Pigford Part II...theft and corruption funded by your tax dollars

For those that don't know, Pigford vs Glickford was a case against the USDA for discrimination against black farmers by unfairly denying them government loans. We'll leave aside the issue of the government taking money from us in order to choose who we should have loaned it to.  At the time the bill was written which funded the reparations, it was the opinion of the authors that approximately 3,000 people would be filing for awards under the law.  It was originally funded to the tune of about 100 million dollars. A hundred million tax dollars to pay in penalties to farmers who had been discriminated against by our government officials at the USDA while loaning our money to others.  Seems to me I could make a great case for removing the interference of the USDA in our farmers finances and thereby avoid such situations all together.  Regardless, at the time the bill was written there were warnings voiced by some members of Congress that the bill would open the door to far more money being spent than intended as well as promised by the authors.  They were told that the 100 million was a ceiling and would pay all outstanding issues within the lawsuit.  As is often the case, those projecting future spending were correct.  Consider the following facts brought to the floor of the House today:
1.  projected 3,000 recipients turned into over 80,000
2.  The USDA found less than 40,000 TOTAL black farmers in the nation, from which the 86,000 claims came
3.  The 100 Million has now turned into almost 1.5 Billion!
4.  The requirements only state that a non-relative must support the claim that the claimant COMPLAINED the were discriminated against.  NO PROOF IS REQUIRED
5.  Claims were encouraged if there was a farmer in past generations (which assumes they must have been unfairly denied a loan, but doesn't have to show they even applied for one)
6.  In at least one district where discrimination claims were made, the USDA was managed by all blacks....how could that be discrimination?

I've saved the best for last.  The most astounding fact about this whole scam is that NOT ONE person in the USDA (the agency at fault and responsible for approving subsequent claims) has been found guilty of discrimination. 
So twice as many black farmers as there are in our country were all discriminated against by no one.
How is that possible?
How are there twice as many claims as there are black farmers in America?
If the USDA acted with such rampant discrimination, shouldn't management from the top down be replaced?
Doesn't this type of discrimination (which did occur to be sure) and the resulting fraudulent scheme provide us with another reason to keep our money and limit our federal government?

As long as Washington continues to support ridiculous legislation such as Pigford II, we need to laugh when they talk about reducing the debt or spending.  If we take them seriously we will never remember to replace them when we vote.  It is sad when the problems they hide rise to the level of corruption such as this example.  Truly votes have been paid for through a program such as Pigford II.

The biggest tragedy though?  The democracy is weaker for its implementation.  We have built up the idea on the left that it is okay to steal from others in our society and we have given the right a reason to find the left biased and immoral.  We have supported the idea that the government can force morality in its people.  The arguement over whether it should or not is a waste of time; it simply can not force moral behaviour.  We have split the populace into two groups AGAIN and ensured the future of our two parties.  We have made the issue about white vs black instead of allowing the banks to handle financing while enforcing the laws of equality upon those banks.  Government can not steal in order to act morally on our behalf, it can only enforce equality without using any labels in the process.

Ethanol Tax Credits and Storage Funds

While Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) rambled on about the issue of subsidizing the ethanol industry I thought about the irony of his speech.  He decried the support of oil through hidden expenditures such as military operations to keep the water passageways flowing for the delivery of oil out of the middle east.  He talked about the volatile price of corn, ad that it wouldn't stay as high as it is now.  He argued against the logic of food prices rising due to corn being used for fuel and not food.  He lumped the food industry in with the oil and gas industry by accusing them of raising their prices needlessly only to never lower them proportionally when the corn price goes back down.  According to Sen. Grassley, roughly 70% of the benefits go to 10% of the farmers, the "mega-farmers" or corporations instead of small and medium size farms.  He then went on to relay how horrible it was that the legislation was being used to reward the largest farms instead of helping the small guys.  According to him, the law was written to provide a safety net for "those that need it".  So let me get this straight, the Senator from Iowa wants to re-direct subsidies going to large farms in the direction of small farms.  Brilliant!  One of his closing remarks mentioned that this wasn't part of the budget where Washington should be seeking to save money, that surely there are common sense areas that would be agreeable to all.  This is about the 20th time I have heard a member of Congress say something like this.  Either about oil, WIC, FEMA, ethanol, the military or a myriad of other issues.  Let's remember, it was only last December when Congress PASSED the ethanol subsidies they are now trying to revoke.  This whole mess reminds me of a scene from Mel Brooks' "History of the World Part I"; "politics, politics, politics!"  Such crap out of Washington!  So they won't cut oil subsidies, nor ethanol monies and they are heading in the direction of raising the Pentagon's budget.  Our leaders are incapable of seeing the real issue and they are certainly incapable of solving it.  Isn't it obvious that Washington should never choose the winners and losers in the economy? Yet it is hard to find a segment of our country that hasn't found some sort of favor within Washington through lobbyists and supporting campaigns.  Perhaps I should write about the portfolios commonly held by our leaders and their financial interest in continuing to prop up banks and oil companies. The answer was and always will be to break the tie between industry and government.  If they don't write exemptions within the tax codes the private sector can't garner favor through legislation or taxation.   Break the mutual interest by removing the ability to impart favors on both sides of the equation and we just might have a chance at the return of the free market system which propelled our nation to the most powerful economic engine in the world. 

