Of Government and Men:Taxes

Last year I started a series entitled "Of Government and Men". It was my attempt to explain my philosophy on government. I want to periodically update that series, and this is the first "sequel" to that.When writing the series, I didn't spend as much time on taxes as I wanted to. I despise taxes, but I cannot deny that a certain amount of taxes are required. However, as Henry Hazlitt wrote in Economics in One Lesson, "...every dollar of government spending must be raised through a dollar of taxation." The government has no means of raising it's own funds. When it borrows money, that money must be repaid at some point, and can only be repaid by taking the money from the taxpayers. The government does not make a profit. Every dollar the government spends is a dollar taken from someone.

To summarize Hazlitt's argument, the government should carefully examine any tax as the money taken from taxpayers is money the taxpayers can't spend. That's money that isn't used in the private sector to create jobs. Hazlitt used a bridge project to illustrate this:

If {the bridge} is built to meet an insistent public demand, if it solves a traffic problem or a transportation problem otherwise insoluble, if ,in short, it is even more necessary to the taxpayers collectively than the things for which they would have individually spent their money if it had not been taken away, there can be no objection. But a bridge built primarily "to provide employment" is a different kind of bridge. When providing employment becomes the end, need becomes a subordinate consideration. "Projects" have to be invented. {bold is mine, emphasis in the original}

Any spending of tax money should be done because the need for the items bought by taxes are needed, not because the government wants to "create jobs" or bailout a company. If the need for the bridge, road, building, or dam isn't a real need, the project shouldn't be created.

The other danger in taxes is on what they tax, or what they may cause to happen. Taxes discourage the behavior they tax. A tax on cigarettes will discourage some people from smoking. A tax on investing discourages individuals from investing. In the first case, it makes the object more expensive, in the second case, it decreases the reward of the behavior. When an investor risks $1, he risks losing $1. If his investment is successful, for every $1 he makes, the government will step in and take some percentage of that $1. Let's assume there is a 40% capital gains tax. Then if an investment is a bad investment, the investor loses $1. If it is a good investment he gains $0.60. This level of tax will discourage some people from investing.

As our deficit gets worse and worse, Congress will purpose new taxes to solve the problem. Remember these two rules: Is the spending government purposes worth the money to the taxpayers? And, will the taxes discourage something we want to encourage (like business growth)?

Temporary Unemployment Benefits – Now for 99 Weeks!

Unemployment benefits have been in the United States in one form or another since 1932. For most states, the maximum benefit period was 26 weeks. However, you can now draw unemployment benefits for 99 weeks in some states. That's just less than two years. If you lost your job through "no fault of your own", then you would be able to stay out of work for 99 weeks and receive a check from the government. Of course this check isn't as large as your standard paycheck, but it is a paycheck. The government has extended this benefit period through a number of "emergency extensions" that are set to run through the current economic crisis.

A few weeks ago, Senator Jim Bunning (Republican –Kentucky) objected to a bill that included an extension to the unemployment benefits. This was billed as another heartless Republican trying to screw the common man. However, Bunning had a legitimate concern. Early in February, President Obama signed into law a Paygo bill. This means any new spending must be offset with some sort of savings to pay for the bill. Democrats in the Senate labeled the bill an emergency bill meaning it is exempted from Paygo (for the record, every bill the Democrats have tried to pass since Paygo passed has been considered an emergency bill). However, Bunning had a solution: take the funds from the unspent portion of the Stimulus bill. That would be approximately $15 Billion for the recent bill out of the $787 Billion stimulus bill.

Not every Republican supported Bunning in this effort. John Kyl said that while he didn't agree with holding up the bill, he did feel that Senator Bunning had a point. According to the Washington Post, "…about 11.4 million out-of-work people now collect unemployment compensation, at a cost of $10 billion a month. Half of them have been receiving payments for more than six months, the usual insurance limit. But under multiple extensions enacted by the federal government in response to the downturn, workers can collect the payments for as long as 99 weeks in states with the highest unemployment rates -- the longest period since the program's inception." Also according to the Post," …14.9 million jobless Americans have been out of work an average of 29.7 weeks, just below January's 30.2-week average. Those levels are the highest since the government began keeping those records in the 1950s…"

The point of this post is not that we should stop all unemployment benefits. My point is that 99 weeks is very excessive. Our Senate and Congress can't figure how to pay for an extension to the program, let alone the full 99 weeks for those people on it. When they are offered a chance to pay for it, they resort to dirty political tactics to charge the bill to the taxpayer credit card. Our Congress and our President are fighting the wrong problem. If they would learn to drop their white whale of a Health Care bill, and focus on creating jobs, we wouldn't need a 99 week unemployment benefit period.

