Let's Go Deeper For people who want more than surface-level understanding

America is falling into the trap that has snared every free society in history...The Welfare State.  Ever since FDR and his New Deal; and the oft-touted "Great Society" that resulted, we are every day degrading our practice of government into mere democracy. More about that below.

Our Founders feared government and the "help" it offers. They wanted to get government out of our lives. They were Conservative about how much government they thought there should be, and thus the term...despite the modern spin that abuses the idea.

Against our Founder's intent, when something seems "wrong" most people now say 'the government should do something about that.' In short, many people now think that it is the government's job to take care of us. If you listen closely, you can hear our Founders rolling in their graves at the thought of that.

Americans do not need a care taker, and if we did, the government is the last place we'd look

WHY NOT LET THE GOVERNMENT HELP?

Beware when the government makes us promises (universal health care, stimulus packages) because a government produces nothing on its own. Thus, anything it "gives anyone" must start with taking money from everyone. So to sponsor a government's 'giving power' - with its monopoly on the 'lawful' use of force as a policy implement - is indescribably; and, you would think, obviously - perilous. And even when individual politicians start out with the best of intentions, a governmental system is more wasteful with our money than we would be, because there is no competition-driven incentive for them to be efficient. 

Politics Is Overcomplicated Common Sense: Most "experts" talk about politics using abstract terms and egg-headed, polysyllabic linguistic gymnastics (oops! I did it again) just so they can sound like they are among the few who understand it all. Why? Some for the sake of their own ego (just like someone who feigns good taste in wine when the rest of the table can't tell merlot from cabernet); some to justify the cost of the Poly Sci education that they hoped would make them employable (that described me at one point); and some to mask their true motives and policy objectives. The last example describes most practicing politicians very well - particularly the professional ones.

I say all this because our whole over-complicated political environment makes people want to check out, with a heart-felt Oy Vey! But doing that is dangerous, because there will always be politicians who hope for our inattention so they can plunder us when we aren't looking. As Pericles said long ago...

Just because you do not take an interest in politics does not mean politics will not take an interest in you. (430 B.C.)

Plunder? Isn't that a little strong? Even paranoid-sounding? No. Because politicians use our tax money to pay for programs for people who will vote them into office.

Politicians generally have no more noble motive than that when they talk about the need for their pet programs or when they try to sell you on how vital it is that the get voted into office. Everyone thinks this is true of the politicians with whom they disagree, but politicians of all parties are - first and foremost - interested in keeping their power, just like in some two-bit banana republic. 

Need an example? Politicians who rant about minimum wage increases aren't "looking out for the little guy" - they are in fact doing just the opposite. The big powerful unions negotiate wages for their members based on a negotiated multiple of the current minimum wage, so in politico-speak any noise made by politicians about minimum wage increases is pandering to the union voters...who make up a very large voting block. Hardly looking out for the little guy.

There are exceptions to the rule that politicians are all self-serving. But consider that the Winston Churchills, the Abraham Lincolns, the Washingtons and Jeffersons typically only seek power when there is a great crisis facing their country. Between crises, people like them who are prosperous and capable do not seek the tawdry offices of government. Why would they? That's why we generally see such poor choices at election time. I mean, why else do you think it is so hard just to get someone who is honorable on the ballot? Surely those people are out there. They are indeed, but they are not the type of person who is drawn to something as smarmy as politics. Of course, as the saying goes: some men are born great and some have greatness thrust upon them when the circumstances require it.

It Takes a Neighborhood: The world is a collection of neighborhoods, and the same common sense rules that apply in your housing development also apply to international and domestic politics. If you have ever dealt with an aggressive neighbor or a bus stop bully, then you know how to deal with a Hussein, Quadafi, or Hitler. You know that ignoring them and "hoping they will leave you alone" only encourages more of the same behavior ... until you can't even walk down your own street without harassment.

And if you know how to deal with a dead beat brother-in-law drug addict then you know how to deal with chronic welfare recipients and food stamp collectors.

Sound uncompassionate? Would you also say that the best thing for your dead beat brother-in-law drug addict is to support him and his habit? No. You'd probably say that the best thing that could ever happen for him would be to learn how to take care of himself, and that he'll never do that as long as grandma keeps sending him money and letting him live rent free. Same rules apply. We can all be enablers to people who abuse the system. There will always be people like that around, and in our system they have the same voting rights as the far fewer responsible and productive citizens, so who do you think the politicians will pander to more?

