Feb 18, 2019 | Constitution, Economy, Liberty Articles, Taxes
(Presidents’ Day, Article)
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
Perhaps America’s most beloved and respected president was Abraham Lincoln, who now shares a national holiday—Presidents Day—with George Washington. Today most Democrats would oppose him, as they once did in 1860. He opposed slavery and socialism. He saw nothing in the Communist Manifesto, published in 1848, worthy of emulation.
On the ownership of property Abraham Lincoln’s feelings were especially strong, he said, “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” (The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume VII, pp. 259-260). Lincoln might have added “which produces jobs for those not rich.”
To him there was no need to take by force the wealth of those who produce and give it to those less productive, as has always been the prescription of socialism. The “share the wealth” philosophy of socialism brought on by “envy politics,” so articulated by the Democratic Party today, was a foreign ideology to the Civil War president, who had read and rejected Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto.
The answer to ending poverty is not class envy, first identified by Aristotle some 2,500 years ago as being the natural inclination of those with less, a philosophy implemented by Lenin in Russia when the communists identified those holding property as enemies of the state and liquidated some four to eight million farmers, the “Kulaks” (“The Russian Kulaks,” InDepthInfo.com). Then, they wondered why the country had such a horrific famine in 1921-1922 when millions starved.
No money was set aside for, or provided to, any class or special interest group in our Constitution. The power distributed benefited all equally and at the same time. The federal role was as referee only. Our Constitution does not redistribute wealth; it leaves the individual to do that for himself by his work ethic. It remains the fairest way.
Will income inequality be the outcome? Yes! Free men are not equal and equal men are not free. But all will have more under capitalism than had we instead forced income equality by taking from those who produce and giving it to those who do not. We remain anxious to share our wealth producing philosophy with our less prosperous neighbors and the world so that all can have more, but individuals stealing it from us, or using the government to do it for them, known as legalized plunder, is just wrong and disincentivizes those who produce.
Lincoln’s answer to the poor, from which he sprang himself, “Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another, but let him labor diligently to build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence….” Unfortunately, many in our society have forgotten the “labor diligently” part of his phrase and have come to expect the government to provide, from the industry of others, their every need. On that score Lincoln said sarcastically. “You toil and work and earn bread, and I will eat it.” He viewed this principle as a form of tyranny/slavery on those who work. Today approximately 47% of the adult population pay no federal income tax; many actually receive benefits for which they have paid nothing.
Watching others acquire wealth was, in fact, a sign of a healthy economy for Lincoln. “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.” Nor would he have supported the hundreds of laws that we have today that disincentivizes a man trying to acquire wealth.
His view sounds similar to those expressed by President Trump in his 2019 State of the Union Address. “Here, in the United States, we are alarmed by new calls to adopt socialism in our country. America was founded on liberty and independence — not government coercion, domination and control. We are BORN FREE, and we will STAY FREE. Tonight, we renew our resolve that America will NEVER be a socialist country.”
The new calls for socialism in our country referenced above were recently dropped by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s long-awaited Green New Deal endorsed by recently announced Democratic presidential candidates, Senators: Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker and Kirsten Gillibrand seemingly each attempting to “out socialize” opponents.
Paying the estimated $7 trillion price tag required would result in a 90% tax take which, ironically, is the definition of slavery—the very thing Lincoln is credited as having ended. It would end air travel and radically effect every other aspect of life. It would also redistribute vast new sums of less valued printed paper money making all equally poor.
Socialists may hate the “Walmarts” or the “McDonalds” all they want, but these provide the poor tens of thousands of jobs. Do not bite the hand that feeds you, then wonder where the jobs and prosperity went, as did the early Russian socialists. The “share the wealth” philosophy, which Lincoln opposed, and endorsed now by the Democratic Party, has never brought long term general prosperity for any people, any place, or any time.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and 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 taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Feb 11, 2019 | Immigration, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
I flew to El Paso, Texas to see for myself what was going on at the border at the height of the partial government shutdown standoff between Pelosi/Schumer and President Donald Trump. I wanted to interview those on the ground who really knew; thus bypassing entirely the Republican presses that said we were in a border crisis and the Democrat presses that said we weren’t and that we do not need a wall. El Paso, over 800,000 population, and Juarez, Mexico, over 1,400,000, one north of the border, the other south, seemed to be an ideal location to ask the experts.
This is what I learned. Mexican cartels, not the Mexican government, control entry into the United States. They are the de facto government south of the border. Cartels have carved up the important crossing locations and migrants do not get into the United States without first paying at least $100 per person to the controlling cartel. They enforce their rules.
Agents do not seek-out illegal aliens as they once did. Aliens come to them. Most illegals, perhaps 80%, are referred to as OTM’s (Other Than Mexican). Mexicans, when caught, are simply returned to Mexico but the OTM’s have the right to have a judge hear their cases, thus they remain until that happens.
Caravans are a new phenomenon. These are financed, we were told, by billionaire George Soros. his groups organize and instruct perspective migrants in their rights. After crossing Mexico, these people approach the border in small groups of nine to twenty and immediately seek a border patrol vehicle to approach and surrender, “Here I am!” They know that they will be taken to a holding center and cared for. These centers, designed for 80 to 90 migrants, now hold 200 to 250. They are so crowded that there exists virtually no room between migrants.
They know they will be released into the general population after receiving a NTA (Notice To Appear) before a judge, but they also know not to appear as 90% will be sent home because they do not qualify for asylum. But now they are in the United States. The game changes to “hide and seek” until the United States changes its laws. Why? One officer told us that they were awaiting the expected “paradigm shift.” He did not explain what he meant but I inferred that Trump will be removed from power and their group enormity will force a path to full citizenship. He added, “When this hope of being able to stay, is removed—this incentive—the flood will end.”
Agents invited us to visit three unsecured areas within thirty miles of where we were. One was Mount Cristo Rey located between the two cities but a good distance within the U.S. side. It was identified as a place of danger. The sign posted on the 12-foot-wide well-trod trail going up the hill to the statue warned, “If you’re going to tour Mt. Cristo Rey please contact police department at (575) 589-6600 or at 1000 McNutt Rd..” Why would an area, within the country, and close to Border Patrol headquarters, be too dangerous for Americans to visit without first notifying police? Because it is also a corridor for drug and human trafficking between the two countries and you might disappear, be raped, or robbed.
A second was a construction site on the U.S. side of the border accessed by an opening in an 18 foot tall border wall through which construction trucks and workers frequently passed, this with no visibly mounted cameras. An almost dry Rio Grande River just south of the construction site had no barrier of any kind to prevent a crossing from either side and then through this opening.
A third site, some 25 miles west of El Paso, was the connecting point between a high fence, perhaps 18 feet, and a four or five feet high fence thereafter. The much shorter fence was designed to stop only automobiles and Mexico was easily accessed from both sides over the top or sliding under it. I had one foot in Mexico and another in the United States simultaneously. Picture very large steel X’s every ten feet with three horizontal cross beams connecting them. This fence was said to continue this way for some distance west but replaced with mere barbed wire thereafter.
The fence was marked as having been built in 2008 but it was no barrier to drug or human trafficking or coming across unnoticed at will. We were totally alone for a solid hour before we saw a helicopter flying the line. There was no evidence of technology either and we were but 20 miles from one of the most populated areas on the entire border.
We also learned that often the countries from which immigrants come do not want them back as they were happy to rid themselves of their impoverished or criminal class. Twenty years ago the border could be controlled by 5,000 agents now 35,000 agents are required. Even U.S. troops are needed to assist.
No one argued that this was not a very serious crisis, nor that a border wall was not critical in ending it. Border patrol agents confirmed “there is no border security outside a wall.”
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and 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 taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org..
Feb 4, 2019 | Constitution, Liberty Articles
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
By now Beto O’Rourke’s unflattering comment referencing the Constitution, “Does this still work?,” is old news. He was suggesting that government is now too complicated for it to deal with 21st Century problems. What isn’t old news is that there was no backlash from the Democratic presses or Party regarding this ill-informed comment, nor pressure on O’Rourke to end his intended run for president because of it. Such would have ended the run of any contender twenty years ago. Do Democrats now oppose the Constitution?
Neither major political party has followed the Constitution, as first consideration, in more than 50 years. Of the two, Democrats rarely cite the document and seem almost contemptuous of it. In fact, most of what they propose is easily argued to be outside the Constitution. They once defended parts of the Bill of Rights but I no longer see much of this. Republicans sometimes carry the document on their person but do not hold to it and thus much of what they propose is also outside the Constitution.
Constitutional ignorance is so prevalent. Have we reached a day when a major political party is openly against it ? President Barack Obama came close when he told the United Nations General Assembly on Sept. 24, 2014, referencing the U.S. Constitution. “On issue after issue, we cannot rely on a rule-book written for a different century.”
The obvious dig shows a definite lack of respect for the Constitution that he swore by oath to “preserve, protect and defend” (Article 11, Section 1), but Democrats did not wish to rebuke or confine their president. Still, Obama’s phrase was a mockery of the Constitution and should have been unacceptable to every American, whether said by a Republican or a Democrat. Ironically the Constitution is designed to harness presidents just like him, just like his predecessor George W. Bush, and his successor Donald Trump, but it will never work if the party in power runs interference for their own constitutional abuser as also has happened for over 50 years.
It also shows a lack of understanding of the Constitution (whether ignorantly or intentionally), which is based upon time-tested human nature and natural law which do not change from century to century. Man and governments are still beset by the same sins as expressed in all ages. There will always be those who wish to rule over others. Government will always attempt to grow its power at the expense of the people. There will always need to be a list of the things governments can do and they will always need to be harnessed to that list. There will always need to be division of power and checks on each branch of government and presidents will always, as James Madison said, “have a propensity for war” and wish to use military power without consent. And there will always be those who wish to use the force of government to redistribute the wealth so that they can, in effect, purchase elections by “gifting” voters.
The magic of the Constitution is that it, as designed, does not distribute benefits or preferences to anyone. These are the reasons that it is said to be outdated by those who wish to take from us our liberties. Lawmakers having problems with the Constitution are those that do not wish to be restricted in their governance of us and thus they belittle it and seek to convince us to give them more power in another one. Thus the ignorant comments regarding it by O’Rourke.
One of my favorite college courses to instruct was Contemporary Political Topics. Students were given a copy of the Constitution and required to problem solve with it and natural law rather than political party or philosophical persuasion. This base is justified because every politician has sworn to “protect, preserve and defend” this document. It is the instrument by which everything should be judged. The students loved it. Amazingly, from food stamps to climate change, we never found an issue that the Constitution did not address. Century, language or culture were irrelevant because human nature remains the same.
The “rule book written in a different century” is still as reliable as before. What we need today are presidents legislators and judges that know its limitations, love and interpret it as written. In this quest we are embarrassingly in short supply. Why?
Constitutional principles were once taught at every level of education and stories of the sacrifice of our Founders frequently recited with admiration. Today few schools teach these principles in grade school and fewer still in high school. In college the Constitution is tucked in the back of textbooks as an appendix in U.S. History and Political Science courses, hence very few actually read it. The history of the Constitution’s origin is housed in a chapter but constitutional principles seemingly have only informational value.
Constitutional illiteracy is almost universal to the point that those qualified to defend the Constitution as designed are becoming extinct. Students are not likely to defend it if they have never experienced it being defended. A real danger exists that if too few know or value its principles we will lose it—perhaps we already have. Some, like O’Rourke, say it is no longer relevant for our times. They couldn’t be more ill-informed.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and 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 taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org..
Jan 28, 2019 | Globalism, Immigration, Liberty Articles, Take Action
By Harold Pease, Ph.D
No one has been more outspoken against the globalist agenda than President Donald Trump. His “America First” platform is the very antithesis of their plans for world government. This is primarily the reason all globalists, Democrat and Republican, and all globalist mediums, have come out of the closet to oppose him at all costs. Hence the shock when globalists are now praising his newly negotiated and rolled out October I, 2018 USMCA (United States/Mexico/Canada) sovereignty destroying replacement of NAFTA—seemingly a merged agreement of the worst parts of NAFTA and TPP.
