Making Money...

"If you ask me to name the proudest distinction of Americans, I would choose- because it contains all the others- the fact that they were the people who created the phrase to make money. No other language or nation had ever used these words before; men had always thought of wealth as a static quantity- to be seized, begged, inherited, shared, looted or obtained as a favor. Americans were the first to understand that wealth has to be created."

Francisco D' Anconia, Atlas Shrugged

Sadly, it appears that making money is beginning to become more synonymous with printing money than the creation of wealth that Francisco is referring to.

Same old, Same old

Nationally syndicated Columnist Eugene Robinson recently compared the air traffic controllers that were fired for illegally striking with the Republican Congressmen who voted against the economic stimulus package proposed by President Obama. He stated that “it's pretty clear that the GOP caucus has been meeting in a soundproof room.” (Deseret News Editorial)

His rationale? He wants to speak for all Americans when he says:

• Americans know that the philosophy of more tax cuts and less spending has already taken us as far as it could.
• Americans know that taxes can only be cut by so much before the federal government's effectiveness inevitably suffers.
• Americans know that spending money doesn't necessarily mean wasting it.
• Americans know that government is the only instrument we have to induce financial and economic recovery.

Mr. Robinson, though not living in a soundproof room, is living in a more dangerous room. A room that is full of liberal rhetoric regardless of what Americans really believe or feel. Let me state what I think is more accurate about what the American people know or at least feel:

• It was reported by the Rasmussen Report that only 42% of the public support the Spending Stimulus package that was voted on by Congress. (Rasmussen Report)
• 53% of Americans believe that it is better to cut taxes than increase spending. (Rasmussen Report)
• 59% of Americans are concerned that government spending will become too high. (Rasmussen Report)

One of the points that Mr. Robinson failed to mention was that 12 Democrat Congressmen also voted against the spending stimulus package. There must have been something in the package that didn’t ring true to these elected representatives. I applaud them all for standing up for what their constituents believed. They were in no way, going against the law as the air traffic controllers did. Nor were they voting against an overwhelming majority of the American people.

Stimulating the economy is a tricky and sensitive matter. Only 34% of Americans agree that spending should be the core of a stimulus package while 34% disagree and the remaining 32% are not sure (Rasmussen Report). Our President has been given the reins of the country for the next four years. He won on the platform of “change.” However if he continues to work in a non-collaborative, partisan manner, as evidenced by his inability to win even one Republican to his side, then we are not really in for a change, just a different group of politicians running the show. Similar to the latest release of King Kong, same story, different faces, same outcome. Unfortunately, we can’t walk out of the theater on this one, we have to live the outcome. Here’s hoping the government realizes that the people and the businesses are the ones that have the power to turn it around, not the bureaucrats.

Legislation or Social Engineering

From a Wikipedia article on Political Social Engineering, we read that social engineering is a concept in the political world of influencing popular attitudes and social behavior on a large scale. Governments have been influencing behavior through incentives and disincentives built into economic policy and tax policy for centuries. Prohibitions on murder, rape, suicide, littering are all policies aimed at discouraging undesirable behavior. Incentives in the tax code, deductions for children, green initiatives, home mortgages are all policies aimed at encouraging or rewarding favored behavior. (Social engineering -political science)

Both sides of our political spectrum will accuse each other of using law, tax policy or other state influences to change existing power relationships and both sides are guilty. For all laws and policies, in some way, change behavior in our society. Yet when such laws or policies are created, and advantage is given to one group over another, very seldom do we hear that the policy is discriminatory or hateful. Some common examples:

• The tax credits given to parents for children discriminate against a parent that
  continues to care for a child past the age of 24.
• The laws of states that charge more tuition for out of state residents than for in state residents are discriminatory against the vast majority of individuals.
• There are quotas set within immigration laws to encourage/discourage certain groups from immigrating to the United States.

There are many more examples of laws and policies that could be included in this list. I believe there are very few laws that do not fit in this list. Legislation is passed because somebody felt it would be good for the community, state or country if a certain behavior was encouraged or discouraged. That is just the way our country works.

Our Constitution states:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” (US Constitution)

We the people elect officials who must then determine how best to accomplish all of these great objectives stated in the Preamble. Therefore we the people should take careful note of the laws and policies being enacted. That is our democratic process. To elect officials that will enact legislation that is according to our way of thinking and to hold elected officials accountable for laws and policies created during the official’s tenure. Every law or policy enacted further engineers our society.

