Traditional Graffitti

Everyone has now accepted that Donald Trump will be the nominee of the Republican Party. Why Donald Trump? Republicans did not want someone to speak to them in “Washington Speak”. Future candidates must address the electorate differently, if they want their message to resonate with the voters. Voters simply do not wish to expend the effort to sift through issues and simply do not want to hear about the nuances of candidates positions.

Other Republicans candidates have done a poor job of communicating their message of limited government. The general populace believes that government is the answer to the ills of this country. They have had it drilled into them in both Public and Parochial schools. Public schools have pushed the message by touting the accomplishments of Presidents like Franklin Delano Roosevelt, (New Deal)Woodrow Wilson (League of Nations Proponent and Federal Reserve Proponent) and Lyndon Johnson (Great Society). These Presidents emphasize the federal government’s role in American Society. No wonder children and young adults leave the Public School System with an exaggerated view of the importance of government. Parochial Schools properly advocate the importance of Public Service. Lost in the translation of the Public Service messaging is the importance of the individual. It is the individual to whom the message of Public Service should be directed. Government has never been a good partner to Religion. Religion speaks to the individual and addresses its flock through the church not the government. Governments all too frequently are proponents of values at odds with many religions.

Churches should be wary of government especially socialist and communist governments. Realize that there is no consensus on public values. This country has differing community values depending on where you are and which groups you address within a community. It is this lack of consensus of values that mandates the power of government remain decentralized, so it does not trample the values of the community and individual freedom.

Socialism is a predecessor to communism. It is a stop on the journey. Socialistic societies rely on a government process to provide for many of their services and eventually own the means of production. We have already seen, when you rely on a centralized government to provide funding or even government direction of education, you get message the government sanction message disseminated to pupils. Since it is a government sanctioned message, it will favor the use of government action to accomplish tasks.

Look at the history in the former Soviet Union and China. Both nations promoted the values of the state at the expense of religion. Can anyone deny that both these governments were hostile toward the individual and religion? Why? Success of these systems is dependent upon adoption of a view that government is the cure for all social ills and the values of government should be adopted for the success of the society. Does anyone doubt this is hostile to individual freedom including the freedom of religion?

Look at the Affordable Care Act. It is just the latest example of the incremental creep of socialism. This law is lauded for its compassion. It expands Medicaid. This is another entitlement program for the poor or near poor. It increases the dependence of the individual on government. Government uses its taxing authority to force individuals to pay for this program. The US government uses the dollars position as the world reserve currency to insure the individual does not immediately feel the full financial impact of these services through a reduction of pay. (Tax increases) It cannot however stop the consumer from feeling some effect of the law. (Shortage of service providers as well as increased cost of services due to increased demand on the same or dwindling supply of services) This law attempts to guarantee services be provided. It replaces charity.
Charity is the private sector solution to providing services to those unable to afford it. It has been derided as unsuitable by great society advocates because it is not sufficient. (I.e. an entitlement, right) Charity, since it is not a guarantee allows more than one method of providing the services and can even require the individual to act in a certain manner to receive benefits. The individual however still has choices. He can opt not to act in the manner prescribed by the charity and not accept their services and look for other choices of charity. (There are many providers and could be more absent additional government) He is not forced nor is the charitable donor forced. There is undoubtedly room for growth, if government removes impediments to service provision.

Additionally, incorporated within The Affordable Care Act are provision for regulations which allow government to advance its agenda in areas such as reproductive rights, end of life services, treatments available and ultimately determining the value of a life. (I.e. perhaps an elderly individual should be given a pain pill rather than a procedure to alleviate their pain) So the government is able to foist its secular values on the individual and on religion by providing what is seen as a compassionate service.