Most Americans viewed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreements for what they were, sovereignty sucking packs to undermine and destroy the independence of nation states, as previous agreements had done in Europe resulting in the European Union. Globalists, funded by the financial global elites (from the Rockefeller’s to George Soros) had failed previous tries at world government, notably the League of Nations and the United Nations, and concluded that loyalty to nation states is the enemy to world government, hence their decades old strategy of consolidating regions of the globe first economically then politically into regional government. These then consolidated later into world government.
Trump had billed the TPP as “the worst agreement ever negotiated” and three days after his inauguration withdrew the United States as a signatory and refused further TPP negotiations. He promised to renegotiate NAFTA as well. In the Rose Garden, October 1, 2018 rollout, Trump said, “Throughout the campaign I promised to renegotiate NAFTA, and today we have kept that promise,”
So why are the globalists so happy with it. It looks to be a blend of the worst parts of NAFTA and TPP. According to the online Huffington Post, “At least half of the men and women standing behind Trump during his Rose Garden ceremony praising the new deal were the same career service staff who negotiated nearly identical provisions in TPP, which Trump had railed against.” One of these, Trevor Kincaid, the lead negotiator for TPP, said, “It’s really the same with a new name. It’s basically the ‘22 Jump Street’ of trade deals.”
Richard N. Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the lead organization for world government and the most influential organization on foreign policy, in both major political parties the last hundred years, tweeted his praise for the agreement, “The USMCA looks to be the trade pact formerly known as NAFTA plus 10-20%. Hope it becomes a precedent for TPP.” Adding later, “What matters is that the US joins it.…”. Haass, so enthused by the agreement, added the next day, “USMCA is NAFTA plus TPP plus a few tweaks. Whatever … TPP by another name.” No wonder. The lead negotiator of the agreement was CFR member Robert Lighthizer, who candidly admitted that the USMCA is “built on” many aspects of the TPP.
Christian Gomez, who spent considerable time with the 1,809 paged document wrote, “A side-by-side comparison of the USMCA and the TPP shows extensive overlap. Virtually all of the problems inherent in the TPP are likewise contained in the USMCA, such as the erosion of national sovereignty, submission to a new global governance authority, the unrestricted movement of foreign nationals, workers’ rights to collective bargaining, and regional measures to combat climate change” (What’s Wrong with the USMCA? New American, Nov. 2018)
So the globalist are happy. They thought under Trump their decades old efforts to unite the United States, Mexico and Canada into a regional government, economically first then politically, as they had the European Union, would be unraveled. Instead, globalists regained all their lost ground plus leapt forward into the areas of labor, immigration, and environment regulation, which agreement would handcuff the legislatures of these countries to regional law passed by unelected bureaucrats.
Gomez added, “The pact is even worse than NAFTA regarding undermining American sovereignty and self-determination, in favor of North American integration extending beyond trade to include labor and environmental policies. It is, in fact, so bad that the globalists who had lambasted Trump for renegotiating NAFTA praised him afterward” (Ibid).
So much for the Constitution or national sovereignty holding them back. And Trump fell for it.
The massive size of the agreement screams control. Liberty is defined by the limits of the government on the individual. The management of an entire country is housed in a Constitution of only four or five pages and a Bill of Rights of a single page—not 1,809.
A real free trade agreement could probably fit a single page and be noted for its absence of rules on trade—as it was in the early days of this republic. Let us instead disallow the rich from funding organizations designed to end our republic, destroy the Constitution, or create a world government, all of which they presently do. Such used to be called treason.
Now there exists no evidence Trump really supports globalism—everything else he has done suggests otherwise But he has clearly been duped. Getting him to disavow what he said was so “incredible” will not be easy but he must if he sincerely decries world government and supports America First. If not, he will be credited with instigating “the worst agreement ever negotiated”—a government over our own.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and 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 taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Jan 23, 2019 | Constitution, Healthcare, Liberty Articles, Taxes
By Harold Pease, Ph. D
Mid December 2018, Judge Reed O’Connor, a U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Texas ruled that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act last year ending the individual mandate’s penalty, which is the heart of Affordable Care Act, also made Obamacare unconstitutional without it. Nineteen other state attorneys general joined in the lawsuit Texas v. Azar. Likely this is headed to the Supreme Court.
