|
|
|
|
Welcome to our site and thanks for stopping by! We hope to bring you a different slant on what’s going on in your world – and have some fun along the way. Libertarian Leprechaun will be an attempt to grab an event or two in the news … dissect them a bit … and see what they really look like.
We admit we’re coming at you with a motive. That’s ‘cause we believe in the philosophy of “Libertarianism” – the right of people to go about their lives doing what they would like, with as little intrusion by the government as possible – as long as they’re not hurting anyone else in the process. The old bromide of “my rights end where your nose begins” makes a whole lot of sense to us.
But we want to have some fun while we’re doing it … so we’ll try and keep our Leprechaun hat a bit askew. We can’t stay serious for too long … it’s not in our nature. Besides – nothing is more fun than puncturing egos … it helps keep people honest, don’t you think!
… and there’s so much to puncture – war, taxes, health care, judges, Hollywood, the media, the President, Congress, crime, education, the economy, drugs, sports, sex, food, religion – you name it. We will skewer just about every topic we talk about, because – to our way of thinking - nothing is too sacred.
We even have a radio show which we’ll unabashedly plug from time-to-time. It’s called “Freedom Works!” and it’s on every Tuesday night (9-10 PM EDT) in Tampa Bay, Florida. You can listen to it live by going to our sister website: www.thefreedomworks.org and clicking on the radio link. While you’re there – you might accidentally learn a bit more about the philosophy of Libertarianism and the Libertarian Party as well. It’s the third largest political party in the U.S., believe it or not – though it’s got a long way to go to catch up to the Republicans and Democrats.
We also invite your comments. Send us your thoughts and we’ll listen, and – if we’re intrigued by what you say – we might even comment on them. Include your name, town, and state (and country if outside of the U.S. or Canada). If you don’t want your name published – we’ll honor your request.
Speaking of judges (we did speak of them, didn’t we?) – Leprechaun wants to salute the Supreme Court. It ruled last week that local governments can take your home or business away from you if they feel it’s for the betterment of the community. The vote was 5-4 and one of the dissenters – Sandra Day O’Connor – was so upset about it that she’s quitting!
The case stemmed from an attempt in New London, Connecticut to condemn a block of homes so an office complex could be built. The local officials argued the town would get more tax revenue from the office complex and the High Court agreed. The owners of the home wanted to stay, but they’ve been sent packing.
Leprechaun applauds the court’s stupidity because it will give us lots to talk about in future columns.
Leprechaun also wants to applaud Judge David Souter. He voted with the majority - and now has learned that somebody wants to condemn his New Hampshire home and build a hotel in its place. This is exactly what eminent domain should be all about – find the domain of somebody eminent and condemn it.
Since Judge O’Connor is quitting, President Bush gets to nominate someone to replace her. The Democrats are very excited about this and have already been calling press conferences to give Bush some helpful tips. The biggest tip is - select a liberal and we will call you wise and patriotic. Bush will likely ignore that tip and they will call him stupid and a traitor.
Meantime, the government of Aruba continues to hold three young men in the disappearance of Natalie Holloway. Since they can’t find her, nobody’s sure there’s been a crime. In the United States – those three men would have to be charged with a crime or released. But Aruba has a law that lets police keep people in jail without being charged if there’s suspicion of a crime.
Leprechaun is upset with Aruba and demands they act like the United States. Release those three young men and keep looking til they find Miss Holloway. By the time they find her (or what’s left of her) then they can arrest those three. Of course, by then – those three young men will be old men and everybody will have forgotten about it.
Well … that’s all for now. Thanks for listening and stay safe this holiday. We’ll fracture a few other topics in our next column.
July 3, 2005
Social Security was an idea that came from Franklin Roosevelt in the early 1930’s. It was in the midst of the Great Depression and the idea was to guarantee people a small amount of money when they retired. Like any program that takes money into the federal government on a regular basis – it has grown to the point that it’s unrecognizable from its original intent. More money comes in right now than is paid out – so the excess is supposed to be kept in a special fund for future retirees. But Congress decided long ago to borrow the excess amount and spend it on other government programs. That leaves no money in the special fund at all.
This makes perfect sense, of course … why keep other people’s money when you can spend it. The government owes more than just Social Security funds … all told – it now owes $7.8 trillion – and it’s owed to people and countries all over the world.
So why entrust people’s retirement programs to the people themselves? … the government has shown through its conscientious use of Social Security money and every other program they can’t afford that they know what’s best when it comes to saving for a rainy day. Leprechaun says let’s fight this privatization idea with all our mights – and shout down the privateers whenever we can.
As long as we’re congratulating the U.S. government on it’s quality accounting methods – here are some other things for which we should give it the one-finger salute:
… Yes, we can all look to Washington for the answers to our country’s problems. We’re doing such an effective job, it’s no wonder we send advisors to other countries to help them out with their problems. It’s the American way. Why George Bush Won …
There is still a lot of anger about George Bush living in the White House. Many think his 2000 election was a Supreme Court kidnapping - and his re-election last year, an anomaly caused by the Mid-East war.
They also point to his two Democratic opponents – blundering, stumbling political oafs who could not articulate the great things they felt in their hearts.
Then there are the micro-analysts who will point to hundreds of little things that spelled a Bush victory: more money for ads, conservative radio and TV shows, Vietnam Vets against Kerry, Bill Clinton’s tawdry affairs, Michael Moore, hanging chads, Theresa Kerry, the political power of evangelists, and on and on.
All of these things may have played a part … but Leprechaun feels they were negligible. There was a rather simple reason and it transcended all the politics. People elected Bush because they “liked” him. People elected Reagan because they “liked” him … people elected Clinton because they “liked” him. The same with Eisenhower, Truman, and Kennedy. These Presidents were not elected by the vast majority of voters on their politics or dogma … they came across as warm and fuzzy when they got in front of a TV or newsreel camera. Bob Dole did not … neither did Al Gore, John Kerry, Adlai Stevenson, or Thomas Dewey. Richard Nixon was not much of a warm, fuzzy – especially next to Kennedy. But next to Hubert Humphrey in ’68 and George McGovern in ’72 – he actually registered higher on the love-o-meter.