Republicans do a poor job of communicating alternatives. Individuals fear uncertainty. Government solutions pretend that scarcity does not exist. Government solutions hide economic reality by pushing costs to the future. The Affordable Care Act does not provide any real methods to increase service supply or service efficiency. Government solutions instruct that the problem is too big for any solution, but a government solution, so dependency on the government is key. Private sector solutions rely on the faith of the populace in themselves. It is the antithesis of the Nanny state. Private sector solutions must be communicated in a manner that shows what is possible, if individuals act. It can be action of an individual or group of individuals acting in concert. It does not depend on the use of government force. It can be instituted without the assent of the legislature. It can be adjusted easily. What must happen to allow this type of action to move forward expeditiously is relaxation of regulation and ultimately state tort reform. The state action desirable, but not mandatory. Private sector solutions can advance provided the heavy hand of government does not intervene to protect the status quo. The challenge of Republicans is twofold: 1)Resist temptation to act to support those with an interest in preserving the status quo. 2) Resist the impulse to jump in with a government solution, when there are the inevitable failures. (Remember, government fails regularly, but is almost never held accountable.)

Communications about the new path of the country should be philosophical in nature. It should accentuate the positive aspects of a voluntary program in education, healthcare and other services currently provided the government, while making it clear that deficiencies can be rectified by individual action without the need to request the permission of a government entity. It is a philosophy rooted in faith in the individual. You must have faith that the individual, when left to act, will act appropriately. It is the antithesis of the tyranny of the majority currently practiced by Washington.

Freedom of choice is the end product. There is no tyranny by a government or even a tyranny by a well intended democratic majority. It is the path of the almighty, who allows free will to all. It affords an opportunity for the individual to express his or her best instincts.

There comes a time, when an individual can no longer merely be a casual observer witnessing events, but is required by circumstances to speak out or bear the blame for the evil outcome, which he supported by his silence  I have witnessed a government intervention, which has succeeded in reengineering the basic unit of society, the traditional nuclear family.  That same government seeks to mandate that we not only acquiesce in its social engineering experiment, but celebrate the destruction this reengineering scheme has wrought.  I can no longer sit silently by and witness the continued destruction of my country’s social and political culture without raising my voice in outrage.

It is time to for all, who believe in traditional American values to voice their disapproval of this social engineering scheme. Begin by educating your children and family members that procreation absent a marital commitment is deviant and unacceptable behavior, which inflicts irreparable harm on the children of these relationships.    Insist that your Priests, Ministers or Rabbis and any other clergy express their support for the traditional family from the pulpit. Show your displeasure with the direction of the political culture through at the ballot box. Contact your Federal Representatives and Senators and insist on a constitutional amendment protecting traditional marriage.   Spread the word to anyone, who will listen that you do not support and will not accept this newly engineered social order and that you have traditional values deeply rooted in nature, history and religion, which cannot be compromised for political expediency or personal gratification.

I have witnessed the systemic destruction of the nuclear family by my government and its replacement with the universally accepted and celebrated single parent household.   I have been warned by my government and media that it is inappropriate to judge these newly created family units by my old religious value system.  After all the individuals are merely acting in a manner, which promotes their personal satisfaction.  The sexual revolution has freed men and women from the slavery of traditional marriage.

If this meddling in the natural order was not sufficient, big brother government inserts itself between the biological parents.   It through its policies and programs alienates children from the parents with the promise of financial independence or reproductive freedom.  Government creates vast bureaucracies, which promise to support, feed and act in loco parentis.  

Government is no one’s parent.  It cannot replace a father and mother.  Politicians and bureaucrats do not know you or your family.  They may not even share your core values.  They cannot act be allowed to substitute their programs in place of the parents.

Unelected short sighted public administrators laud the new poverty programs as economic growth vehicles because money is borrowed by the federal government and pumped relentlessly into the community.   Rules are promulgated and social agencies are utilized to secure acceptance of the new order.  These rules are justified as necessary for individual safety and the maintenance of societal order.  

Government Attorneys are dispatched in droves to secure financial support for these new unsustainable societal units.  Insuring financial support for dependents is a noble charge, but the result this government intrusion is all too often a splintered more severely dysfunctional family unit.

