Category: Economy

“Miserable is the lot of that people whose every concern
depends on the WILL and PLEASURE of their rulers.”

– Dissent of Pennsylvania Minority

In the article, Under the Guidance of an Arbitrary Government, I mentioned the anti-Federalists and I have received several questions about their ideas. Aside from, “Who are those guys?”, I received many questions about the motivations of the anti-Federalists, and their recommendations during the Constitutional convention of 1787.

Today I’ll start a series answering those questions and I’ll show you the similarities between their positions and the mindset of today’s Tea Party patriots. The Federalist and the anti-Federalists were both vibrant contributors to the creation of our Nation, our Constitution  and our Bill of Rights.

Wikipedia explains…

Anti-Federalism refers to a movement that opposed the creation of a stronger U.S. federal government and which later opposed the ratification of the Constitution of 1788. The previous constitution, called the Articles of Confederation, gave state governments more authority. Led by Patrick Henry of Virginia, Anti-Federalists worried, among other things, that the position of president, then a novelty, might evolve into a monarchy.

The anti-Federalists were the Tea party heroes of the day because they recognized the sublime, self-evident and universal truth of Lord Acton’s statement, “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

A Pulitzer Prize historian, Leonard W. Levy, notes, “The Framers and their supporters are known to us as the Federalists, and those who opposed ratification are the Anti-Federalists. The name Anti-Federalist was an opprobrious (shameful) epithet artfully fastened on those who opposed ratification by those who shrewdly called themselves the Federalists. (History is written by the victors.)”

The “victors” knew the power of propaganda in swaying the public mind. We see the same distorted and inaccurate clamor in today’s issues like “environmental justice”, “income equality”, or “a women’s right to choose.”  The terminology or language of the debate is framed purposefully so that the opposite view automatically gets a negative sounding connotation. For example, the “pro-choice” position was chosen rather than the more accurate title “pro-abortion”. This makes those holding the opposing view sound tyrannical because they are against choice and freedom. When the stated position is positive, what is left but negativity?

Using the pamphlet, entitled “Dissent of the Minority of the Pennsylvania Convention” from December, 1787, as a sample we can see the clear articulation of sound anti-Federalist ideas.

The anti-Federalist believed in local governance and representation, just like today’s Tea Party. They  accurately predicted these potential problems with consolidated power under the Constitution:

1. “[M]ust necessarily annihilate and absorb the legislative, executive, and judicial powers of the several states”
2. would produce, “one consolidated government, which from the nature of things will be an iron handed despotism”
3. “The powers of Congress… are complete and unlimited over the purse and the sword, and are perfectly independent of, and supreme over, the state governments; whose intervention in these great points is entirely destroyed.”

 

Couple these well-warranted fears about state sovereignty with Jefferson’s dream of many thousands of small government jurisdictions composed of local communities and you can see the beauty of dispersed governmental power. With these historical insights we can understand why liberty-loving Americans are so disappointed with Speaker Boehner and the establishment Republicans in their efforts to consolidate more federal power under President Obama’s recent “CROmnibus” legislation.

As citizens, you and I are supposed to carry the ultimate authority.  Our ability to have meaningful engagement becomes evermore diluted as federal consolidation diminishes our voices. Jefferson agreed. In his correspondence with Abigail Adams he admitted, “If ever this vast country is brought under a single government, it will be one [a nation] of the most extensive corruption; [it will be] indifferent and incapable of a wholesome care over so wide a spread of surface.”

The fears and questions raised by these Founders are the same ones I have today:

• Is the “majority” always right?
• How does the minority get represented when the majority is unwise and abusive?
• How will we ensure local authority vs. control from those in far distant cities?
• How do we hold those who have violated our trust accountable?
• Is there a “higher law” to which men are accountable?

Thoughtfully consider these questions and send me your comments.

Check in next time as we tackle more of the fundamental ideas voiced by the anti-Federalists and read their recommendations for our future.

