On September 19, 1796, just prior to leaving the presidency, President George Washington issued his famous Farewell Address. He said that he offered his advice as the “warnings of a parting friend, who can possibly have no personal motive to bias his counsel.”
In his usual stately manner, as the father of this great nation, he warned posterity of possible pitfalls that could undermine or destroy liberty. His warnings may well be even timelier today as we commemorate his birthday.
In strong terms he cautioned us to avoid debt. He said: “As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit … use it as sparingly as possible, avoiding occasions of expense … [Use the] time of peace, to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear.”
Today our national debt exceeds 14 trillion—the highest in our history—three trillion of which has come about in the last two years. This is about $127,700 for every taxpayer in America growing at $171 per week (See USDebtClock.org). The President’s 3.73 trillion dollar new budget, 2 trillion of which will be passed on to posterity, does not suggest that we are following this wisdom.
Washington pleaded with the nation to keep religion and morality strong. He said: “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.… Let it simply be asked, where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? … Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”
The Founding Fathers never supported the notion of separation of religion and government—only the separation of an organization of religion from government. What would Washington say of the immorality that prevails today?
His warning about foreign aid was especially good. He basically told us that gift giving in foreign affairs is a good way to be universally hated. He said it placed us “in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more.” Today there is hardly a nation in the world, dictators and tyrants alike, that does not have its hand out, and when the amount is reduced or terminated we are hated all the more for it.
He warned against the origin of “combinations and associations” whose intent was to suppress the desires of the majority in favor of that of the minority. He called them artificial power factions. We call them special interest groups. Such factions, he said, “may answer popular ends and become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government.…” The antidote for this, Washington explained, was “to resist with care the spirit of innovation” upon basic constitutional principles or premises no matter how flowery, appealing or “specious the pretext.”
Washington worried about posterity not holding their elected officials strictly to the limits imposed by the Constitution. He knew many would seek to undermine that document by twisting it to give power they could not acquire without the distortion. He said: “But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.” Today much of what the federal government does is not even mentioned in the Constitution.
But patriots are not likely to be popular. “Real patriots,” he said, “who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious; while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.”
Our practices are largely the opposite of what George Washington advised. No wonder we have all the problems he predicted and are losing our freedom.
I do not usually write satire but here is a scary proposition that could come true as witnessed by other extreme laws recently passed. The country is now 13½ trillion dollars in debt and it is incorrectly believed, by the less informed—mostly socialists—that the only way to solve this problem is to increase taxes.
Congress recently discovered how unfair Christmas really is as some get more presents than others. To correct this injustice a 1,500 page law called the Christmas Equalization Act is working it’s way through judiciary committees in both the House and Senate and will be on the floor of both houses very soon. Members are not likely to read it, as on other long-winded laws, but they are likely to pass a conceptual document instead from which lawyers spin the actual words—now an all too common practice.
Under the new law, to begin next year, shoppers buying for loved-ones are required to identify receivers at check out for each gift and it’s amount. Retail stores are to then fill out form13,208, The Affidavit of Christmas Gifts, passing that information to the IRS for national list tabulation.
The total allotment per Christmas per person is 20 gifts. Totals exceeding this number in intervals of 10 will be assessed a gradual value added tax up to 70% of the value of the gifts in excess. This amount will be given to those suffering from Christmas Depravation Syndrome, recently discovered by psychologists to inhibit the development of ambition and drive. Overall value is also taxed if exceeding a total of $200 beginning at 25% and at $50.00 increments ending at 100% for any total exceeding $400.00 dollars. This information is submitted on The Affidavit of Excess Christmas Value (Form 13,209). If you have problems following these formulas so do the lawyers who made them up but it does help ensure full employment for them for decades to come sorting it out.
Those applying for benefits could do so in the same place and same way they get food stamps or any other benefits. One idea receiving strong support is to turn it over instead to ACORN or some other reputable organization already in existence.