We can complain all we want about that method of selection … but it’s the rule of life as well. The guy with all the brains and the answers is never the guy that runs the organization (unless he founded it). It’s the guy that makes you feel good when you interview him for the job. Sure, he’s got to have some background – but that becomes secondary.
Leprechaun has a simple method for correcting this – and it will end up saving the political parties millions of dollars. No candidate may be seen or heard during the race … only read. That would be a boon to the newspaper and book industry, as well. There would be little or no likeability gauge because – for the most part – we won’t remember what the candidate looked or sounded like.
Of course, there’d be a smaller turnout at the polls. Most people would not be interested enough to read much and would forget to vote. That would leave only the truly informed – and perhaps they should be the only ones to elect Presidents anyway.
This idea would do one other thing – it would force the candidates to actually come up with defined positions on what they’d do if elected. It’s easy to bluff your way through a position when you’re answering a question on TV … politicians are experts at it. But if their answers can only be read – it gives people time to digest what they’re saying and – perhaps – reread and re-examine.
The big question is whether this method is a limit on free speech. Of course it is! - big time! But we’ve already got hundreds of silly rules for campaigns that limit free speech in all kinds of ways – limit amounts of money spent, limit amounts of money received, limit the number of Presidential debates, limit the amount of time a candidate has to answer a debate question, even limit the number of candidates that can show up for the debate!
So let’s craft the Free Speech Amendment to read “No candidate for President may be seen or heard upon announcement of his or her candidacy.” A simple way to elect a better leader. July 6, 2005
We have laws in this country that do not allow people to take certain drugs. They include marijuana, LSD, heroin, and lots more. If you are caught using them – you will likely get fined … maybe jailed. If you’re caught selling them – you’ll likely get lots of jail time.
There used to be no laws in this country about taking drugs. You could take any drug you wanted … and some were even encouraged. Coca-Cola originally had cocaine in it – hence its name.
We have certain drugs that are clearly harmful and serve no good purpose that people are allowed to take - tobacco and alcohol. These drugs are taxed and people are willing to pay the additional tax, in order to satisfy their craving.
There are probably millions of alcoholics worldwide and millions of people with lung disease from tobacco. Why are these drugs legal while others are not? Would it not make more sense to either legalize the other drugs as well or ban tobacco and alcohol as well?
Of course it would – if logic had anything to do with it. But logic is never a factor when we make laws in Washington. If logic were a factor – the lawmakers would realize they have conflicting laws from one end of Congress to the other and promptly vote themselves out of office. This would save lots of money and make things run much more efficiently.
But back to drugs … many save lives and ease pain – and they are allowed, as they should be. But even these drugs – since they are anathema to the human body – are doing some damage somewhere in our systems – whether it’s the liver, kidneys, lungs, heart, brain, or somewhere else.
Leprechaun has a solution. Take half the country … say from Kansas City west and legalize all drugs. Take the other half and enforce our current drug laws, but include a ban on tobacco and alcohol – just to make it more sensible. Then do a one-year study and see what happens.
Smokers and drinkers will raise hell for awhile in the eastern half, but then they will figure out a way to either kick the habit, move to the West, or get their beer and smokes on the black market.
Drug users in the western half will continue to use their drugs and probably not be too affected – except their drugs will be cheaper since they don’t have to resort to the black market.
Teetotalers in the West may complain for awhile and fear there will be nothing but a blue haze filling the sky - but will probably stay put when they don’t notice much of a difference.
The biggest change in the West will be in government costs. No more multi-billions of dollars trying to stop illegal drug use. Will there be more people hooked on drugs – yes, but not as many as people fear - and the price of helping them will be infinitesimal in comparison.
The East will continue to spend those multi-billions and will have just as many people with drug problems as before. If you think people will really stop taking drinks and smoking cigarettes because they are banned, then take a look at how many people have stopped doing cocaine and marijuana, just because they are banned.
After the one year experiment – choose one of the two laws, East or West and enforce it nationwide. Leprechaun bets you a bottle of Tequila the sun will shine on the West.
You’ve heard all the complaints about America’s prisons – billions of tax dollars to fund each year – much of that wasted or corrupted … the state and federal prisons are hell-holes – turning people from bad to worse, then tossing them back on the street with little or no chance for employment or legitimate income … an overcrowding of jails to the point that we set many hard-core offenders free before their sentences complete … and the ongoing fact that no community wants a prison near them.
But what if prisons didn’t cost taxpayers a cent … what if the prisons were not hell-holes at all but model facilities … what if prisoners went from turning worse to turning “better” … what if people welcomed prisons into their area because it helped their economy … what if prisons had no overcrowding because the more prisons needed, the more that would be built – and not at taxpayer expense!
Sounds like a fairy tale? … think again! There’s no good reason we can’t turn our country’s prison population from a liability to a resource – and help turn people from a life of crime into people who are responsible and productive.
The answer is to “privatize” prisons … take them from the government and let the private sector run them. There will be howls of anger from public employees that work in government prisons, of course – they will claim that it would turn prisoners into slaves at the expense of greedy and corrupt private profiteers.
But let’s look at this a bit further – these prisons would produce a product or service that could be sold on the open market. The money made from the product would go to fund the prison’s operations, pay the prisoner for his labor (a nest egg he collects at the end of his term), pay restitution to any victims of his crime, and make a profit for the prison.
Would the products made in these prisons compete with other firms? … yes and no. Private prisons could manufacture or assemble basic goods no longer made in our country because of cheaper labor costs overseas. Prisoners would not be paid as much as free citizens, which means the products could compete with those made in other countries.
