please carefully read these words from his website: “Obama will ask the wealthiest 2% of families to give back a portion of the tax cuts they have received over the past eight years to ensure we are restoring fairness and returning to fiscal responsibility.” That statement should send socialistic shivers down your spine. This is not what America is.

Approximately 35-40% of American workers pay no federal income tax. So, the $500/$1000 tax credit Obama promises will basically be a “free” gift from the government. But it’s not free—someone has to pay for it and I’m offended by the fact that the someone will most likely include me. Obama wants to take from the hard-working rich and give it away to those who have less. It’s so important to realize that the poor do not grow their wealth through handouts from the government—they grow their wealth more effectively when the government gets out of the way, lowers taxes across the board, and allows the economy to thrive.

In regard to his plan to raise taxes on only wealthier business owners, whether it’s a small business or a big business, where will these business owners get the money to pay for this increase? Many of those businesses are going to have to get that money by cutting jobs, raising prices, cutting wages on the middle and lower class workers. Once again, tax increases across the board are a bad idea. Lowering tax rates across the board is what motivates Americans to invest in new business, expand existing business, hire more employees (resulting in lower unemployment), buy goods. Barack Obama’s plan works against all of these things.

Obama’s list of giveaways he wants the government to provide Americans, at taxpayers’ expense, reads like a Christmas list. From doubling funding for after-school programs and federal public transportation to bailing out struggling state economies to providing universal health care, I am absolutely convinced there is no way he can pay for all of these presents in the long run with only the tax increases he’s talking about now. Eventually, this government is going to get so big it will drive our economy into the ground. And apart from the cost of these giveaways, I’m insulted by his plan because he seems to think that Americans can’t figure life out for themselves—we need big daddy government to take care of us. It’s almost as if he looks around at the problems in America and decides that individuals, with the power of our free market behind us, can’t figure out the solutions, so Uncle Sam, at our expense, has to jump in and save the day.

MY OTHER ISSUES WITH BARACK OBAMA

So many other things Senator Obama has said, done, and posted on his website lead me to believe he would be a very poor choice to lead this country:

• As gas prices soared this past summer, Obama stood firm in his stand to not support offshore drilling or drilling in the ANWR province of Alaska. One of his answers to the energy problem was to impose a windfall profits tax on oil companies. What sense does it make to try to ease the burden of the consumers of a commodity by imposing a higher tax on the very companies that are providing the commodity?
• Obama has stated opposition to both the ban on Partial Birth Abortion and to the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. He has also consistently voted against laws requiring parental notification for an abortion.
• There is a consistent theme in Barack Obama’s life that he associates with far too many people who either hold anti-American sentiments or are downright unethical. I truly believe that a person’s actions and, in large part, the people he associates with, say more about his character and beliefs than his words. From William Ayers, a proven domestic terrorist with very radical views of America and education, to ACORN, an organization that has spent decades undermining capitalism and self-reliance, to Jeremiah Wright, his pastor of 20 years who equates some of America’s actions with the actions of al Qaeda, Barack Obama has chosen to align himself with very questionable views of America.
• Obama refuses to acknowledge that our presence in Iraq has played a significant role in the safety of America and of much of the world.
• With his radical views on America’s economy, abortion, immigration, education, etc., what kind of judges would he nominate to fill the Appellate and Supreme Court positions that will undoubtedly be vacated in the next four years?

I have many other concerns about the policies and practices of Barack Obama, but space is limited here to detail them all. I do encourage you to visit my website (www.just2simpleguys.com) to read a much more detailed piece on this topic. There is an incredibly important election in a little over a week. I hope you will take the time to investigate the candidates. John McCain is not a perfect choice, but he is a good one and I am throwing my support his way. I believe deep in my heart that Barack Obama would be the wrong man to occupy the office of the leader of the free world.

So, recognizing that true needs do exist in America, and that the federal government is typically a poor manager of money, what is the answer to the welfare situation? Here are a few principles to consider – each principle is explained in greater detail in our book (at www.just2simpleguys.com).

            PRINCIPLE #1: Typically, less government is best.

            PRINCIPLE #2: Healthy pride rejects dependence

            PRINCIPLE #3: Something for nothing is, in general, a bad idea

            PRINCIPLE #4: If anything is done, keep it short-term

I think all of these principles are undergirded by one important truth: The goal in America is not to provide welfare; the goal is to have a society well enough off to not need welfare. With that truth as a basis, here is a summary of what a different Great Society could look like.