Tiara Over A Trophy?

As I watched game 7 of the NHL Playoffs (Way to go Bruins!!) tonight I was playing flipper during a commercial break and noticed a new reality show.  This show took the American reality TV society to an all-time low.   The entire show was built around toddler beauty pageants.  No, I didn't watch it.  I didn't have to.  This is coming from the same society that has taken the word win out of youth sports?  This is coming from the same country that doesn't want anyone to lose because they might get their feelings hurt?  What idiocy!  Instead, we put our daughters on TV to be pranced around like some sexual object because that makes better sense right?  I realize the people killing the competitive spirit in American youth are probably not the same as those parading their daughters on stage but it is still hard to believe that one country could screw both of these things up at the same time.  We are afraid of competition so we try to force rules of fairness everywhere.  Hate crime laws attempt to make things fair, although they, by both definition and enforcement, value one life higher than another.  Affirmative action, although well meant, places race over accomplishment.  We've seen expectations reduced so that women can become firefighters (just hope they don't get stuck carrying the man of the house down the ladder).  Now anyone who knows me will realize I support fair opportunity to all in all cases.  This does not mean unfair ground rules in order to affect the outcome.  I suppose it should come as no surprise that after producing those ideas that we now weaken our children by removing the idea that sometimes they will win and sometimes they will lose. Perhaps this is done to make parenting easier, I don't know.  I'm sure that the lesson of expecting an award instead of earning it will serve them well when they hit the real world of business and life.  Of course, at the rate we are going, the governmen will be taking care of them anyway.  Surely it isn't their fault that no one handed a house or retirement or a new car to them.  After all, one must only participate (or in this case be born) to deserve the prize, right?  Instead we exploit little girls in beauty pageants for God knows what sick reasons.  It is sad that some would use our liberties to defend toddler pageants after leaving a youth baseball game where they don't keep score anymore.  Why practice?  Why work hard?  What is there to celebrate? What the hell is this country coming too?  Surely the far left's attempt to convince us that all will be wonderful as long as those in power force what they consider to be fair by theft and brute force.  Doesn't anyone remember how our country came to be anymore?  I could have sworn it was founded on the liberty to compete.

2012 IRS Budget Request Hearing

In case you are disappointed with the comedy selection on T.V. tonight, the 2012 IRS budget request hearing is probably going to be replayed on C-Span tonight. Watching the blame game between the IRS Commissioner and the Congressmen and women is actually humorous if you are a bit twisted such as I am.   Douglas Shulman, the IRS Commissioner, gave testimony today to justify his budget request and to answer questions.  There were a few note-worthy moments with regard to the budget itself, the Affordable Care Act (Obama care) as well as the very structure of the way we pay taxes. 

            Let’s start with this; the 2012 IRS budget request was for 12 billion dollars.  We pay 12 billion dollars to run the tax collection system.  Mr. Shulman was quick to point out that the need for additional funds over and above the 12 billion in order to properly invest in technology.  With all the debating over how to reduce the budget and deficit isn’t this an obvious place to find a contribution?  Luckily, congress removed one of the most glaring examples of insanity within the Affordable Care Act requiring business to file a 1099 on almost every business with whom they deal in a years’ time.  If memory serves me right, I believe a 1099 was required for any business relationship which procured a 600 dollar transaction record within a year.  Over 20 million dollars was saved when the IRS canceled their plans to prepare for this ridiculous portion of the health care law.  It is curious how the measure related to the issue of health care but I think it has become more and more evident over the last year and half that the bill really isn’t about health care anyway.  Yet I digress.  One recommendation to the Commissioner was to find a way to remove the hidden additional tax for the average American resulting from the need to pay someone to file their taxes for them.   Mr. Shulman, however, was very resistant towards the IRS offering a free web site where taxpayers can file their tax return without paying Turbo Tax or someone similar.   He admitted it was a political and philosophical discussion within the agency and that the creation of such a website would only require additional funds to build the database needed to support such a service.  He also pointed out that the Congress is historically guilty of funding enforcement over customer service.  Big surprise there!  It is curious that the IRS would not support the web site idea, although if we consider the health of the bureaucracy and the jobs within it; it is no wonder that the IRS, indeed any agency, doesn’t support such programs.  It is in the interest of the citizen to reduce costs within the IRS or fees paid to ensure compliance; it is certainly not in the interest of those working to keep both their job and their overly-complicated tax collection system. 