All of these actions are well intentioned and justified by proponents as actions necessary for personal freedom and poverty alleviation.  The societal chaos, which ensues, pits parent against parent and child against parent.  Yet in the wake of vast deficit spending, the poverty still persists and families are torn asunder.  Individuals are heard in the midst of all these noble intentions to decry their newly created social position.  The newly anointed heads of household and their minor charges lament the diffusion of responsibility, which gave rise to and perpetuates this unnatural social existence.

I have personally witnessed multiple religious based program graduations, where estranged young adult males vowed to be better fathers for their children in the future.  Almost to a man each recounted that there was no paternal role model in their home, when they were growing up.  They do not know how to be a parent or how to maintain a traditional family relationship.  The cycle is continued with them.

What is the answer?  Surely we cannot simply allow those society encouraged to embark into these new arrangements to do without and become part of a permanent underclass.  We start small.  We begin by no longer celebrating and financially promoting these single parent arrangements.  We educate the youth that the family is the natural basic unit of a society.  We promote personal responsibility starting in the home.  We reward marriage.  We should encourage marriage between parents even when that commitment occurs post child birth.

We reform some laws to conform to the natural social order.  We formulate a tax structure that doesn’t punish lifelong commitment.  We remove the government from family decisions.  WE accept gifts between parent and child as tax free exchanges at any age, where there is no ongoing commerce involved.  We employ a tax structure that allows parents to assist their offspring at an age with no income reporting requirements except in those rare instances where there is intent to defraud a government program with a wealth transfer.  Wealth exchanges of this type are a family matter not a government revenue source.  Let me be clear.  There should be no gift or income tax consequences for traditional family wealth transfers except where the exchange is done to defraud a government entitlement program.

If this tax strategy is employed, government will benefit in the long run because it will have less individuals dependent on its services.  We should also allow wealth to pass from parent to any age child without tax consideration upon the death of a parent.   Children and spouses are the natural recipients of an individual’s wealth upon death. The government doesn’t need to use families to raise revenue and if some excessive revenue is deemed to pass from parent to child, it is the price we pay for upholding the natural order.

We should require grounds for divorce, where children are present.  Except in the case of financial or domestic abuse we must remove the government from familial interactions.  We should encourage parents to first work out their finances without any government involvement.  Where parental cooperation is lacking and intervention is needed we should utilize churches and community organizations wherever available to assist.  Parents frequently will not work together, when there is a government alternative, which is easier and is often seen to favor one side over the other.

Where severe financial deprivation occurs, society must provide immediate necessaries on a short term basis only, but it must also afford the parents the opportunity to resolve the deprivation.  Provision of necessaries by the government should be short term temporary assistance and it should be repaid by both parents, when they become financially solvent. Current law encourages the creation of vagabond children, who stay with various relatives until the government assistance is no longer available to the possessory relative then the children are moved on to a new assistance providing relative.

If financial deprivation persists, more drastic remedies should be employed including criminal sanctions against income producing non providing parents and as a last resort consideration should be given to removing the children from that environment until the parents demonstrate their ability and willingness to support them   All remedies to assist families should be employed by local and state governments exclusively.   Regulation of families is not a power granted to the federal government.  The health and welfare clause of the U.S. Constitution is not an independent grant of power to the federal government.  The Tenth Amendment must mean something!  All inclusive federal regulations and funding have promoted dependency and encouraged the unacceptable culture we own experience.

Speak up at home and in your community!  Promote personal responsibility even when it is uncomfortable.  Sometimes it is imperative that you speak to prevent harm to your family and community.  Educate the young that the nuclear family is the basic building block of nature.  Listen to those, who are running for office, whether it is federal state or local.  Do they share your values?  Do their solutions always involve use of government force first?  If so, consider the long term social engineering consequences of supporting such a candidate.  Families are a naturally occurring phenomenon, not a creature created by government rules and government intervention.  If you encounter a candidate or policy that runs contrary to your traditional values even within a party you ordinarily support, speak out against the individual or policy.  Don’t contribute to the evil.

The announcement by Senator Mitch McConnell that the Senate would not take up any nominee for the vacant Supreme Court position advanced by President Obama was startling to the Media, but is completely understandable to me.  Consider the current situation within the Republican Party.  The Party is in chaos.  This strategy is the act of desperate leadership, which understands its limitations.  Leadership simply can not risk a hearing or a vote on any candidate advanced by the Democrats because Republican leadership can’t trust its members to remain cohesive in the face of the upcoming elections.