In this new version, I see a system in which governmental involvement is kept to a severe minimum. Government gets out of the people’s way and out of our pockets. Society trusts that generous individuals will help the needy around them from the pockets of their own goodness, not out of tax-laden coercion. In this new society, another all-important principle is lived out: Government does not exist to fill in the gaps where individuals seem to fail—it exists to carry out functions that cannot be fully handled by individuals. 

Meeting the needs of the needy can be handled by individuals and private organizations. It may take some time to get to where we want to be, but as the government backs out of the giving business, people with needs will have to get help more and more from private institutions such as churches, relief organizations, and civic groups. To be ready to meet these needs, many of these groups will have to take a serious look at the role they play in our society and a great deal of restructuring and redefining of purpose will need to occur in many places. Hopefully, two hand-in-hand things will happen:

¨      Organizations will begin to recognize more and more the need for their help in providing for the needs around us.

¨      These organizations will be better funded for this purpose because individuals will have more to give as the burden from governmental taxes to inefficiently fund welfare will be greatly lessened. This is the Big Picture solution in a nutshell.

This plan has to start with concerned individuals like those of you reading this. I encourage every American to think carefully before simply voting for any tax increase or government referendum that is going to help the needy. I think too many simply vote ‘Yes’ to any initiative on a ballot that involves a program that will help somebody out, without considering how efficiently the money for that program may be spent or who exactly will receive the help. Ask yourself this question often: Who could more effectively spend this money to help the needy—me or the government? I’m convinced that if more of us voted ‘No’ to tax increases and let some government-run programs go by the wayside, the help for the needy would increase, not decrease.

If governmental assistance is needed for a time, it should be done at the local or state level where it can be carefully monitored. In this new system, any help given should, at some early point in the process, require something in return (a job, community service, etc.). Finally, the help needs to have a stopping point, requiring those with needs to eventually walk on their own (exempting, of course, the disabled who truly cannot work).

As the tax burden for “entitlements” is lessened, the economy will grow and more jobs will be created—jobs that, in many instances, will be worked by former welfare recipients. This is another form of “trickle down economics” at its best, and I believe it will work because it oozes with common sense.

My sincere hope is that America will try this new great society on for size—the old one of the 60’s has simply not lived up to its promises.

A big question to ask in regard to helping the needy in this country is this: In a moral, compassionate country like America, is it a good thing that our government takes care of those who have needs? In my simple-thinking mind, the answer is this: Yes and No—but mostly No.

One of the bottom lines (can there be more than one?) in regard to welfare care is this: In a country as good and compassionate as America, if the government gets out of the way of the people, the needy, for the most part, will be provided for. Couple that bottom line with this obvious, but often overlooked fact: When government solves a problem, they are using your money to do it!

No one argues that we have real needs all around us. The arguments erupt when people offer solutions for meeting these needs. When politicians stand up and say they want to spend money to help alleviate suffering, it sounds like a great idea—very compassionate and caring. But there is one huge problem with this idea—the government, in general, does a terrible job with money management. Throw in the idea that it’s your money (and mine) that they are spending so inefficiently and the whole idea takes on a very sour taste.

Consider these stats in regard to government money management:

¨      In the 2003 Financial Report to the United States Government, issued by the Department of the Treasury, there is a section that notes that “unreconciled transactions” totaled $24.5 billion. Unreconciled transactions are funds that can’t be accounted for. In other words, the government knows that $24.5 billion was spent somewhere in 2003, but auditors cannot account for it—they don’t know who spent it or where it was spent.

¨      In a 2003 Department of Agriculture audit report, it was noted that government-issued credit cards that were supposed to be used by employees to purchase job-related products were actually used by employees to purchase millions of dollars in personal items. Among the items on the list were Ozzy Osbourne concert tickets, tattoos, and “exotic attire.”

¨      In 2002, the Department of Education issued $55,000 in student loans to three students attending an obscure college in London. It was discovered later that the three students, and the college, were all fictitious, created by congressional investigators to test the department’s verification process (which hopefully failed the test).

¨      The misuse of FEMA funds in 2005 following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita is already legendary. For example, one individual collected 18 emergency payments of $2,000 each by giving the same name with 18 different Social Security numbers and 12 fake addresses. According to a GAO report, almost half of those who received a $2,000 debit card got paid a second time. It was also discovered that much of the money was spent on such things as casinos and massage parlors. A great deal of money went to people who registered for assistance for both Katrina and Rita.