Last week, your current US House member sent out a puff piece attempting to justify his recent votes. These kinds of word games are exactly what’s wrong with Washington — in an age when more and more people are demanding honesty from their elected officials, why are we accepting these kinds of false claims? Rep. Walden asserts that this deal is a series of “common-sense cuts and reforms in the plan” that will “reduce wasteful government spending by $23 billion more and when passed will avert another government shutdown.”

An analysis by Republicans on the Senate Budget Committee (SBC) details where, the proposal identifies two specific years “(2022 and 2023) to reduce deficits by $28 billion.” Do you think that’s going to happen? Do you believe that politicians will keep these promises, when right now they are misleading us about the nature of the bill itself?

Only in Washington can a legislator put the phrase “reduce wasteful government spending” and omit the gutting of the sequester law. Also, Rep. Walden purposefully hides the $63 billion in spending hikes over two years. Where did those “common-sense cuts” go again? This budget increases spending by $64B over 2 years and proposes to reduce spending $23B over 10 years. Only from an out-of-touch political class can this be labeled as a common-sense “step in the right direction.”

After these spending hikes, the deal proposes $85B in savings, but only on paper. $34B of this isn’t even “savings” because they are “fee increases”, yet another clever way to make conservatives feel represented. They are fees, not taxes… right?

It’s time for honesty and true common-sense in Washington. It’s time to tell these elites that we’re not fooled by their word-games. Taxes are going up and so is spending, under this budget – are you happy with that outcome?

If you drive anywhere in Oregon, you’re likely to see massive billboards touting “Long Live Oregonians”, using cute cartoon scenes.

The trouble is that while the ads are attractive, all the clever marketing in the world can’t mask a bad product, which is what we’re seeing at the Federal level. Obamacare is an unmitigated disaster, one that even Democrats are running from, as more and more individuals lose their health insurance and rates continue to skyrocket. As liberals flounder, they see what they think is an escape and they grasp on to it – the accusatory question to conservatives: “what would you do to fix healthcare?”

In response, many establishment politicians are apologizing to America. Both Democrats and Republicans are expressing dismay at the dismal outcomes of a poorly-written policy and badly-executed technology. Still others are trying to convince us that they are truly outraged by the price increases, or that they “understand the pain” of Americans who are experiencing rising medical costs and lost coverage.

Health care is a serious issue in American life. Government intervention only distorts the healthy dynamic between patients and their doctors, but apologies and small reforms are not what is needed.

For example, the Affordable Care Act (ACA, or Obamacare):

• puts unnecessary restrictions on an individual’s ability to choose their own doctor, treatment and plan
• places unwarranted taxes on common medical devices
• strangles and inhibits medical industry innovation
• burdens insurance policies with unneeded coverage requirements
• has created yet another public/private behemoth of special interests, lobbyists and bureaucracy

Who will pay the price for this unnecessary quagmire? The American consumer.  When men are paying for mandatory maternity coverage, and young people are being punished for the mere fact that they are young and healthy, we have a serious problem on our hands.

We cannot continue this foolishness of universal health care. We need a full repeal of Obamacare, and we need to address the high costs of insurance and health care in the free market. If the government was in the technology business, we’d still be using computers the size of a basement – thankfully, the free market now creates powerful computers that we can all carry in our coat pockets at an affordable price. Let’s let the American health care industry go the way of the iPhone – to do so, government must get out of the way.

For more information on this issue, please check out the following links:

http://blog.heritage.org/category/obamacare/

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303309504579182061106839366

http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/healthcare-reform-for-your-facebook-friends

http://heritageaction.com/2013/10/the-harsh-realities-of-obamacare/

The Klamath County Budget Committee is getting plenty of feedback with regard to Meals on Wheels and the Senior Center.  The committee is not struggling with the validity or need for the Meals on Wheels program. The issue, given the local stagnant economy and declining county revenue, is whether it would be fiscally prudent to fund these programs at current levels.

Public commentary is mixed but there is a sense that as long as the program passes the “compassion” threshold, then it should be funded.