Who cares if it isn't in the Constitution??

I found the following clip at the Heritage Foundation. This is a Democratic Senator from Hawaii being interviewed by CNS News. It's a rare instance where a politician gives an honest answer to a simple question, and it really should scare the hell out of everyone.

If the Constitution doesn't give Congress the power to do it, then they can't do it! The scariest part is were Senator Akaka says they should do this without Constitutional authority because they want,"...to help citizens in our country to live a good life."


If this doesn't scare you, then you don't understand what he just said. If you're a liberal or a Democrat, imagine a Congress with an overwhelming majority of conservative Christians passing legislation that has no Constitutional authority, but they want to do it so that the citizens live a good life. Would you tolerate that?

Of Government and Men: Industry + Profit = Good

I intended this series to be about fundamentals. This week's post is no different. It's good for our country when business (both large and small) make money. To me this seems obvious, but to a number of politicians, I believe this may be a new concept. Because of that, if this sounds a little simple, I apologize ahead of time.

For the most part, we benefit as a nation and as a community when businesses make profits. When American oil companies make a profit, it's good for us. When pharmaceutical companies make a profit, also good. When Wal-Mart has a good year, it's very good. Remember, these companies do what they do because they are in the business to make money. You don't go to work expecting to donate your time to your employer. You expect to get paid. Why should the oil industry be any different?

Why is it good? When Wal-Mart makes money, their stock goes up and their stockholders make money. Typically, we think of stockholders as stuffy rich white guys who smoke cigars in their personal libraries at home. In some cases this is true. However, teachers unions often invest in successful companies. State Employees Unions do as well. As do many 401 k and retirement funds. Not to mention the employee that has worked at a store their entire career and has been able to purchase stock.

When companies make a profit, they are able to expand their businesses. These expansions create jobs. You might be tempted at this point to say, "Ah! But what if those jobs go overseas?!" Fair point. However, if they are going overseas for reasons we can change, then we should make changes to make the U.S. more appealing for business. For example, instead of punishing business through tax laws, why not make our tax system more appealing to business? If more businesses are here, that creates a larger tax base and higher employment.

When we talk about free health care or windfall profit taxes on any business, we are forgetting that these businesses exist to make a profit. Why are we punishing this? The American Dream has been to create a business, become successful at that business, and make money doing something you love. The government shouldn't punish this.

One last point. In most cases, businesses have a financial incentive to do what their customer's want. If their customers want more fuel efficient vehicles, auto manufacturers will make more fuel efficient vehicles. If their customers want it, they can sell more, and that is why they exist in the first place. The only time government needs to mandate something like this is when customers don't want it in the first place.

The government makes a number of laws that cut into business, stifle business, or just force companies to close up shop. There are only a few representatives who started out in business and understand what businesses go through. Many of these career politicians should spend some time understanding the businesses (especially in their district) before discussing topics like "windfall profit taxes".

Without business, where would we be? If we crush business by forbidding them from making a profit, who will stay in business?

Of Government and Men: Personal Accountability

It may seem strange to write about a personal trait in a series about the government and its responsibilities. This series has been dedicated to what I think are some of the most important philosophies behind our government. So why a post dedicated to a personal trait found in individuals?

In today's world of buzz words, "accountability" usually means being held responsible for something, and not always in a good way. Holding an employee “accountable for their actions” is a good example. However, personal accountability can also be used to apply to the everyday things. For example, you are "accountable" for your day to day actions. You are "accountable" for your job, your own health, and your happiness. We are not guaranteed happiness, a gold plated health plan, a great job, or even a home. The government doesn't have the duty, or even the power, to provide you with these things. Remember, anything the government can give you, the government can also take away.

