Like Father, Like Son

I often hear people referring to how America's Founding Fathers did not intend for x-y-or-z.  Many people, myself included, respect that.  I believe the Federalist Papers should be required reading and be understood to get a college degree.

On occasion, I hear people say that what the Country's Founding Fathers intended is irrelevant.  They say that we should judge the circumstances of today and structure our laws and governance according to what we believe is best for today.  These people often think of the Constitution as a living document with little need to rewrite any of it.

For those that do respect the Constitution, they believe that we should make amendments "correcting" much of it.

Since the start of this election season, I have been reflecting on much of this.  While there are the presidential candidates' views on our Constitution to consider, even local and state

 representatives and politicians of every stripe have  left me wanting.

A local politician, Angie Chen Button, has a radio ad stating that she is a "true conservative."  They then mention how her opponent wanted to close public schools and that he carried a gun to work.

I think of myself as a true conservative and believe that there are many public schools that should be closed.  There are many public education programs that need to be dismantled.  I believe that there are problems with public education that have resulted from it being over-funded.

I carry a gun.  I carry at work when it does not contradict my employers wishes.  (While I believe the right to self defense, I also believe in private property rights and the respect of them.)

According to Mrs Button, that is "strange behavior."  I cannot be certain but I would be willing to guess she has never been at work when someone has opened fire.  I would also wager a bet that she has never had to pull her child from a good private school because she had to pay public school taxes instead.  (As a side note, I have no problem saying that public schools are not good enough for my children.)

John McCain supports a line item veto.  I actually agree with him on this matter.  Where I disagree is the implementation of it.  He would be perfectly fine with Congress passing a law allowing the line item veto.  I believe that it can only legitimately come by Constitutional Amendment.

I fear that there are few "main stream" politicians with any regard for the Constitution.  Even those that usually adhere to conservative principles will disregard the Constitution when it suits them.

I have considered today's circumstances.  Even though cell phones, ICBM's, the internet, and carrier groups were likely never conceived by the Founding Fathers, their principles hold just as true today as they did 200 years ago.  They are just as relevant today as they ever were and perhaps even more so.

Better Men

Who is the better man?

Is the man who freely gives to the poor a better man than the one who was taxed and had his money given to the poor?

Is the man who gives his time to charity a better man than the one who takes a second job to feed his family?

Is the man who is taxed and still gives to charity but lets his family go hungry better than the man who feeds his family but spends his extra time with his children?

My taxes increased a lot this last year.  My net gain barely increased at all.  I am now considering the prospect of traveling for business in order to better support my family.  I would not even have to think of it if the IRS were not sending me love letters because I "underpaid" my taxes.

Now the Democrat presidential candidates are telling me that they are going to take more.  They are going to take more "for the greater good." 

Should they win the House, the Senate, and the Presidency, they are going to take more and then, instead of telling people they can feel good about all of there property that is being given to charity, they are going to try to shame the "richest Americans" (which I certainly am not).

They are going to take from them with their hands and vilify them with their mouths.

Because they do not like having their property taken from them, Democrats will consider them bad men.

Difficult Question Time IV

What conditions would persuade you to vote for Obama for President in November?
What conditions would persuade you to vote for Hillary for President in November?

If you are a liberal or a Democrat, what conditions would persuade you to vote for McCain in November?

Initially, I thought to myself, "Self... It is going to be hard enough voting for McCain. You (i.e. me) just can't do it."

Then I thought that there has to be something that would ultimately persuade me.

My main thought on McCain is that if the issues were not weighted, i.e. if every issue meant the same to me as every other issue, McCain would be hitting around eighty percent with me. He would hit higher than George W. Bush did when he was running. However, there are too many issues that are dear to me to hold McCain in any great esteem.

Yet, all it takes for me to vote for him is to have either Hillary or Obama run against him. The oceans could rise twenty feet around the world and we would still be better situated than if Obama won.