The government (court system) would still supervise these prisoners – the prisons would be monitored just like every other private firm that does business with the government – of that you can be assured!
The public employees that now work in government prisons would be the first people that the private prisons would be calling on … and they may find their pay and benefits would be better, because the different private prisons would be “competing” for their services – just like any other job skill in the free market.
We already have some prisons in this country run by private firms (GEO Group, and Corrections Corporation of America come to mind) – but they’re still being subsidized by the government and the products or services typically stay within government confines. That means you, the taxpayer, still foots the bill.
Are there all sorts of unforeseen problems and roadblocks? Of course – the devil is always in the details … but Leprechaun feels the idea makes sense. And remember – a journey of 10,000 miles begins with a single step and a few bathroom stops along the way.
“U.S. Immigration – What Should We Do? ”
One of America’s biggest problems is its illegal immigration. According to Neville Cramer – retired U.S. Border Patrol agent, and author of Fixing the INSanity* – the country now has 10 million illegal aliens. That’s larger than the total population of most of our states!
So what does a country do? The United States proudly points to the Statue of Liberty – which has a motto at its base:
“Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me: I lift my lamp beside the golden door.”
We clearly have built our nation on that motto, so shutting down our borders goes against everything we stand for. But when we cannot monitor or stop bad people from coming here – we fail our citizens.
Unlike most politicians – including most of the governors of states that border both Canada and Mexico - Kramer has come up with a detailed plan to keep us safe. It includes the use of Social Security Cards and a national verification system. The idea is to keep better tabs on who’s here, and this arouses privacy fears from lots of people. They rightly want protection from the eyes of intelligence agencies for most of us – because most of us are honest and legal.
But that does not stop the illegal infiltration – and right now, according to Kramer, we have some 10,000 border patrol agents trying to do something. Sounds like a lot of agents – but take a look at the length of our borders – 7,000 miles shared with Canada, and 2,000 miles with Mexico. The truth is – even with all the documentation and surveillance technology that we can muster – we will never stop people from sneaking over.
Leprechaun has an idea … a way to make our country attractive for those who want to come here to enjoy our freedoms and make it a better place for everyone – but make our country not so attractive for the rest:
Take away welfare programs
Will it stop the bad guys from coming here? … the ones that want to do us harm? Not directly. But millions pour in for the free benefits they can get – if not for themselves, than for the family members and relatives that eventually join them. Stopping welfare cuts back on lots of illegal entry and allows border patrol agents and technology the luxury of fewer people to monitor.
What about all the legal Americans that enjoy our welfare programs? Yes, they will suffer – for a time. Then they will eventually quit griping, realize they have to take personal responsibility for themselves and their own families – and figure out a way to do it without government handouts.
This country – as our Statue of Liberty says - is for those that yearn to be free. It is not for those who yearn to be babied. *To find out more about Neville Cramer and buy his book, Fixing the INSanity, click here! “U.S. Healthcare – Where Are We Going?” Part I
There’s a saying about how to cook a live lobster … rather than toss him into a pot of boiling water, just drop him into a pot of cold water and slowly raise the temperature. He’ll cook just as surely but may not notice.
What’s happening to people with their healthcare in America is kind of like the lobster in that pot. The cost of our healthcare has skyrocketed – especially since 1965 – but people do not seem to realize they’re being cooked by government regulation.
Milton Friedman, who won a Nobel Prize with his economic ideas, has spent years crusading for a de-regulation of healthcare – much like what we’ve done in telecommunications and air travel. Remember what a long distance phone call cost back in the 70’s and early 80’s? Then the government let loose of its regulation in that area, and now you can call anywhere in the country for pennies per minute. Same with air travel … when the government de-regulated airlines and let them compete – the cost of a plane trip plummeted while not an ounce of safety was jeopardized.
For awhile after World War II – health care was making rapid technological advancement while not dramatically increasing in cost to the consumer. Many companies lured returning servicemen and their families with health insurance as a company benefit. Doctors were still making house calls (can you believe they’d do that today!) … and surgery to have, say, your appendix taken out was something you could afford.
Then came 1965 and President Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society”. Both Medicare and Medicaid were introduced as a way for government to fund health care for the elderly and the poor. Prior to 1965, the cost of healthcare followed the same graph chart line as the cost of general inflation in the country – no noticeable divergence. After 1965 – the cost of health care began to skyrocket away from inflation. If you don’t believe it, compare the cost of that appendix operation (including hospital stay) in 1965 and compare it today. Even factoring in the inflation of the dollar from 40 years ago – there is no comparison. You’d be spending maybe $600 in ’65 … today maybe $13,000.
So how does a seemingly innocent and well-intentioned program to help the elderly and poor get health coverage turn the whole health care industry into a ravenous money-eating behemoth?
Go back to that phone call or airplane trip … when the federal government regulated a long distance call or a plane trip – not just the airlines had to be paid – so did all the federal government employees that oversaw the regulation (the Interstate Commerce Commission and Department of Transportation among many others). The airlines were told what they must charge – so no competition … and each of the few airline companies just waited to see what that amount would be. Of course, they always lobbied for higher rates and virtually always got those rates approved. The same thing for AT&T with phone calls. There was no competition, so no “real” price for the cost of a trip or a call was ever a factor.
Today, you can choose from all kinds of airlines running all kinds of specials to lure you onto their planes. The same with phone companies – you can pick and choose among a chorus of long distance firms – each with a better deal than the next.
But the government now oversees one of the largest bureaucracies in the world that micromanages virtually every phase of health care. It decides what it will pay doctors and hospitals and, of course, what it will pay itself for regulating them.