It is truly a sad commentary that with so much at stake, there is no group understanding of the peril faced by the nation with a liberal appointment to the Court.  There has been so much damage done to the concept of separation of powers by this administration already.

Unfortunately, the Republican Party has been complicit in the creation and advancement of the federal juggernaut.  Many of the party’s members have established careers by accommodating the big government advances of recent decades.

There can be no appointment considered by the Senate  because the leadership can’t and shouldn’t trust its members to stay together and reject any Whitehouse Candidate.  This Congressional group is comparable to a clowder of cats.  They won’t stay together and can’t be herded.

This Congress fails to comprehend basic civics and concedes its power of the purse at the first mention of “Government Shutdown”.  It allows the narrative to be advanced that the executive must have all programs funded at levels acceptable to the administration.  A presidential veto equals shutdown, which means Republican electoral losses, which means immediate and unconditional surrender.

History is important shows how we reached this point.  Congresses past had the power to fund programs only for their terms. The concept of multi year projections is a farce perpetrated upon the public to rationalize fiscal irresponsibility.   Instead of creating self sustaining programs to fund its many social promises and preserving the excess taxes collected for future entitlements, legislators of both parties built careers by thoughtlessly pillaged  the so called trust funds (leaving worthless paper in its wake, which can’t even be sold) and made more unsustainable entitlement promises. These promises now are said to be social contracts, which the electorate has adopted and which can’t easily be abrogated.

So the cycle continues each session.  The President proposes massive program increases.  Congress counters with proposals for less and the President dictates minimal levels by threatening a veto.  Congress surrenders because of fear of electoral losses.

This is the recent history of the Republican majority.  Just as in the past, some Republican members have built their careers by conceding on key party line votes.  Leadership can not trust its own members, and the party is impotent, when it comes time to have crucial showdowns with the executive branch.

I say no vote is better than a bad appointment.  There is just too much at stake to begin trusting now.  I would rather put my faith in the wisdom of the electorate and defer considering any appointment then trust this crowd with such a crucial vote.  So Republicans, you must hang tough on a deferral strategy because history teaches you haven’t the resolve to reject a bad appointment.

Fortunately Republicans can look to the past words of Democratic Senators, who proposed the same strategy, when in the minority in an election year.  These past statements may soften the pain and convince the media not to crucify the Party, but it is going to get thorny, so hang together Republicans on a strategy of inaction because the alternative is much more threatening to the long term health of our now fragile Republic.

There never was a time, when a political outcome could be guaranteed.  There has always been action then reaction.  One side advances a proposition and the other pushes back.

First please allow me to clarify terms.  Politics is defined as who gets what, when and how.  I learned that long ago from a text book on day one in my first Political Science class.  Ultimately by this definition virtually every decision is subject to politics at some level.

Today I chuckle when pundits use the word.  Most news readers must never have cracked a social science text or if they did, they have long since forgotten their earliest lessons.  They talk of things being political, as if it is a process occurring in a vacuum in distant far away land.  They are tantalized by the constant banter and become immersed in the minutia without any appreciation of the process or the underlying driving philosophies.

The news reader is a captive of the east coast culture and is constantly reassured of their superior knowledge of the process by a parade of hand picked “expert analysts”, whose prognostications never receive a thorough critique after the actual events reveal the fallacy of their original premises.

Today is a day of extreme concern for me.  Today the political landscape is much different and much more fragile than it was last week.

The passing yesterday of Justice Scalia removes from the political landscape an element of political continuity.  Unfortunately, political balance is now dependent on nine unelected life appointed lawyers. This should be distressing to every citizen.  How far we  have strayed from government’s original limitations! So much so that the death of a single justice could tip the balance of this nation.

You see Justice Scalia was a Court leader, who approached all the cases he reviewed with his eye always cast back at the original intent of the founding document.  He saw no necessity for a living breathing Constitution.  If there was a need for change in the original formula at the macro level,  there was the amendment process.  It was difficult to accomplish by design.