            The lack of real regard towards the citizen was evident in the testimony and questions during the meeting today.  The percentage of phone calls answered when an actual human was requested fell 15% from 2004 from 89% to 74%.  Although as Mr. Shulman pointed out, he contributes part of that differential to the effective system they put in place warning the citizen how long the wait is and suggesting they hang up and call back during a slower time.  Oh, how helpful.  Mr. Shulman refused to lend his support to a free system for the people to utilize when filing their taxes.  Mr. Shulman considers the IRS a “financial serves company”.  As a citizen I take offense that he believes his agency in any way serves me.  It may help me stay out of jail by explaining their rules perhaps.  Yet, this fails to pass my test for service.  The IRS is an institution founded to do nothing but take our money and it does so in such a convoluted and complex way that 6 billion man hours are spent each year seeking to file within the rules.  Over half of the country hires someone to file their taxes out of either the fear of doing it wrong or the justified ennui induced when considering tackling the task alone.  If we take into account how many people don’t file, are on government support of one type or another or aren’t required to pay taxes, the estimated 60% of the population hiring a tax service seems even more remarkable.  I must admit, Mr. Shulman seemed to genuinely desire offering the best customer service possible.  He said all the right things, regretted all the right mistakes and certainly stated worthy goals of improvement.  The case might be made that the system does not lend itself to simplicity.  As one of the Congressional Representatives pointed out, although the tax code is written by Congress, the implementation, collections and interactions are up to the IRS to develop.  Certainly the removal of a revenue tax would be ideal, yet in place of that somewhat utopian ideal perhaps we should settle for investing a few tens of millions of dollars into a system allowing citizens to pay their taxes safely and directly and at no cost to them.  It is hard to believe that the issue is considered a political one by the commissioner.  Certainly they could serve us better while costing us less.  At least it would be a start towards some common sense in our government. 

              Without delving deep into the abyss of idiocy which I consider the Affordable Care Act to be, I would like to mention a couple of statements and questions with regard to the IRS and its involvement in enforcing and implementing the law.  Already they are working on the collecting the taxes from additional revenue streams such as the new levy on tanning salons or the additional tax against our drug companies.  Another task currently under way concerns the subsidies towards small businesses and the start-up of that “benefit”.  (Any true solution would require neither subsidizing employers nor the numerous waivers which have already been granted.) Yet Mr. Shulman described the biggest concern and challenge as the implementation of the full law in 2014.  Consider the task ahead of the IRS and the most glaring flaw of the law becomes readily apparent.  The IRS is responsible for setting up the exchanges with the States and ensuring compliance.  Both insurance companies and individuals will be part of a data base allowing both communication and financial transactions.  This data base will offer information to the citizen on the status of their eligibility with regards to health insurance tax benefits.  This same data base transfers money between all three parties in various ways; from health insurance credits, to payments, to expenditures relating to compliance on behalf of the insurance companies.  Surely our streamlined, omnipotent and always benevolent government and IRS won’t screw this up at all.  I’m quite sure I’ll never hear a testimony saying the task was too complex and that the IRS needs additional funds and resources to fix the implementation issues which are sure to come our way.  I doubt we'll ever hear about the government either losing track of money or holding it without good cause, surely not the IRS!  They perform so fabulously at present; this must surely be the time to tack on such an additional responsibility as the health care system of the nation.  Never mind this massive amount of financial and health information being gathered into a central data base.  Never mind the additional intrusion into your life by the IRS under the guise of improving the delivery of health care in our nation.  What is the cost of this program of insanity?  As I mentioned before, the removal of just the 1099 issue was going to cost us over 20 million in just 2012.  Unfortunately, no one asked the Commissioner how much the rest was running up the tab. 

            I’ve been called crazy, nuts, stupid or worse when I speak about the need for less government with perhaps more zeal and passion than most people.  Yet every day it seems the government makes my case for me.   As my father told me many years ago, it is the nature of any bureaucracy to always grow in size in order to continually justify its existence and to offer advancement to those within it.  This simple observation offers us a deep insight into why Washington spends and borrows so much money.  Surely these issues of waste and agencies more concerned with survival than service are not a left or right issue but an American one. 

