Hope Rising

I swore that I would give up on America if Mitt lost the election. If we couldn't make the right choice now would we ever?  Staring into the face of a pending financial storm with enormous deficits, gross unemployment, and staggering national debt we just turned down a man with an impeccable record of experience, a man some would appropriately term "uniquely qualified" for our time, and a genuinely good man. If the fate of America had once rested on the shoulders of great men whom God seemed to personally appoint how could this not be yet another Providential appointment?  I truly believed Mitt’s triumph would be historic and in future days he would be ranked with the presidential giants of our past.  As state’s surprisingly quickly broke for Obama the collapse had begun.  My hope was absolutely crushed.

But then I realized something so plain that I was startled that I would have so easily forgotten it.  Surely good had lost before and hopes dashed. The whole world has crashed down on truth's small faithful band before and yet she, truth, had arisen triumphant against it! I realized Mitt was not the cause - truth was.  Mitt was but one of its many faithful advocates and he fought bravely.  He came up short but that did not end its campaign.  His campaign lied shattered to pieces but truth stood stronger because of his efforts.  Principals will not fade into the night merely because of one setback.  Truth and freedom, those happy companions, to whom but few pay the price of their fellowship will march on.

I have sat on the sidelines cheering on truth's campaign but not given myself to the cause.  In my folly I never took up sword or pen to advance its tenets. Mine was faith without works, and was dead.  My sole act was to vote, a mere gesture not worthy of pride or self-congratulatory praise.  I had even questioned others who actively enlisted in the cause: "what difference can you make?"  But last night I saw for perhaps the first time that Mitt Romney had done so eloquently what I professed to love so deeply.  He had pledged his life, his fortune, and his sacred honor for what he believed in, for freedom and for truth. Certainly he gave those things for this cause.  Now what will I give?

In saying all of this I by no means intend to label President Obama as evil but I do believe he is misguided and his policies trample upon freedom and truth.  But for too long have far too many, including myself, sat idly by while our freedoms have slowly slipped from our grasp.  America has fallen asleep and we need to wake up before a nightmare becomes reality.

America was to be the great human experiment.  As Alexander Hamilton once wrote "it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, to decide by their conduct, and example, the important question whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitution on accident and force." Our failure would be "the general misfortune of mankind." (The Federalist No. 1). Although written over 200 years ago those words are as relevant today as they ever were.  It is now for us to pick up the shattered pieces of Romney's valiant effort and forge ahead in the cause of truth and freedom.  Let us declare with one voice as did our noble forebears: "with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred Honor." (Declaration of Independence.)

We must keep the conversation going and believe as Justice Holmes did that truth will win the day in the marketplace of ideas. Don't give up on America, Mitt never did.

Optimum Liberty!
Each year on each issue and candidate I have an opinion and like to hear the opinions of others.  My opinions change as I am influenced by new information and the considerations that others bring up.  When I ran for office many years ago now, I offered voters a picture of myself that wasn't very issue-specific.  Instead I told them that if elected, I would approach each decision by asking myself at least four questions.  The last one, for instance, was whether the measure under consideration would help simplify government.  If so, I would tend to support it.
With the election drawing near, I am thinking about turning that process around.  We live in a republic.  Elected officials are representatives.  What are the criteria that we, as voters, apply to candidates?  What questions do we want them to ask themselves when they face a decision?  Do we have a fair idea as to what they think are the most important questions, and how they would lean depending on the answers?  If we can size up candidates this way, rather than on specific measures or issues, it could make our vote last longer, meaning that once the issues of the day have floated by, we will still have a sense of how the candidate will approach the new and unforseen particulars they will face.
I would like to know what your criteria would be.  Here is mine for starters:
Will this decision promote individual liberty?  This is not a uber-libertarian question.  Anarchy is not liberty.  If I can get a sense that personal liberty is important to the candidate and that they will ask themselves that question with each decision, then I will tend to support the candidate.
As a constitutionalist, I think all these questions ought to be ways of looking at how the elected official will carry out their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, as every elected official in the U.S. must swear to do.
Your thoughts

Social Security a bad deal for America

I know, you can't believe it. The only token liberal of the blog and family coming out and saying Social Security is a mess. Not only is it a mess, it's a catastrophe. I used to think social security was a good deal, and that's because it was. However, it was an unsustainably good deal and it will probably bankrupt us in the future if it isn't reformed. Here is an excerpt from an article posted on MSNBC, which typically leans left.

"People retiring today are part of the first generation of workers who have paid more in Social Security taxes during their careers than they will receive in benefits after they retire. It's a historic shift that will only get worse for future retirees, according to an analysis by The Associated Press.

Previous generations got a much better bargain, mainly because payroll taxes were very low when Social Security was enacted in the 1930s and remained so for decades.

"For the early generations, it was an incredibly good deal," said Andrew Biggs, a former deputy Social Security commissioner who is now a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. "The government gave you free money and getting free money is popular."

If you retired in 1960, you could expect to get back seven times more in benefits than you paid in Social Security taxes, and more if you were a low-income worker, as long you made it to age 78 for men and 81 for women.