The more likely option, however, is to create a whole new department, as the necessary monitoring would require at least 15,000 new federal agents to oversee. It certainly would create much needed employment, which would stimulate the economy. Recipients, however, would have to fill out another simple10 page form called the Underprivileged Christmas Affidavit (Form 13,210) which also allows participants to identify favorite gifts. Recipients would not be limited to 20 gifts as it is certain that they have been “gift deprived” for some time, nor would they have a total value limit placed upon them for the same reason.
The excess taxes are thought to be sufficient for funding the under-gifted, but critics are skeptical about it’s ability to fund the 15,000 federal agents as well. Some say that gift givers will lower the number to the 20 gifts thus avoiding the excess tax altogether, leaving the taxpayer to fund both the “under gifted” and the agents thus, increasing the national debt. Proponents say that such is just uncompassionate right-wing extremist talk.
Other legislation on the table is to tax excessive tree length, Christmas decorations, and turkey size. There are so many injustices to alleviate. Some few have even suggested making the holiday illegal. Lawmakers hope to expand the legislation to Hanukkah next year for the same reasons.
Merry Christmas, my liberty loving friends.
Dr. Harold Pease is an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 25 years at Taft College.
By mid 2008 almost everybody knew that we were in deep financial trouble. But the forces that brought it about actually began decades ago with The Community Reinvestment Act in 1977. This legislation “forced lending institutions to grant mortgages to people whose income, credit histories, and net worth would previously have disqualified them from getting such loans.”
An old adage suggests that in getting a loan from a bank the recipient must first prove that he does not need one by listing his assets. The bank uses this list to retrieve all or a portion of what is owed should the recipient default on the loan. The less invested or potentially lost the easier it is for the recipient to walk or default. Such is long standing wisdom and favors the more industrious individuals, as it should. What this means in real life is that high crime or impoverished areas of town do not attract investors as readily.
Socialists (share the wealth advocates) saw a race connection, thus injustice, when it was realized that “only 72 percent of minority applicants were approved for mortgages, versus 89 percent of white applicants.” Moral outrage followed which was resolved by legislation ”forcing lending institutions to loan money to people they would otherwise not lend to and in places where they would otherwise not put their money” (“Government Bailout,” The New American, Sept. 29, 2008, pp.11-15). This forced banks “to engage in far-riskier lending practices or receive a failing CRA (Community Reinvestment Act) grade. To avoid an ‘F’ from the CRA, which could jeopardize their viability, the banks were pressured to direct hundreds of billions of dollars in high-risk mortgages to inner-city and low-income neighborhoods. Moreover, under CRA pressure, banks would ‘hire’ radical, non-profit groups like ACORN to find them customers.”
Banks too benefited as the government organizations Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would buy these poor-quality loans, now referred to as “sub-prime” loans and take them off the banks’ books (Human Events, Oct. 13, 2008, p 8). It seemed good for everyone. I watched in horror as “kids” with little or no credit purchased homes well above their means and home prices doubled in a “fake-value” bubble. There seemed no consequence for risky behavior.
Please note: these faulty loans were brought about by government intervention and regulation, not the free market.
If a person has not repaid previous loans what is the probability that he will repay a new loan? Should exceptions be made for individuals who are non-white? Race should have nothing to do with lending. But banks insisted on giving loans anyway to meet new government race-based quotas. Politicians were loved because they had helped some live beyond their means with zero down loans. Key politicians received healthy contributions from the two government entities that kept them from exercising sufficient scrutiny over the process.
When the defaults inevitably began, investors purchasing the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac “sub-prime” bundles quickly became leery of them and stock in these two government entities plummeted in late 2008. Congress responded with The American Housing Rescue and Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008 which raised the federal debt limit to $800 billion. The two organizations were considered to be too big to fail. Unfortunately the housing bailout did not restore confidence and property values continued plummeting at somewhere near the foreclosure rate, plus the national debt skyrocketed.
Now getting a loan for everyone is very difficult. Old businesses are retracting (laying off) to survive. Regular businesses cannot expand (hire) without growth capital. New businesses cannot be created without someone’s risk capital. Those able to risk will not do so until the storm passes and the storm is going to be with us for a while. Thanks, Congress. You flunked Economics 101.
