Oct 16, 2011 | Constitution, Economy
By Dr. Harold Pease
Steve Jobs died leaving five and a half billion dollars, thousands of high paying jobs (12,000 in his hometown Cupertino alone, plus countless others in support roles), and having made things better for every person on the planet. Having begun in a garage with his friend, Steve Wozniak, with only personal funding, and no government bailouts when things did not go well, he exemplified what has made the United States the most prosperous people on earth. He vies with Thomas Edison and Henry Ford as the world’s greatest inventor.
One wonders how he might have done if born under extreme socialism—such as Sparta, the ancient Greek city state and also the worlds’ first known socialist state—which model the Founders veered from in repulsion, in their founding of a land destined to produce at least 85% of all inventions of mother earth. How would a mind such as his have flowered under the more modern socialist states of the twentieth century, the USSR or East Germany perhaps, or in North Korea today? One is hard pressed to identify a single invention of significance under any of these states while under socialism. He would have been destroyed, as socialists traditionally kill or at least take the wealth of the rich and distribute it to themselves. Under more moderate socialism as in Europe, seemingly our model of late, we prefer to tax or regulate entrepreneurs to death—often before they get off the ground.
The philosophy of sharing the wealth has always resulted in bringing down those who create the jobs. You can hate McDonald’s, or Wall Mart or whatever, all you want, but they still give you your job. Do you suppose that those demonstrating in “Occupy Wall Street” today, (ironically using their various “Steve Jobs creations” to communicate with each other their revolutionary doctrine attempting to bring down “the stinking capitalist system”), understand how the free market actually saves them from third world poverty? No!!
The “share the wealth” philosophy is as old as mankind. Aristotle first wrote of it in his work Politics, Book IV twenty-four centuries ago when he noted that the poor will always envy the rich and the rich will always despise the poor. Neither can rule because neither can understand the other. The middle class, having enough of the goods of the world to not envy the rich, but being close enough to poverty themselves to understand the poor, is the arbitrator class. The free market also creates and expands the middle class. Karl Marx put force into the equation making the arguments for class warfare which make the Steve Jobs—all of them— the enemies of the state.
The problem with socialism, whether extreme under communism, which exterminates the rich, or more mild by taxing those creating jobs to accomplish equality for all, is that it destroys incentive for the producer. If a great inventor, such as Steve Jobs, cannot see a profit at the end of the tunnel why would he risk investing in the next new idea? Why would a medical doctor endure years of medical school and poverty if the government is not going to allow him, when finished, to charge what he may for his services? Altruistic motivators like “for the betterment of mankind” are normally not enough to vault the distance by themselves. There would be a shortage of inventors and doctors. Inventors deprive themselves of food, fabric, and fellowship, working late into the night to accomplish their vision of an Edison Illuminating Light Co. or the Apple Corporation rather than an eight-hour a day government job at a government-controlled salary. Government intervention in the market is like mixing a cup of sugar into the gasoline of a lawn mower. It may still work but the efficiency is greatly impaired.
Abraham Lincoln was well aware of the class warfare advocated by socialism, having read The Communist Manifesto, and saw it as a theory opposite that left to us by our Founders under the U.S. Constitution, when he wrote. “Property is the fruit of labor; property is desirable; is a positive good in the world. That some should be rich shows that others may become rich, and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprises… Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another, but let him labor diligently to build one for himself, this by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence… I take it that it is best for all to leave each man free to acquire property as fast as he can. Some will get wealthy. I don’t believe in a law to prevent a man from getting rich; it would do more harm than good.”
Steve Jobs did well, in large part, because he could begin in a garage without governmental regulation. Big government advocates would have had him begin, at the very least, with a costly nine-month environmental impact study, followed by his obtaining a building permit to alter his garage, followed by a permit to do business, followed by filing forms dealing with social security and etc.; and there is always OSHA hovering over him. Get the picture? All this before he has any profits to confiscate for the benefit of those who do not support themselves.
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. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Oct 8, 2011 | Constitution
By Dr. Harold Pease
Freedom Sunday, held Oct. 2, is now over. This was the Sunday when 539 ministers throughout the United States defied the IRS and federal government and did at least three things in common in their Sunday sermons. They identified where the candidates stood on the issues, what the Bible says on these issues, and where a follower of Jesus Christ should stand. Their followers, of course, are left to make their own decisions, but the clergy is no longer silent. The following day they mailed a recorded copy of their sermon to the IRS; all the evidence that is needed to deny their 501C3 tax exemption status.
Standing by to defend three first amendment rights, that of freedom of speech, religion, and even assembly, is a group of 2500 attorneys united under the Alliance Defense Fund should the federal government wish to enforce the previously constitutionally uncontested Lyndon Baines Johnson Amendment initiated in 1954. Thirty-three pastors successfully did this in the year 2008, 84 in 2009, and 100 in 2010 with no retribution. In fact, no church’s tax exemption status has been taken away for having done so in the 57 years the amendment has been in place. Proponents encourage other ministers to follow their Pulpit Freedom Movement by going to www.speakupmovement.org or by phoning 1-800-telladf. Consider the over-the-pulpit political statements made by Martin Luther King, Jr., Jessie Jackson or even Jeremiah Wright.
The ministers argue that the Johnson Amendment which resulted in the tax exemption legislation known as 501C3, wherein tax exempt organizations cannot endorse or oppose candidates, was actually designed to deal with two businessmen in Texas who had used tax exempt money to oppose the future President Johnson, and that the legislation was never intended to be used on churches. Whether that is so or not, the IRS viewed it so and constantly threatens to apply it. The effect has been to “silence and chill the pastors.” At election time pastors frequently receive a letter reminding them that they can lose their 501C3 status should they make political statements as a pastor.
The movement demands a return to pre-1954 when there was no government censorship on the pulpits of America at all, whether left or right on the political spectrum—true separation of church and state. Both persuasions should have pulpit freedom.
Is this activity constitutional? Absolutely!! It is an American tradition. Many of the Founding Fathers were clergymen and used their pulpits before and after the American Revolution to foster a better understanding of liberty. The Constitution only denies the requirement of a religious test “as a qualification to any office of public trust under the United States.” The First Amendment also specifically denies Congress from making any “law respecting an establishment of religion.” Any attempt to muzzle the clergy is unconstitutional.
The urgency of the ministers picking up their traditional role as a conscience of the culture is critical for the saving of the culture. Bishop Harry Jackson of Hope Christian Church in Beltville, Maryland said it best. “In the next decade or so what America will be for the next few hundred years, I believe, will be decided.” Speaking directly to his clergy colleagues he continued, “Would you want to be someone who stood by and did nothing and had no voice in changing America for good, that lives through years of regret that you did nothing when you could have spoken out? Or, will you be someone, no matter how small your congregation is, or how large your congregation is, that will take up the challenge to follow Christ and endure momentary discomfort in trying to figure out how to articulate the message? That is a little price to pay for the benefit that we can bring to the entire culture.”
No pastor should fear the IRS. Clergy, it is your constitutional right and responsibility to speak boldly and clearly on any subject that you think important. If not you, who? If not now, when? Your government has muzzled you with fear and intimidation. Remember parishioners came to you for guidance. A good Shepherd will give it to them. Clergy who were unable to participate October 2, are invited to do so on another Sunday. Again, who will speak if the church is silent? After all, it’s about your liberty, please pass this along.
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. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Oct 1, 2011 | Constitution, Taxes
By Dr. Harold Pease
Governor Rick Perry is accused of referring to Social Security as a Ponzi scheme. To consider the authenticity of this claim we must return to the deceptive strategy of its origin.
Since Social Security was not on the list of the qualifiers of general welfare—Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution—government had no power to forcibly extract a portion of a man’s wage and force his employer to match this fund—not even close. So they used the power to tax to justify this action. But Congress had no power to tax for powers that it did not have. Never the less the government took over the responsibility for everyone’s retirement and the people lost the right to their own money—the portion that was forcibly extracted as a condition of employment. Moreover, since the federal government would now do this for them, they had no incentive to do it for themselves.
At the time the Supreme Court had ruled much of the New Deal legislation unconstitutional and Social Security probably would have met the same end had Franklin D. Roosevelt’s new Court Packing bill not been threatening the independence of the Supreme Court. They let this one slide. To do so they had to agree to place the new tax monies in the “Treasury like internal-revenue taxes generally, and … not earmarked in any way” (301 U.S. 619, 1937). They should have gone to Article V, adding an amendment to the Constitution empowering the federal government to do so, but they were uncertain that it would pass so enacted an end run around the Constitution instead.
The money taken under the guise of taxes was not set aside for the giver’s future at all, as most believed, but just added to the general fund and spent. If private firms did the same thing, the federal government would call it a Ponzi scheme and perpetrators would serve time. When taxpayers do retire, they will have to depend upon the resources of future generations to cover what was promised. The system could never end without injustice to the “old” people. Each generation rightfully came to believe in their entitlement, having allowed FDR to spend their contributions on the previous generation.