Rights to Justice Scalia weren’t inconveniences to be discarded due to popular whim.  The roles of the three branches of government as well as the role of the Federal and State Government were all identified and defined.  The mission was one of following the Constitutional recipe as written and amended.

What resulted from his vigilance was philosophical consistency.  Not a guarantee of anything except adherence to the original plan.  One could disagree on the ultimate outcome, but the method of reaching the result was based upon the original script with no ad libs.

Today, many believe that the Constitution is outdated and call for action and in fact decry the lackadaisical pace of government to address what they see as the pressing issues of modern society.  Count me not among these individuals.

Government remains the greatest threat to a free people and as such must be restrained by a sound foundational philosophy.  That philosophy is one of inalienable individual rights invested in us by our Creator, limited roles of all branches of the federal government and checks and balances to curb the inevitable power grabs destined to occur over the course of time.  Democratic rule unchecked by individual rights is merely tyranny by multiple tyrants.

Modern society is perceived to face threats at levels not encountered in generations past.  To this I say nonsense.  These threats are different, but not historically unique.  What we have allowed to evolve is unbridled government authority over the individual.  The political right threatens liberty by hyperbolizing security fears and the political left  seeks to dominate the individual by soft tyranny.  The left offers this exchange: liberty for financial entitlements.

Let’s return to the fundamental relationships between government, states and individuals.  Remember that  individual rights form the foundation of our union.  It makes us different from most other nations.   We remove cronyism from government by limiting its functions and returning to the original intent of our framers.

Families should take care of their members and failing that local charitable organizations or churches and failing either of those then local communities should be the last resort.  Government does not and can not possibly share all the values of all of its constituents and is not to stand in loco parentis.  (in place of parents)  The best way to insure individual rights is through following the limitations on government set forth as written in the founding document.  It is past time to return to original intent.  Special interests will no longer invest billions of dollars, if limited government is practiced, because there will be nothing to be gained from their lavish expenditures.  If who gets what, cannot be manipulated by government intervention, but is rather accomplished by individual enterprise and merit, then better outcomes will undoubtedly result.

Our political landscape is indeed in a fragile state at this juncture with the passing of Justice Scalia.  Balance on the Supreme Court will most certainly be swayed by any new appointee. and we are threatened with the appointment of more liberal activist jurists, who impose more federal regulation upon the populace without regard for original intent.

President Obama clearly doesn’t share Justice Scalia’s belief in the wisdom the founding documents.  It has been said he sees the Bill of Rights as a listing of negative liberties.  I guess that is so, when you have liberalism as your religion and see government as the road to your salvation.

So to you RINOs ,(Republicans in name only) and patriotic liberty loving Democrats, you must impose this litmus test on any future nominee.  Any Supreme Court nominee must adhere to founding principles of limited government, separation of powers, checks and balances, individual rights and true federalism, which includes respect for the tenth amendment.  Any jurist considered must have a record.  No more trying to slide someone by.  You must have the difficult debates.  You must for just this once show more concern for the future of your nation even at the expense of your personal electoral fate.  If you do not we risk moving from a fragile political landscape to a permanently fractured one.

 

 

Every parent, who has a child of middle school age has probably had at least one conversation with that child about the value of hard work and money.  The conversation probably resulted from a request for money.  Somewhere in the course of this interaction, most parents utter that time honored cliche “there is no such thing as a free lunch”.  Most children react with shock and utter disbelief that their needs are met with this perceived hard hearted and ill considered response.  You as a parent didn’t address the need and responded with the harsh reality of the outside world.  Well I am reminded by this conversation of a recent travel experience.