Why libertarian? Part III

Twice, in the first two portions of this article, libertarians were described as humble and the parties in power as arrogant.  The easiest way to understand why libertarians are more humble than their American political adversaries is at the very heart of the libertarian philosophy.  One of the most basic tenets of the libertarian point of view is that leaders are not wise enough to tell the rest of us what to do or think.  I am no better than you and you are no better than I.  We should be equal in the eyes of the law regardless of race, creed, gender, opinion or anything else.  If we deny our federal government the ability to write legislation which labels citizens we would not have, or had, legislation which supported racism or sexism.  We also wouldn’t allow Washington to tell us who we can or can’t marry.  The subscription to the libertarian point of view requires one to admit that their opinion is no more important than their neighbors’.   This admission is empowering because once a person removes their biases against those neighbors, they can begin to see past the issues used to divide us and focus on our common goals.  That is the essence of our federal government to the libertarian.  Washington should stop focusing on issues that divide us and leave those to the States.  Washington should be a place where politics brings us as together as possible.  Congress is a place to argue, debate and generally disagree with each other through our representatives.  Instead of sending our officials to Washington in order to fight over social topics that can never be solved, let us send our politicians to Washington to fight over the best foreign policy method.  Let us send them to fight over sending troops to roughly 65-70% of the nations on earth! Let them fight over how best to address immigration finally!  By removing the issues behind which they hide, such as regulating any action possible by both person and business, we can force them to actually address the needs of the nation instead of the wants of their constituents.   The libertarians are not afraid of this scenario.  Both Republicans and Democrats avoid the true issues and have done so for decades.  The libertarian wants to remove the ability of the government to print money through its incestuous relationship with the Federal Reserve.  The ability to rob the people by devaluing currency in order to fund wars and social programs is beyond atrocious.  Does no one remember the crisis in Germany less than a century ago?  Should we trust our government officials when they laugh off such a scenario out of pure ego and self-interest? The arrogance of the left and right shown in their constant efforts to either take care and protect us or make our decisions for us is perpetrated with the permission of the populace.  We vote them in.  We believe in their benevolence through our active choice of ignorance.   Vote in a libertarian and you will see that they value an opposing opinion equally when it comes to legislation.  This is not the description of a weak person; just the opposite.  Someone who is comfortable with not being considered “right” is capable of far more when representing a population that can’t all agree with him or her.  They don’t have to pander to one side of a debate.  The libertarian politician can be strong willed because they constantly respect the limits of their power and opinion. 

It is quite possible that one could describe a libertarian as more concerned with the future of the individual rather than the country.   However, if a country establishes a rule of law protecting the greatest amount of personal liberty possible, a libertarian would certainly do everything possible to protect both individual and country.  No political philosophy is perfect to be sure.  In point of fact, it is doubtful that any one philosophy is even possible.  Socialism would be grand if people were motivated by patriotism as much as personal gain.  As long as competition produces better economic results than nationalism, socialist nations will come in a distant second to the ingenuity of the free market society.  Communism might be desirable if one could trust the government to act as a benevolent and omnipotent God.  Capitalism would work if a society could prevent the collusion of government and business.  The track record of pollution (i.e. the government’s failure to protect the citizen from the abuses caused by the motivation of business, namely profit) is enough to show America failed in this regard.    A libertarian’s utopian society can’t exist either.  People are not perfect and we always fall short when attempting to avoid judging each other.  Humans always form into groups thereby creating the support for labels.  Labels strip away liberty once they leak into legislation or perhaps even merely a public’s lexicon.  People always want to be “right” and we can’t always “agree to disagree”.  These are some of the issues with the libertarian school of thought.  However, I would rather fall short of the goal when aiming at individual liberty than to fail in an effort to control industry and society as both our parties attempt to do.  To fail in the desire to get out of your way seems much more honorable and less harmful than to fail in the attempt at engineering your future.  Perhaps the most glaring weakness of the libertarian point of view is that it doesn’t promise anything except liberty.  Without the time to explain how true liberty can break the cycle of generational welfare, how could a libertarian hope to convince those voters to live without the programs they currently rely on?  Without the attention of the farmers, how can a libertarian convince them that farming subsidies are actually hurting their profitability?  I can’t help but mention that Ron Paul did just that in Texas.  It is possible.  The issues of legislating beyond the constitution and giving gifts paid for through taxes are entwined beyond separation.  On the one hand, we should not allow Washington to legislate beyond the scope provided by the constitution but on the other hand how many are willing to give up that ability at the cost of personal gains through such legislating?  Not only that, how many people would lose their civil servant job if we abolished needless programs such as the department of education?  The abolishment of useless and counterproductive bureaucracies such as the dept. of education lie at the heart of the libertarian point of view, yet they can’t be simply stricken without giving thought to the consequences.  When facing voters in an election, the libertarian is challenged with such difficulties under the guise that the current tax dollars are actually contributing to the improvement of such fields as education.  Such a claim is so far from the truth, yet the fear that our all mighty federal government might not provide education for our children is enough to scare people away from actually thinking for themselves in depth about the topic.  The lack of local control over our schools is equal to the lack of parental involvement.  I’m not saying we don’t have good parents out there.  I’m saying they are the exception, not the rule.  In fact, I am currently “facebook friends” with several people with whom I politically disagree, yet am constantly impressed at how much time and effort they give to their children and schools.  Obviously they are people of character.  Why should we desire a political system which chooses winners and losers through social engineering instead of one which respects the positive attributes of everyone?   Are we so sophomoric in our desire for “winning” that we lose the respect of those we debated with in the first place?  The libertarian message is one of respect and humility; unfortunately, it is a message drowned out by the promises of gifts and caretaking offered by the establishment. 

