-
It has been quiet on the blog front so I figure I would get the juices flowing!
Like most if not all of you, I sometimes find these Obama discussions frustrating because everyone sees events from the own perspective and some people change the facts to suit their POV. I am always amazed at the way two people can observe the same event and come away with two completely different interpretations!
For me, the whole Obama issue is easy because I focus on a few basic principles to guide my opinions. In the political / economic realm, I believe that there are a few indisputable ones that are based on fundamental ideas that define us as Americans and are based on historical realities.
Principle #1. The idea of big government is, by definition, fundamentally flawed because it must inevitably lead to corruption, favoritism, special interests, abuse of power, elitism, and inefficiency to sustain itself.
Our founding fathers feared this more than anything and this is clearly apparent in the Constitution and D of I which define our country and who we are. My experience and study of history has convinced me that the Founding Fathers were right to fear this threat. So I am very suspicious of any politician that argues for large government initiatives or programs. Looking at Obama objectively, there can be no question that this man believes in big government and intends to expand the power of government wherever possible based on his actions to date and his history. He is not evil, just misguided and out of sync with the country!
Principle #2. There is no greater power than the power of the individual who is motivated to achieve and who believes that his efforts will be justly rewarded.
This is another fundamental concept that is embedded in the Constitution and which has defined America and the tremendous accomplishments this country has made. To reduce the ability or motivation of individuals to realize their dreams, to achieve, or be justly rewarded through their individual efforts is to necessarily reduce happiness, fulfillment, fairness, innovation, and success. Socialistic principles that “spread the wealth,” or argue for higher taxes “for the greater good,” reduce the power of the individual and the motivation to achieve. I am therefore against any politician who threatens to reduce the power of the individual for the “greater good” because I know that this will inevitably reduce motivation, accomplishment, and individual liberty. I believe that Obama desires increase the power of the federal government and therefore, by definition, reduce the power of the individual.
Principle #3. Dependency leads to weakness, sloth, and mediocrity even though it may appear initially to be humane, compassionate, sensitive, fair, and generous.
This concept should be obvious to anyone who has lived a full life and understands human nature and motivation. Call it tough love, mean spirited, selfish, or whatever you like, but you are ultimately doing harm to someone by making him dependent on you. Don’t get me wrong, there is definitely a need for society to provide a safety net for the unfortunate few who are not capable of providing for themselves for whatever reason or for those who have temporarily fallen on tough times but the tendency is for government to expand these programs to preserve power and make as many people dependent as possible. I am therefore against any politician who strives to make people dependent or who minimizes the power of the individual to solve his own problems. It is undeniable that Obama wants to make individuals more dependent on him and the federal government.
This is why I am fundamentally opposed to this man and why I believe he is dangerous to America. He is not a bad person but I know through his actions and statements that he is (unfortunately for us) at odds with the core American values that have made this country great! - -------
- My response:
-------
You bring up an important point, because favoring free markets over big government is so deeply engrained in our psyche that it has become a useful tool for manipulating us. Politicians know that we don’t see both sides of this issue and that’s why they are eager to show us how to look at so many problems though this lens. Even when legislation is trying to protect our rights and freedoms from abuse by special interests and multi-national corporations, the American people will stop at nothing to destroy it if they see the bill as a government intrusion into the free market.
Take for example the estate tax. Any tax that impacts only 1% of the population should be tough to challenge politically. And while most taxes are taking resources away from the very same people that have proven to be most gifted at resource allocation, the estate tax is collected only after these people can no longer contribute to society. Warren Buffet said that repealing the estate tax would be equivalent to "choosing the 2020 Olympic team by picking the eldest sons of the gold-medal winners in the 2000 Olympics." While no tax is “good”, the estate tax is about as close as you can get. So how does the 1% fight back (with a few notable exceptions)? Frame it as a big-government intrusion into the free markets, that’s how!