Did you know that our Founders foresaw this, and that they tried to sidestep this predicament by limiting voting rights. That's right, universal voting rights were never part of the original plan. Why? Because they felt that if you were being supported by society, then you shouldn't have a vote in that society. In a business setting, having a vote on things you personally might profit from would be a conflict of interest, and it is in politics too. That's why you tell your sixteen year old that "as long as you are living under MY roof and being supported by me, then you don't get a vote - do it my way or go fend for yourself." Again, the same "neighborhood common sense" rules should apply to voting rights. Eventually, when you have the democratic ideal of universal voting rights (one person - one vote), the people will realize that they can vote themselves money out of the treasury. When that happens, the government will eventually collapse under what Alexander Tyler called "loose fiscal policy." His full quote from over 100 years ago, and talking about the fall of democratic Athens is as follows:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage."
 

How long has America been around? A little over 200 years, right? I would say that we are in the complacency / apathy phase right now...in part because we have it so good in America. But this fact is not a given. It is something that has to be vigilantly maintained.

So who should have voting rights? People who are vested in the system. That is to say, those who are contributing to it rather than those who are living off of it. The Founders defined this as people who owned property. I think that sounds better than what we have now. Yes, I know too that they meant "white men" who owned property. But we have evolved as a society beyond that, and we all acknowledge the wisdom of The Civil Rights Movement and Women's Suffrage. Those are topics for other articles entirely.

Our Founders understood the ugliness of democracy, which is no better than "mob rule." That's why you hear people say that we are A Republic and not A Democracy. It wasn't until FDR and his "Fireside Chats" that the word "democracy" started to see usage in America. Before that, it was a dirty word. That's why you will often hear people tell you that "we are not a democracy, but a republic." More on democracy here.

'Government Waste' is a Redundant Term: Government will never efficiently use the money they take from us for any program. They will waste money and beauracratize it out of existence. Because they have a monopoly on taking it from you, they have only themselves to answer to. We could change this with more awareness and insisting on accountability, but Americans have long since accepted that questioning officials on "how well" they use our money is politically-incorrect and "uncompassionate." After all, who are we to have a problem with their plunder? Aren't they of the best intentions and just trying to "lift up the less fortunate" with your hard-earned money? We should want to "give back," right? Especially if we have prospered...as if our wages and earnings were ever "taken" from someone in the first place.

Ever been to the DMV office and waited in their lines? Ever been told in a government office that you had to go across town and make an appointment to come back and see the guy in front of you that you waited in line all morning to get to? That is how government does things. That is why I don't want them managing my health care or any other part of my life. I want my affairs to remain as privatized as possible so that the people working for my dollar have a "sink-or-swim" motivation to do it better and more efficiently than their competition. Government cannot even grasp the need for that kind of efficiency. It's totally alien to them.

Government Kills Productivity and Ingenuity: Consider where the great inventions have come from. Can you name one that was the result of a government-funded program? Electricity, the telephone, the steam engine, the printing press, etc etc were invented by enterprising entrepreneurs in a shed in their back yard. Their motivation was "building a better mouse trap" so that they could self-actualize and provide an abundant livelihood for their family. Not only does government kill that spirit, but it calls such people "self-interested" even though the growth of any new invention can come only by hiring other people to "run with" their idea and grow it into a prosperous company that provides a livelihood for many other people. That is where the hydrogen cell car will come from - not from government-funded programs. 

The government-dependant approach to any problem is to make enough noise that politicians will agree to "fund research" by people who then are getting government grants whether they produce or not. Hardly the best model for developing any new technology. The time for new inventions will always come when the technology is ready, but government will speed that innovation any more than it ever has...because any program it develops can only produce dependency - not results.

That Brings Us to Welfare Programs: Many people give the lion's share of "credit" to the welfare system for destroying the poverty-'stricken' family. Why? Because if a 'poor' family gets "back on its feet" then they lose their benefits, so there is an incentive to remain as they are. Furthermore, a benefit to single moms is an incentive for the father to skip out. And extra "per child" benefits encourages additional illegitimate children. None of these things are good for that family, yet current government welfare policies encourage that behavior.