I recently returned from a trip to the Dutch Netherlands in the Caribbean.  If you are geographically challenged as I am, you probably don’t know the location of these picturesque islands.   They are nary a stones throw away from Venezuela.  This time we visited the island of Bonaire.  We were on a cruise and since I am always such a stalwart explorer, we opted for a simple bus tour.  Our guide was pleasant middle aged woman, who like most in the tourist trade was anxious to extol the virtues of her home.  The residences on this island for the most part were primitive by United States standards and many looked like little more than tin covered shacks.  Our guide informed us of the importance of the tourist trade and that most things were brought in and little was produced locally.  Still everyone we met seemed happy, but most with the exception of the merchant owners seemed to lack ambition and initiative.

We toured the city and listened attentively to our guide as she spoke of her beautiful little island.  Aside from the references to the weather, which was beautiful, the theme of her talk centered around what the government did for them.  If there was a wayward juvenile. there was a special government accommodation with coaches and counselors.  She talked on about programs for the pensioners and the unemployed.  What did I glean from this.  This socialistic state trades  personal freedom for financial security.  I was aghast by the number of times I heard and you go to the government and they provide this or that aspect of these peoples daily lives.  What I saw was an island with an ideal climate and unlimited trade opportunities with a people that were imprisoned by their government dependency.

I was left with a certainty that this nation would not be the next hot cauldron of innovation.  This is not because of a lack of education.  You see they can travel to the Netherlands for schooling.  The government provides education.  There simply is no urgent need to achieve among the populace.  The guide said it over and over again during our tour.  The government provides _____________.  You fill in the blank.  As a result, these people will have what is provided to them and no more.

There truly is no such thing as a free lunch.  The parent’s response to the middle schooler seemed harsh to the child who wanted something he couldn’t have, but was in fact an accurate portrayal of the world outside the home.  It was also sound financial information.  There still is scarcity in the world and in our country.  It is only through work, that value is created and the individual and the society as a whole are improved by that work.

While the United States has has continually led all nations as the world’s true economic powerhouse.  There have always been those advancing the position that more should be provided and paid for by others.  These newly provided services are to be paid for by forced redistribution of the economic pie.  This system would be dramatically different from our current system in which individuals acting independently and in their own self interest within a free market structure determine what is produced.  The value of the goods and services produced is priced based upon the principles of supply and demand.  The government in this socialistic system would be the collector of that portion of income that the ruling majority believes to be in excess of what the individual needs, then the collected spoils are to be redistributed to those that are determined to need it.

There are many problems with this thinking.  First, in a vibrant economy it is the surplus funds, which provide the financial capital, that ultimately results in innovation and creation of more goods and services.  Second, the pricing of labor based upon supply and demand insures proper flow of labor and encourages movement of human resources, to those industries where there is the most demand .  It also maximizes an individual’s choice.  An individual in this system can choose where and how much and what kind of works he wishes .  limited only by how much he needs.  He determines all his own choices and the system reacts providing individuals with economic incentives to insure satisfaction of demands.

No individual entity can collect the enormous amount of data needed to make these economic decisions nor provide the freedom of choice for an individual that a free market provides.  Government should insure freedom of opportunity.  and not be responsible for the confiscation of wealth and wealth redistribution based upon the whim of the majority on any given day.

Democrats today seek to redistribute wealth based on what they believe is needed by the individual and what they believe is excess wealth.  Decisions about wealth confiscation and distribution in Socialistic economies are made with insufficient information.  Decisions are frequently made at the whim of the ruling majority based upon its beliefs,   These decisions lack the information and flexibility necessary to accommodate the rapid shifts of both capital and human resources necessary to grow an economy and produce the goods and services desired by its consumers.  The result of these ill advised decisions is malinvestment.  Malinvestment creates overproduction of some goods and services and scarcity of others.  The socialist economic system also limits an individual’s choices resulting in worker dissatisfaction and ultimately lower productivity.  The socialist system promises financial security to the individual, but in fact only insures an individual receives his piece of  a static or more likely a declining economic pie.  There truly is no such thing as a free lunch.

So when you have that conversation with your child about that free lunch,  impress upon your child that all work has value and is needed even if it is unpleasant to him or her at times.   It makes the worker a participant in the greatest and most free economy in the world.  His contribution helps all of us grow the economic pie and provide free choice for all.  Remember there truly is no such thing as a free lunch!