On occasion we also have the opportunity to vote on legislation which will again encourage or discourage behavior. No matter if it is a local zoo bonding, a law on gambling or the definition of marriage, make no mistake about it; we are setting law and or policy that will encourage or discourage behavior. Every citizen has the right to work towards the end that he/she feels will create the desired society. By so voting, we are engineering our society.

The American Tradition of Voluntarism

In the 1830's, one Captain Frederick Marryat visited America from England. His impression of Americans? "[They] are society mad." He listed 22 of the most prominent benevolent societies in 1834- e.g, American Education Society, American Bible Society, American Sunday School Union, Prison Discipline Society, American Temperance Society, and so on-, but found it necessary to add that there "are many others...." (The American Tradition, Clarence B. Carson) Another observed "The principle of voluntary association accorded so well with American political and economic theories that as early as 1820 the larger cities had an embarrassment of benevolent organizations." (Bremmer)

In fact the amount of charitable giving reached the point that people were concerned more about the negative effects of hand-outs than they were about worrying about people left needing. During the Civil war there was this overabundance of relief to dependents which "measured by money expended, the largest charitable efforts, North and South, were devoted to relieving families of service men. Oft-repeated warnings of the dangers of unwise giving were forgotten for the moment as community and state-wide relief organizations solicited contributions...." (The American Tradition, Carson)

Most of these groups were accomplished voluntarily, with minimal compulsion. What's more interesting is that in the early history of this nation, religion was compulsory; with the adoption of the Constitution of 1787, it became a voluntary matter as far as government was concerned. The result? Religion flourished. New denominations cropped up; revivals swept nearly all areas, and religion took on a never before seen vitality. The same pattern can be seen elsewhere; in education, relief of poverty ventures, etc.

Then the trend changed. Collectivist ideologies began gaining acceptance and many began to be influenced by these new ideas. Conditions changed in America, and thinkers and publicists were committed to government, rather than voluntary solutions, which led to government assuming more responsibilities such as providing "free" schools, building roads and highways, providing welfare, and regulating and controlling economic endeavors. More things that were voluntary in the past, are now compulsory. Although it is true that certain activities need governmental intervention, the historical record of this country and those who settled here shows that voluntarism is sufficient to take care of most matters. In order to maintain liberty, that which can be handled by voluntarism, must be. (The American Tradition, Carson)

Some may think that if the government is taking care of the problems, then why worry about this trend towards bigger government, more compulsion and less opportunities for voluntary action. With the government assuming more responsibility, we tend towards increased "free-loading" behavior. If the government is going to take care of the poor, if they are going to "improve" education, if they are going to do this and that, then we needn't worry about those things. In addition, the government is using our money in order to fulfill those responsibilities. So not only do we psychologically feel less accountable, but we already feel like we have done our part. One of the great obstacles to positive human behavior, rationalization, is made simple for each of us, because we have already made sacrifices.

However, if the government were fully capable of attending to the needs of society, then we should still come out on top. We all contribute to government planning and organizing to handle our problems. However, who are those people that are doing the planning? Are they really connected to our lives the way we are? Do they see the needs and opportunities for service, for growth the way we do? Do their programs actually address the needs that we have? If this voluntarism tradition were to be continued, programs would originate at the level they intend to serve. People would be passionate about the causes they enlist in, because they are using their own agency to participate.

Do actions follow words?

“I work for nothing but my own profit—which I make by selling a product they need to men who are willing and able to buy it. . . . we deal as equals by mutual consent to mutual advantage and I am proud of every penny I have earned in this manner”, so said one of the characters from the novel Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. One of the things I admire about the unabashed capitalist is that there is no hypocrisy in philosophy and actions. What you see is what you get.

I struggle with the nouveau liberal. When I hear them speak, I find many compelling topics. Care for the poor and down-trodden, concern for the environment, universal free-speech, etc. However, the words that are spoken frequently are not followed by the actions. Let me give you a couple of examples.

A friend of mine is supportive of Proposition 8 in California. This is a proposition that will make the constitution of California define marriage as between a man and a woman. Obviously a controversial and important issue regardless of which side one supports. So my friend who supports the proposition decided to show support by posting signs on the fence that is on their street front property. A passerby stopped and proceeded to tear down the signs and when confronted stated “I am exercising my right to free speech.” Does that strike anyone else as hypocritical?

