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.

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

 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 Barack Obama’s wish to expand our federal government, seemingly infinitely, I’d like to offer some thoughts about our HEALTH CARE system.

Years ago, Ronald Reagan made this great statement that he lived by in his eight years as president: “Man is not free unless government is limited.” Our federal government does certain things well: We have the greatest military in the world; we have a great system for the making and enforcing of laws. But, as most Conservatives know deep in their hearts, our government is most effective and useful when its functions are limited. With this being the case, do we really want to hand over to them one of the largest industries in America (health care)?

Even apart from the likelihood of potential mismanagement, the health care system is a business. It’s a business that works very well for millions in America. Certainly it’s not perfect, and there are flaws that need to be mended, but those flaws need to be worked out within the free market, not within government. Competition, supply and demand, and a big thing called Health Savings Accounts are the Big Picture answers to moving our health care system from good to great.

A crucial fact needs to be considered—the government doesn’t have any money of its own. They don’t generate capital or provide services like other businesses. In order to carry out their plans, the government taxes you and me. If Washington decides to start ensuring health care for everyone, the money they will need to accomplish this is going to come from the pockets of all Americans. There is no magic money out there for them to use to take care of everyone; they are going to get that money from us. If they find out they’re running short of money, guess where they’ll come to make up that shortage. Uncle Sam doesn’t work like a typical business in our economy.

If my lawn care provider realizes he has a shortage of income every month, he has some options available to remedy the situation. He can raise his rates, at which time I have some options. If he does a great job and I’m satisfied with his service, I may decide he’s worth those new rates and maintain his services. Or, I have the option of looking for a new lawn man who will do as good a job at lower rates. If enough people fire the first lawn man, and he wants to keep eating, he’ll be forced to come up with an alternate business plan, such as figuring out how to work more efficiently with less overhead so he can keep his rates lower. The bottom line is that the producer is accountable to the consumer—this is how it works in a free economy.

The government, however, travels a different road than the lawn man. If they don’t have enough money, one of their favorite options is to simply raise tax rates or implement new taxes to make more money. When they raise taxes, I don’t have the choice of saying, “No thanks, I’ll find another option.” The government’s likely method for paying for a big piece of health care takes most of the competition and consumer choice out of the picture. We are left with an inefficient business running a huge industry by their own rules without the consumer who utilizes that industry having much say in its success or failure. It’s socialism at its best and it is not what America is all about.

A common argument is sometimes raised at this point: “But health care is a right for all Americans so the government should be involved.” I’ll give my answer to this in tomorrow’s blog. Thanks for reading. Have a great day.