My father always says “Obama thinks he’s smarter than you. He wants to tell you what to eat and what car to drive.” I don’t want the government telling me what to eat, but I am thankful that I can make an educated decision using the nutrition information required by the FDA. Until that battle was won in the 90s, it was just another intrusion of big government into the free market, and the food companies opposed it. Seems like a good intrusion to me, but I am actually amazed the bill was passed. It had a pretty boring name: “Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990” Compare that with Orrin Hatch’s response to protect Utah’s dietary supplement special interests. He called his bill the “Health Freedom Act of 1992”. Freedom – there is good old Hatch protecting our freedom from big government...or is it the dietary supplement industry's freedom to mislead us?
I too was raised with a healthy dose of big-government fear, and it’s why I oppose the death penalty. After all, how can you trust the government enough to let them kill people? And where was that fear of big government when Bush replaced habeas corpus with “enhanced interrogation techniques”? I’m not soft on terror, but I’d rather see Osama bin Laden walk on an “innocent” verdict from a fair trial than deny him the right to that trial. The founding fathers would have felt the same way.
Thanks for the response. You make some good points. There are a couple of statements I don't understand:
ReplyDelete"big government is so deeply engrained in our psyche that it has become a useful tool for manipulating us"
This comment suggests that you believe in big government and that the evils of big government are over blown or not real from your perspective. I don't understand why you want to put so much faith in pinhead politicians who just want to control you and take your money? Why do you think they can add more value to society than individuals or free markets? I don't understand!
I don't understand your comment about estate taxes: "the estate tax is collected only after these people can no longer contribute to society" ...While no tax is “good”, the estate tax is about as close as you can get."
Why do you think government has a right to seize personal property which has been earned and taxed already??? Why do you think government can redistribute this money more effectively / justly than the owner of these assets who will either donate it to charitable causes or give it to others he chooses who will spend it in the economy or invest it in the free market system?
Finally, I think government's role is to basically protect us from the bad guys whether they be terrorists, drug makers, financial ponzy schemers, and anyone else threatens the folks. I agree that the FDA is an example of a legitimate govt role but this agency, like all others, is very inefficient and incompetent in many cases so its value is limited and probably not worth we pay to keep it going-- better to outsource it!
Free marketeer
Believing in Government
ReplyDeleteI don’t know where else to put my faith if not in government. Yes it’s bureaucratic, inefficient, and potentially dangerous when it has too much power, but the free markets also have their faults. They are prone to monopolies, frequently need bailouts, and left unchecked will quickly sacrifice the greater good in search of profits. We need them both, but when I look at what’s wrong with society today, and where we need to be to meet tomorrow’s challenges, I see government as the only possible hope for a solution.
To find it, we need a government that will work for us, and I admit we have a long way to go. I see campaign finance reform as a critical. Congress was given the “power of the purse” by our founding fathers, but special interests write the checks for the congressional re-election campaigns, so who really has the power?
Estate Tax
This one is pretty simple in my mind. Regardless how big you want government to be, let’s assume the government needs to collect X dollars in taxes. Let’s say it collects 90% of X with an income tax and it’s deciding if it should collect the remaining 10% with an estate tax or a second income tax. Now let’s look at your questions:
Q: “Why do you think government has a right to seize personal property which has been earned and taxed already?
A: All taxes are the seizure of personal property, and the government needs the right to collect taxes in order to function. As far as the taxing of property “which has been earned and taxed already”, both the second income tax and the estate tax are taxing assets which were already taxed. So I see no advantage for either tax here.
Q: Why do you think government can redistribute this money more effectively / justly than the owner of these assets who will either donate it to charitable causes or give it to others he chooses who will spend it in the economy or invest it in the free market system?
A: This is a false choice. You are assuming that the alternative to the estate tax is no tax. If we want to form an opinion about the estate tax, we need to compare it to other taxes. Let’s compare them on efficiency. Which will be less of a drag on society? Taxing the generators of the wealth or their heirs? That’s simple…the wealth generators have proven that they are effective at putting resources to good use, but the heirs may or may not be as effective as their parents.
Thanks for sparring with me!
-Son