Granted, a small thing. But I don't believe it represents an isolated incident. While there are many that truly live according to their platform, I believe the leaders of the movement do not. Hence to my general dissatisfaction with the liberal leadership in this country, not the liberal, people-oriented platform which I can embrace. What I observe is:

• We must protect the environment unless it is inconvenient for me.
• We must protect free speech unless the speech is against my pet issue.
• We must equalize income even if it takes motivation away from those that have the greatest talent and ability.

Those are just some examples. I much more prefer the system that calls for personal responsibility, that rewards me for my success and doesn’t reward me, or provide a safety net when I fail. In that way, I am motivated to improve and contribute to society. I also feel the need to contribute to society because I recognize that my success is the result of more than my own talents and effort. There is a reason we call them “God-given talents.” But I will contribute freely, and need no government to tell me where to contribute. I love the definition of liberal which equates it to being generous. That is something I can live and support.

Reality Sustains

Wednesday morning reading of the local Deseret News is one of the highlights of my week. That is the day that Walter Williams’ weekly column appears in the editorial pages. Mr. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University. He is one of the most honest and insightful writers in today’s media. If you haven’t had a chance to read his material, I highly recommend him. (Walter E. Williams )

His most recent column put words to my own convictions that the majority of the media and today’s politicians are rewarded for keeping the people scared. Everything that happens is a crisis and if we don’t change leaders, it will only get worse. It is virtually impossible to see anything good in the current administration, economy or environment; the sky is indeed falling.

I am particularly disappointed in the media for hyping the poor state of our economy because anyway I look at it, I am better off today than I have ever been before. My circle of peers may not be huge, but they appear to likewise be prospering. But we focus on the cost of gas, the “failing” money markets, and numerous other threats that the media and politicians dream up to scare us and convince us to elect someone else. The noise can be overwhelming.

Mr. Williams, quoting from Dr. W. Michael Cox and Richard Alm, of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, in an article titled "How Are We Doing?" (The American , July/August 2008) gave the following examples:

• Today, the average worker must work two hours to pay for 10
  gallons of gas vs. 1950 over two hours
• That same worker must work 1.7 hours to pay for a basket of groceries that in 1950
  took a worker 4 hours of work to pay for
• Average workers today only work 1,531 hours per year versus 1,903 in 1950
• Life expectancy today is 78, in 1950 it was 67
• In 1980, inflation was 14% and unemployment 7.5% resulting in a “misery index” of 21.5; today inflation is 5% and unemployment 6.1% for an index of 11.1

If Mr. Williams were running for political office, he would be booed off the podium because “we know times are hard.” But the facts don’t bear out the conclusion that the media serve up for our consumption. I agree with Mr. Williams, we are better off today than at anytime in history. Our system works and I am grateful for it. Reality doesn't suck, it sustains!

Rediscovering the American Tradition

In Abraham Lincoln's 1861 address to Congress, he made reference to the sentiment held by many throughout history that the form of government employed by the United States is an experiment. Evidence of that feeling persisting today can be seen by textbooks, scholarly journals, websites, etc. that bear the name The American Experiment. An experiment is "an act or operation for the purpose of... testing a principle;" the American experiment is therefore the testing of the principles upon which this great country was founded upon.

After winning freedom from Britain, our Founding Fathers set into motion the experiment, hypothesizing that the consitutional based government would be able to preserve the liberty and freedom of the people of this nation. Although opinions differ on when the United States became a world power, few would disagree that at least at one point in time the United States emerged as a world leader. (Kissinger, 1994; Bailey, 1961; Dulles, 1955) That emergence as world leader is not the only thing supporting the hypothesis; the economic success through the years, the fact that the United States has the highest number of immigrants in the world (Wikpedia), the Olympic success of the country, the many advances in technology originating in America, and the list goes on.

However, with all the grand history that this nation can boast of, the current sentiment is that America is on the decline; culturally, morally, economically, and even athletically. Even if the "decline" may actually be the world catching up, the trends would indicate that the progress of America has slowed. It may be tempting to cite such evidence to dispute the hypothesis of the Founding Fathers, to claim that the experiment is on it's way to failure. However, such thought does not take into considerations the many deviations from the traditions and principles that the Founding Fathers established this country upon.

Through discussions on this blog we hope to rediscover and remember the traditions of our Founding Fathers. In the least, we hope to center ourselves upon the traditions that were meant to be remembered, that were meant to be perpetuated for the good of this nation. Throughout the process, we also hope to be able to start conversations that will make our Founding Fathers proud.