Payroll taxes and benefits payments began in 1937. Ida May Fuller, a legal secretary, paid a total of $24.75 into the system between 1937-1939. Her first monthly check issued Jan. 1940, was $2.00 short of this. “After her second check, Fuller already had received more than she contributed over the three-year period. She lived to be 100 and collected a total of $22,888.92 (Research Note #3: Details of Ida May Fuller’s Payroll Tax Contributions, Social Security Administration).” How can this not be a Ponzi scheme?
Those receiving social security in 1935, never having paid a cent into the program, were grateful, of course, for the generosity of the nation and became beholding to the party in charge of the handouts. This insured the democrats’ continuance in office for the next 17 years. Prosperity returned in the fifties and sixties, and a challenge to the now established and popular program was unthinkable. People saw Roosevelt as having saved the country. Only now, younger historians, not favorably conditioned to a worshipful response to Roosevelt, recognize and document that it was not the New Deal but World War II that pulled us out of the 21-year long Great Depression.
Over time more groups that paid nothing or very little into the fund have received benefits: spouses, widows, children and the disabled—even illegals. I have a friend who brought his mother to America and she received benefits until her death. Government figures estimated in 2010 that 54 million were receiving Social Security benefits. Without significant changes the program will crash by 2036 say the Social Security Board of Trustees in their 2011 Annual Report.
We agree that somebody does owe our elders the total of what they paid into the program, but it is not the new generation. They did nothing wrong. Why should they pick up the tab for commitments made before their birth? How can government take their money, spend it on others, look them in the eye, and tell them that this isn’t a Ponzi scheme? They are its biggest victims.
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. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Sep 26, 2011 | Constitution, Healthcare
By Dr. Harold Pease
Rick Perry views social security as a Ponzi scheme, a state issue, and even unconstitutional. Mitt Romney argues for its’ constitutionality because it has been around for so long. Who is right? Two views prevail, original intent and past practice.
Original intent, what the Founders meant when they wrote the Constitution, largely based upon natural law, history, and their experience with governmental abuses of the past, was the only intended interpretation by the Founding Fathers. This was the way the Constitution was interpreted until the Progressive Era in the 20th Century, primarily the Franklin D. Roosevelt administration. Thereafter past practice gained dominance. But when a Supreme Court ruling is rendered outside original intent (a rogue decision), other laws may stem from this departure and the departure in time becomes the new base for additional departures such that, again over time, what is constitutional is opposite of what was constitutional. Have I lost you?
For example, prior to this moment there is no constitutional authority to force a person to purchase anything as a condition of citizenship. But if the Supreme Court rules National Healthcare constitutional it would be a rogue decision making constitutional the government’s insistence that you purchase health insurance and upon this precedence other things as well. In time, perhaps healthy foods will be required or only green-fueled automobiles. Who knows where the precedent could lead us. This is called past practice and potentially could destroy original intent and freedom.
Social Security started in 1935 under President Franklin D. Roosevelt as part of his New Deal program that basically extracted payroll taxes from those employed and matching donations from their employers. Theoretically these funds were to be held by the federal government and returned as old age insurance. The theory was based on the notion that the people would not secure their future without being forced to do so by government mandate.
Article I, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution identifies the four areas where the legislative branch can make law as being: 1) to tax, 2) to pay the debts, 3) to provide for the general welfare and 4) to provide for the common defense. The rest of this long sentence with 18 paragraphs was qualifiers on these four areas. The power to tax had but one qualifier, the different types of taxes had to be uniform. There were no qualifiers on “to pay the debts.” General welfare and common defense each had eight qualifiers so as to prevent the federal government from using these broad phrases to justify anything it wished. So, if social security is not on the list, or even remotely related to any of the qualifiers that are, how can the government get away with mandating the extraction of someone’s pay and force the same from his employer? It did so by calling it a tax (a rogue decision).
Original intent says that the power to tax is limited to the legitimate purposes of government as listed. Simply put, government does not have the power to tax for powers that it does not have. This was the most extreme overreach of governmental power to that date in U.S. History. But this was ignored by the Supreme Court that was at the time threatened by President Roosevelt’s Court Packing Bill that would have brought the Court under the control of the Executive Branch because the Court had already ruled as unconstitutional much of his New Deal program.