The “real” cost of treating the elderly and poor is ignored. That means doctors and hospitals are forced to raise their rates for everybody else that does not get Medicare and Medicaid. That’s why that appendix operation now costs you more than your appendix. It also costs you an arm and a leg. “U.S. Healthcare – Where Are We Going?” (Part II)
We’ve talked about how costly healthcare in America has become in the past 40 years following the onset of Medicare and Medicaid. Only the rich can afford to get really sick without quality coverage. The rest of us pray we can make it through life without major illness and then hope our Medicare and private insurance somehow holds up in our final years.
Leprechaun has suggested that “de-regulating” healthcare – taking it out of the hands of the federal government and putting it back in the private sector – or at least in the hands of each state – would significantly reduce cost and increase effectiveness, much like the de-regulation of long distance calls and air travel.
But if we stop Medicare and Medicaid – what happens to the elderly and the poor? How will they afford their healthcare? We certainly don’t want them to be left dying in the streets.
Once again – the answer comes largely out of the private sector, with some help, perhaps from local and state government. Before 1965, with no Medicare and Medicaid, the poor and the elderly were not tossed into the streets without help … they were taken in by hospitals and doctor clinics and taken care of. It was the local non-profit groups and local organizations, along with the local hospitals and local doctors’ offices that did the caring. People that worked in these organizations and clinics found a way to work together in their communities to care for the people. Many Catholic, Jewish, and other private hospitals cared for the underprivileged and cared for them well – perhaps better than they’re being cared for today.
But the cost of caring for them was much less expensive as well. We referred in our earlier column about the cost of an appendix operation pre-Medicare and Medicaid as around $600 for surgery, doctors, and hospital … today it’s around $13,000! The more we let the federal government micro-manage it, the costlier healthcare gets.
But it’s not just the cost … it’s also the quality. Doctors and hospitals are being controlled more and more by the federal government as to what services they can provide under Medicare and Medicaid. Payments won’t be made unless they follow the guidelines of bureaucrats in Washington. The results include tests and procedures that – in too many cases – are not necessary, at the expense of directly doing the necessary. You complain of a headache, you should be able to try aspirin first, without getting a complete physical.
Can we put the genie back in the bottle? Can we ever get the federal government out of the healthcare business and put it back in the private, local, and state sectors? We had better find a way, or the poor, the elderly, and just about everyone else will be the poorer for it. “The Industrial Revolution – America’s Finest Hour”
Now that the United States is deemed the world’s “superpower” – many Americans feel we are in our finest hour. The Soviet Union is an unpleasant memory and – though there are rumblings from North Korea, the Mideast, and China - it is America that stands tall and proud.
But even the mighty Roman Empire came crumbling down – and its destruction was more from within than without. After 500 years of ruling the world – when it was finally attacked by marauding tribes of Vandals and Goths – it was ripe for the overthrow. The Romans never seemed to know what hit them. The seeds of their own destruction had been planted in forgetting about all the things that had brought Rome to the top. Of course the Romans had conquered many lands, and their savagery to innocent people can never be justified. But their codified laws, their mathematics, their system of roads, and many other achievements kept them at the top as much or more than their ability in war.
The United States did not conquer others to gain its rightful place at the top of the world. What it did in the 19th century was open its door to people of other lands and promise them the opportunity to freely live their lives. Consequently people poured into Ellis Island in New York, and America quickly became a huge melting pot.
It was with this freedom that these appreciative immigrants began to work – each for themselves – in a country that largely left them alone to be the best that they could be. It was no coincidence that they and their children were at the forefront of the Industrial Revolution – a period running from the late 18th century into the early 20th century – and including the invention of the steamboat (Robert Fulton 1807),, the telephone (Alexander Graham Bell 1876), the light bulb (Thomas Edison 1879), the phonograph (Edison 1877), the movie camera (Edison 1888) and the airplane (the Wright Brothers 1903). Great Britain and other European countries were also making their mark, but it was the United States that led the world both in quantity and quality of development.
While all of this was going, on Great Britain was considered the dominant power of the world; and the phrase “the sun never sets on the British Empire” still rang true. But it was really the United States that was making its move – much like the Vandals and the Goths on the unsuspecting Romans – and the transformation had begun.
Now the United States finds itself much like those Romans … seemingly at the top of the flagpole after 100 years of entrepreneurship, but with a noticeable crumbling from within. We no longer can claim the best schools – take a look at our rank in educational testing worldwide … we no longer lead the world in manufacturing – we have contracted it out to third world countries … even our system of healthcare, long the envy of the world, has been mediocritized to the point that the world’s best pharmaceutical companies are now headquartered in Europe.
It is that entrepreneurship that has been taken from us and has caused our descent. The federal income tax (1913) was a major contributor – the process of funding our federal government from the work efforts of its citizens, rather than from the tariffs it charged other countries to sell its goods in America.
But it wasn’t just the income tax – along with it came an increase in the regulation of the free market with virtually every industry being touched.
When Thomas Edison was inventing his light bulb – he did not worry about the federal taxes and paperwork his little company had to produce … because there wasn’t any! Today – those taxes and paperwork would have made him think twice – and candlepower might still be in vogue. “Terrorism & Racial Profiling”
If you’re robbed at gunpoint while walking down the street, you’ll probably let the police know. Three of the first things you’ll describe about your assailant is his (or her) sex, race, and age. Doing so will substantially cut the universe of possible suspects and likely let all the 80-year old grandmothers off the hook.
This kind of logic, however, does not work in the terrorism fight. So far – the terrorists that have caused the destruction to Americans and our embassies overseas; and to our airplanes, the Twin Towers, and the Pentagon here at home - are young Mideast Muslims, who are overwhelmingly male.
But take a look at who gets pulled out of security lines at airports and frisked. Everybody – all shapes, sexes, ages, and sizes … and that includes 80-year old white grandmothers.
Are we doing it because we suspect they are terrorists? We do not. And it likely will not stop a single terrorist who – God forbid – attempts to hijack another airplane. We are doing it in large part to fulfill a political correctness that is being forced on us by many groups in this country that are against racial profiling. These groups are outraged that any single class of people is treated differently than others when it comes to crime.