But the Supreme Court essentially resolved this question June 2012 with the same five to four composition of the Court that now exists, when Justice John Roberts changed sides ruling that the individual mandate was a tax, not a fine, therefore making it constitutional, a position denied by Democrats previously. But it saved Obamacare. Justice Roberts could be again the deciding vote. If he betrays original intent of the Constitution, as before, he may again do heavy damage to the Constitution.
Prior to Roberts unanticipated vote, Anthony M. Kennedy had been the unpredictable swing vote on the Court. Justice Kennedy, not happy with the Roberts’ switch saving Obamacare, said: “The court majority regards its statutory interpretation as modest. It is not.” Then, not hiding his distain for it added. “It amounts to a vast judicial overreaching. It creates a debilitated, inoperable version of health care regulation that Congress did not enact and the public does not expect.” He called it “judicial legislation” and accused Chief Justice John Roberts of trying to “force on the nation a new act.”
Judicial activism is when a law of Congress is interpreted by the Supreme Court in such a way as to give it new meaning, which is what Justice Roberts did. George Washington warned in his Farewell Address of the inclination of government to do so. “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.” Usurpation, in his day meant twisting things around to extract meaning that was initially not there.
So what did Justice Roberts twist, or legislate, that changed the National Affordable Healthcare Act (Obamacare) as passed by Congress? At the top of the list, his rewrite called it a tax when Congress never passed it as a tax and the political party passing it, and their President, Barack Obama, emphatically resisted any description of it as such.
Rich Lowry, a political commentator, said it best. “Obamacare as passed by Congress had a mandate to buy health insurance and a penalty for failing to comply. Obamacare as passed by the Supreme Court has an optional tax for those without health insurance. Obamacare as passed by Congress required states to participate in a massive expansion of Medicaid, or lose all their federal Medicaid funds. Obamacare as passed by the Supreme Court makes state participation in the Medicaid expansion optional.” In short, “Obamacare as passed by Congress didn’t pass constitutional muster. Obamacare as passed by the Supreme Court didn’t pass Congress” (The Umpire Blinks, by Rich Lowry, The Corner, National Review Online, June 29, 2012).
Judicial Legislation or Activism is not new. The desire for the Court to “legislate” through decisions expressed itself more fully the last sixty years as it attempted to “right” perceived wrongs instead of sending the faulted legislation back to the legislative branch for correction by the peoples’ representatives. By altering legislative law it has moved into state prerogatives such as education, state residency requirements, and imposed federal standards of procedure on local police to name but a few. In broadening its power base, far beyond constitutional restraints, it has almost destroyed the idea of two co-equal governments, one federal the other state, known as federalism.
In the National Affordable Healthcare Act the Supreme Court has effectively restrained further encroachment (mutilation) of the Commerce Clause, formerly used to increase its power, but opened wide the interpretive door that the federal government can control anything it taxes. So, does this mean that if the federal government wishes to control free speech, press, assembly, religion, guns, or any other activity, it first simply levies a tax on that activity? Apparently judicial legislation creates a “need” for additional judicial legislation. God help us!!
We must return to our foundation, the U.S. Constitution as written, without all the judicial or executive alterations that go beyond this document. According to Article I Section I, “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” There is no authority for either of the two other branches of government to make law—any law— and law made by Congress is specifically listed in Article I, Section 8 where 18 clauses identify the very limited powers of the federal government. So, even Congress cannot make any law they like.
The issue of health is not listed and is therefore, as per Amendment 10, entirely a state issue. The Supreme Court majority ruling ignored this long-term clarity and instead chose to violate the document they are charged with upholding.
Judge Reed O’Connor’s ruling rendering Obamacare unconstitutional may give the Supreme Court a chance to return to the Constitution as written. Unfortunately the deciding vote remains again with Roberts who can’t be trusted constitutionally and so Obamacare could still stand.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and 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 taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
Jan 14, 2019 | Economy, Liberty Articles, Taxes
Harold Pease, Ph. D
Hugo Chavez proclaimed December 6, 1998, when he was elected president of Venezuela, “Venezuela’s resurrection is under way and nothing and nobody can stop it.” At the time Venezuela had one of the best economies and highest per capita incomes in Latin America. The lure of socialism, where the government controls and distributes most everything, overwhelmed the country.