¨      Finally, in a welfare-related field, Medicare regularly pays enormously higher prices for medical supplies than other medical organizations. For example, in 2002, the inspector general of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services testified before a Senate subcommittee that Medicare had paid $8.68 per liter of saline solution while the VA health care program had paid only $1.02 for the same product. The study revealed that it was typical for Medicare to pay excessive prices for a great many medical supplies.

These are just a few of the thousands of examples that could be cited that reveal the inefficiency of the massive machine called the United States government. Let me pause here and say again that I love America and believe we have the best governmental system, the best representative democracy, and one of the best economies in the world. However, our government works best when it remains small and focuses on those few things it does best and leaves the rest of life’s solutions in the hands of the American people. I can’t say strongly enough how important it is to the success of our great country for our government to not get too big—to remain a limited representative government. The controversial senator Barry Goldwater understood this concept when he said, “The government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away.” Big government is characterized by far too much bureaucracy, excessive red tape, unnecessary regulations, and inefficiency.

On the surface, the government throwing money in the ring to take care of the needs of our people may sound like a helpful, empathetic idea. The problem is that so often, they are actually just throwing the money out there and hoping it lands in the right place. As we saw with Hurricane Katrina, the target is too often missed by miles. In their defense, we can’t really expect a huge bureaucratic mechanism in Washington to be able to keep a close eye on so many millions of dollars distributed across the country. Does that mean they shouldn’t help at all? Maybe, but if we decide that government should assist with helping the needy, the help needs to be limited, short-term, and responsibility and accountability must be demanded of the recipients of the help. True compassion in this arena is best shown by helping people cultivate a sense of responsibility for their own lives.

I’ll map out a possible welfare plan in the next blog. Thanks for reading

Take a drive through any metropolitan area of America and it won’t be long before you see firsthand that poverty and homelessness are not unique to third world countries. In the Midwest community in which I live, “Will Work For Food” signs are standard reading at major intersections.

I was in Seattle on a business trip last year. As I walked the sidewalks of the pier district, surrounded by the quaint shops and beauty of that great city, I was amazed by the number of men and women sleeping on the sidewalks. The scene is duplicated in city after city across this land of opportunity. The truth of the matter is that very few of us really know what it is to experience that difficult situation.

Sure, it’s fairly easy to walk right past a guy holding out a cup with a few coins in it, shake our heads and mutter under our breath that he should get off the street and get a job. It’s not too hard to drive right past that dirty-haired, shaggy-bearded man on the corner holding his sign if we convince ourselves that he is there by choice. In reality, I’m sure a great many of our homeless and poverty-laden citizens are perfectly content to live on the street and beg. In fact, I have heard that some of them make a pretty good living at it. But there are also many Americans who call the street their home, or whose names are on the welfare rolls, who hate it and want desperately to get out of their situation—they just are not sure how.

Consider the single mother whose jerk of a husband woke up one morning and realized his selfish little ego needed to be filled more than the bellies of his family. So he took off with his little honey on the side and left his wife to fend for herself. For years she stayed home to take care of their precious children so he could go out to play at his job and pursue his dreams. Now she is left with mouths to feed and no practical means to earn the money to do it.

Then there is the guy who has worked a job for years, and through no fault of his own, he’s let go in a downsizing. He is suddenly left with no job and little prospect for one in the near future. He hits the want ads and pounds the pavement day after day but can’t find work. Meanwhile, he has a wife and a couple of kids to house and feed and he is running out of money to do it.

I could go on and on with examples like these of real life in action. The recovering drug addict who truly wants to change and make something of his life. The pregnant teenager who made a bad choice on prom night and finds herself carrying a child with no way to support that child. The divorced tradesman whose factory relocates to a town far away and whose desire to stay close to his children keeps him from moving.

Certainly there are ways and means for the unfortunate in each of these situations to pick themselves up, dust off, start over, and get out of their predicament. For some (the single guy) it would be much easier than for others (the single mom with three kids). However, those of us who grew up in good homes and had parents who supported our education and pushed us to get out there and make it in the world need to be careful not to judge this segment of our population too harshly. If we have never been in the shoes of someone who just got the world pulled out from under them, we need to think twice before throwing out simple solutions to problems that are far from simple. The bottom line is that yes, in this great land of promise, anyone in any situation (excepting, of course, the severely handicapped or disabled who truly are incapable of functioning on their own) who pushes him or herself, and who works hard to pursue the opportunities that are available, can pull him or herself out of any tough situation and make it without having to be permanently dependent on someone else’s money. But so often those who find themselves in these types of consuming situations feel trapped, hopeless, and helpless and simply aren’t sure how to even begin to get back on their feet.