I believe the problem with many of our issues today is that we have stopped looking to provide for ourselves. We want someone to give us a nice house, two cars, and a check. If they will take care of us (through "free" healthcare), then maybe we are willing to sacrifice a little freedom for it. The truth of the matter is that you are the one responsible for your life. This is a hard lesson, but life forces all of us to make choices. Some of those choices we may not like, and we may not like the results of some of those choices. However, only you can make those choices, and you are the one responsible for their outcomes. When you let someone else decide your life, you are still responsible for it, because you have given that person or that group the ability to make choices for you.

There may be situations that are beyond your control, but that doesn’t change the fact that you, and not the government, are responsible for your life. If you lose your job, you must decide what to do next, not President Obama. The President can make our nation more or less likely to create new jobs, but for the most part he can’t affect your individual employment.

If there is only one lesson you learn from this series, I hope that it is the following:

You are responsible for your own life, not the government. Your life is what you decide to make of it for better or worse.

You should be an active participant in government so that we can all try to keep the government from throwing roadblocks in our way. You should pay attention to politics and to what candidates do so that you know how the government may affect your life. However, how you react to changes in the government or in your personal life are up to you. These lessons have been forgotten by many in elected positions today. I believe the bailouts under President Bush, and the continued bailouts under President Obama are wrong because they violate this principle. By allowing companies or individuals to be classified as “too big to fail” the government restricts the freedom of those companies and their competitors. When the government provides money to a company to protect it from failing, it suddenly gains power in that company. We can look at GM and the firing of its CEO by the President to see this in real life. The President shouldn’t be able to fire any employee in the private sector.

When the government invests in a company, that company’s competitors are suddenly at a distinct disadvantage. How is it a good idea for the government to decide which companies should be successful and which ones should fail? Those who support the auto bailouts should ask if they would support an oil-industry bailout under President Bush.

Personal Accountability at the personal, corporate, and government level means that we are each responsible for our own successes and failures. The more we forget that, and the more we allow laws to “protect us from ourselves” the more we lose our freedoms. It may feel good to try and protect people from themselves, but there is no way to do that without restricting their freedoms. How many laws would we have on the books today if the laws were clearly spelled out in terms of what that law prevents you from doing instead of what the law might give you?

Of Government and Men: Spending and Taxes

There are a few things about government that are painful, unpleasant, noxious, and just can't be avoided. Two of those are taxes, and government spending. Both cause the tax payers to have less money and both should be done with a lot more caution than seems to happen. There are ways to really harm people with both of these as well. As terrible as taxes and government spending are, they are also a necessary evil.

As a matter of full disclosure, I am almost always for less taxes. I believe the more the government taxes us, the more it cuts into our freedoms. Our current Federal tax code would print out to more than 7500 pages long! For comparison my study Bible weighs in at a little over 2100 pages complete with notes, research, annotations, and scripture. That 7500 pages doesn't include any state or local taxes you may have to pay which will be covered by their own lengthy rules. I also believe that many things the government spends money on could be better done by the States, the private sector, or even charities. My rule of thumb is that the government only does two things really well: Make war and waste money.

Stepping down from my soap box, there are a few things the government needs funds for, and it is authorized to collect them under our constitution. For example, a strong federal government is the only entity that can protect all 50 states in a time of war. A strong federal government is also the only entity that can manage our federal court system. These aren't the only examples, but they are two examples of why our government needs to collect taxes. However, the income tax system we use is probably one of the worse tax systems available. It punishes those who work and produce while rewarding those who don't. The harder you work, the more successful you are, the more the tax system requires you to pay the government. If this was the system of punishments and rewards at your child's school, you would expect your kid to avoid working and studying because they would get rewarded for doing just that.

I posted a story about Congressman David Crockett a few days ago. This is the David Crockett of fame, who eventually became a Congressman. I think that story illustrates one of the problems with the governments priorities when it spends money. As I mentioned earlier, there are legitimate reasons for the government to tax, and then spend that money it takes through taxes. However, there are a number of things the government spends on that it shouldn't spend on. If the government is spending money on things that "feel good", it probably shouldn't spend that money. Recently, the auto bailouts seemed like a good idea to some. However, in hindsight, what did we get for the money we spent, and is it worth sticking future generations with the bill for bailing out two companies?