The fear of racial profiling has reared its head in police cases across the United States. If, say, a black or Hispanic man robs a bank and makes a getaway – local police go on the lookout and – in an earlier era – might stop a Hispanic or black driver that fits the description of the robber. Today, the police are not so quick to make that stop … and the result is that the perpetrator has a better chance of getting away with the deed.
Even some newspapers and television and radio reports – in describing that bank holdup – will not describe the race of the suspect – even though it could help find him.
If a white man commits a crime and he fits my general age – I would not be too upset if some policeman pulls me over near the crime scene and begins to ask me questions. I would hope the cop would not waste his time with a black or Hispanic man in the car behind me.
This is a time of strife for Muslims worldwide. They realize the terrorist events of the last several years have put them under a microscope … the same thing occurred to the Japanese and Germans during World War II. Is it fair to the Muslim communities? – no … the vast majority are good people. Is it practical? – yes … no rational person can say that to stop terrorism by Mideast Muslim radicals, we must ignore profiling them. To do that profiling, we might have to take a second look at the young man of Mideastern descent that’s boarding a plane or getting on a ship … and let the 80-year old white grandmother pass by.
One of the most controversial decisions in Supreme Court History occurred 32 years ago – and its effects are still front and center in the United States. It was in 1973 that Justice Harry Blackmun wrote the majority opinion of a divided court on Roe vs. Wade – establishing abortion as a legal right for women.
Prior to that, abortion had been left to each of the 50 states to decide. Then, a woman by the name of Norma Jean McCorvey (listed as Jane Roe in the case) sued the state of Texas to have an abortion. The state – up until then – had allowed abortion only to save the life of the mother.
The High Court ruled that a woman’s right to abortion was found in Section One of the 14th amendment to the Constitution – the “Due Process Clause”. That clause specifically states the following:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, and every other group you can think of have conflicting feelings about abortion. The country is waiting with marked interest on the next Supreme Court justice that will fill the vacancy of the retiring Sandra Day O’Connor – and it is more about Roe vs. Wade than any other issue.
The unresolved question still seems to be – is there a right to abortion in the Constitution? The answer may be found in two short phrases – one in the Declaration of Independence and the other back in that 14th Amendment.
The Declaration of Independence says quite simply: “… all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness…”. The Declaration of Independence is the document upon which our Constitution was crafted.
The Constitutions’s 14th Amendment – the one used to legalize abortion – clearly says no State shall deprive anyone of their life, liberty, or property without Due Process.
In both cases – people are entitled to life – and it cannot be taken away from them without due process. If an unborn child is said to be alive – and every legitimate medical organization says that it is – then where is the child’s due process?
The rights of the mother or father are not the rights of the unborn child. The unborn child has its own individual rights, once it is alive. If that is not the case – then why stop due process at birth? Why not allow the mother due process through the first, say, 12 years of a child’s life while under her care? If she decides she does not want the child any longer during that period– allow her that same option of ending its life.
The right to life – no matter how we try to read the Constitution or Declaration of Independence – will just not go away.
Everybody worries about their taxes. They worry they did something wrong (intentionally or not) and that the IRS is just waiting to pounce - or they worry that somebody else is paying less than they are with the same income. They might worry they did not get some deduction buried in the IRS tax code - so they hire an accountant or strong-arm their brother-in-law with the math background to help them. They worry that they made some error in calculation and will not get their refund on time. They worry that they are not taking enough exemptions at work and should have less money deducted every month from their paychecks.
The worry started when the federal income tax was first established in 1862 during the Civil War - 3% on income from $600 to $10,000, and 5% from $10,000 to $50,000. Up until then, our government survived on tariffs – taxes on imports from other countries. The income tax continued until 1867 when it was modified into the first flat tax - 5% on all income over $5,000. In 1872, the income tax was abolished altogether and we returned to the tariffs.
The income tax was crafted again in 1909 under President Howard Taft … and sent off to the states to be ratified as the 16th amendment to the Constitution. The final state ratified it in February 1913 and we’ve been paying it ever since.
Our current version started rather innocently with a 1% tax on income above $3,000, and surcharges of 2-7% on income from $20,000 to $500,000. But those rates skyrocketed by the start of World War I in 1917 to a top rate of 67%. (1)
Today, the Internal Revenue Service is one of the U.S. government’s biggest bureaucracies. We spend billions of tax dollars to fund it, and it employs about 100,000 people. In 2004, the IRS collected just over $2 trillion.
There are probably four people in the world that completely understand the U.S. tax code – and they are locked in sanitoriums … the rest of us are lost. Even the experts that charge big money for tax advice do not understand the code, but they understand how to act like they understand the code.
Which brings us to the Flat Tax. It has been bandied about for years – but gained steam with the Presidential ambitions of Republican Steve Forbes in the late 90’s. Forbes and others have proposed getting rid of all loopholes and deductions in the income tax – while levying an approximate rate of 17% on all income above $16,000-$24,000. Your bracket would be based on whether you’re single or married, and your number of dependents. All income below that would be tax-free.
The argument for the flat tax is that it would bring in the same amount of money, use less people to oversee it, and exempt the poor from paying much income tax at all. The problem is all the people that have a vested interest in the current tax code … that includes all those IRS employees, all accountants, all companies that sell income tax services, and all the lobbying groups representing all the businesses that have loopholes buried in the code.
Would a flat tax be better than the current tax code? Of course it would … but aside from a few people like Steve Forbes - who seem to actually care about making tax law better – there is not much political support for it.
That means we will continue to add more rules and loopholes to the code – which will make it even more complicated. The four people that now completely understand the code will shrink to one person, and he will remain locked up until his brain completely atrophies.