In Helvering v. Davis, social security was upheld as a tax because, “The proceeds of both [employee and employer] taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like internal-revenue taxes generally, and are not earmarked in any way (301 U.S. 619, 1937).” This presented a thorny problem not yet resolved 75 plus years later. The money taken under the guise of taxes was not set aside for the giver for a future date but just added to the general fund and spent. When these people do retire they will have to depend upon the resources of future generations to cover what was promised.
A second case, Steward Machine Company v. Davis, resolved the same day by a one vote majority, argued that it “is too late today for the argument to be heard with tolerance that in a crisis so extreme the use of the moneys of the nation to relieve the unemployed and their dependents is a use for any purpose narrower than the promotion of the general welfare (301 U.S., 548, 1937).” In other words, we will not limit ourselves to existing qualifiers on general welfare as intended by the Founders (a second rogue decision). The constitutional procedure for adding something to the list was by way of Article V but this too was ignored for perceived expediency.
So, who is right? Rick Perry uses the correct interpretation of the Constitution, original intent, and Mitt Romney uses past practice, which over time can destroy the Constitution as I have shown. The problem could be resolved by having social security added to the Constitution by way of an amendment, as it should have been in 1935, but this time have it earmarked for the recipient so that it would actually be there for him.
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. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Sep 16, 2011 | Constitution, Healthcare, Immigration, Tea Party
By Dr. Harold W. Pease
Concerned that the GOP presidential debates were not focusing upon issues close to the Tea Party Movement, more especially the candidates’ views on the U. S. Constitution, from which we have drifted in recent decades, and the Federal Reserve, a non-governmental private organization which determines the value of every dollar in our pocket, the movement teamed up with CNN for yet another debate, this one in Orlando, Florida on September 12. CNN commentator, Wolf Bitzer, narrated taking questions from the audience, the Internet, and from Tea Party groups assembled in parts scattered throughout the nation. All questions and questionnaires appeared to be pre-selected by CNN except for those of Mr. Bitzer, which were at least a third of those asked.
If these two areas were to be more thoroughly covered Tea Party members had to be sorely disappointed. With respect to the Federal Reserve created by Congress in 1913 allowing the Central Bankers to regulate the economy in order to prevent recessions and depressions in the future, the only question asked was with respect to auditing the Federal Reserve. All seemed at least luke-warm to doing so with Ron Paul and Michelle Bachmann having the strongest positions toward doing so. These two alone were for returning the power to Congress as designated by the Constitution, and where it was before giving in to the bankers. Rick Santorum wanted the bankers to remain in control but spoke of returning to “an earlier version” of how it was run. Rick Perry was the most dubious on the subject calling it “treason” if “you are allowing the Federal Reserve to be used for political purposes…” but he was not for eliminating it. Mitt Romney made the strongest case for leaving it with the bankers, as “Congress cannot possibly do it.” It is very unlikely that we will get back to the Constitution on this issue from anyone other than Bachmann or Paul.
There were no specific questions on getting back to the Constitution itself. Bachmann used the word constitution twice as much as did anyone else with Paul second and Perry third. Most made no mention of such a need. Perry, however, had clarity on the 10th Amendment and spoke of it as state’s rights yet, as governor, he had no problem forcing, by executive order, the inoculation of young girls 12 years and older with a vaccine against cervical cancer without any attempt to go through the state legislature for approval. He now admits that it was wrong to do so without legislative authorization. Bachmann denied even state government the right to force such action with or without legislative approval.
All seemed opposed to Obamacare but only Bachmann on clear constitutional grounds. “No state has the constitutional right to force a person, as a condition of citizenship, to buy a product or service against their will. It’s unconstitutional whether it’s the state government (referring to Romneycare in Massachusetts) or whether the federal government. The only way to eradicate Obamacare is to pull it out by the root and branch, to fully repeal it…! Because 2012 is it!!!” She added amid great applause, “This is the election that is going to decide if we have socialized medicine or not!!” Romney and Newt Gingrich would end the “threat” by executive order exempting every state, which itself is a constitutionally questionable solution as executive orders are not to be legislative in nature. Bachmann reminded them that the president after them could again, by executive order, restore the unpopular legislation. Romney’s only reference to something being unconstitutional was with respect to Obamacare but he quickly followed that he “favored a health savings account,” which ironically, on the federal level is just as unconstitutional.