This is a topic that could easily fill a book (though not as long as one as the tax code). However I want to leave you with this parting thought: Everything our government does requires money. That money is only obtained by taxing or borrowing. If the government taxes to pay for it, then it is taking money from you, your neighbors, your parents and your grandparents to pay for it. If it borrows, then it is taking money from your children and grandchildren. Shouldn't the government be a little more careful with how it spends money than what we see in Congress right now?

Of Government and Men: Term Limits

It is with an odd sense of fate that I begin this post. I scheduled weeks ago to write today regarding the need for term limits in both the U.S House of Representatives and the U. S. Senate. I had no way of knowing the Senator Kennedy would pass away this week and give me a perfect example of why term limits are needed.

The point of this post isn't to discuss Sen. Kennedy's politics. I instead want to focus on the length of his career. Ted Kennedy first entered the Senate in 1962 as the winner of a special election to replace his older brother John F Kennedy. When John Kennedy became President, he resigned his seat. A place holder was selected to replace President Kennedy and serve his term until 1) a special election could be held and 2) Ted Kennedy would be old enough to serve in office. That election occurred in November of 1962, and Ted Kennedy would hold that office until his death this past week. At the time of his death, Kennedy was the third longest serving Senator in the history of the U.S. Senate, serving a continuous 46, almost 47 years. For those trivia fans out there, Robert Byrd (D-WV) is the longest serving Senator in the History of the United States at over 50 years and counting. These careers can be measured in decades and that is a problem.

The U.S. Constitution does not include any limit on the number of terms a Senator or Representative can serve. Originally, there was no term limits for the President either. However, after FDR won four terms, the 22^nd Amendment was ratified, limiting the President to two terms, or ten years. There is no cap to how long a Representative or Senator can serve, as shown with Senators Kennedy and Byrd.

There are a number of groups and individuals out there looking to change this. Allowing Senators and Representatives to serve what can be life long careers in Congress can carry a number of disadvantages. First, the primary reason there are earmarks in congress is to provide incumbents with campaign items. A Senator can campaign in his home state saying, "Look at the money I brought back to this district from Washington." Second, one of the most heinous practices is gerrymandering voting districts. The only reason this is done is to guarantee that incumbents get reelected. Both parties practice this, and it could be done away with if representatives could only spend a certain number of terms in office. Many of the career representatives have begun to look at their position in Congress as "their seat" and not the property of the voters. Senator Kennedy's attempt to dictate who would replace him is a good example of this mentality.

Writing about the need for term limits, the Heritage Foundation noted a number of years ago:

"Term limits are needed at all levels of government. However, because of the large electoral advantages wielded by incumbents, the historically low rate of turnover, the greater threat from special interests, and the unique power that federal legislators hold, it is especially important to apply term limits to Congress."

While elected representatives will avoid passing term limits on their own, they have shown their hand before. Congress has instituted term limits on both the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. Why would they institute term limits on this committee? Our elected officials are worried that spending too long on these committees might cause the members to become more loyal to the committee and the intelligence bureaucracy and might lose their ability to exercise independent judgment on the committee. Couldn't we apply the same logic to Congress in general? If a Senator is in office for 40 years, does he still put the voters needs first?

Finally, in today's world, incumbents have some advantages that are very hard for a challenger to overcome that have nothing to do with policy and issues. Elected Senators and Representatives can campaign while continuing to draw their salary. Most challengers have to quit their job and campaign full time. Any speech or press release an incumbent issue gets covered in the media. A challenger has to spend money buying media time, which Congress has made more difficult for challengers through Campaign Finance Reform like McCain-Feingold. McCain-Feingold is much more about protecting incumbents than getting "the money out of politics". Like gerrymandering, this is an example of elected officials protecting their jobs, and not doing what is best for the voters.

I want to end this discussion with one final question. I mentioned earlier that the 22^nd Amendment was passed after FDR won his fourth term as President. He didn't serve out all four terms and was only actually in office for a little over twelve years. If Congress thinks it's a bad idea for one individual to serve 12 years as President, why is it a good idea for one individual to serve as Senator for 46 to 50 years?