As recently as 1985, workers at every income level could retire and expect to get more in benefits than they paid in Social Security taxes, though they didn't do quite as well as their parents and grandparents.

Not anymore.

A married couple retiring last year after both spouses earned average lifetime wages paid about $598,000 in Social Security taxes during their careers. They can expect to collect about $556,000 in benefits, if the man lives to 82 and the woman lives to 85, according to a 2011 study by the Urban Institute, a Washington think tank.

Social Security benefits are progressive, so most low-income workers retiring today still will get slightly more in benefits than they paid in taxes. Most high-income workers started getting less in benefits than they paid in taxes in the 1990s, according to data from the Social Security Administration.

The shift among middle-income workers is happening just as millions of baby boomers are reaching retirement, leaving relatively fewer workers behind to pay into the system. It's coming at a critical time for Social Security, the federal government's largest program.

The trustees who oversee Social Security say its funds, which have been built up over the past 30 years with surplus payroll taxes, will run dry in 2033 unless Congress acts. At that point, payroll taxes would provide enough revenue each year to pay about 75 percent of benefits.

To cover the shortfall, future retirees probably will have to pay higher taxes while they are working, accept lower benefits after they retire, or some combination of both.

"Future generations are going to do worse because either they are going to get fewer benefits or they are going to pay higher taxes," said Eugene Steuerle, a former Treasury official who has studied the issue as a fellow at the Urban Institute." http://money.msn.com/retirement-plan/news.aspx?feed=AP&date=20120805&id=15415077

I'm no expert in personal finance, but it seems that everything social security is designed to do - give a basic retirement ($1200 a month, pretty low if you ask me), give benefits to the disabled, etc - can already be done in the private sector at a much higher rate of return and far more efficiently. I wish I had the choice of opting out of social security as I'll probably get half or less of what I put in. That just doesn't sound like the greatest investment I'll ever make.

Here's to My Dad, Who "Made It"

I saw this video just now, and it struck a powerful chord with me:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-kass-on-small-business-owners-20120718,0,5614318.premiumvideo

It reminded me of my own Dad, who never asked for or expected any government handout or bailout when financial times were (and still are) tough.  Who is in the office on all major holidays and most weekends busting it.  Who risked it all and went on his own to start his own small business, and pays through the nose to our government because politicians feel he should pay much more in taxes only because he worked for himself, but employed several other people in the process.  Who, because of punitive and arbitrary fees and oppressive interest charges by the IRS, frequently is forced to raid his own meager savings just to make payroll.  Who denies himself every luxury and even what many would consider basic necessities (a car, at the moment, as an example) so that his family can have better and so that he can keep the taxman at bay.  Who, day in and day out, lays it on the line and puts his nose to the grindstone for clients who most likely won't pay timely, if at all.  Those who know you the best and love you the most don't tell you nearly often enough, but your backbreaking work does not go unnoticed or unappreciated.  We love you and thank you for having the courage to chase your version of the American Dream, even as the government makes it ever increasingly difficult for you to do so.  Here's what a "man's man" looks like.

Here's to you, Dad, an entrepreneur who "Made It," at least in my eyes, in spite of the government, not because of it.  And for one who never ran so much as a popsicle stand before becoming President to suggest the opposite is audacious and insults you and the millions of American entrepreneurs like you who pull themselves up by the bootstraps to build their businesses from nothing.  Obama has it backwards.  Without entrepreneurs, their drive, their ideas and businesses, the salaries that go to their employees, and the taxes that these productive businesses and individuals pay, the government's coffers would be empty.  Where does he think the money for roads, airports, infrastructre, and research for the internet came from, anyway?  You'd think that a man whose sizeable salary is made possible by people like you would be less insulting and more thankful.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ct-met-kass-0718-20120718,0,2313230.column

Obamacare Stands - SCOTUS Highlights and Thoughts

The majority, concurring and dissenting opinions released Thursday are 193 pages long.  I've only made it through the majority.  Here are the main highlights and my commentary thus far, starting with my summary:

If Roberts had to uphold Obamacare as constitutional (outlets are now reporting that he initially voted with the conservatives to overturn it, but that he later switched his vote which may have been influenced by outside forces), I think he did so in the most conservative way possible.  He kept the Commerce Clause jurisprudence in check by rejecting the Government's expansive arguments, redefined Obamacare in politically-advantageous terms, and granted the States the ability to opt out.  Moreover, his repeated emphasis on "federalism" - the states' retained ability to do things (the mandate, for example) under the police power which the feds cannot - lends further credibility to Romney's distinction and justification of the Romneycare mandate.  Roberts also quelled attacks on the legitimacy of the Supreme Court by teaming up with the liberal justices and deprived the left of a campaign theme which they were already developing and banking on - that SCOTUS is nothing more than a dangerous majority of conservative politicians in black robes.  Finally, this opinion may have breathed new life into the Tea Party, which was instrumental in producing a Republican majority in the House in 2010 and was spawned, in large part, by Obamacare's passage in the first place.  In sum, Obama and his allies may have won the battle on Thursday, but the prospects for a conservative victory in the war were not dashed by the SCOTUS ruling, in my opinion.  In fact, the prospects arguably improved.