Putting aside any suicidal tendancies with the Democrats - such as "I'd vote for Hillary if she'd kill herself!" - what would it take for me to vote for either of them.

With little variation, the answer is the same for both: They would have to go to every gun owner and apologize for their "gun-grabbing" legislation. They would have to go to every diplomat at the United Nations and tell them that the United States will no longer support them and they must leave New York. They would have to go to every business, large and small and otherwise, and swear upon pain of death they would lower corporate taxes. They would have to go to every tax payer and insist that they would not raise taxes and would reduce government programs. (If any of the previous sounds like William Wallace ala "Braveheart" please bear with me.)

Of course, I think it is more likely that they would kill themselves before doing any of the aforementioned acts. I state that they would "say anything" to get elected but I seriously doubt they would do any of that.

And What about His on Them?

Conservatives are asking questions about Obama's pastor's influence on him. They are also asking questions about his wife who was apparently shamed - or at least ambivalent - of her country until her husband's candidacy.

Many are wondering how this has shaped Obama's opinions and attitudes.

I would like to know if he is a reflection of them. Or rather, are they a reflection of him?

Pushing a Rope

For a moment I will ignore the idea that Democrats and socialists are “in business” for power and will take them at their word that they are trying to improve the standard of living for the poor and middle classes.

My advice to them is thus, “You are going about it all wrong.”

If they really wanted to lower the costs of living, increase the standards of living, and provide more leisure time to the poor and middle class, they would endeavor to increase the standard of living for the upper classes. The surest way to do this would be to lower or eliminate taxes. I am not going to qualify which taxes – there are plenty to choose – but will at least mention the elimination of income tax on labor.

When many think of “economic centers” they oft think of Zurich, London, and perhaps Kuala Lumpur and Dubai. Hong Kong once topped the list but prior to the Chinese take over in 1997, the city experienced a mass exodus of money to other cities.

Why does no one think of San Francisco, Dallas, or even New York? Of course there is the New York Stock Exchange and the businesses on Wall Street. Are global companies competing for office space in the city though? I think soon-to-be-ex-Governor Spitzer ensured that none are.

By lowering taxes and “being friendly” to big businesses, we ensure the vitality of the smaller businesses that require them.

This works quite the same on a personal level too. Big businesses will keep their headquarters in cities that are good for their top executives. (While they may be incorporated in Delaware or Nevada, they only maintain a post office box there.) This means exclusive neighborhoods, nice roads, low property taxes, low luxury taxes, and the like.

Initially, when areas like these are being built, that means a lot of construction jobs and later a lot of service jobs. Those in construction and service industries are also kept employed. Many will start their own businesses around their work experience. This does not even include the accounting firms, large for the big businesses and small for individuals, the churches, the pizza deliveries, and the landscapers that support them.

When those very wealthy have more of their money, they will either invest in these smaller businesses or buy luxury items. They do not take money from the poor and middle classes but instead give it to them directly. They expect something in return (other than a vote) and that is Not Bad. (I know, I said I was going to ignore the “in it for the power” bit.) They may even give it to charities of their own free will.

It will not sit well with the envious but doing this means that there will be a greater gap between the rich and the poor. However, it will mean that most of the poor are well to do as well. (Some people will always be poor regardless of how much money they have.) It means that the standard of living for the poor is higher than that of the middle and upper classes of countries with high taxes.

It will also mean that while the a poor man sits in a working, air conditioned car, he will see more luxury cars, private jets, and four star restaurants on his drive to work. While he is eating his breakfast, lunch, and dinner, he will read about celebrities flying to Africa to “get away from it all.” While he watches his wide-screen television, he will be bombarded with commercials for things he still cannot afford.

Try as I may, I still cannot believe that this is a problem.

In a free market economy with no or low taxes, the wealthy pull the others “up” with them. Little effort is required to make it so.

In a socialist economy, great effort is needed to make even the smallest improvements.