Coming in Part IV

The reformation of Washington

Why anyone can be a libertarian (unlike Dems or Reps)

And MAYBE....a conclusion :)

Why Libertarian Part II

            Being a libertarian offers several advantages for both the individual and the country.  One of the advantages for the nation is a stronger president.  Another benefit is the rise of respect and friendship between current political adversaries. Although there are several more benefits to list, it must be recognized that the libertarian party faces its own issues and problems.  Somewhere between the benefits and risks lies the individual’s choice to become a libertarian or retain the status quo of current politics in America.

            So how does the libertarian philosophy offer us a stronger Commander in Chief?  Perhaps the question should be; why would a libertarian even want a stronger President?   Our President is weakened by the deals he must strike to gain the political support needed to get into the Oval Office.  Whether they are left or right, the financial backing needed for victory in our current system guarantees that most opinions and goals of the President are necessarily congruent with the views of those who provided support during the campaign.  The President of the United States of America ought to be able to think on their own and make decisions based on the facts and not the political mindset of campaign contributors.  We should be electing Presidents based on their ability to deal with the unforeseeable, not in order for them to pass social legislation promised during campaigns.  We should not be electing Presidents based on social engineering goals in any way. The more we bog down our President with legislation which properly resides within the individual states, the less he is able to coalesce the nation and the more he contributes to the divisive nature of our current political system.  A libertarian point of view would allow our President to be stronger in terms of foreign policy, immigration issues and national defense for several reasons.  Obviously the first reason comes from the focus on national issues which are the constitutional responsibility of the President and Congress.  A second reason is the movement towards defining the President as a unifying presence instead of the divisive one we have seen for decades.  If we restrict the powers of Washington to those provided in the constitution we might see that Americans agree more often than not when it comes to national defense, immigration, fair economic competition between states or foreign policy.  This focus on constitutional demands upon the Congress and President would allow our President to avoid the alliances which prevent him from acting as a true executive.  Is it not preferable that our President lead the country rather than his party?  Is it not wise to distribute the power of government to as many places and people as possible to avoid the corrupting influence power so often brings?  If a President has fewer responsibilities, doesn’t it seem logical that the focus on those issues would be far greater?  Some of our best Presidents followed their heart, their character and their beliefs instead of their party.  Lincoln was far from popular, even with his own party, yet he ensured the future of a nation and the eventual end of the deplorable retention of freedom from the black community.  Washington was not popular for his stance on the war between France and England, yet by not giving in to the popular opinion, he kept our fragile infant nation out of a war that could have weakened us to the point of collapse.  Of course he was just as unpopular over the whiskey tax, but no one is perfect and the taxation example only shows one of the problems of taking state issues and making them national ones.  The President would be a more powerful office in regard to the world if he actually focused on the international relationships for which he is responsible.  The President would be a more powerful domestic influence if the limitations of his power were enforced so that his focus remained on the good of the nation and not the good of his party.  By avoiding the current addiction to legislating everything from cell phone bills to health care insurance, the President could rise above the fray the Congress produces and unite both the parties and the country.  Finally, by limiting the power of Washington to legislating only that which constitutionally falls under their charge, the relationship between industry and government would be weakened thereby allowing the corrupting influence of money to lose its place at the legislating table.  The freedom procured by removing personal gain would allow the voters to base decisions in the booth upon character and ideas instead of alliances and campaign bank accounts.  Only a President with a strong character could survive an election based on philosophy and debating skills and a President with a stronger character would undoubtedly make a stronger leader. Beyond that, only a person of strong character would want the office of the President in the limited capacity provided by the Constitution.

            Our nation is a union among people who disagree.  This has been the case since its inception.  Whether it is the Federalists and the Republicans, the followers of Jefferson or Hamilton, or the North and the South; our nation is built upon the idea that even though we can’t all agree we can provide for ourselves a nation which allows for both the variety of opinions and the common good.  Part of the common good is the protection of those different opinions.  Legislating behavior at the federal level goes against this founding principle of our country.  By allowing the States to handle social issues we create a form of government which allows those who fiercely disagree on social matters to unite for the common good of our country at a national level. This unity at the federal level ensures the protection of all of our opinions by protecting the future survival of our country. The rule of law is dependent upon the ability of government to act as an agent of brutal force and coercion.  If our government can’t hold us in jail, fine us, or take away our rights; then the law becomes impotent.  Based upon this fact, isn’t it wise to formulate our social laws at the most local level possible in order to allow for those groups of people who disagree to live within their own beliefs while still retaining status as a valuable part of our country?  How many federal laws are ineffective due to the inability of our federal government to enforce them?  How many laws made within a city, county or state are more effectively enforced due to the support of the community?  How many social laws only serve to divide our nation?  For instance, does anyone actually believe that the issue of abortion will ever go away?  It will be used to divide the nation into left-wing and right-wing voters until the country realizes that these beliefs aren’t going anywhere.  Why shouldn’t we take such an issue and delegate it to the States, where it belongs, and allow for pro-life and pro-choice Americans to vote based on what is good for the country instead of voting in order to try to force their opinion upon those with whom they disagree?  By allowing States to become truly reflective of their people instead of trying to create a nation of one belief system, we could make ourselves allies to each other and thereby form the more perfect union we should constantly seek.