Of Government and Men: The Tenth Amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

-- Tenth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution

In plain English this means: If it doesn't say it in here, the government can't do it. The Tenth Amendment was one of the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution. It, along with the first nine amendments, are labeled the Bill of Rights. I bring this up to illustrate how important our founders thought this amendment was. If you look through any discussion on the debates surrounding the Constitution, there were those who thought this should have been more strongly worded, and those who thought it should carry less weight. However, we in today's world have to operate within the boundaries of what was written and ratified.

Justice Joseph Story (who I mentioned in my last post in this series), in his A familiar Exposition of The Constitution of the United States, states that, "The Government of the United States is one of limited powers; and no authority exists beyond the prescribed limits, marked out in the instrument itself. Whatever powers are not granted, necessarily belong to the respective States, or to the people of the respective States, if they have not been confided by them to the States Governments."{emphasis in the original}. This is perhaps the best summary of the tenth amendment I have come across.

According to Wikipedia, there are 37 states that have introduced sovereignty resolutions in the state legislatures reaffirming their sovereignty under the tenth amendment. The Tenth Amendment Center has a map with each resolution shown on it along with the current status.

It is important to note that there are specific powers that the U.S. Constitution grants the Federal government. For example, the Constitution gives the United States government the power to collect taxes (as much as we may not like that). However, the Constitution is silent on exactly how the Congress is to do that. Likewise, while the Constitution sets up a Supreme Court, it does not specify how many people are to be Justices on that court. These "secondary powers" for lack of a better word, are not reserved for the states because the government must use these powers to comply with the spelled out powers. The government is given specific tasks within the Constitution and must execute those.

There are other areas the government steps out of bounds of the Constitution (written or implied). When you have some free time, Google the "Interstate Commerce Clause". There are a number of powers the government has found out of this small phrase that could (and perhaps should) be challenged. In many cases, the States have given up their powers in order to receive Federal tax money. There is a way to fix this, but it will be a little painful. States must stop looking to the Federal Government to solve their problems. However, this requires the States to own the problem and the solution; something most politicians are afraid to do.

Make no mistake, there are specific duties and powers the Federal government has and should have. However, the federal government has meddled with things the Founders never thought about. The States have the power to reign in this power and to tell the government to buzz off. This requires an elected official to look past how to win reelction. Perhaps one day, we will see more Statesmen in power and less politicians.

Of Government and Men: The Nature of the U. S. Constitution

The Constitution of the United States of America is the supreme law of the United States. It is the foundation and source of legal authority underlying the existence of the United States of America and the Federal Government of the United States.

Wikipedia entry for "United States Constitution"

The U.S. Constitution lays out the rules for what our federal government can and can't do. It sets up boundaries for the three equal branches of government: the Executive, the Legislative, and the Judiciary. It also sets up a number of checks and balances to keep these branches equal, and to keep any one branch from overwhelming the other branches, or the citizens. In The 5000 Year Leap, W. Cleon Skousen describes our government as a three headed eagle, with one head being the judiciary, one the executive, and the center head representing the legislative branch, with the Senate and the House each being represented by an eye in the head of the eagle. If the three heads of the government operate as equals, the eagle can fly higher. If they try to overwhelm the others, the eagle won't survive. For a more complete discussion of the details of the Constitution, go to the National Archives website devoted to the Constitution, found here.

One of the most amazing aspects of the Constitution is that the framers knew there would be situations and developments they couldn't foresee. There are those both in and out of our government who claim the Constitution is a "living" document. Under this theory, the Constitution means whatever any generation reads into the words of the Constitution. This method ignores the thinking of the Framers, or the plain meaning of the words in the Constitution. Using this theory, any generation can read into the words a right or power of government that the framers never debated or considered. This is not a process the framers intended.

Joseph Story was Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court from 1811 to 1845. Justice Story served on the Marshall court, was a professor of law at Harvard, and was a son of a participant of the Boston Tea Party. Justice Story said the, "…framers were not bold or rash enough to believe, or to pronounce, [the Constitution] to be perfect…[t]hey desired, that it might be open to improvement; and, under the guidance of the sober judgment and enlightened skill of the country, to be perpetually approaching nearer and near to perfection." This is why they set up the Amendment process.

The framers included a provision in the constitution to amend it. This procedure makes it difficult to amend the Constitution, but not impossible. It requires two thirds of both houses of Congress to start an Amendment or two thirds of the states to call a constitutional convention to purpose an amendment. Any amendment proposed (regardless of where it originated from) requires three fourths of the States approval to ratify. Interestingly, the President has no role or authority in the amendment process. This is a very difficult method for modifying the Constitution, but not an impossible one. Justice Story, writing in his lifetime, stated, "That the power of amendment is not, in its present form, impracticable, is proved by the fact, that twelve amendments have been already proposed and ratified." To date, there are 27 Amendments that have been ratified.

The point to this is that the Founders knew the Constitution would need changes over time. They intended for it to be changed, but not through the courts. They intended the people and the elected representatives of the people to change it. Judicial decisions such as Roe v. Wade may or may not be the law the people want. However, the way it became law is not the way the founders intended. They did not intend a "living document" that each generation could read new meaning too, or derive new meaning from plain words. If the people believe we have a fundamental right to an abortion, this should be purposed as a new amendment and not created out of a judicial decision. Roe v Wade is not the only bad law that has come about this way. Judges should rule on what is currently law, and not what they think society needs or wants. Edwin Meese III writing for the Heritage Foundation says it this way:

"Taking the politics out of the judiciary is a key tenet behind the concept of constitutional originalism. That's the idea that judges should issue rulings based on the original understanding of the authors and ratifiers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights – rather than on outcomes that reflect the judge's personal biases or policy preferences."

In recent years, we have ignored the nature of the Constitution as the framers wrote it. The amendment process is the only constitutionally acceptable method to modify our Constitution. This worked for a long time. In the last 42 years, only two amendments have been added to the Constitution: the 26^th Amendment setting the voting age at 18, and the 27^th Amendment restricting time frames for Congressional pay raises. We should hold our elected officials accountable and force them to abide by the Constitution. If we ignore the Constitution in this, what is the next part of the Constitution our government may try to ignore?

This is the fourth post in my "Of Government and Men" series. This series is designed to cover some of the my fundamental beliefs regarding government in today's world. I have a list on the right where you can page through this series, or look here, here, and here. If you have any thoughts or comments, share them here. I will probably update this series down the road to include some of the discussions from the comments in this post.

Of Government and Men: The Role of God in the Public Square.

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

-John Adams

Religion and Politics combine to form the largest taboo one should avoid discussing in polite company. These words of wisdom probably stem from how passionate individuals get whenever discussing these issues. Are there any two subjects that have a greater impact on your life than your religious beliefs and the political system you live in?

In our society today, we have taken 16 words from the U.S. Constitution and used them to censor, and in some cases punish, those who openly express a faith. The Constitution states in Amendment I, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,". In today's society, we have taken this to mean that there can be virtually no mention of God in the public square. However, this isn't the way it always was, and it isn't the way the Founders of our government intended it to be. We, as a nation, are worse for this public ban on God.

Newt Gingrich, has said that to study the history of the United States is to, "…encounter God again, and again." As an amateur historian I can fully agree with Mr. Gingrich. The more I read of our nation's founding and the men and women who created it, the more I come across their belief in God. I am amazed how frequently I encounter religious references in the founding of our nation. Perhaps the most important man in our founding, George Washington, left many, many references to God in his writings and public statements. In his first inaugural address, Washington stated, "…it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe,…No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States…". In Washington's Thanksgiving Proclamation, he called on Americans to set aside a day to thank God for the many blessings He had provided for them.

Washington was not alone in his belief in a Divine Being. I encourage everyone to take time to look into the beliefs of John Adams, James Madison, or Abraham Lincoln. Many of Lincolns writings and speech's contained very beautiful references to God. Many of us have read the Gettysburg Address and Lincoln's reference to the United States as a "…nation, under God…", but have you ever read his second inaugural address delivered in March of 1865, shortly before his death? Lincoln says:

"Yet, if God wills that [the Civil War] continue, until all the wealth piled by the bond-man's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether."

Lincoln was saying that if God demanded the United States pay for the blood of slaves with blood, then that is how it would be. I would not suggest that each of these men I have quoted here, or the other founders of this nation, were all Christian faithful. Lincoln struggled with his faith all of his life, and it's very doubtful that he held to the tenets of any particular sect of Christianity. His faith was probably unique to Lincoln. However, I doubt any of our founders would support the almost total ban of religion in government.

The First Amendment was intended to keep the government from establishing a national American Church. It was not intended to keep high school students from discussing religion in club activities, or to prohibit the teaching of morals in school. Thomas Jefferson called for a teaching of moral values in schools in Virginia.

It is very difficult to study the founding of our nation and not come across the work of Alexis de Tocqueville. He was a French historian and political writer. His best known work was Democracy in America. In it, de Tocqueville states:

"I do not know whether all Americans have a sincere faith in their religion – for who can search the human heart? – but I am certain that they hold it to be indispensable to the maintenance of republican institutions. This opinion is not peculiar to a class of citizens or to a party, but it belongs to the whole nation and to every rank of society." Alexis de Tocqueville felt the nations belief in God was key to our Democracy.

I would not support a government that mandated the tenets of any particular faith. I believe individuals should more or less be allowed to worship as they please. However, I think the constant lawsuits about our Pledge of Allegiance, public displays of the Ten Commandments, and school prayer are all misplaced. I believe a healthy respect for God, and an acknowledgment of the blessings He has given our nation are important. Our nations motto is "In God We Trust". Hiding this, and whitewashing our founders faith and their beliefs harms our students and hides from them the nature of the founding of this great nation. Should we have a government established religion? No. Should prayer groups and religious services be allowed on public property? Sure, as long as all faiths are allowed access to the facilities if they wish it.

This is the third post in the "Of Government and Men" series. The introduction and first installment are available in previous issues, or in the list on the sidebar. What are your thoughts on the role of religion in our government? Have we forgotten our heritage? Are there too many lawsuits today challenging our freedom of religion? Or, have we not gone far enough in isolating politics and government from faith?

Book Review: Atlas Shrugged

I really enjoyed Atlas Shruggedby Ayn Rand. Atlas Shrugged was written in 1957 and has been growing in popularity over the last few years. I decided to read it because I was hearing constant references too it in the news. I think one of the reasons it resonates with today's audience is that a number of the books events and characters have parallels in today's world.

Atlas Shrugged is set in a "future USA". The economy is beginning to collapse as the book opens, and the government becomes more desperate and more aggressive looking for ways to solve the crisis. The copy of Atlas I read was 1,069 pages long. Early in the book (around page 200), the government starts really interfering with business. Laws are passed restricting who can own what business, and where business can operate. The laws are always passed in the name of "protecting the country", and "are only because of the current crisis". Many of the worst laws and actions of the government in Atlas Shrugged have parallels in today's bailouts, health care and energy bills, and government takeovers. In the world of Atlas Shrugged, most nations of the world have become "Peoples Republics".

As the government continues to pass law after law, the economy continues to worsen. Many of the laws and policies of the "future USA" revolve around need. A guy asks for a job because he "needs" it. Laws are passed forbidding large companies from moving or opening at new locations because the smaller companies "need" a chance. These decisions are made regardless of whether the people asking for jobs can do the jobs. The government passes laws "protecting" small, unsuccessful businesses because the public "needs" them.

This book was the masterpiece of Ayn Rand, and really served as an introduction for her personal philosophy of Objectivism. It is very well written, and it is easy to see how it became a classic. However, it is a very long book, and requires a little bit (my wife sees it as an extreme amount) of devotion to see it all the way through to the end. There is one "three hour speech" towards the end that will probably take most readers a little longer than three hours to make it through.

I really enjoyed this book, and recommend it to anyone who enjoys political thrillers, or classics. However, if you don't think you can handle a 1000 + page book that is pretty thick with politics and philosophy at times, stay far, far away. And I have to leave this review with a message for those of you who have read Atlas Shrugged:

"Who is John Galt?"

Of Government and Men: The Nature of Freedom

Children should be educated and instructed in the principles of freedom.

--John Adams

I would go one step further than the second President of the United States and say that all people should be educated on the principles of freedom. The Webster dictionary that sits on my desk has 13 definitions of "freedom". The first three define freedom as (1) being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint, (2) exemption from external control, and (3) the power to determine action without restraint. I define freedom as the ability to live your life, and to determine your own life, free of the restraints of others.

In the United States, we have the greatest collection of freedoms found anywhere. Here we are allowed to worship, speak, and basically proceed with our life as we see fit. So long as you don't harm others, you are free to decide what to make of your own life. We are blessed with many political and economic freedoms. Some nations have some freedom in politics or some freedom in economics, but I am not aware of any nation has the same degree of political and economic freedom as the United States.

Where do these freedoms come from? The Declaration of Independence says, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. – That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." There are two very important points here, and they answer our question. Rights are given to us by our Creator, not by man, and not by government. Anything the government or a man can give you, he can also take away. However, there are certain rights that are unalienable. These rights cannot be denied to anyone, except by their own actions. Secondly, in order to have a government, individuals allow that government to restrain their rights to some degree. That authority is given to the government by the permission of those who decide to live under that government.

All rights have limits. You can't run into a crowded theater and yell, "Fire!" without there actually being a fire. You can't walk into your neighbor's house and take whatever your neighbor has as your own. These limits exist because your rights and freedoms begin to infringe on the rights or freedoms of others. You also don't have the freedom not to be offended. In today's society, there are some who believe they should never be offended. That isn't a right.

Nor do you have a right to equal results from your efforts. Equality, as Mark Levin defines it in Liberty and Tyranny, "…is the natural right of every individual to live freely under self-government, to acquire and retain the property he creates through his own labor, and to be treated impartially before a just law." This does not guarantee equal results. Alexander Hamilton is quoted as saying that inequality will exist as long as liberty exists and that inequality will result from the very freedom we live in. You and your friend are both free to create your own businesses. However, both of you will not succeed or fail to the same degree. One of you will make more money. In America, you are your own limit. If you have a goal, so long as you are willing to work hard, you can reach it. If you're not willing to work hard, someone willing to work harder than you will reach that goal. That is the nature of freedom in America.

One of the lessons of the Spider-Man comics is: With great power comes great responsibility. The freedoms we enjoy in our government are no exception. I think those who lived before us have many lessons to teach us. Ronald Reagan once said:

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free."

Freedom must be protected by soldiers, and it sometimes requires blood to pay for it. But it also requires an educated citizen voter. I don't mean educated in the since of a high school or college degree. I do mean that you as a voter have a duty to understand your government, understand your freedoms and rights, and to understand who the people you are voting for (or against) are. This does require some work and effort on your part. But as President Regan pointed out, it is the requirement of a free people to protect that freedom.

Are there other limits or responsibilities you feel are important that I missed? Share them in the comments below. As I update this post in the future, I may include your comments. This is the first of a series on our government. The introduction is posted here, and the next chapter in the series will be available next Sunday.

Of Government and Men: An Introduction

On Sunday, I am going to introduce a new series here at Political Friends: Of Government and Men. This series is intended to explore my fundamental beliefs on government in general and our government here in the United States specifically. This is a series I have wanted to do for some time, and I am very excited to finally be putting this out. I plan on exploring some of these topics in detail so the size of these articles may tend to be a little longer. Here is my current list of topics I plan on exploring:

I. The Nature of Freedom

II. The Role of God in a Free Society

III.The U. S. Constitution

IV. The Tenth Amendment

V. Term Limits

VI. Government Spending and Taxes

VII. Personal Accountability

VIII. Industry + Profit = Good

I may expand out this list based on feedback I get from this post and from each of the posts in the series. I also want to allow space to continue to cover current events and other issues that might pop up. Because of that, I will be releasing one post from this series each week, most likely on Sunday. You will be able to easily identify them, and I am going to link them all together with hyperlinks. If you are really interested in this series, I would encourage you to sign up for my RSS feed, or become a fan on facebook. Both options are displayed in the upper right hand corner of this website.

I hope to accomplish a number of goals with this series. First, these posts, as with the rest of this site, are meant to encourage debate. I hope that as you read them, you will gain more insight into my thought process, you might find something you didn't know, and might look at something in a different light. Some of these topics should be reviewed by any voter from time to time to help them remember how our government works, and how it should work. How can we discuss healthcare, taxes, or energy without a proper frame for the responsibilities of our government, and our own responsibilities?