Twenty years later three million have fled from Chavez’s “new and improved” socialism and his people are starving. Public latrines are overflowing with urine, escalators do not work, public water systems and street lighting are not reliable and citizens eat from the public refuge. The average citizen has lost 20 pounds in the last several months. Today nearly 90% live in poverty and hyperinflation is nearing a million percent. The once oil-rich country now has the appearance of being war-torn. Socialism destroyed Venezuela.
The lure of socialism, something for nothing, first necessitates villainization of those who have. Those who produce become the “public enemy” class. Once this is accomplished the public, whose numbers are always the majority and poor, support the asset confiscation of those who have and produce—this usually by confiscatory taxes or outright governmental takeover.
The prosperity class is the group that risks capital loss to fund experimentation that produces businesses that results in jobs for the masses. When has a poor man created employment for others? Yes they are profit motivated which sometimes makes the investor more prosperous. That is the carrot that elevates society. But should they miscalculate they are the most hurt. When government makes prosperity unlikely through confiscatory taxes they quit investing. Government is inefficient by its nature. There exists no individual penalty for their mistakes once they are in power. Socialism destroys the creative investment class.
Chavez was right “nothing and nobody can stop it.” Once the productive class is destroyed it is all down hill. Fuera Maduro, the new president, could only offer more of the same socialist remedies that have never worked where socialism has been intrenched.
Beware of politicians who wish to do “good” with someone else’s money. They are abundant in both major political parties but have overwhelmed the Democratic Party, more especially the freshman class led by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and will destroy liberty for us too. Here is why.
Under socialism vote power favors those who want things for free: food, welfare, housing, healthcare—even free college, as they in time become the majority. This process is accelerated, and corrupted, when politicians link government gift giving with being elected. This has happened in America too.
As the poor, as a class, always tend to favor government intervention and thus financial favors from government to their benefit, and since all government money comes from the middle and upper classes through ever increasing taxes, (presently 47% of the adult population pay no federal income tax and a good share of these make up the non-productive class) they eventually destroy the productive base of society as government takes over more of the economy by confiscation or regulation. The overriding principle is, the more socialism the higher the taxes and burden on the producing class.
Those who feed off the labor of others need to know what they are doing to a country by pushing for the “freebies.” An unknown author nailed the problem when he wrote.
“The folks who are getting the free stuff don’t like the folks who are paying for the free stuff, because the folks who are paying for the free stuff can no longer afford to pay for both the free stuff and their own stuff. And the folks who are paying for the free stuff want the free stuff to stop.
“And the folks who are getting the free stuff want even more free stuff on top of the free stuff they are already getting. Now, the people who are forcing the people who pay for the free stuff have told the people who are RECEIVING the free stuff that the people who are PAYING for the free stuff are being mean, prejudiced, and racist.
“So, the people who are GETTING the free stuff have been convinced they need to hate the people who are paying for the free stuff by the people who are forcing some people to pay for their free stuff and giving them the free stuff in the first place.
“We have let the free stuff giving go on for so long that there are now more people getting free stuff than paying for the free stuff.”
Ultimately voters learn that they can purchase members of Congress who will take from those who have and give it to them. Legalized plunder. As those who have are disincentivized to invest further, the poor class grows as does their cry for even more from those who have, thus the managerial and funding class are extinguished. The middle class is now seen as those who have and are next to be extinguished by the increasing strength of the poor class until all remaining are poor. This is Venenzuala now and the United States too soon if it does not change direction.
This is Economics 101 but many freshmen Democrat Congressmen appear oblivious to this. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s advocacy of a 70% income tax on Americans would escalate our economic demise.
Dr. Harold Pease is a syndicated columnist and 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 taught history and political science from this perspective for over 30 years at Taft College. Newspapers have permission to publish this column. To read more of his weekly articles, please visit www.LibertyUnderFire.org.