Yes, most everyone has had a time in their lives when they needed help. If family or Church or charity do not meet the needs, we do have an unemployment insurance system that all employees pay into just for such an emergency. That makes sense because it is something that we all pay into. Using unemployment insurance does not loot your neighbor. But it is when those benefits are paid out indefinitely that this becomes government-dependant "welfare" and that is paid for by strangers who could use that money for their own family.

Statistically, the best way to become or remain poor is to try to raise a family in a single-parent household with a set of children all from different fathers. Yet that is what a welfare system perpetuates...all in the name of "compassion for" the poor. Again, get the government out of the meddling, and you will see improvement. More on this at my Welfare Reform page. 

No Such Thing as a Free Lunch: All government programs are funded by your hard-won money. And most people don't even know how much they are being plundered because of withholding taxes that are taken directly out of every paycheck. Ask anybody how much money they make every month and they will start to tell you that their "take home pay is _____." Government uses "withholding" so that you will not miss the money they take from you...because you never see it in the first place. Politicians know that there would be a far greater cry for tax reform - and maybe even a tax revolt - if people had to write a check to them for the "withholding" amount every time they got a paycheck.

'Special Interest' Waste: Many politicians resist tax reform and tax cuts - because that would cut off their source of power. It would rob them of the resources they need to buy votes with 'special interest'-driven promises. Democratic West Virginia Senator Robert (Klan Grand Dragon) Byrd outright says this at election time when he says "If you want it done, come to Daddy Byrd." In other words, vote for me and I'll buy you what you want. Drive through W. Virginia and you will see the evidence of his wasteful spending. 

"Class Envy" or "The Two Americas:" Other politicians use our natural envy of people who have more than we do as ammunition in their "class warfare" campaigns. They will tell you that tax cuts "only benefit the 'filthy' rich," for example. But even a cursory examination of the facts will reveal that tax cuts benefit everyone. See the actual taxation statistics here, based solely on the tax code that is easy-to-research public information. And these "class warfare politicians will never tell you that 97% of all taxes paid in this country are paid by the wealthiest 30% of income earners. Half of all taxes are paid by the top 3%. Hardly the wealthy "getting over." Instead, our government is "looting and plundering" anyone who starts to become prosperous in the name of "giving back" to the "less fortunate." And they get away with it because there are fewer successful people than there are of the masses. In an "everyone-has-a-vote" system, that kind of fleecing can take place.

Capitalism has as a guiding principle that taxes are a burden on upward mobility. That's why tax cuts have always driven the economy up - for everyone. Because no one can rise up without creating jobs for others - either by way of hiring employees or directly through purchasing the luxuries such people can then afford. Even a "selfish" purchase like a Ferrari or a yacht employs blue-collar sheet metal and fiberglass workers, electricians, and yes, white-collar engineers too.

I don't want this page to become an explanation of Conservative vs. Liberal...partly because there is actually very little difference between people who call themselves either in Washington right now. Both parties are in fact very liberal, because they are both very liberally growing the government and its power.

Conservatism vs. Liberalism is not fundamentally about same-sex marriage, or prayer in schools, or even about abortion policy. Conservative means that a person is conservative about how much government they want encroaching on all our lives. Liberals look to government to solve the problems of society.

Liberals are the people who, when they witness a wrong, will say "the government should do something about that" as if the government is somehow a wise, all-knowing, and efficient caretaker despite all evidence to the contrary. If you would like to go into more depth about the age old push / pull relationship of Conservatism vs. Liberalism, I have done so here. Don't worry. It's not at all the dogma you are used to hearing from other sources. You'll find a fresher perspective than you have heard in the media, I promise.

In Short: WHAT'S BEST FOR US IS NOT "THE BEST POLITICIANS" WHAT'S BEST IS FEWER POLITICIANS

If what our Founders had in mind could be put on a bumper sticker, it would be "Limited Government!" If you don't get anything else I say, know simply that my Political Pages here are about getting back to the minimalist ideas about government upon which we were founded. I am not here on the web to rant about us-vs.-them party politics.

There are only three basic human rights: Life, Liberty, and Property. Health Care, food, shelter, heating oil, etc. are not rights but things that we must provide for our families through work. When we start asking the government to see to these things for us, the only way they can do it is to take from your neighbor. And they'll do it in order to buy his vote. As the old saying goes:

Those who rob Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul