After the state of Georgia fought a protracted court battle over its voter identification law, the US Justice Department is again rejecting a Georgia voter verification law. Georgia voter laws are still required to pass federal muster under the Voting Rights Act of 1965. In a letter released June 1, the Justice Department said that the new law discriminates against minority voters.
The charge of discrimination was also used to challenge Georgia’s photo ID law. In spite of the fact that the law offered identification cards free of charge to voters, opponents claimed that the law placed an undue burden on minorities. The law was eventually upheld by upheld by an appeals court.
The new law would have cross-referenced voter social security and driver’s license numbers to ensure that they were citizens, a requirement for voting. The Justice Department charges that many of the voters flagged by the system were citizens who were flagged in error. Further, the citizens flagged in error were disproportionately from minority groups.
For anyone who paid attention during the 2008 elections, the need for voter verification is obvious. Groups like ACORN were implicated in massive amounts of voter registration fraud. The Minnesota senate race between Norm Coleman and Al Franken is still contested, in part because of numerous irregularities in vote counting. The 2000 presidential election in Florida is a case study in the need for integrity in our electoral system.
Additionally, Georgia Secretary of State Karen Handel said that Georgia is currently investigating 30 cases of non-citizen voting. One case involves a Jamaican woman, living legally in Georgia, who has been voting illegally since 2004. The woman turned herself in after she learned that she was not legally entitled to a vote.
Voter fraud comes in two areas. First, there is the possibility that people who are not eligible to vote will cast illegal ballots. This may include illegal aliens, dead people, or people casting multiple ballots. It is this possibility that the Republican Party tends to focus on. The second possibility is that legitimate voters will be barred from voting. This gets the most attention from the Democratic Party.
The obvious answer is that both angles need to be covered to have a trustworthy election. People who are entitled to vote need to be able to vote, but only once. People who shouldn’t vote need to be barred from casting a ballot. If people can’t trust election results then the very foundation of our democracy is in danger.
In keeping with that line of reasoning, if the current system of validating citizenship for Georgia voters doesn’t work, fix it. Don’t throw it out.
Some Democrats seem to understand this; others do not. For instance, Rep. John Lewis said the citizenship checks were “an attempt to take us back to another dark period in our history when people were denied access to the ballot box simply because of their race or nationality.” Evidently, some people feel that any burden of proof is too much.
I seriously doubt that there is any plans withing the General Assembly or the Georgia Department of State to deny minorities the right to vote. The only minorities that should be denied the right to vote are non-citizens and people who have lost that right, such as felons.
Interestingly enough, there have been several proposals around the country to allow non-citizens to vote in local elections. There have also been proposals to allow felons to regain their right to vote. It should come as a surprise to no one that these proposals originate from the left side of the political spectrum. (Georgia already allows felons to vote upon completion of their sentence.)
For that reason, Secretary Handel has decided that the Obama Justice Department may require some urging to approve any such citizenship test at all. To that end, she has created a petition asking President Obama and Attorney-General Holder to allow Georgia to prevent illegal aliens and non-citizens from voting.
You can sign the petition here.
Sources:
http://www.ajc.com/services/content/metro/stories/2009/01/14/georgia_voter_id.html?cxtype=rss&cxsvc=7&cxcat=13
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jKbnt8hNDF4uWrTudYii_cvprHcwD98I5V8G0
http://www.ajc.com/business/content/metro/stories/2009/06/01/georgia_voter_screening_immigration.html?cxntlid=homepage_tab_newstab&imw=Y
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/07/09/BAGB57IUMF1.DTL
http://www.nypost.com/seven/02202007/news/regionalnews/let_aliens_vote__activists_regionalnews_frankie_edozien.htm
http://www.aclu.org/votingrights/exoffenders/statelegispolicy2007.html
http://www.karenhandel.com/site/c.nmL0KhN0LxH/b.5208601/k.ADFC/Help_Karen_Handel_Stop_NonCitizens_from_Voting_in_Georgia/apps/ka/ct/contactus.asp?c=nmL0KhN0LxH&b=5208601&en=ghJHJSNCKhJLLTMBJ7IGLYPLLkJLKZPFKdKLK3PQKvE&msource=KH060209B&tr=y&auid=4927846
Burbank CA
6/4/09
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
A Tale of Two Killers
In the past few days, two politically motivated murders occurred in the United States. On Sunday, May 31, Dr. George Tiller, a Kansas abortionist, was murdered in his Wichita church. The following day, Monday, June 1, a US Army soldier working at a recruiting office in Little Rock, Arkansas was also murdered. The way that the media treated the two stories was markedly different.
Scott Roeder was arrested in Dr. Tiller’s murder. Mr. Roeder has a criminal record and long history of membership in radical anti-government fringe groups. In 1996, he was even convicted of criminal use of explosives although the conviction was overturned on appeal due to an illegal search.
Dr. Tiller, called “Killer Tiller” by pro-life protestors, specialized in late-term abortions and had been opposed, mostly peacefully, by pro-life groups for over twenty years. He had been wounded during a previous attempt on his life in 1993. Earlier this year, Dr. Tiller was tried and acquitted on 19 counts of violating the Kansas state law requiring a second opinion for late-term abortions. He estimated to have been responsible for upwards of 60,000 abortions.
Dr. Tiller was acting as an usher at his church when he was murdered. I am curious how he justified his participation in the deaths of 60,000 children with his church membership. The Bible makes it plain that Jesus loved children (Matthew 18:6, 19:14, Mark 10:16).
The killing was front-page news in many newspapers around the country. Some articles referred a series of anti-abortion killings even though the last such murder was over ten years ago in 1998. In some cases, conservatives and pro-lifers were even blamed directly for the murder. This is true in particular of Bill O’Reilly who had featured Tiller’s story on his show.
In contrast, the killing of US Army Private William Long was buried in a short article in the back pages of most newspapers. Private Quinton Ezeagwula was also wounded in the attack. The murderer was a local convert to Islam, Abdulhakim Muhammad.
Muhammad was already under FBI investigation stemming from a trip to Yemen, a hotbed of al Qaeda activity. While in Yemen he was arrested for using a Somali passport.
Privates Long and Ezeagwula were recent graduates of the army’s basic training and were on a temporary assignment at the recruiting office. Neither had ever seen combat or duty in the Middle East.
In the wake of Dr. Tiller’s killing, mainstream pro-life groups denounced his murder. The Kansas Coalition for Life placed a sign outside his clinic stating: “We prayed for his conversion to the pro-life viewpoint, not for his murder.”
On the other hand, there was less furor and mourning for Private Long. There was no rush to blame his Islamic religion or associates. So far I have not seen any Muslim groups who have stepped forward to denounce Private Long’s murder. Few Muslims have denounced terrorism in general.
In the final analysis, Private Long’s murder is much more important nationally than Dr. Tiller’s. While Dr. Tiller’s murder is an isolated event perpetrated by a man whose brother says suffered from mental illness, Private Long’s murder is the most recent in a long list of violent acts by Islamic extremists.
Abortionists have nothing to fear from most anti-abortion activists, many of whom are Christian believers who are commanded by God not to murder. In contrast, many (but not all) Muslims, including those in the United States, follow religious leaders who specifically instruct their followers to engage in terrorist acts. Private Long’s murder fits a new pattern of homegrown terrorism; attacks by lone militants without specific direction by terror groups abroad.
I am a supporter of the pro-life cause and I categorically denounce the use of violence against abortionists. I do not want to minimize Dr. Tiller’s death, but it is not indicative of a larger movement. It was the work of a lone, sick individual.
The proper means of ending abortion is through the political and judicial process. This is not only the moral means of ending abortion; it is the most effective means. A recent Gallup poll showed that, for the first time since the question was asked, 51% of Americans oppose abortion rights (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/05/15/gallup-more-americans-oppose-abortion-rights/). The use of violence is not only immoral, it is counterproductive.
Over the past few years, there have been numerous other foiled plots by homegrown Islamic extremist terrorists. The attempted attack on synagogues in New York City that was foiled in May 2009 was a homegrown terror plot. So was the attempt to kill soldiers at Fort Dix in 2007 and an attempt to blow up the Sears Tower in 2006.
We should learn from this attack, as well as other foiled plots that there are potential terrorists in our midst. Americans can be radicalized via the internet or through extremist Islamic literature found in many mosques and even distributed by Muslim chaplains in US prisons. While we should not harass or imprison innocent Muslims, we should cultivate intelligence sources in the Muslim community and take steps to ensure that mosques are not inciting terrorist acts.
On a final note, the difference in the coverage of the Tiller and Long murders may also be a simple illustration of media bias. Most journalists support abortion rights and are outraged by the murder of a man that many pro-choice supporters consider a hero and a martyr. In contrast, these same journalists oppose the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the Israeli occupation of Arab lands, and thus can sympathize with a man who is aggrieved by the military’s actions.
On rare occasions, the news offers stark contrasts between two extremes. The deaths of Dr. Tiller and Private Long provide one. Dr. Tiller, who was responsible for the deaths of 60,000 babies, is trumpeted and mourned by the media while Private Long, who volunteered to risk his life to protect the United States, its people, its constitution, and its freedom of the press passes largely unheralded.
Private Long, I salute you.
Sources:
“Suspect Held in Doctor’s Killing,” Wall Street Journal, June 2, 2009
http://www.kake.com/home/headlines/46575872.html
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/bill-oreilly-has-dr-george-tillers-b
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/05/15/gallup-more-americans-oppose-abortion-rights/
“Military Recruiter Killed,” Wall Street Journal, June 2, 2009
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090602/ap_on_re_us/us_recruiters_shot_21
http://media.abcnews.com/US/wireStory?id=6508567
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13497335/
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2009/May/Terror-Case-One-of-Many-Homegrown-Plots/
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/324puasg.asp
Greensboro NC
6/1/09
Scott Roeder was arrested in Dr. Tiller’s murder. Mr. Roeder has a criminal record and long history of membership in radical anti-government fringe groups. In 1996, he was even convicted of criminal use of explosives although the conviction was overturned on appeal due to an illegal search.
Dr. Tiller, called “Killer Tiller” by pro-life protestors, specialized in late-term abortions and had been opposed, mostly peacefully, by pro-life groups for over twenty years. He had been wounded during a previous attempt on his life in 1993. Earlier this year, Dr. Tiller was tried and acquitted on 19 counts of violating the Kansas state law requiring a second opinion for late-term abortions. He estimated to have been responsible for upwards of 60,000 abortions.
Dr. Tiller was acting as an usher at his church when he was murdered. I am curious how he justified his participation in the deaths of 60,000 children with his church membership. The Bible makes it plain that Jesus loved children (Matthew 18:6, 19:14, Mark 10:16).
The killing was front-page news in many newspapers around the country. Some articles referred a series of anti-abortion killings even though the last such murder was over ten years ago in 1998. In some cases, conservatives and pro-lifers were even blamed directly for the murder. This is true in particular of Bill O’Reilly who had featured Tiller’s story on his show.
In contrast, the killing of US Army Private William Long was buried in a short article in the back pages of most newspapers. Private Quinton Ezeagwula was also wounded in the attack. The murderer was a local convert to Islam, Abdulhakim Muhammad.
Muhammad was already under FBI investigation stemming from a trip to Yemen, a hotbed of al Qaeda activity. While in Yemen he was arrested for using a Somali passport.
Privates Long and Ezeagwula were recent graduates of the army’s basic training and were on a temporary assignment at the recruiting office. Neither had ever seen combat or duty in the Middle East.
In the wake of Dr. Tiller’s killing, mainstream pro-life groups denounced his murder. The Kansas Coalition for Life placed a sign outside his clinic stating: “We prayed for his conversion to the pro-life viewpoint, not for his murder.”
On the other hand, there was less furor and mourning for Private Long. There was no rush to blame his Islamic religion or associates. So far I have not seen any Muslim groups who have stepped forward to denounce Private Long’s murder. Few Muslims have denounced terrorism in general.
In the final analysis, Private Long’s murder is much more important nationally than Dr. Tiller’s. While Dr. Tiller’s murder is an isolated event perpetrated by a man whose brother says suffered from mental illness, Private Long’s murder is the most recent in a long list of violent acts by Islamic extremists.
Abortionists have nothing to fear from most anti-abortion activists, many of whom are Christian believers who are commanded by God not to murder. In contrast, many (but not all) Muslims, including those in the United States, follow religious leaders who specifically instruct their followers to engage in terrorist acts. Private Long’s murder fits a new pattern of homegrown terrorism; attacks by lone militants without specific direction by terror groups abroad.
I am a supporter of the pro-life cause and I categorically denounce the use of violence against abortionists. I do not want to minimize Dr. Tiller’s death, but it is not indicative of a larger movement. It was the work of a lone, sick individual.
The proper means of ending abortion is through the political and judicial process. This is not only the moral means of ending abortion; it is the most effective means. A recent Gallup poll showed that, for the first time since the question was asked, 51% of Americans oppose abortion rights (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/05/15/gallup-more-americans-oppose-abortion-rights/). The use of violence is not only immoral, it is counterproductive.
Over the past few years, there have been numerous other foiled plots by homegrown Islamic extremist terrorists. The attempted attack on synagogues in New York City that was foiled in May 2009 was a homegrown terror plot. So was the attempt to kill soldiers at Fort Dix in 2007 and an attempt to blow up the Sears Tower in 2006.
We should learn from this attack, as well as other foiled plots that there are potential terrorists in our midst. Americans can be radicalized via the internet or through extremist Islamic literature found in many mosques and even distributed by Muslim chaplains in US prisons. While we should not harass or imprison innocent Muslims, we should cultivate intelligence sources in the Muslim community and take steps to ensure that mosques are not inciting terrorist acts.
On a final note, the difference in the coverage of the Tiller and Long murders may also be a simple illustration of media bias. Most journalists support abortion rights and are outraged by the murder of a man that many pro-choice supporters consider a hero and a martyr. In contrast, these same journalists oppose the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the Israeli occupation of Arab lands, and thus can sympathize with a man who is aggrieved by the military’s actions.
On rare occasions, the news offers stark contrasts between two extremes. The deaths of Dr. Tiller and Private Long provide one. Dr. Tiller, who was responsible for the deaths of 60,000 babies, is trumpeted and mourned by the media while Private Long, who volunteered to risk his life to protect the United States, its people, its constitution, and its freedom of the press passes largely unheralded.
Private Long, I salute you.
Sources:
“Suspect Held in Doctor’s Killing,” Wall Street Journal, June 2, 2009
http://www.kake.com/home/headlines/46575872.html
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/bill-oreilly-has-dr-george-tillers-b
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/05/15/gallup-more-americans-oppose-abortion-rights/
“Military Recruiter Killed,” Wall Street Journal, June 2, 2009
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090602/ap_on_re_us/us_recruiters_shot_21
http://media.abcnews.com/US/wireStory?id=6508567
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13497335/
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2009/May/Terror-Case-One-of-Many-Homegrown-Plots/
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/324puasg.asp
Greensboro NC
6/1/09
Sunday, May 31, 2009
What Obama is Doing Right
I didn’t vote for Barack Obama. I don’t agree with most of his policies. In fact, I feel that most of his policies are dangerous to the United States, both economically and militarily. However, I do feel that there are some things that President Obama has done that are good things. Just as I criticize when Obama does something wrong, it is only fair to support him when he does something right. Call it positive reinforcement. In the interest of fairness and bipartisanship, here are the things that I believe that President Obama has done right.
First, he quickly abandoned his campaign promise for a hasty withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. Although President Obama has never fully conceded that he was wrong to oppose President Bush’s surge strategy, it is hard to argue with the results. The security situation in Iraq has improved dramatically over the last two years.
This improved security situation makes it possible for President Obama to negotiate a longer timeline for the withdrawal of American forces. This longer timeline will give the democratically elected government of the Republic of Iraq to have Iraqi security forces maintain safety and order in their country. A rapid and unilateral withdrawal as originally proposed by Senator Obama, and without the success of President Bush’s surge, would have likely resulted in a bloodbath for Iraqi civilians and the deterioration of Iraq into a terrorist state controlled by either al Qaeda or Iran.
President Obama does tacitly pay homage to President Bush’s strategy in his own proposals for a surge of troops in Afghanistan. While the situation in Iraq has improved, Afghanistan has deteriorated as Taliban forces strike Afghanistan’s rural provinces from bases in Pakistan. Additionally, Taliban forces have made gains in Pakistan as well. The government of Pakistan even conceded control of the Swat Valley to the Taliban in return for a truce.
President Obama’s decision to step up the war in Afghanistan is a good thing. A withdrawal from Afghanistan would allow the Taliban step up their efforts to return to power. If a resurgent Taliban again took control of Afghanistan, they would most likely set up terrorist training camps as they did in the 1990s. It would also provide Pakistani militants with safe havens from which to strike into Pakistan. Currently, the Pakistani government is taking the war to the Islamic militants who violated the truce.
A third good thing that Obama has done is to continue to fight the court-mandated release of “torture” photos of detainees. These photos would do nothing to resolve any of the questions about torture currently being debated, because they were not taken at the direction of US commanders. The abuse (many photos were taken at Abu Ghraib) was the action of rogue soldiers, many of whom were prosecuted during the Bush Administration.
President Obama realizes that the release of these photos would do nothing to bring the country together. On the other hand, they would only assist in bringing out more anti-Americanism, both at home and abroad. They would be used as a recruiting tool by our enemies and would ultimately cost the lives of American soldiers as well as making those of us here at home less safe.
President Obama also is doing well to return to the Bush-era military tribunals to try detainees. Some detainees, such as those captured on US soil or those with US citizenship, may be entitled to trials in our court system. Most do not.
Most detainees were captured on foreign soil. They were taken under arms even though they were not part of a recognized military. This entitles them to very few rights under the Geneva Conventions. We would probably be within our rights to summarily execute them as spies and saboteurs. In no case are these foreign fighters entitled to the protections of the US Constitution.
Detainees are illegal combatants that simply do not fit into our criminal court system. Much of the evidence against them is sensitive to national security. Allowing them to face their accusers would undermine intelligence gathering. Whether at Guantanamo or elsewhere, we should prepare ourselves to hold many of these detainees until they are no longer a threat. In most cases, that will probably be until the radical Islamic jihadist movement collapses and the War on Terror (or overseas contingency operations, if you prefer) is over. Regardless of whether they are held on US or not (although preferably not), their status under the constitution should not change. Their situation is closer to the German and Italian POWs detained in American prison camps during WWII than to prisoners in the criminal justice system.
Finally, I agree with President Obama’s decision not to pursue criminal prosecution of the architects of President Bush’s anti-terror policies. In addition to the fact that there are no grounds upon which to base such a prosecution, it would have been unnecessarily divisive for the country.
There has been much less to like about President Obama’s domestic policy. The one undisputedly good thing that he has done is to allow the passage of an amendment to the Credit Card Reform Act that would allow citizens to carry weapons in national parks. This amendment, sponsored by Republican Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, allows states to set the standard for concealed carry. National parks will match state law.
Media outlets have predicted that families will be harassed by AK-47 toting gun nuts and that killings in national parks will increase. Statistics do not bear this out. In many cases, concealed carry laws actually reduce violent crime. Concealed permit holders are normally law-abiding people. Only a tiny fraction of permit holders commit crimes.
The credit card reform act may also be a good thing. Admittedly, it does have some good features and attempts to address some real problems within the credit card industry. However, under the law of unintended consequences, it may make the credit situation worse for many Americans. Restrictions may make it unprofitable to lend to poor credit risks. Therefore, many Americans may find themselves without credit. Conversely, those with good credit may find their interest rates and fees increasing to subsidize those with poor credit.
While President Obama did allow this bill to pass without a veto, I have no illusions about his views on gun control. He has a long voting record that is not friendly to second amendment civil rights. While this amendment extending the freedom and right to keep and bear arms has become law, it is only because President Obama did not want to veto the entire Credit Card Reform Act and did not have the votes to remove it. At some point, when the Democrats feel that they have the votes to pass more restrictive legislation, they will do so.
I am gratified to see that President Obama is not the mindless party man that I had feared. These recent policy changes have shown that he can be practical and that he can be reasoned with. I believe that, to some extent at least, he does realize the danger that Islamic terror poses to this country and to the world. I am cautiously hopeful that he may also see the light regarding some of his disastrous economic policies.
In summary, there are very few absolutes in this world. Even a staunch conservative can find something to like about President Obama. Many of his good moves have met with stiff opposition from his leftwing base. Therefore, I salute him for standing strong amid this criticism. I also challenge my Democratic readers to look within themselves and see if they can find something positive to say about Republican leaders such as President Bush.
Sources:
http://www.kxan.com/dpp/news/national/nat_ap_nc_obama_announces_iraq_withdrawal_schedule_2009022712092229010
http://www.newser.com/story/51085/obama-approves-afghan-troop-surge.html?utm_source=ssp&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=story
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124144325468983215.html
http://origin.www.voanews.com/english/2009-05-13-voa46.cfm
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124242595415225131.html
http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/309242/36/
http://www.kc3.com/CCWSTATS.html
Newark NJ
First, he quickly abandoned his campaign promise for a hasty withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. Although President Obama has never fully conceded that he was wrong to oppose President Bush’s surge strategy, it is hard to argue with the results. The security situation in Iraq has improved dramatically over the last two years.
This improved security situation makes it possible for President Obama to negotiate a longer timeline for the withdrawal of American forces. This longer timeline will give the democratically elected government of the Republic of Iraq to have Iraqi security forces maintain safety and order in their country. A rapid and unilateral withdrawal as originally proposed by Senator Obama, and without the success of President Bush’s surge, would have likely resulted in a bloodbath for Iraqi civilians and the deterioration of Iraq into a terrorist state controlled by either al Qaeda or Iran.
President Obama does tacitly pay homage to President Bush’s strategy in his own proposals for a surge of troops in Afghanistan. While the situation in Iraq has improved, Afghanistan has deteriorated as Taliban forces strike Afghanistan’s rural provinces from bases in Pakistan. Additionally, Taliban forces have made gains in Pakistan as well. The government of Pakistan even conceded control of the Swat Valley to the Taliban in return for a truce.
President Obama’s decision to step up the war in Afghanistan is a good thing. A withdrawal from Afghanistan would allow the Taliban step up their efforts to return to power. If a resurgent Taliban again took control of Afghanistan, they would most likely set up terrorist training camps as they did in the 1990s. It would also provide Pakistani militants with safe havens from which to strike into Pakistan. Currently, the Pakistani government is taking the war to the Islamic militants who violated the truce.
A third good thing that Obama has done is to continue to fight the court-mandated release of “torture” photos of detainees. These photos would do nothing to resolve any of the questions about torture currently being debated, because they were not taken at the direction of US commanders. The abuse (many photos were taken at Abu Ghraib) was the action of rogue soldiers, many of whom were prosecuted during the Bush Administration.
President Obama realizes that the release of these photos would do nothing to bring the country together. On the other hand, they would only assist in bringing out more anti-Americanism, both at home and abroad. They would be used as a recruiting tool by our enemies and would ultimately cost the lives of American soldiers as well as making those of us here at home less safe.
President Obama also is doing well to return to the Bush-era military tribunals to try detainees. Some detainees, such as those captured on US soil or those with US citizenship, may be entitled to trials in our court system. Most do not.
Most detainees were captured on foreign soil. They were taken under arms even though they were not part of a recognized military. This entitles them to very few rights under the Geneva Conventions. We would probably be within our rights to summarily execute them as spies and saboteurs. In no case are these foreign fighters entitled to the protections of the US Constitution.
Detainees are illegal combatants that simply do not fit into our criminal court system. Much of the evidence against them is sensitive to national security. Allowing them to face their accusers would undermine intelligence gathering. Whether at Guantanamo or elsewhere, we should prepare ourselves to hold many of these detainees until they are no longer a threat. In most cases, that will probably be until the radical Islamic jihadist movement collapses and the War on Terror (or overseas contingency operations, if you prefer) is over. Regardless of whether they are held on US or not (although preferably not), their status under the constitution should not change. Their situation is closer to the German and Italian POWs detained in American prison camps during WWII than to prisoners in the criminal justice system.
Finally, I agree with President Obama’s decision not to pursue criminal prosecution of the architects of President Bush’s anti-terror policies. In addition to the fact that there are no grounds upon which to base such a prosecution, it would have been unnecessarily divisive for the country.
There has been much less to like about President Obama’s domestic policy. The one undisputedly good thing that he has done is to allow the passage of an amendment to the Credit Card Reform Act that would allow citizens to carry weapons in national parks. This amendment, sponsored by Republican Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, allows states to set the standard for concealed carry. National parks will match state law.
Media outlets have predicted that families will be harassed by AK-47 toting gun nuts and that killings in national parks will increase. Statistics do not bear this out. In many cases, concealed carry laws actually reduce violent crime. Concealed permit holders are normally law-abiding people. Only a tiny fraction of permit holders commit crimes.
The credit card reform act may also be a good thing. Admittedly, it does have some good features and attempts to address some real problems within the credit card industry. However, under the law of unintended consequences, it may make the credit situation worse for many Americans. Restrictions may make it unprofitable to lend to poor credit risks. Therefore, many Americans may find themselves without credit. Conversely, those with good credit may find their interest rates and fees increasing to subsidize those with poor credit.
While President Obama did allow this bill to pass without a veto, I have no illusions about his views on gun control. He has a long voting record that is not friendly to second amendment civil rights. While this amendment extending the freedom and right to keep and bear arms has become law, it is only because President Obama did not want to veto the entire Credit Card Reform Act and did not have the votes to remove it. At some point, when the Democrats feel that they have the votes to pass more restrictive legislation, they will do so.
I am gratified to see that President Obama is not the mindless party man that I had feared. These recent policy changes have shown that he can be practical and that he can be reasoned with. I believe that, to some extent at least, he does realize the danger that Islamic terror poses to this country and to the world. I am cautiously hopeful that he may also see the light regarding some of his disastrous economic policies.
In summary, there are very few absolutes in this world. Even a staunch conservative can find something to like about President Obama. Many of his good moves have met with stiff opposition from his leftwing base. Therefore, I salute him for standing strong amid this criticism. I also challenge my Democratic readers to look within themselves and see if they can find something positive to say about Republican leaders such as President Bush.
Sources:
http://www.kxan.com/dpp/news/national/nat_ap_nc_obama_announces_iraq_withdrawal_schedule_2009022712092229010
http://www.newser.com/story/51085/obama-approves-afghan-troop-surge.html?utm_source=ssp&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=story
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124144325468983215.html
http://origin.www.voanews.com/english/2009-05-13-voa46.cfm
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124242595415225131.html
http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/309242/36/
http://www.kc3.com/CCWSTATS.html
Newark NJ
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Obama and the New Deal
President Obama's economic policies, while vastly different from what most Americans have seen, are not new. Many of the president's policies are very similar to the policies of another American president. Much of what is in the news today is eerily similar to President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal policies of the 1930s.
First, the New Deal focused on heavily regulating the US economy. Many of President Roosevelt's advisors were influenced by the apparent success of communist central planning in the Soviet Union and fascism (national socialism) in Italy. They hoped that an American version of a centralized economy would help lift the United States out of the Great Depression.
The Democratic congress of the 1930s passed a succession of acts that regulated the US economy. FDR's belief was that keeping wages high was the key to restarting the economy. To that end, the federal government enacted laws that made it easier for employees to form unions. As unions formed, they negotiated wages that were above market rates. The federal government also set minimum wages for workers. To help enable companies to pay these high wages, the government also set minimum prices.
Ironically, these policies hurt many of the people that they were intended to help. The price controls kept prices high and made many products unaffordable to the millions of Americans who were unemployed. FDR's administration went so far as to destroy food to keep prices high at a time when millions of Americans were going hungry. John Steinbeck protested this policy in his novel The Grapes of Wrath.
High wages also provided an incentive for companies to automate and eliminate jobs. Minorities such as blacks were hurt because they were not allowed in many of the unions. This kept them out of the highest paying jobs and limited them to unskilled labor at low wages.
While the Obama Administration has not enacted wage and price controls, they are providing employees with incentives to unionize. The Employee Free Choice Act, if passed, would allow unions to form without the traditional secret ballot elections. The United Auto Workers also got favorable treatment in Chrysler's bankruptcy, including a seat on the board and a better settlement than Chrysler's secured creditors.
The Obama Administration is moving in the direction of central planning. Obama is exerting a large influence on bailed out industries such as auto manufacturers and banks. The president's new auto standards requiring auto companies to build cars that are lighter and more efficient are the best example. Consumers have rejected these cars in the past because they are typically smaller and less safe in an accident.
More central planning is likely to come soon. Two pieces of legislation that are coming are healthcare reform and carbon cap-and-trade. Healthcare reform would drastically increase regulation in the medical fields and would likely eventually lead to a government monopoly on health insurance. Cap-and-trade would regulate and tax much of the economy through taxes on carbon use, which would include practically all energy production and use in the United States.
FDR also focused on public works projects as a means of getting people back to work. The Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) and the Public Works Administration (PWA) are two of the best-known New Deal make-work programs. These programs paid above market wages so they directly competed with private employers for labor. Additionally, the PWA primarily used skilled tradesmen, such as architects, and did little to help poor unskilled laborers.
President Obama's stimulus program had a similar goal and only lacked acronyms. The stimulus bill passed February 2009 contained vast amounts of money for "shovel-ready" construction projects. These projects were intended to provide jobs to reduce unemployment.
In reality, FDR's job programs were ineffective. Unemployment reached a high of over 25% in 1933. Even though the unemployment did fall after that, it never fell below 10% until after the entry of the US into WWII (http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/GreatDepression.html). In contrast, the unemployment rate prior to the onset of the Depression was only 4.2% (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104719.html). FDR's make-work policies did not appreciably reduce unemployment rates and President Obama's stimulus program will most likely have the same result.
The New Deal also dramatically increased federal spending on entitlements. The Social Security Act created the Social Security program in 1935. This did not help the poor of the 1930s however, since payments were not scheduled to begin until 1942 even though withholding began immediately. The act was later amended to begin payments in 1940. The initial consequence of Social Security was to take even more money from the paychecks of those workers who still had jobs, as well as their employers.
At its inception, Social Security benefits were to be paid from the Old Age Retirement Account. This account was depleted in 1940, however, and Social Security became a pay-as-you-go program where working taxpayers directly supported retirees. As Baby Boomers retire, the trustees of the Social Security program say that its current unfunded liability is greater than $25 trillion. This means that Social Security is expected to have a negative cash flow by 2017 and be insolvent by 2041 (http://www.socialsecurity.org/daily/04-01-02.html).
Medicare, another entitlement began by President Johnson, is in even worse shape. Medicare's unfunded liability is $74 trillion. Medicare's hospital trust fund is already in the red and will be insolvent by 2017 (http://www.news-medical.net/news/2009/05/13/Medicare-hospital-fund-will-be-insolvent-by-2017-two-years-earlier-than-expected-trustees-say.aspx). To resolve the issues, benefits will have to be cut or the taxes that fund these programs will have to be dramatically increased. The government can do this because there is no contract that guarantees contributions or benefits for either program.
To this debt, President Obama proposes to add a new healthcare entitlement. The cost for this massive new bureaucracy will be added to Obama's already staggering deficit spending. It will also require a large infusion of tax dollars. As government healthcare becomes a reality, it will invariably crowd private insurers out of the marketplace, costing more jobs.
That brings us to another parallel between the New Deal and President Obama. FDR presided over some of the most draconian tax increases in the history of the United States to fund his social programs. The Revenue Act of 1936 included a variety of new taxes including higher income taxes, dividend taxes, estate taxes, and taxes on undistributed profits. FDR also limited the deductions available on corporate and personal income taxes. By the end his term, the top personal tax rate was 91%. The state tax burden also doubled with increases in state income, corporate and sales taxes. The Social Security Act added social security withholding to the tax burden.
Barack Obama has already announced his intention to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire for the wealthiest five percent of Americans. It is unlikely that the other 95% of Americans will escape the taxman unscathed. President Obama has already signed a sixty-two cent increase to the federal tobacco tax. This tax will disproportionately affect lower income people, a segment of the population that Obama had vowed to not tax more " even one dime" (http://blogs.wsj.com/capitaljournal/2009/05/12/the-promise-that-could-come-back-to-bite-obama/).
Congressional Democrats seem intent on raising taxes on all Americans even further. Already there have been proposals to increase taxes on soft drinks, snack foods, employer-paid health insurance, an increase to the estate (death) tax, as well as cap-and-trade tax on energy. Obama has also followed in FDR's footsteps by eliminating corporate tax deductions. This is effectively a tax increase on corporations.
In following the example of the New Deal's increases in both spending and taxes, President Obama is likely prolonging the current recession. Tax increases remove money from the economy that could be better spent and invested by individuals and businesses. Increasing taxes paid to the government will guarantee that consumers have less money to spend and that businesses have less money to expand, hire workers, and keep their doors open.
President Roosevelt's onerous regulations, heavy-handed taxation, and unfriendly business climate prolonged the Great Depression rather resolving it. His methods have been tried and failed numerous times in the years since including in Japan, Michigan, and California. As President Obama repeats these same mistakes, we can only hope for different result.
Sources:
FDR's Folly, Jim Powell, Crown Forum, New York, 2003.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/04/united-auto-workers-chief-union-sell-chrysler-stock/
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/GreatDepression.html
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104719.html
http://www.socialsecurity.org/daily/04-01-02.html
http://www.news-medical.net/news/2009/05/13/Medicare-hospital-fund-will-be-insolvent-by-2017-two-years-earlier-than-expected-trustees-say.aspx
http://www.wkrg.com/financial/article/federal_cigarette_tax_going_up/23323/
http://blogs.wsj.com/capitaljournal/2009/05/12/the-promise-that-could-come-back-to-bite-obama/http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/04/news/economy/obama_corporate_tax_proposals/?postversion=2009050411
First, the New Deal focused on heavily regulating the US economy. Many of President Roosevelt's advisors were influenced by the apparent success of communist central planning in the Soviet Union and fascism (national socialism) in Italy. They hoped that an American version of a centralized economy would help lift the United States out of the Great Depression.
The Democratic congress of the 1930s passed a succession of acts that regulated the US economy. FDR's belief was that keeping wages high was the key to restarting the economy. To that end, the federal government enacted laws that made it easier for employees to form unions. As unions formed, they negotiated wages that were above market rates. The federal government also set minimum wages for workers. To help enable companies to pay these high wages, the government also set minimum prices.
Ironically, these policies hurt many of the people that they were intended to help. The price controls kept prices high and made many products unaffordable to the millions of Americans who were unemployed. FDR's administration went so far as to destroy food to keep prices high at a time when millions of Americans were going hungry. John Steinbeck protested this policy in his novel The Grapes of Wrath.
High wages also provided an incentive for companies to automate and eliminate jobs. Minorities such as blacks were hurt because they were not allowed in many of the unions. This kept them out of the highest paying jobs and limited them to unskilled labor at low wages.
While the Obama Administration has not enacted wage and price controls, they are providing employees with incentives to unionize. The Employee Free Choice Act, if passed, would allow unions to form without the traditional secret ballot elections. The United Auto Workers also got favorable treatment in Chrysler's bankruptcy, including a seat on the board and a better settlement than Chrysler's secured creditors.
The Obama Administration is moving in the direction of central planning. Obama is exerting a large influence on bailed out industries such as auto manufacturers and banks. The president's new auto standards requiring auto companies to build cars that are lighter and more efficient are the best example. Consumers have rejected these cars in the past because they are typically smaller and less safe in an accident.
More central planning is likely to come soon. Two pieces of legislation that are coming are healthcare reform and carbon cap-and-trade. Healthcare reform would drastically increase regulation in the medical fields and would likely eventually lead to a government monopoly on health insurance. Cap-and-trade would regulate and tax much of the economy through taxes on carbon use, which would include practically all energy production and use in the United States.
FDR also focused on public works projects as a means of getting people back to work. The Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) and the Public Works Administration (PWA) are two of the best-known New Deal make-work programs. These programs paid above market wages so they directly competed with private employers for labor. Additionally, the PWA primarily used skilled tradesmen, such as architects, and did little to help poor unskilled laborers.
President Obama's stimulus program had a similar goal and only lacked acronyms. The stimulus bill passed February 2009 contained vast amounts of money for "shovel-ready" construction projects. These projects were intended to provide jobs to reduce unemployment.
In reality, FDR's job programs were ineffective. Unemployment reached a high of over 25% in 1933. Even though the unemployment did fall after that, it never fell below 10% until after the entry of the US into WWII (http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/GreatDepression.html). In contrast, the unemployment rate prior to the onset of the Depression was only 4.2% (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104719.html). FDR's make-work policies did not appreciably reduce unemployment rates and President Obama's stimulus program will most likely have the same result.
The New Deal also dramatically increased federal spending on entitlements. The Social Security Act created the Social Security program in 1935. This did not help the poor of the 1930s however, since payments were not scheduled to begin until 1942 even though withholding began immediately. The act was later amended to begin payments in 1940. The initial consequence of Social Security was to take even more money from the paychecks of those workers who still had jobs, as well as their employers.
At its inception, Social Security benefits were to be paid from the Old Age Retirement Account. This account was depleted in 1940, however, and Social Security became a pay-as-you-go program where working taxpayers directly supported retirees. As Baby Boomers retire, the trustees of the Social Security program say that its current unfunded liability is greater than $25 trillion. This means that Social Security is expected to have a negative cash flow by 2017 and be insolvent by 2041 (http://www.socialsecurity.org/daily/04-01-02.html).
Medicare, another entitlement began by President Johnson, is in even worse shape. Medicare's unfunded liability is $74 trillion. Medicare's hospital trust fund is already in the red and will be insolvent by 2017 (http://www.news-medical.net/news/2009/05/13/Medicare-hospital-fund-will-be-insolvent-by-2017-two-years-earlier-than-expected-trustees-say.aspx). To resolve the issues, benefits will have to be cut or the taxes that fund these programs will have to be dramatically increased. The government can do this because there is no contract that guarantees contributions or benefits for either program.
To this debt, President Obama proposes to add a new healthcare entitlement. The cost for this massive new bureaucracy will be added to Obama's already staggering deficit spending. It will also require a large infusion of tax dollars. As government healthcare becomes a reality, it will invariably crowd private insurers out of the marketplace, costing more jobs.
That brings us to another parallel between the New Deal and President Obama. FDR presided over some of the most draconian tax increases in the history of the United States to fund his social programs. The Revenue Act of 1936 included a variety of new taxes including higher income taxes, dividend taxes, estate taxes, and taxes on undistributed profits. FDR also limited the deductions available on corporate and personal income taxes. By the end his term, the top personal tax rate was 91%. The state tax burden also doubled with increases in state income, corporate and sales taxes. The Social Security Act added social security withholding to the tax burden.
Barack Obama has already announced his intention to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire for the wealthiest five percent of Americans. It is unlikely that the other 95% of Americans will escape the taxman unscathed. President Obama has already signed a sixty-two cent increase to the federal tobacco tax. This tax will disproportionately affect lower income people, a segment of the population that Obama had vowed to not tax more " even one dime" (http://blogs.wsj.com/capitaljournal/2009/05/12/the-promise-that-could-come-back-to-bite-obama/).
Congressional Democrats seem intent on raising taxes on all Americans even further. Already there have been proposals to increase taxes on soft drinks, snack foods, employer-paid health insurance, an increase to the estate (death) tax, as well as cap-and-trade tax on energy. Obama has also followed in FDR's footsteps by eliminating corporate tax deductions. This is effectively a tax increase on corporations.
In following the example of the New Deal's increases in both spending and taxes, President Obama is likely prolonging the current recession. Tax increases remove money from the economy that could be better spent and invested by individuals and businesses. Increasing taxes paid to the government will guarantee that consumers have less money to spend and that businesses have less money to expand, hire workers, and keep their doors open.
President Roosevelt's onerous regulations, heavy-handed taxation, and unfriendly business climate prolonged the Great Depression rather resolving it. His methods have been tried and failed numerous times in the years since including in Japan, Michigan, and California. As President Obama repeats these same mistakes, we can only hope for different result.
Sources:
FDR's Folly, Jim Powell, Crown Forum, New York, 2003.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/04/united-auto-workers-chief-union-sell-chrysler-stock/
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/GreatDepression.html
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104719.html
http://www.socialsecurity.org/daily/04-01-02.html
http://www.news-medical.net/news/2009/05/13/Medicare-hospital-fund-will-be-insolvent-by-2017-two-years-earlier-than-expected-trustees-say.aspx
http://www.wkrg.com/financial/article/federal_cigarette_tax_going_up/23323/
http://blogs.wsj.com/capitaljournal/2009/05/12/the-promise-that-could-come-back-to-bite-obama/http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/04/news/economy/obama_corporate_tax_proposals/?postversion=2009050411
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
California's Tax Revolt
On Tuesday, May 19, 2009, Californians went to the polls in one of the first elections of 2009. On the ballot were five measures that would have allowed the State of California to increase taxes for various purposes. Governor Schwarzenegger and state leaders had billed the ballot measures as a way to keep state services operating and deal with the state’s deficit.
The problem was that the measures would not resolve California’s spending problems. According to the Wall Street Journal, passage of the measures would still leave the state with a massive deficit. If the measures passed, California would face an estimated $15.4 billion deficit in its general fund for 2010. If the measures did not pass, the deficit is estimated to hit $21.3 billion.
By now you may have heard that five of the six measures that were being voted on failed. The five tax increases all failed by two-to-one margins. The sole proposition to pass was a measure that would prevent elected officials from getting pay raises in years when the state ran a budget deficit. This measure passed overwhelmingly with almost 74% approval.
As returns came last night and this morning, California’s leaders must be realizing that they cannot tax and spend their way out of the mess. How did this bluest of blue states get in this fix?
California has a history of high taxes and higher spending. California’s spending has more than doubled in the past ten years. This outpaces both the rate of inflation and the rate of population growth. Much of this spending is considered untouchable. Education, spending on government employee salaries and pensions, debt service, and parks all fall into the politically untouchable category.
As California has increased taxes to attempt to pay for this spending, many of the state’s residents began fleeing to neighboring states with more attractive business environments. California refugees have found the lower cost-of-living in states such as Arizona, Utah, Nevada, and Idaho very attractive. As California’s productive citizens and companies leave, California is left with fewer taxpayers while the number of people on the government payroll remains high. These factors combined with the current recession to create a large decline in state tax revenues.
In the past, many people believed that as California goes, so goes the nation. That might be true in this case as well. Under President Obama, federal deficits have spiraled out of control. Federal budget deficits are expected to average approximately $1 trillion per year for the foreseeable future. President Obama’s plans to start a new healthcare entitlement would increase deficits even more.
To finance President Obama’s borrow-and-spend policies, the United States must find more tax revenue. President Obama has already announced plans to repeal President Bush’s tax cuts on the wealthiest five percent of Americans. Many in Congress believe that more tax increases will be necessary. One of President Obama’s first actions was to increase the federal tobacco tax. Proposals have already been floated to increase taxes on employer-paid health insurance, soft drinks, gasoline, and carbon as well as an increase to the death tax.
If the mood of California voters is any indication of the national mood, any new taxes will not be accepted happily. The grass roots anti-tax tea parties that were held around the nation on April 15 are an early sign that politicians who vote to raise taxes may face an unhappy electorate at their next election.
The federal government should realize what the California state government did not. That heavy government spending is a drain on the economy. High taxes slow the economy even further as well as causing real pain to families. In order to prevent the United States from going the way of California, we need real spending cuts.
Sources:
http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/props/59.htm
“Schwarzenegger Puts Legacy on the Line With Budget Vote,” Wall Street Journal, May 19, 2009
http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/California_state_budget
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/02/09_rosen.shtml
http://cbs13.com/business/federal.budget.deficit.2.963947.html
The problem was that the measures would not resolve California’s spending problems. According to the Wall Street Journal, passage of the measures would still leave the state with a massive deficit. If the measures passed, California would face an estimated $15.4 billion deficit in its general fund for 2010. If the measures did not pass, the deficit is estimated to hit $21.3 billion.
By now you may have heard that five of the six measures that were being voted on failed. The five tax increases all failed by two-to-one margins. The sole proposition to pass was a measure that would prevent elected officials from getting pay raises in years when the state ran a budget deficit. This measure passed overwhelmingly with almost 74% approval.
As returns came last night and this morning, California’s leaders must be realizing that they cannot tax and spend their way out of the mess. How did this bluest of blue states get in this fix?
California has a history of high taxes and higher spending. California’s spending has more than doubled in the past ten years. This outpaces both the rate of inflation and the rate of population growth. Much of this spending is considered untouchable. Education, spending on government employee salaries and pensions, debt service, and parks all fall into the politically untouchable category.
As California has increased taxes to attempt to pay for this spending, many of the state’s residents began fleeing to neighboring states with more attractive business environments. California refugees have found the lower cost-of-living in states such as Arizona, Utah, Nevada, and Idaho very attractive. As California’s productive citizens and companies leave, California is left with fewer taxpayers while the number of people on the government payroll remains high. These factors combined with the current recession to create a large decline in state tax revenues.
In the past, many people believed that as California goes, so goes the nation. That might be true in this case as well. Under President Obama, federal deficits have spiraled out of control. Federal budget deficits are expected to average approximately $1 trillion per year for the foreseeable future. President Obama’s plans to start a new healthcare entitlement would increase deficits even more.
To finance President Obama’s borrow-and-spend policies, the United States must find more tax revenue. President Obama has already announced plans to repeal President Bush’s tax cuts on the wealthiest five percent of Americans. Many in Congress believe that more tax increases will be necessary. One of President Obama’s first actions was to increase the federal tobacco tax. Proposals have already been floated to increase taxes on employer-paid health insurance, soft drinks, gasoline, and carbon as well as an increase to the death tax.
If the mood of California voters is any indication of the national mood, any new taxes will not be accepted happily. The grass roots anti-tax tea parties that were held around the nation on April 15 are an early sign that politicians who vote to raise taxes may face an unhappy electorate at their next election.
The federal government should realize what the California state government did not. That heavy government spending is a drain on the economy. High taxes slow the economy even further as well as causing real pain to families. In order to prevent the United States from going the way of California, we need real spending cuts.
Sources:
http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/props/59.htm
“Schwarzenegger Puts Legacy on the Line With Budget Vote,” Wall Street Journal, May 19, 2009
http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/California_state_budget
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/02/09_rosen.shtml
http://cbs13.com/business/federal.budget.deficit.2.963947.html
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
What Does Freedom Mean to You?
Virtually all Americans love freedom. The question is what kind of freedom do they love.
To our founding fathers, freedom meant self-determination. The founders were rugged individualists who opposed having a strong central government run their lives. The American opposition to King George began not as an independence movement, but as a group that favored home rule while retaining loyalty to the British crown.
The priorities of the founders can be seen in our founding documents. The Declaration of Independence famously states, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
Although not as familiar, the Declaration goes on: “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it….”
What rights our founders considered important can be seen in both the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. The list of grievances in the Declaration of Independence includes taxation without representation, unfair trade restrictions, making officials of the government above the law, and improperly influencing the judiciary. The common denominator on most of the grievances listed by Jefferson is that are the result of a government’s abuses of power. The fundamental right violated by the English king was the right of the people to have a government that will not interfere with the people’s rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
When our nation was finally established, the founders decided to safeguard more individual rights. The Constitution became the foundation for the federal government, but many believed its lack of protection for individual rights was a weakness. The Bill of Rights is a compilation of ten amendments that was ratified to correct that deficiency.
The Bill of Rights guarantees the rights to freedom of religion, speech, press, peaceably assemble, and petition the government. The second amendment guarantees the right for individuals to keep and bear arms. Other amendments give Americans the right to a trial by jury, protection against unreasonable search and seizure, and limit ability of the government to hold people charged with crimes. Additionally, the tenth amendment specifies that powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved by the people and the states.
The view that our personal freedoms were freedoms to say, do, and possess things without government restrictions or assistance changed radically with the election of Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1932. Roosevelt proclaimed a new basic freedom for Americans: the “freedom from want.”
The freedom from want might be stated in today’s terms as a freedom from need. In other words, in Roosevelt’s view Americans have a fundamental right to not need anything. This “freedom” is more accurately described as a right to security or freedom from responsibility. It is akin to reading the Declaration of Independence’s right to the “pursuit of happiness” as a government-guaranteed right to be happy.
Roosevelt’s new basic freedom was a radical departure from traditional American personal freedoms. The freedom from want is the first freedom that takes freedom from someone else. The government has nothing that it doesn’t first take from productive citizens and businesses through taxes. For the government to meet people’s needs, it must first take from other citizens because the government has nothing that it does not first take from someone else. Therefore, FDR’s freedom from want is a transfer of wealth.
The freedom from want is also an anathema to the more traditional American freedoms. One cannot simultaneously give up personal responsibility to the government while maintaining a previous level of freedom. Because the government must take from citizens in order to meet the “needs” of other citizens, a majority of citizens will find that they lose economic liberty and property rights. As the government raises taxes to pay for programs that meet these “needs,” taxpaying citizens will find that they have less disposable income to meet their own needs. They must work longer hours to bring home the same amount of money. Increased taxes make it difficult or impossible to maintain the same standard of living and amount of property.
An additional problem with the freedom from want is that each individual has different wants and needs. For example, a common belief today is that everyone needs health insurance. It is very likely that soon the government will make a determination that everyone does need and must have health insurance. However, many people today don’t believe that health insurance is a necessity.
Many people today choose not to purchase insurance for a variety of reasons. Many people feel that the money could be better spent on other items, such as starting a business or making a mortgage payment. Many uninsured are only temporarily without coverage as they change jobs. Some may eschew health insurance for religious reasons. The freedom to make the choice to not purchase health insurance is a valuable tool in money management that would disappear if the government decides that all Americans have a right to guaranteed health insurance.
Further, as government grows larger in order to keep meeting the needs and wants of the populace, other freedoms are threatened. Government money and programs come with strings attached. Acceptance of government largess requires adherence to government rules and policies. This can be seen today in federal control of banks and auto companies that have accepted government bailout money.
In the future, as the government begins to pay (with taxpayer dollars) for universal health insurance, it will become more and more interested in cutting healthcare costs. One way of doing so might be to enact new restrictions on what are considered to be health risks. For example, we might one day find that our government health plan excludes coverage for smoking-related illnesses. Once the precedent is established, other exclusions related to diet, exercise, weight, or other factors could be enacted.
America is at a crossroads. For the past eighty years we have seen the growth of government and slow but steady erosion of our personal freedoms. Under the current administration, the process is being accelerated. We must make a choice on what freedom means to us.
If we want true freedom, we must accept that with freedom comes responsibility. We must take control of our own lives. We must be responsible for our own safety, our own finances, our own retirement planning, our own children, and our own health. The alternative is to trade our freedom for the illusory security of the “freedom from want.”
As Benjamin Franklin once said, “Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.” Very often, that is just what they get.
Sources:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html
http://www.answers.com/topic/bill-of-rights
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
http://www.firstamendmentschools.org/resources/lesson.aspx?id=13933
http://www.libertynet.org/edcivic/fdr.html
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin
Palm Springs CA
To our founding fathers, freedom meant self-determination. The founders were rugged individualists who opposed having a strong central government run their lives. The American opposition to King George began not as an independence movement, but as a group that favored home rule while retaining loyalty to the British crown.
The priorities of the founders can be seen in our founding documents. The Declaration of Independence famously states, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
Although not as familiar, the Declaration goes on: “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it….”
What rights our founders considered important can be seen in both the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. The list of grievances in the Declaration of Independence includes taxation without representation, unfair trade restrictions, making officials of the government above the law, and improperly influencing the judiciary. The common denominator on most of the grievances listed by Jefferson is that are the result of a government’s abuses of power. The fundamental right violated by the English king was the right of the people to have a government that will not interfere with the people’s rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
When our nation was finally established, the founders decided to safeguard more individual rights. The Constitution became the foundation for the federal government, but many believed its lack of protection for individual rights was a weakness. The Bill of Rights is a compilation of ten amendments that was ratified to correct that deficiency.
The Bill of Rights guarantees the rights to freedom of religion, speech, press, peaceably assemble, and petition the government. The second amendment guarantees the right for individuals to keep and bear arms. Other amendments give Americans the right to a trial by jury, protection against unreasonable search and seizure, and limit ability of the government to hold people charged with crimes. Additionally, the tenth amendment specifies that powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved by the people and the states.
The view that our personal freedoms were freedoms to say, do, and possess things without government restrictions or assistance changed radically with the election of Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1932. Roosevelt proclaimed a new basic freedom for Americans: the “freedom from want.”
The freedom from want might be stated in today’s terms as a freedom from need. In other words, in Roosevelt’s view Americans have a fundamental right to not need anything. This “freedom” is more accurately described as a right to security or freedom from responsibility. It is akin to reading the Declaration of Independence’s right to the “pursuit of happiness” as a government-guaranteed right to be happy.
Roosevelt’s new basic freedom was a radical departure from traditional American personal freedoms. The freedom from want is the first freedom that takes freedom from someone else. The government has nothing that it doesn’t first take from productive citizens and businesses through taxes. For the government to meet people’s needs, it must first take from other citizens because the government has nothing that it does not first take from someone else. Therefore, FDR’s freedom from want is a transfer of wealth.
The freedom from want is also an anathema to the more traditional American freedoms. One cannot simultaneously give up personal responsibility to the government while maintaining a previous level of freedom. Because the government must take from citizens in order to meet the “needs” of other citizens, a majority of citizens will find that they lose economic liberty and property rights. As the government raises taxes to pay for programs that meet these “needs,” taxpaying citizens will find that they have less disposable income to meet their own needs. They must work longer hours to bring home the same amount of money. Increased taxes make it difficult or impossible to maintain the same standard of living and amount of property.
An additional problem with the freedom from want is that each individual has different wants and needs. For example, a common belief today is that everyone needs health insurance. It is very likely that soon the government will make a determination that everyone does need and must have health insurance. However, many people today don’t believe that health insurance is a necessity.
Many people today choose not to purchase insurance for a variety of reasons. Many people feel that the money could be better spent on other items, such as starting a business or making a mortgage payment. Many uninsured are only temporarily without coverage as they change jobs. Some may eschew health insurance for religious reasons. The freedom to make the choice to not purchase health insurance is a valuable tool in money management that would disappear if the government decides that all Americans have a right to guaranteed health insurance.
Further, as government grows larger in order to keep meeting the needs and wants of the populace, other freedoms are threatened. Government money and programs come with strings attached. Acceptance of government largess requires adherence to government rules and policies. This can be seen today in federal control of banks and auto companies that have accepted government bailout money.
In the future, as the government begins to pay (with taxpayer dollars) for universal health insurance, it will become more and more interested in cutting healthcare costs. One way of doing so might be to enact new restrictions on what are considered to be health risks. For example, we might one day find that our government health plan excludes coverage for smoking-related illnesses. Once the precedent is established, other exclusions related to diet, exercise, weight, or other factors could be enacted.
America is at a crossroads. For the past eighty years we have seen the growth of government and slow but steady erosion of our personal freedoms. Under the current administration, the process is being accelerated. We must make a choice on what freedom means to us.
If we want true freedom, we must accept that with freedom comes responsibility. We must take control of our own lives. We must be responsible for our own safety, our own finances, our own retirement planning, our own children, and our own health. The alternative is to trade our freedom for the illusory security of the “freedom from want.”
As Benjamin Franklin once said, “Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.” Very often, that is just what they get.
Sources:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html
http://www.answers.com/topic/bill-of-rights
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
http://www.firstamendmentschools.org/resources/lesson.aspx?id=13933
http://www.libertynet.org/edcivic/fdr.html
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin
Palm Springs CA
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Hidden Travel Gems of the Southeast
The southeastern United States is home to many well-known tourist meccas. Who hasn’t been to, or at least heard of, Orlando and Daytona Beach? There are also a multitude of lesser-known spots that can appeal to a variety of travelers.
One of my family’s favorite places to get away from it all is Cade’s Cove. Nestled within a valley of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park near Townsend, Tennessee, Cade’s Cove contains an eleven-mile loop road that drives around the valley. As you drive, you and your family will be able to spot a variety of wildlife among the breathtaking mountain scenery. We have seen more deer than my kids can count, along with foxes, turkeys, and even families of bears. One way of determining where bears have been sighted is to look for the “bear jam,” lines of cars moving slowly as people watch and photograph the animals!
Wildlife is not the only thing to see in Cade’s Cove. There are also many historic buildings located near the loop road. Visitors can see old farmhouses, churches, a gristmill, and barns and other farm buildings. The cove also has nature and hiking trails of various lengths. One trail even leads to Rocky Top, the mountain made famous by the bluegrass song. Many visitors also enjoy fishing and wading in the rivers and creeks of the cove. The park also offers horseback tours of the cove and hayrides around the loop road.
Cade’s Cove contains a campground, but people who prefer hotels will find them only a short drive away in Townsend. Pigeon Forge is also nearby. Visitors there can choose from a multitude of restaurants, musical shows, and entertainment, including Dollywood.
In Pigeon Forge, the Holiday Inn Express and the La Quinta are both modern hotels with affordable rates. You can find out more about Cade’s Cove on the national park web site at www.nps.gov/grsm/planyourvisit/cadescove.htm.
A second spot that my family has recently discovered is Sylacauga, Alabama. This little town has a lot more to offer than a funny name! Sylacauga is located forty miles southeast of Birmingham and is a true southern small town.
Sylacauga was first settled by Creek Indians and was visited by Spanish explorer, Hernando de Soto, in 1540. One of the areas claims to fame is the DeSoto Caverns Park. The park offers hour-long tours through the caverns, which feature thousands of natural cave formations as well as light which vary throughout the year.
The park also has many other attractions that range from the tame, miniature golf, to a rock climbing wall, go-carts, and bathtub racers. There is also a chance to pan for gemstones like a prospector from a hundred years ago and Lost Trail Maze that takes up three-fourths of an acre.
Sylacauga is also home to the Blue Bell Creamery. Many southerners know Blue Bell ice cream as a delicious snack. The Blue Bell Creamery offers tours where visitors can see how this treat is made. Additionally, a country store offers ice cream as well as many other craft and souvenir items. Tours are by appointment only. Visitors can call 888-573-5286 to make a reservation.
Located near Sylacauga is the Talladega National Forest. The national forest contains beautiful, mountainous terrain that can be enjoyed without traveling all the way to the Appalachians. The forest contains trails for hikers, horses, and ATVs as well as scenic drives. You can find out about the national forest at www.fs.fed.us/r8/alabama/aboutus/.
In Sylacauga, the Holiday Inn Express or the Jameson Inn are the primary lodgings. The Golden Rule barbecue is very good and Buttermilk Hill offers formal dining. You can learn more about Sylacauga at www.sylacaugachamber.com.
For those who prefer the ocean, Wilmington, North Carolina is destination that offers beaches as well as a sense of history. The area’s beaches offer several piers for fishing, but less of the carnival atmosphere of many beach towns. There is ample public beach access, but most parking is metered.
For history buffs, the area offers many interesting stops. A fun attraction for kids and adults alike is the WWII battleship, USS North Carolina. Visitors can explore the ship as well as visit a museum that details the ship’s service in the Pacific campaigns of WWII where it was damaged by a Japanese torpedo. Fort Fisher State Historic Site is the location of a Civil War battle.
Wilmington also features a vibrant nightlife and many other museums and cultural centers. Visit www.wilmington.net for more information and a free travel guide.
Depending on what you are looking for, the South has many other hidden gems as well. From snow skiing to water-skiing, from small town life to elegant and fashionable cities, the south has something for everyone. Find your own hidden gem and make some memories with your loved ones!
One of my family’s favorite places to get away from it all is Cade’s Cove. Nestled within a valley of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park near Townsend, Tennessee, Cade’s Cove contains an eleven-mile loop road that drives around the valley. As you drive, you and your family will be able to spot a variety of wildlife among the breathtaking mountain scenery. We have seen more deer than my kids can count, along with foxes, turkeys, and even families of bears. One way of determining where bears have been sighted is to look for the “bear jam,” lines of cars moving slowly as people watch and photograph the animals!
Wildlife is not the only thing to see in Cade’s Cove. There are also many historic buildings located near the loop road. Visitors can see old farmhouses, churches, a gristmill, and barns and other farm buildings. The cove also has nature and hiking trails of various lengths. One trail even leads to Rocky Top, the mountain made famous by the bluegrass song. Many visitors also enjoy fishing and wading in the rivers and creeks of the cove. The park also offers horseback tours of the cove and hayrides around the loop road.
Cade’s Cove contains a campground, but people who prefer hotels will find them only a short drive away in Townsend. Pigeon Forge is also nearby. Visitors there can choose from a multitude of restaurants, musical shows, and entertainment, including Dollywood.
In Pigeon Forge, the Holiday Inn Express and the La Quinta are both modern hotels with affordable rates. You can find out more about Cade’s Cove on the national park web site at www.nps.gov/grsm/planyourvisit/cadescove.htm.
A second spot that my family has recently discovered is Sylacauga, Alabama. This little town has a lot more to offer than a funny name! Sylacauga is located forty miles southeast of Birmingham and is a true southern small town.
Sylacauga was first settled by Creek Indians and was visited by Spanish explorer, Hernando de Soto, in 1540. One of the areas claims to fame is the DeSoto Caverns Park. The park offers hour-long tours through the caverns, which feature thousands of natural cave formations as well as light which vary throughout the year.
The park also has many other attractions that range from the tame, miniature golf, to a rock climbing wall, go-carts, and bathtub racers. There is also a chance to pan for gemstones like a prospector from a hundred years ago and Lost Trail Maze that takes up three-fourths of an acre.
Sylacauga is also home to the Blue Bell Creamery. Many southerners know Blue Bell ice cream as a delicious snack. The Blue Bell Creamery offers tours where visitors can see how this treat is made. Additionally, a country store offers ice cream as well as many other craft and souvenir items. Tours are by appointment only. Visitors can call 888-573-5286 to make a reservation.
Located near Sylacauga is the Talladega National Forest. The national forest contains beautiful, mountainous terrain that can be enjoyed without traveling all the way to the Appalachians. The forest contains trails for hikers, horses, and ATVs as well as scenic drives. You can find out about the national forest at www.fs.fed.us/r8/alabama/aboutus/.
In Sylacauga, the Holiday Inn Express or the Jameson Inn are the primary lodgings. The Golden Rule barbecue is very good and Buttermilk Hill offers formal dining. You can learn more about Sylacauga at www.sylacaugachamber.com.
For those who prefer the ocean, Wilmington, North Carolina is destination that offers beaches as well as a sense of history. The area’s beaches offer several piers for fishing, but less of the carnival atmosphere of many beach towns. There is ample public beach access, but most parking is metered.
For history buffs, the area offers many interesting stops. A fun attraction for kids and adults alike is the WWII battleship, USS North Carolina. Visitors can explore the ship as well as visit a museum that details the ship’s service in the Pacific campaigns of WWII where it was damaged by a Japanese torpedo. Fort Fisher State Historic Site is the location of a Civil War battle.
Wilmington also features a vibrant nightlife and many other museums and cultural centers. Visit www.wilmington.net for more information and a free travel guide.
Depending on what you are looking for, the South has many other hidden gems as well. From snow skiing to water-skiing, from small town life to elegant and fashionable cities, the south has something for everyone. Find your own hidden gem and make some memories with your loved ones!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)