(1) Source: Ludwig von Mises Institute “The Difference Between Republicans, Democrats, & Libertarians” Most everybody on the planet is familiar with America’s two major political parties. They may struggle with what those parties now stand for, but you can bet the bank they’ve heard of Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, John McCain, and the Bush family. But mention the names Michael Badnarik, Harry Browne, or Ed Clarke and watch the blank stares. All three were Presidential candidates and they are no more familiar than the back of the moon. They belong to the Libertarian Party – and even though it’s the third-largest party in the country (a distant third) – it usually evokes collective head-scratching when you bring it up at your Friday night poker game. Libertarians have been around thousands of years … literally. The philosophy goes back to the ancient Greeks. But the American version was officially founded in 1971 by David Nolan – a hiccup in time compared to the GOP and Democrats. The Republicans trace their roots back to the early 1850’s while the Democrats were created some 40 years earlier. Republicans spout the idea of less taxes and a strong national defense … Democrats insist that a healthy dose of taxes and less marching about the planet looking for a fight is what makes America great. That brings us to Libertarians. They repel from taxes like a seven-year old from soap … but they also feel America has no business fighting wars on the other side of the globe. In general – a Libertarian will tell you that the Constitution and its original Ten Amendments sum up perfectly well what government should and should not do. The concept of Libertarianism is individual freedom entwined with personal responsibility. The idea that “my rights end where your nose begins” is its First Great Commandment. A Libertarian would re-birth the federal government back to its original responsibilities of providing for the country’s defense, coining its money, and overseeing its justice system. That would leave pretty-much everything else in the hands of state and local governments and – more ideally – in the hands of individuals, themselves. Programs such as Social Security, education, and health care would no longer be in the clutches of Washington or even the states – where they have morphed into gluttonous monsters. Their government demise would mean a rebirth of private sector initiatives that would include the competitive free market; and signal more efficient ways to fund pensions for the elderly, teach the youth, and keep Americans healthy. Libertarians have a long way to go. They have a great message but need a marketing plan. They have to figure out how to turn the blank stares into nods of knowing approval.
Two of America’s largest unions have bolted the AFL-CIO this week – taking three million workers with them. It is one more blow – and a huge one at that – for the organized labor movement. The Service Employees International Union (1.7 million) and the Teamsters Union (1.3 million) cited frustration with the parent federation’s efforts – or lack thereof – to stem overall decline in union membership. There were other reasons as well – including ongoing conflicts with John Sweeney, federation President.
What has gone wrong for America’s unions? They trace their birth all the way back to the founding of the country with the first labor strike occurring in 1794 – when New York printers walked out over their pay. The first federation – or grouping of local labor unions under one umbrella – was the National Labor Union, formed in 1866. It persuaded Congress to pass an eight-hour workday for federal workers.
The AFL (American Federation of Labor) - founded in 1886 under Samuel Gompers – was created “to protect the skilled labor of America from being reduced to beggary …”. Then came such organizations as the American Railroad Union (1884), the United Mine Workers (1902), and the Committee for Industrial Organization or CIO (1935) – which, under John L. Lewis, was a collection of AFL leaders working to expand unionism. (1)
Clearly, unions have been as much a part of Americana as the Star Spangled Banner. But for all of their promotion of better working conditions – most fall into the trap of starting out with ideals, losing site of them, and ending up with me-deals – corruption for the top officials.
Unions have also been guilty of forcing idiotic worksite rules … allowing their members to refrain from certain tasks that they could easily do at a non-union worksite; or forcing only a union member to do something that could be done faster and more effectively by someone else.
They also can protect lousy workers. The entire company may be aware of an incompetent employee, but he cannot be fired unless he shows up for work with grenades strapped to his chest. Employers and ultimately their consumers pick up the extra tab.
Now, right-to-work laws have cut into many union jobs. The laws allow companies and public entities to hire non-union workers without fear of reprisal. There are 22 states with right-to-work statutes on the books. Employers in these states can decide for themselves if they want to join or financially support a union. Workers can still join unions in these states but they may end up working next to non-union members.
The right to organize into unions will and should be maintained. The pendulum may eventually swing back toward a growth in the movement – but for now, it is swinging wildly in the other direction.
(1) Source: Social Studies Help Center http://www.socialstudieshelp.com/
“The Government and the Environment”
Does the federal government have a responsibility to protect our environment? Well – as in so many areas – the U.S. Constitution is not completely clear. The Preamble to our Constitution says the following:
We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The key phrase may be: promote the general Welfare. That same phrase pops up again in Article 1, Section 8:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States …
That’s about as close as the Constitution gets to a question of environmental protection. Yet most of us feel the federal government should be in charge of keeping our air, water, and ground safe from contamination. The ironic thing is – our government may be the country’s biggest polluter. Think of all the spent plutonium rods and other radioactive material buried deep in the grounds of our sparsely populated western states, and in our bordering oceans – all from government.
If you think about it - the federal government is really not in position to be in charge of the environment. It stomps about the world signing environmental accords (note the Kyoto agreement) then watches as each of the countries (including itself) fails to honor them.
The best monitor is actually the private sector and our court system, when you think about it. For example - if I start a campfire in my back yard, and the smoke billows through your windows – you will tell me to stop. If I don’t, you will call the police and they will force me to stop.
On a larger scale – if a company starts pouring toxic waste into a nearby stream (as many have done) – as soon as someone else is affected, that company can be sued and either fined up the yazoo or closed. In either case – its reputation is ruined and its business will suffer. No business wants to be shut down and its owners jailed.
Will whistleblowers and the threat of fines and jail time stop all polluters? Of course not … but our crazy quilt of environmental laws now on the books are not stopping them either – and at much greater expense (see Environmental Protection Agency).
Everybody wants a clean environment and the answer may still be found in the Constitution. Just look to the Bill of Rights and its Sixth Amendment – the one that outlines criminal prosecutions.
The Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) narrowly passed Congress last week . President Bush will sign the measure and it will take its place alongside NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement passed during the Clinton administration) as a vehicle allowing easier trade in the Western Hemisphere. The countries involved are Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, The Dominican Republic, Guatemala, and El Salvador. They join Canada and Mexico as free trading partners with the U.S.
As a group, Democrats are up-in-arms. Nancy Pelosi, Democratic congressman from California, is complaining the pact will not require Central American countries to follow international labor rules. Pelosi and others feel that thousands in the U.S. will lose their jobs, and that workers rights in those Central American countries will be jeopardized. They point to American farmers, textile mill workers, and sugar industry employees as the ones that will suffer.
Does free trade cost the U.S. jobs? Let’s take a look. If prices for foreign goods are made cheaper, U.S. workers would appear to suffer. But in actuality, after NAFTA, there was no noticeable hike in unemployment. As of June, the unemployment rate in our country stands at 5% – the lowest it has been in nearly four years - and it comes despite a huge jump in oil costs.
When tariffs and trade barriers are lifted between countries – it helps both economies. Laborers in sugar and textile, and some farmers will definitely suffer and jobs will be lost. But in a free market – jobs evolve upward and downward all the time. Opening borders to trade means new jobs are created on both sides. U.S. companies may build more plants in Central America – but they’ll also hire more American workers to help in the processing, shipping, inventory, training, and other areas when those products come back over here. If U.S. companies can make their products cheaper, they can better compete worldwide. When they can compete – they stay in business and hire more people.
Consumers, meanwhile, pay lower prices for those goods because the cost of doing business goes down. Lower prices means more goods will be sold, and more goods being sold means more stores expand to sell those goods to keep up with demand.
What about workers’ rights in those Central American countries? Will those laborers suffer? Hardly! It will mean more jobs for those people and more choices for jobs. In a free trade environment that is always the case. As to how those Central American governments oversee the labor rights of their people – that is, of course, their business … but improving the economies of third-world countries inevitably improves the living standards of their people.
So the next time someone complains about free trade and its effect on American and foreign workers – just smile and take a look at the extra money in your wallet. “Space Exploration – Should the Government Do It?”
Most of us have been watching the latest space shuttle, Discovery, with bated breath. Two years ago, an entire crew of American astronauts died during earth re-entry because of faulty tiles on their capsule. Now there are tiles on Discovery that have loosened, and thermal filler material underneath is protruding. The astronauts are working to fix it – but come time for re-entry – there will be high drama.
Should the U.S. government – or any government for that matter – spend money on space travel? It was President John Kennedy who launched our space investment in the early 60’s with Project Apollo and his call for America to reach the moon. Before the decade had ended, America had stepped onto that distant, yellow sphere - and our desire for space exploration only sweetened.
Now the U.S. spends over $16 Billion a year just to fund NASA (The National Aeronautics and Space Administration) by itself. Few argue that discovery and exploration in space is both useful and exciting … and much is made about the technological advances that all of us enjoy, and which would not have been possible without this effort.
But could the private sector do it better? The answer may come when we look at just about anything government does in terms of its efficiency and cost. NASA is handed billions every year and is told to spend it wisely in the space quest. That’s like handing bags of candy on a regular basis to an eight-year old and telling him to eat it wisely. Why eat wisely when more candy is on its way?
Certainly, NASA wants to be successful and there are lives involved when mistakes are made. But the space program continues despite the mistakes and despite the expense, because no politician wants to stand in front of a microphone and cameras condemning it. If he did so, his patriotism would be questioned before he left the dais.
If NASA shuts down tomorrow - and the Mission Control complex in Houston and Cape Canaveral launch site in Florida were sold – you can bet your last nickel the private sector would pick up the ball. As with the deregulation of the airline and telecommunication industries – a myriad of new companies formed; giving us not only better service, but cheaper prices. The profit motive is a powerful tool for advancement in anything and – with space travel – there’s an added incentive of adventure, glory, and accomplishment.
The major transportation and communications firms alone would be rushing to develop new space technology … and spinoff companies would further the advancement. The profit would come from the public’s thirst for better weather and communications technology – among other things, and for better and safer air machines carrying more people to further places in more luxury and in shorter periods of time. Think of the profits from building a spacecraft that can take passengers to the moon, and – from there – to other points in our solar system. The sky would literally be the limit! “Should Government run our Education System?”
Can the government do a better job of educating our kids than the private sector?
Thomas Jefferson once said it was important to have an educated population in order “to exercise the rights and responsibilities of citizenship.” With that in mind, government in the United States has played a part in education since colonial days - but it was not until the twentieth century that it took such a firm grip.
At first, in Puritan New England – schools were an adjunct of the churches. Later, after the Erie Canal opened, farmers left New England in search of the fertile soils of the Midwest …setting up schools wherever they went.
In 1787, the government set aside resources for education – but it was not until 1867 that a federal Department of Education was created. Even then - the department merely collected and reported the progress of education – it left the actual teaching to the states and local communities. (1)
Attendance in schools was not made compulsory in all states until 1918 and government control was mainly local until well into the twentieth century. As people moved into big cities from rural areas – government took on a larger role in schools, in part, to counteract the ethnic differences that were occurring – especially with the transition of blacks into northern, industrialized cities.
Has the quality of education improved since the government moved in? Here is a portion of the eighth grade final exam in Salina, Kansas – the year was 1895 – with limited local and no federal government involvement:
English
Arithmetic
… There were also questions in history, geography, and orthography for the eighth graders.
Are schools doing a better job of teaching our kids today? … Leprechaun will let you know as soon as it looks up the meaning of “orthography”.
(1) Source: 120 Years of American Education: A Statistical Portrait
(2) Source: Snopes.com and the Salina Journal
The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states it pretty clearly:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The first ten Amendments were adopted together, five years after the adoption of the Constitution. They had to be ratified by all 13 states, so apparently our country did not rush into them without some thought.
Has the time come to re-visit the “guns” Amendment? Well, a lot of people think it’s either outdated or misinterpreted.
Outdated - because the only weapons available back then were knives, axes, muskets, and an occasional sharp rock.
Misinterpreted - because the guns were only to be used for “militia” purposes – as in a ready-to-fight army for each state.
James Madison – considered the father of the Constitution – and the primary author of the Bill or Rights had this to say in 1788:
Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.*
Thomas Jefferson – who authored the Declaration of Independence - offered this thought:
Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man*
Madison argued for private gun ownership to keep each state protected. Jefferson supported it for individual security. While the Madison argument may seem a bit outdated, the Jefferson logic seems to still ring true. Gun rights advocates constantly echo the thought that when gun laws are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
If the public has a right to own guns – do they have a right to own any kind of gun? How about a machine gun or some kind of high-powered grenade launcher, or a full-service tank? Surely these weapons indicate something more than personal protection. Even a Libertarian might raise an eyebrow if a neighbor drove home with a missile launcher.
Maybe the real question should not be gun ownership, but rather what kind of gun ownership.
* Second Amendment to the United States from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The United States has been fighting in Iraq since June, 2003. Everyone knows President Bush’s justification for it … Saddam Hussein’s failure to allow United Nation’s inspections for “weapons of mass destruction”. Few people argue that Hussein deserved to be toppled. He was a dictator that killed perhaps hundreds of thousands of his own people. He had invaded Kuwait 12 years earlier and had been considered a major threat to Israel and to general peace in the Mideast. Over 1,800 Americans have died in the current conflict. Has the price been worth it and, perhaps more importantly is it legitimate? The Constitution says only Congress has the power to declare war … not the President, nor any other governmental body. Article I, Section 8 says the following: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense … To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations; to declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water, To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years … In 1973, Congress passed The War Powers Act. The purpose, by it’s own words: ... to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgement (sic) of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations. It is this War Powers Act that was used to send American troops into Iraq, but Congress has never officially voted on whether to declare war, there. It did not officially declare war on North Korea in 1950, nor on North Vietnam in the 60’s. We lost about 56,000 U.S. soldiers in Vietnam, and 54,000 in Korea. The last official “declaration of war” by Congress came on December 8th, 1941 for World War II. If Congress did not declare war – then our entries were either not a war or they were unconstitutional. If they were wars - passing any kind of “Act” relieving Congress of its duty to vote is both unconscionable and illegal. If they were not wars – then America owes the families of over 100,000 dead soldiers a huge apology.
The Iraq War – is it Legal? (Part 2)
The Leprechaun discussed whether the current war in Iraq is legal in its last column. The Constitution clearly names Congress as the only political body that can declare war. No individual - not the President, not a mayor, not a councilman, not even the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus – is allowed to declare it … and for good reason – the Founding Fathers had just ended a war with England – and they had seen first-hand how the final decisions of one person (King George III) could affect so many humans so traumatically.
Whether or not a case can be made for its legality, is the Iraq War morally justified? Does the United States have the right to invade a country because 1) it does not like the way it is treating its citizens, or 2) because it threatens a neighbor, or 3) because it may or may not be harboring weapons of mass destruction.
If it is the first: then why stop with Iraq? There’s a long list of countries that are mistreating their citizens … North Korea, China, and lots of countries in Africa immediately come to mind. Shall we plan on invading them as well? If so, which one do we invade first? … the one that is the biggest mistreater or the one with the weakest army. How about we invade all the mistreating countries at once and surprise them?
If it is the second – we can use the same logic as the first. Lots of countries are threatening their neighbors and such has always been the way throughout recorded history. What kind of threat – and by whom - will then trigger our invasion? The ultimate quicksand of this philosophy should be obvious.
If it is the third – then, by golly, let’s get ready to invade North Korea, Russia, India, Pakistan, Israel, France, and Great Britain. They all have nuclear weapons. Invading France, by the way, may not be such a bad idea. Somebody needs to invade them and slap them around for their arrogance and long-term dislike of Americans. If they want to hate us, let’s give them a real reason to hate us!
The United States signed off on a bunch of agreements after World War II (all under the Marshall Plan) trumpeting its intention to try and keep the peace over a skittish and unsettled world following the plunderings of Germany and Japan. Unfortunately this document – as noble as it sounded – germinated the seeds of our commitment to the Korean and Vietnam peninsulas, and a host of other areas (including Israel); and from those seeds sprouted a logic that we should become the world’s policeman.
Being the world’s policeman cannot work - we do not have the capacity to police the world. Even if we did have the capacity, we do not have the right to do it. Turn the policing authority around – would we want Japan, or China, or (God forbid) France invading our country because they did not like the way we were treating our citizens or our neighbors (please refer to relations with Cuba as an example)?
Our policing of the world these past 60 years has earned us as much enmity as respect – maybe more so. Our recent involvements in the Mideast have turned our country into a bulls-eye for fanatics looking for someone to hate. We lost over 100,000 Americans in the Korean and Vietnam Wars … maybe it’s time to hand in our badge.
There’s a lot of whooping and hollering around some college campuses these days. Students are excited about the NCAA’s new ruling on sports mascots. Starting in February, colleges are outlawed from displaying any mascots or logos considered racially offensive during post-season tournaments.
The NCAA (National College Athletic Association) has also suggested that schools follow the lead of the Universities of Wisconsin and Iowa and decline to schedule any schools with American Indian nicknames. That makes curious sense because Iowa’s nickname is Hawkeyes, but apparently both Iowa and the NCAA think that nickname is fine.
Tell that to Florida State University – whose nickname is Seminoles. They’ve been told by the NCAA that they are one of the schools with an offensive mascot. So the Hawkeyes will presumably soon realize they are in |