Let me say again that I recognize there are many living in poverty around us who choose to remain in that state for any number of reasons—they are lazy, they’re content to bleed the system, they may be great con artists, they choose to make bad choices. I don’t have a lot of sympathy for this group. Chances are this class of people will likely never change (I refuse to say absolutely never because I believe no one is ever completely beyond hope). My thoughts in the next few blogs aren’t written so much with them in mind. I’ll be tossing around ideas for coming up with a plan for those who truly need a helping hand—a hand that assists them for a time in getting on their feet then gently cuts the strings and nudges them into independence.

Tomorrow we’ll take a look at why the government is a bad candidate for helping the needy—despite the role Barak Obama would like to assign Washington in this problem.

 I heard Dianne Feinstein, Democrat Senator from California, on the radio this week touting the fact that increasing the US supply of oil was not the answer. The answer to high gas prices is to explore alternative energy sources.

I thought about that comment then put it together with one of the Democrat’s favorite excuses given for not expanding oil drilling in America: “It would take 10 years to see any of that oil and wouldn’t affect the price of gas in the near future.” That argument has a bucket-full of holes in it, which have already been addressed by the wise; but taken with Senator Feinstein’s comment, it brings to light again the amazing illogic, inconsistency, and lack of common sense so often seen in the non-Conservative way of thinking. If one of the non-drilling arguments given is the fact that it’s going to take 10 years for us to see any significant effect from expanding our oil exploration (which, again, is totally unfounded), how does it make sense to say that alternative energy sources is the answer? How many years is it going to take to see any significant effect from exploring these alternative sources? Could it be that Senator Feinstein and her companions are more concerned about cowing to the radical environmentalists than they are about solving this problem? Could they be more interested in government control than in true solutions?

Are most Conservatives in favor of exploring alternative sources? Sure we are. Most of us are also in favor of conserving when we can and taking good care of the environment. But there’s a huge problem now and we have an immediate solution to that problem – let’s go get it.

  There’s a great dialogue in “National Treasure 2” between the president and Ben Gates, the role played by Nicholas Cage. Gates mentions to the president that he believes him to be an honorable man. The president says to him, “Gates, people don’t believe that stuff anymore.” Gates gives a simple answer that strikes at the core of the America I believe in: “They want to believe it.”

 Deep in my heart, I trust that most Americans – liberal, conservative, libertarian, undecided – truly desire a leader with honor, courage, integrity, and deep patriotism. Most of us want to look up to a leader with diehard convictions who stands for those convictions at all costs and doesn’t waffle in doubt and indecision; a leader who has taken the time to wrestle with the tough issues and who has resolved those issues in his or her heart; a leader who understands what it means to be an American and who appreciates the incredible blessing it is to live in this great nation; a leader who instills this patriotic hope in his fellow-citizens and who reminds us often of the amazing sacrifice that so many paid to secure this freedom.

 Permit me one more movie quote: in “Braveheart,” William Wallace says to the Nobleman, Robert, “Men don’t follow titles, they follow courage….if you would just lead them to freedom, they’d follow you…” A bit sappy, I know, but with that kind of leader occupying the office of the most powerful position in the world, I believe so many more in America would begin to better understand the importance of the Constitution. They would see the value of maintaining a limited government that is not involved in arenas they were never designed to enter. They would better grasp the concept of the courts interpreting, not legislating. They would demand an immigration system that requires legality and accountability, not permissiveness.

 President Bush has done a great job of protecting our country and a good job at many other things. And sure, whatever the outcome of the November elections, America can survive, and even thrive, without a great leader in the White House. But I, for one, wish for a leader I can look up to and one that I can trust to lead this country back to its conservative foundation. My great hope in 2008 is that John McCain will become that leader – and if not him, that soon, a great leader would step up to the plate, stand firm, and lead America forward in the truth of conservative values.

 With all that’s going on with the mortgage problems today, and the desire by some to have the government bail out those in need, I’d like to address taxes in today’s blog. Here’s the question of the day:

Should the rich pay more in taxes?

 The fact that this question is being asked frustrates me to no end. There is an incredibly simple answer to the question: They already do! Unfortunately, so many of America’s lawmakers have so many Americans buying into a great lie.

I’m far from being a rich person, but I sure champion their cause, because in championing them, I’m championing the causes of fairness, capitalism, democracy, and the right of every one of us to dream big and to go after those dreams without being held back by some government bureaucrats who so often want to decide how big my dreams should be.