One perspective supposedly has “compassion” and the other doesn’t. Long-term fiscal responsibility appears to show a cold-hearted mathematical meanness rather than a real heart-felt compassion for the public good.

Government Doesn’t Represent Compassion

Government expenditures are not compassionate. Within welfare service programs the government only engages in financial transactions. Their function entails gathering resources then providing a mix of services or resources back to certain segments of the population. There is no heart in this effort, per se, it’s a job that gets accomplished.

If the money happens to be used by a public service organization then those service employees may have compassion. However. those individuals are not compassionate because they received government money. Those individuals show compassion because they are morally capable human beings.

Your dog, or the neighbor’s cat, is not morally capable of compassion. Neither is government. Remember, government represents nothing more than the shear legal authority and self-justified power to collect tax-payer funds for its own partisan advantage.

George Washington made the claim, “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.”   This phrase might well be apocryphal according to Fred Shapiro, editor of the Yale Book of Quotations, but its meaning is clear.

Where Does “Compassion” Come From?

Real compassion stems from individuals. It is the result of individual action not collective action.  Certainly, as a group joins in a common effort they can exhibit better results – better prices, quantity discounts, more people served, etc. But, again, this is because the caring individuals have voluntarily joined in a community to positively impact their neighborhoods. This is real community. This is real compassion. Accept no substitutes.

An Illustration

In Klamath County, here is a simple illustration of what is required to collect any amount of taxes:

1. The County’s Assessor office assesses the value of property within the county’s boundary, along with any and all improvements, annually.

Question: When the Assessor’s staff assigns value to land or improvements are they being “compassionate” or are they adhering to Oregon’s Revised Statues (ORS’s)?

2. The County Tax Collector’s office sends Tax Statements to property owners based upon assessed value, collects taxes paid and pursues the collection of delinquent accounts, fines, and penalties, annually.

Question: When the Tax Collector’s office pursues these interests are they exhibiting “compassion” or compliance with any and all appropriate ORS chapters?

3. Property owners pay taxes for county services – the administration of justice,  public safety, public health, zoning, planning, public works, animal control, schools, et. al., annually.

Question: When the property owner pays these taxes is he exhibiting “compassion” or compliance with the law?

4. Everyday during the year, County employees process all of this paperwork (according to rule and statute) and then outside Auditors verify that everything was accomplished according to the appropriate set of formalized procedures.

Question: When these actions were being performed was anyone exhibiting “compassion” or were they only displaying a keen fondness for following the rules that govern their employment?

At this point, we have added more costs and overhead ¹ to the equation than “compassion” or “benevolence”. Where would a committee’s “compassion” come from?

Here are two choices:

1. If the Committee were to encourage productive and sincere involvement from individuals, neighbors, churches and friends, would the committee be exhibiting “compassion”, or not?
2. If the Committee were to provide short-term funding at the expense of long-term fiscal responsibility, would the Committee be praised for their “compassion”? If the Committee were to allocate scarce financial resources away from mandated county services, would the committee be more “compassionate”, or not?

“True compassion is a bulwark of strong families and communities, of liberty and self-reliance, while the false compassion of the second usage is fraught with great danger and dubious results.

True compassion is people helping people out of a genuine sense of caring and brotherhood. It is not asking your legislator or congressman to do it for you. True compassion comes from your heart, not from the state or federal treasury. True compassion is a deeply personal thing…” ²

---

 

¹ The myriad of functions listed here, along with the wage and benefit packages for these employees, represent only part of a county’s overhead. Other costs come in the form of electric and heat utilities, information technology – software and hardware, furniture, tools, machinery, equipment, and buildings combined with required services like legal, administrative, human resources and  others.  This is why only a small portion of any taxes paid results in actual county services.

 

 

² Reed, Lawrence, What is Real Compassion, (FEE.org, Apr 2013) accessed 4/16/2013; viahttp://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/what-is-real-compassion#ixzz2SSF2ysar