Dr. Harold Pease is an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 25 years at Taft College.
The bureaucracy is out of control, enlarging itself at every turn. “The Blob” comes to mind; an enemy absorbing and devouring people, ever enlarging itself as it does.
Congress either creates the bureaucracy or allows the President to do so because it does most of their law-making work for them (all of this is done without proper constitutional authority, of course). A recent example is the 2700 page National Healthcare Bill that created 159 separate organizations to manage it, each capable of hundreds of additional rules and regulations. Conveniently, the bureaucracy also leaves them with an “enemy” of their own making to “combat.” Constituents love “bureaucracy bashing.”
Seemingly there is no way to stop the bureaucracy’s growth. Soon the growth, like cancer, must be fed. In this case, it is fed by taxes. While this is obvious to everyone else, it is seldom so to the enlarging bureaucracy whose new adherents become ever more vocal with a vested interest in its defense, sustainment, and again enlargement.
Obviously any plan to succeed in reducing their size and consumption must have their full support. In other words, Goliath must agree to undertake one serious diet, or it will never happen.
Some thirty years ago such a plan by F. F. McClatchie came across my desk that I have modified slightly. What follows is that plan, and I invite public comment. It is simple.
One, immediately freeze all state or federal hiring of new employees. There will be resistance, but not enough to stop this step because “their” job is secure.
Two, lay off 10% of all existing employees each year, selecting those to be laid off by lottery. This ensures that the layoffs will be “fair,” that is, the bureaucrats can’t play with the deck. That way, those who are part of the fat are not in charge of cutting the fat. This step will meet serious resistance, so it must be accompanied by the next step.
Three, continue to pay the laid-off bureaucrats at their wages as of the layoff date. This would ensure their full cooperation. In fact, their full-time vacations would no doubt thrill them. This would save billions of dollars, since they would no longer occupy office space or waste paper, to say nothing of working mischief. They could no longer interfere with business, saving countless billions for productive uses. Almost no one would reject this offer. However, it can’t go on forever, as it is immoral to pay someone for doing nothing.
Four, reduce each laid-off employee’s paycheck by 10% per year. This would ensure that sooner or later they would seek productive employment. They may choose to bank the new salary or vacation a year or two before returning to full employment in the private sector. In the meantime, they will spend the money on hobbies, travel, etc., and keep the economy roaring along with no additional tax burden and no requirement for a big bureaucracy to administer welfare.
Fifth, continue this process until the government is operating efficiently at approximately 1/10th the current payroll or less. The few who might reject the program could continue as part of the 1/10th that remain.
The nation is close to bankruptcy. California leads a pack of states following closely behind, all with the same problem. We desperately need a solution that works. Do you think this would work? Again, I invite public comment.
Dr. Harold Pease is an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 25 years at Taft College.
Too bad they don’t show cartoons like this in school now. Compare this cartoon, which celebrates the free market system and applauds America for her contributions to the world with the one below that our children are shown in school today.
Then:
“Make Mine Freedom” (1948)
Below is “The Story of Stuff”, which vilifies our system and makes Americans out to be consuming monsters. It is filled with errors and blatant lies. To see a well-made debunking of the video below, check out “Story of Stuff, The Critique” on YouTube. Ask you kids if they have seen this at school. If they have, it’s time to have a talk with them and possibly with your school administration.
Now:
“The Story of Stuff” (2007)
Talking to our children about political philosophy is as important now as talking to them about drugs and sex education. If we leave it to the schools, they will be indoctrinated by liberalism. Take the egg out, turn on the burner, and bring out the pan. Show them the egg and say “This is your brain.” Then fry the egg and tell them “This is your brain on liberalism. Any questions?” It’s time to teach them before they are exposed to this kind of propaganda. And if it’s too late for that, arm them with the skills to spot the lies when they hear them. Our freedom and theirs depends on it.