I’ve never understood why a graded income tax was ever established. Whose right is it to say that if I make $500,000 a year, I don’t need that much money, so I will be penalized (which is essentially what a graded tax system does) by paying a higher percentage of my income in taxes than the person who makes $35,000 a year? If the wealthier are taxed at the same percentage rate as the middle class, simple math says that they will already be paying more because they make more (I won’t address the issue of loopholes here). Why should they pay more, then more still by being in a higher percentage bracket, simply because they happen to have worked their backsides off (in most cases) for years to get where they are? And even if they didn’t work hard to get their money, it’s not the business of the government or anyone else to tell someone how much is enough.

It’s as if there is a misguided belief in the air that assumes that if the government doesn’t take more of a rich American’s money, he or she may spend it on something frivolous. No politician comes out and says this, but what other logic can there be? Again, it isn’t any of the government’s business how any one of us spends our money. On top of that, the money spent by the rich, in whatever way they wish, is money flowing back into our economy—something that benefits all of us. And if the wealthy choose to use it for some great cause like donating to the needy or investing in a business that can provide jobs for Middle America, then even better. THE RICH HAVING AND SPENDING A LOT OF MONEY IS GREAT FOR AMERICA, and no one should hinder their acquiring of wealth. And as a side note that most conservatives already realize, can the government really be trusted to put that money to better use?

We’ll talk more about this in tomorrow’s blog. As usual lately, most of these thoughts are detailed in my book that you can find at www.just2simpleguys.com. Have a great day all.

In light of all the hubbub in the news about illegal immigration, I’d like to throw out a crucial question:

SHOULD ALL LEGAL RESIDENTS BE REQUIRED TO SPEAK ENGLISH?

I believe the answer to this question is this: “Yes, yes, yes.” This “Yes” applies not just to citizens, but to all those who seek legal residence status here in America. They should also be required, as applicants for full citizenship are required, to learn some basic American history and be tested on various facts concerning our heritage. To ensure the strength, the unity, the character of our blessed country, we cannot continue to fill our communities with those who know, or care, little about who we are or where we have come from. The learning of our language is a large part of respecting and understanding who we are as a people.

In addition to the heritage and patriotism element of learning English, I’m very concerned about how much our country is spending on creating so much of our literature (menus, instruction manuals, signs, etc.) in two or more languages. I recognize that if a business wishes to be bilingual to accommodate its patrons, that’s all well and good. It makes a lot of sense in many areas to do this. However, when documents like drivers’ licenses are produced in two languages, at least a portion of the cost for this is being paid by taxpayers. For privately-produced documents and literature, the government absolutely needs to stay out of this and make no demands on a business or organization to produce bilingual materials or services.

Related to this, is it a good thing for our schools to require a second language to be learned by our students? Yes, I believe it is. It’s a healthy practice to be diverse in many areas of life, including language, but in too many instances in this arena, we have gone far beyond healthy. In the attempt to be compassionate and culturally diverse, we too often are bending over backward to conform to a culture that is not our own. This shouldn’t be confused with elitism or racism. Diversity is important; acceptance and openness are healthy; learning the ways of another culture is a good practice for all of us. But we must be careful not to lose who we are in the process. To continue to be the compassionate, giving, strong nation we have become, able to help the world in so many ways, we cannot lose who we are or forget where we have come from.

As I pointed out in my Patriotism post (and in my book, “Just 2 Simple Guys,”), doesn’t it make sense that it is our way of life that draws immigrants here in the first place? So why are we so often willing to change who and what we are to accommodate them?

The war in Iraq was not a mistake, as Obama and so many Democrats state, and it is doing an incredible

amount of good for the cause of freedom, not only in America but in the rest of the world. Those who don't

understand this war need to remember something very significant. When we were attacked in WWII, we knew

very clearly who the enemy was: they had a big red circle on the tail of their planes. We knew where they

lived and where to go after them. When we were attacked on 9/11, we had a pretty good idea of who the

enemy was, but the problem was that they didn't live in any one particular location - they strategically

position themselves all over the planet. But we did know that many of them were supported and funded by

the government of Iraq (I detail evidence for this in my book - you can find details at just2simpleguys.com). So, President Bush

made the bold decision to go there (and Afghanistan) to begin the slow process of bringing down this

ruthless enemy. And now, six years later, that decision has been shown to be a wise one as we have been

immeasurably safer than if we had sat around and waited for yet another attack.

Thank you to President Bush for having the foresight to provide a measure of protection and safety for

this world as we are up against an enemy that is like nothing we've seen before. And thank you to
all of our brave men and women in uniform - we all owe you so much.