On illegal immigration none of them were convincing that they would end it. Perry, with the most practical real life experience with the issue, seemed willing to “put boots on the ground” as president because Constitutionally it was the federal governments first responsibility to protect its people but he as governor encouraged illegal immigration with tax-payer money to illegals for college expenses. Jon Huntsman gave driving permits to illegals in Utah. Romney and Bachmann opposed any money going to “those who broke the law” but neither stated constitutional reasons. Paul was not given opportunity to respond on this question nor was Herman Cain.
On the basis of the Tea Party Presidential Debate, which was to emphasize constitutional themes in dealing with the realities of our time, Bachmann and Paul were the clear winners with Perry a distant, but dubious third; Bachmann even promising to return the Constitution to the White House as her last comment. I could detect no reason to believe that the other five candidates for president would be any better than George W. Bush in getting us back to this document or even seriously reigning in the Federal Reserve. It is your liberty. Pass this along.
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. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Sep 12, 2011 | Constitution, Taxes
By Dr. Harold Pease
The power of the purse (both taxing and spending) is one of the most important powers in the Constitution. The Founders resolved that it should be left with the representatives of the people; “all bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives (Article I, Section 7).” This made it impossible, without the people’s consent, for them to be over-taxed for more than two years as all members of this body come up for reelection on the same date—every two years.
Addressing this subject James Madison observed, “This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure.” The U.S. Constitution mandates that “the House of Representatives cannot only refuse, but they alone can propose the supplies requisite for the support of government.” This power alone he added, “can overcome all the overgrown prerogatives of the other branches of the government. They, in a word, hold the purse… (The Federalist 58).”
The Constitution also requires that the U. S. Senate confirm the appointments of the Executive Branch (Art. II Sec II). The last two presidents have created a new level of bureaucratic government called Czars without any pretense of Constitutional authority, and none were presented for confirmation to the Senate as required by the Constitution. Moreover, most if not all, of Barack Obama’s 50 Czars make rules and regulations in dozens of areas where the President has no Constitutional authority to function, as identified in Article II, Sections II and III. Yes, the President has a list of powers, as do Congress and the Supreme Court. His doing so violates Art. I, Sec. I, which specifically leaves “all legislative powers herein granted” with a Senate and House of Representatives.
Finally, probably due to Tea Party influence in the last election giving the republicans some spine, Congress made a weak attempt to bring President Obama in line. Congress denied the funding of four of these so-called Czars. The law placed on the President’s desk for his signature or veto (the only two powers he has with respect to making law) April 15, 2011, could not have been clearer. “Sec. 2262. None of the funds made available by this division may be used to pay the salaries and expenses of the following positions: (1) Director, White House Office of Health Reform. (2) Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change. (3) Senior Advisor to the Secretary of the Treasury assigned to the Presidential Task Force on the Auto Industry and Senior Counselor for Manufacturing Policy. (4) White House Director of Urban Affairs.”
The President, in a procedure called a “Signing Statement,” also unconstitutional, boldly wrote that he would not obey this part of the proposed law, and then signed the law excluding the parts he disagreed with which meant that he wound continue to have these offices paid for. So in a dictatorial move he took spending power from Congress. The unconfirmed offices would be paid for anyway. The spending of money in essence requires it being first raised which again is a power left only to the House of Representatives. Congress defied by the President, dropped the issue.
Unfortunately “Signing Statements” was a practice used extensively by President George W. Bush to avoid the only two law-making powers a president has, allowing him a self-created third option. Prior to this time presidents simply vetoed the entire law if they disagreed with any portion thereof. They have no authority to pick and choose. Ironically, candidate Obama strongly and rightly condemned this practice as being unconstitutional when his predecessor did it. He then argued, “It is a clear abuse of power to use such statements as a license to evade laws that the president does not like or as an end-run around provisions designed to foster accountability (Boston Globe, Dec. 20, 2007).”
But Congress alone has all taxing and funding powers as all money needed by the government must first come from the people, and they through their representatives clearly said no!! Article I, Sec. 9 reads, “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law;” of course, all law must be passed by Congress as per Article I, Sec. I. The president is drawing money from the Treasury to fund positions not in the Constitution and against the clear will and directive of Congress. Congress must not concede its’ power over the purse to the executive branch. Their inaction now will do just that.
In this one issue the President has given new meaning to at least five parts of the Constitution. No one will destroy this document all at one time but by their ignorance or worshipful loyalty to party they will do so one piece at a time. In this case five. Please participate in preserving your own liberty and pass this column around.
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. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