Coming in Part III

The problems of being a libertarian (as well as the problems for the party)

Why anyone can be a libertarian (and why anyone can’t be a Dem or a Rep)

A Party of Humility vs. parties of arrogance

The reformation of Washington

Why consider being libertarian?

                So why should you consider becoming a libertarian? If it is so great, why isn’t it a viable third party in our country?  What does the libertarian philosophy offer that the other two parties can’t?  What does it offer you as an individual both in and out of the political arena?  Why is the libertarian movement seeing a rise in strength and numbers? 

                Quite possibly the most attractive part of being a libertarian is the lack of judging.  Our political parties waste an awful lot of time and effort judging people.  When we are aligned within the political system according to moral beliefs we are judging people by seeking to control morality through legislation.  Libertarians do not seek to control people at the federal level.  Our two political parties are great at preaching about morality but fall short more often than not when practicing those same beliefs, yet we continue to listen to them, why?  Being a libertarian offers people the choice to lead their lives according to their morals without judging those who hold different beliefs.  Libertarians are often cast as supporting some form of anarchy.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Libertarians must believe in the rule of law more than their political opponents because it is the law which protects us from each other as well as citizens from their government.  However, the rule of law must stop our government from offering the temptation to voters to control those with whom they disagree.  The prevention of social engineering demands the support of the population and today that support comes from the libertarian belief and its supporters. 

                Libertarians can show what politics should be like.  Today’s politicians are experts at the empty response.  How many times do you hear a politician answer a question with a great speech while never answering the question?  Libertarians don’t need this skill.  Libertarians rarely change their stance on a subject for two reasons.  Firstly, we don’t have as many opinions to push because we believe the vast majority have no place on the federal level.  If we are talking a local or state election there will be more to say due to the responsibility at that level, yet the principle remains the same and actually would allow more local control to the voter over the type of person writing legislation based on morality.  The second reason libertarians don’t often change their opinion is that it isn’t rooted in polls and election cycles like the other two parties.  The libertarian bible is the constitution and it doesn’t change.  The libertarian debates the application of constitutional responsibilities such as the application of military power or protecting our borders.  Those debates can occur with more honesty and more clarity if they aren’t polluted by the parties’ effort at herding us according to moral beliefs.    Once you let go of the stump speeches and tag lines you can begin to learn what a candidate really believes.  Their philosophy becomes clear when they aren’t giving sound bites along party lines.  Yet it is still politics.  You still need votes and supporters.  So how does a libertarian use their philosophy as an advantage in these areas?  The first way is to speak to the concerns of the audience.  Libertarians have an easy job in this regard if they stick to their beliefs.  As explained above, it is easier for a libertarian to be consistent from audience to audience.  It is also easier to be convincing because freedom and liberty are easily understood and highly desirable.  All a libertarian needs to convince a voter of is that they are a capable human being.  Libertarians always give as much power to the individual as possible; so it is logical that if you can convince someone they can take care of themselves you can offer a philosophy which leads to retaining as much of that power as possible.  The libertarian philosophy also offers the only serious plan to reduce spending, taxes and the deficit at the same time.  By reducing the bureaucracy in Washington we can allow state and local governments to control issues such as education with far more efficiency and effectiveness.  Libertarians don’t support the concept of a central bank so not only would you have more money in your pocket, but it would be worth more as well!  These are issues which the Washington politicians refuse to address seriously.  With the humble platform built on offering people more power over their lives and more sound money in their pocket, a libertarian doesn’t have to play gutter politics because they actually have something to say of value.  A libertarian doesn’t have to point out an opponent’s faults, only the faults of his political beliefs and how they rob the voters of power and money.  None of this explains why we don’t have a libertarian Washington though.  Perhaps that has something to do with the media outlets promoting the two parties which offer favors to the conglomerates which own them.  You know; companies such as G.E. for instance. 

                Coming in part II:

How being a libertarian creates friends out of enemies

Why ANYONE can be a libertarian

The problems with being libertarian (and the problems for the party too)

Greed part II

            So it occurred to me as I was sitting down to write the second part of the greed article that some of the examples I gave in the first part could be said to be selfishness and not greed.  However, I would say that selfishness and greed are shades of the same thing.  I think being greedy is also being selfish since a person can’t have more without someone else having less in many cases.  However, this is about the greed in Washington and how that has confused the issue of greed in America.

            Politics in America has become a three-ring circus.  In one ring you have the parties, in another the business and lobbyists and finally the finale is performed by the voters.  Although selfishness, arrogance and ignorance are plentiful in Washington, I think the damage done by greed can do the most harm. 

            Firstly, the voters.  Voters are greedy because they believe they can get something for nothing out of Washington.  Whether it is education, subsidies, health benefits or national security; the voters are greedy.  I understand that voters are willing to pay taxes, but how many officials are willing to come out and tell the voters they need to raise taxes?  How many would get elected if they did?  Even worse, voters are greedy because they think as long as they elect a person from their chosen party that after the election all is good and they can return to watching American Idol.  We are greedy because we request and require that our government set our moral standards.  We are greedy because we allow the centralizing of power in order to foster a more remote relationship with our government.  This “long-distance” relationship allows voters to profess helplessness and the lack of accountability.  Why are these things greedy?  They are greedy because we value our time, money, and energy too much to use them for the better good of our society and country.   It is far easier to wave our rights if it allows us to wave our responsibility.  This is the essence of what is wrong with our country.  It is not a left or right issue.  It is an issue of citizenship, education, and a balanced amount of nationalism.

            As far as the parties are concerned, I’m not sure where to start.  What could I possibly list as the greediest actions that make up a normal day?  I suppose that the greed in Washington boils down to power for the politicians and money for the businesses and lobbyists.  Quite possibly the greediest action undertaken by Washington is that of social engineering?  How hard is it to understand that our country was founded in such a way as to promote our states as democratic experiments that can learn from each other while not risking the union with their failures?  The prevailing opinion in Washington is that we cannot decide for ourselves, whether as citizens or states, how to conduct our affairs.  If we consider the financial and military actions taken by our current President, I believe it confirms the fact that the parties aren’t really that different at heart.  The only differences worth mentioning involve either the supporting organizations (the old argument of unions vs. business) or the social engineering promoted by each party.  They both voted to bail out the banks.  They both send our precious troops around the world to further our empire.  They both choose to ignore or obey the United Nations depending on which serves their goal.  They both sell their souls to the organizations which fill the coffers during election time.  So what makes you a Democrat or Republican?  I would argue that it really comes down to only a few things.  Currently among these traits are: abortion, gay marriage and tax structure (including welfare).  Obviously there are many, many more.  Class warfare plays a huge role in defining our parties, for example.  Race also plays a role due to the differing philosophies on the government’s role for this issue.  Yet I dare to believe that when it comes to immigration, most voters agree on the basics.  I think most people agree our military should be used for defense and not the building of an empire.  Most citizens support a safety net for those that are poor, sick, old or young.  However, there are subjects upon which the sides will never agree.  How does this come back to greed?  Politicians and business leaders alike seemingly survive off of greed in Washington.  They covet the power given to the states and the voters.  They covet our money through inflation and taxes.  They yearn for more power and money without end.  Yet earlier I blamed the voters for allowing this greed to grow.  Why?  We the voters are allowing moral issues to permit the two parties to mislead us with promises of social engineering.  We should demand a true choice, one that promotes our empire and one who believes we should bring troops home from wherever possible.  That would be a true choice involving decisions and power left to the federal government by the constitution.  We should be demanding a choice between a national bank and the constitutional ban on printing money.  Yet we allow the system to organize us according to our beliefs on issues such as abortion and gay marriage.  These decisions were never meant for the federal government and yet because of their greed towards power, they herd us according to our beliefs without ever addressing the issues for which Washington is actually responsible.  This grouping of voters has allowed politicians to avoid the true issues facing our nation such as central banking, imperialism or the promises of benefits which can no longer be afforded.  For over a century education fell to the parents, teachers and local community and yet we have allowed the greed in Washington to take that over too.  The greed and arrogance shown through taking over everything possible is only viable if voters allow it.  The greedy politicians write bills which scratch the back of their campaign supporters while promising benefits to the voters.  Doesn’t it seem incompatible that we can help everyone with health care costs through a bill written by and arguably for the insurance companies and drug companies?  Politicians get re-elected because voters are too greedy with their time to really study issues or candidates and instead vote based off of TV advertisements.  Doesn’t anyone else think money shouldn’t decide elections, and yet it does year after year?  Yes, our federal government is greedy, but it is our mutual greed which is sending our country down a dangerous road.  Americans enjoy comfort and yet democracy and true liberty DEMAND that we be uncomfortable at times.  Should we be more afraid of allowing people to act or believe in ways we disagree with or should we be more afraid of a small group in Washington that decides the value of our money illegally?  Allowing the Constitution into the political conversations and elections in a meaningful way would permit States to decide these moral issues while preserving the health of the nation.  The greed in Washington is dangerous and immoral yet the submissive attitude of the voters is far worse.  If America is to survive and flourish in the 21^st century we, the voters, must become as greedy towards the rights our constitution gives as us we are towards our bank accounts. 

Greed Part 1

What does greed mean to you?  Greed it typically used in a context meaning to gain power, material goods or money.  Greed can often imply that the greedy person wants more than they need.  I believe that most people would agree that we have plenty of greedy people in Washington, for example.  With this I would agree.  However, I also think that any patriotic American also must be greedy, to a point.  Greed doesn’t always have to be a negative attribute.  Greed has contributed to the improvement in living conditions as far back as recorded history and most likely much further than that.  It was greedy to want to be warm while others slept fitfully, yet man built fires to warm himself at the cost of the forest.  It was greedy to not be satisfied eating fruits and vegetables and to supplement mans’ diet with dead animals, cooked over a fire I might add.  It is greedy to control people through means of religion and political structures granting power to the few over the many.  Consider the amount of money taken in through various churches and religions.  What are they selling you really?  An opinion perhaps?  A particular interpretation of a Bible, Koran or other holy text?  Are they selling you salvation, or are they selling you assistance in finding your salvation?  Is it not greedy for a Pastor, Priest or other religious office to think they hold the key to your soul’s future?  Is it not questionable that money, tithings, or even your life can be the price for your membership or salvation?  Certainly it is greedy for a Monarch or dictator to think they should have utter control over a country because of the family they were born into or the size of their armed forces.  Quite obviously, it is also greedy for a CEO who makes millions, if not billions, from his company to lay off workers or refuse to raise wages while living in luxurious bliss.  However, our country has relied upon private industry as the fuel for economic progress since its inception.  If a business owner doesn’t want to grow, doesn’t want to advance, doesn’t want MORE; he won’t hire more people nor seek to advance the industry in which he works.  Without some greed, competition dies.  Isn’t it a form of greed to want to outshine your opponent in sport, life or business?  Our country is full of greed in both positive and negative forms.  If we want to get rid of the negative greed (or as much as possible anyway) then we need to look at why it exists and whether the particular act of greed is a symptom of a systematic issue or a particular person’s choice.

      I recently was talking with a friend about the greed of Oprah.  I don’t believe Oprah is above the yearning for power and money.  I do believe she is one of the most popular and effective philanthropists in our country today.  I don’t believe that she branched out to start her new TV station out of pure benevolence.  I think she started the station to expand her influence, which is usually a positive one thankfully; her power, and yes to line her pockets.  There is nothing wrong with Oprah’s success, and in point of fact, there are many wonderful things about her story.  I’m not making a judgment for or against her; I’m merely making the case that without some greed her empire would not have been possible.  If we support her empire and we support individual liberty; how can we attempt to use her magnanimous spirit to justify her actions before she had the resources to give so much back?  My point is this, she could never have become what she is today without the right to not be that person.  In order to allow someone like Oprah the ability to build a media empire we have to acknowledge the use of that empire is up to the builder as long as it doesn’t act illegally.  In other words, you can’t have an Oprah without a Donald Trump.  (For the record, I’m not saying anything bad about Mr. Trump.  I’m using the stereotypical image of him as less than giving when compared to Oprah.) 

Whether it is T Boone Pickens, Oprah, Donald Trump, Bill Gates, Carnegie, or Tiger Woods; we love to portray them as saints or sinners when neither is correct.  They are as human as any of us and all of us are greedy.  Did you eat steak last night when a hamburger would have sufficed?  Did you buy a new car because your last one was too old, even though it worked?  Do you smoke cigarettes even though they will probably give you cancer and cost your family, friends or children the ability to know you in old age?  Do you buy the cheapest form of everything?  Do you want HD TV when normal would suffice?  How many cars do most families possess?  Do you expect a pill to solve almost all your health issues?  There are countless examples of Americans wanting more than they actually need.  Compare us to a poor country for example; we believe each kid needs their own bedroom when there are places where whole families sleep in the same bed.  As long as we are willing to work for the pleasures and lifestyle we want, I see nothing wrong with it.  Greed is part of desire, desire is part of motivation, and motivation creates.  That is what America does; we create.  Before we condemn those at the top of our economic ladder, we should remember who built universities, concert halls, bridges, sports arenas and so much more.  How many people realize Carnegie Hall was basically built from the profits of a steel company?  Besides, doesn’t it make sense to support a society in which greed is fostered in any individual willing to work for their goals?  At least this is a fair system allowing anyone the chance to be greedy for his or her family and business.  I, for one, prefer the greed of the private individual to the greed of the politician.  Above all else, it is the responsibility of the American citizen to provide for themselves whenever possible and to prevent the collusion of business and government.  Politicians and business owners should never be allowed to collaborate in their greed.  It is this collaboration that has the American population confused over the issue of greed and that is the topic of the next article.