Read on for specific opinion highlights and my reactions ...

1. Judicial Deference

"Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments.  Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation's elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them.  It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices."

- It's pretty clear what Roberts is saying here.  If you dislike Obamacare, then vote accordingly in November.  I also thought his word choice was interesting.  It was strongly-worded: "thrown out of office," not just voted out.  Also, implied in the last sentence is that the policies enacted by the people's elected leaders in 2008 (Obamacare) were such that the people needed to be protected from the consequences of those policies, i.e., the consequences will be negative and damaging to them.  Though Roberts ultimately upheld Obamacare, subtle backhands at the law can be found throughout the majority opinion.

2. The Much-derided Broccoli Analogy Carries the Day - Commerce Clause Argument Rejected

"Allowing Congress to justify federal regulation by pointing to the effect of inaction on commerce would bring countless decisions an individual could potentially make [but doesn't] within the scope of federal regulation, and—under the Government’s theory—empower Congress to make those decisions for him. ... [M]any Americans do not eat a balanced diet. ... The failure of that group to have a healthy diet increases health care costs, to a greater extent than the failure of the uninsured to purchase insurance. ... Under the Government’s theory, Congress could address the diet problem by ordering everyone to buy vegetables.  ... That is not the country the Framers of our Constitution envisioned."

- Solid logic, which was famously ridiculed by the mainstream media and talking heads on the left after oral arguments.  It was good to see that that Supreme Court reined in several decades of unrelenting Commerce Clause expansion, BUT ...

3. Individual Mandate Valid as a Tax  

"The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax. Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness."

- So what the feds can't do (compel you to engage in commerce via the individual madate) under the Commerce Clause, they can do if the mandate is reasonably construed as a tax?  Isn't the practical effect - getting more people to buy health insurance - the same, as many on the right argue?  So what difference does it make?  Shouldn't we be concerned here?  Doesn't this just unleash Congress's taxing power, as depicted in the cartoon?  The majority provides 3 considerations to allay these concerns:

a. Unlike under the Commerce Clause, the Constitution does not make any promises to shield us from federal regulation via taxation as long as we do not engage in activity.  Plus, Congress already uses tax incentives to encourage buying things (e.g. homes, professional educations) whereas SCOUTS has never sanctioned, under the Commerce Clause, the government's mandating of the unwilling citizenry to engage in commerce by purchasing products that the paternalistic government deems necessary.


b. If the Court decides that the mandate is a "tax," then that means that it is not punitive in nature (notwithstanding Congress's frequent use of the word "penalty" in the statute), which would be much worse and unconstitutional under the Taxing power.  The outer limits of a "tax" are also policed aggressively by the Courts.

c. Government can exercise much more control over your behavior under the Commerce Clause than it can under the taxing power.  In other words, "Congress may simply command individuals to do as it directs [under Commerce Clause regulations]. An individual who disobeys may be subjected to criminal sanctions. Those sanctions can include not only fines and imprisonment, but all the attendant consequences of being branded a criminal: deprivation of otherwise protected civil rights, such as the rightto bear arms or vote in elections; loss of employment opportunities; social stigma; and severe disabilities in othercontroversies, such as custody or immigration disputes.  By contrast, Congress’s authority under the taxingpower is limited to requiring an individual to pay money into the Federal Treasury, no more. If a tax is properly paid, the Government has no power to compel or punishindividuals subject to it."

- I'm no tax attorney, but I'm not sure I buy this last distinction.  Isn't it a federal felony to not pay income taxes (Wesley Snipes comes to mind)?  If convicted for tax evasion, aren't you then branded a criminal and would thus suffer the same attendant consequences that Roberts lists above?  The dissent may have something to say here, but I didn't get that far.

I would add a 4th consideration:

d. It is much more politically difficult to pass something that looks like a "mandate" if you have to call it a "tax" to ensure that is passes constitutional muster. That word is politically toxic, and politicians will avoid it if possible.  Roberts' opinion just made it that much more difficult to do, and provided conservatives with good ammo to grow and solidify its majority of people who disapprove of Obamacare by allowing it to be labeled as such going forward.

4. Feds can't threaten to withdraw all Medicaid funding from States if they don't comply with Obamacare's Expansion


"When Congress threatens to terminate other grants as a means of pressuring the States to accept a Spending Clause program, the legislation runs counter to this Nation’s system of federalism. ... The threatened loss of over 10 percent of a State’s overall budget is economic dragooning that leaves the Stateswith no real option but to acquiesce in the Medicaid expansion."

- This ruling (7-2, by the way) essentially allows the states to "opt out" of the Medicaid portion of Obamacare if they so desire.

I'm interested in your analysis of the decision and how it may affect things (health care system, upcoming election, etc.) going forward.  Comment away!

Thought-Provoking Headline ...

"Nobody thought about taking away your Big Gulp until the Government began to pay for everyone's healthcare."

Click here for the article.

Washington Post "Hit Piece" on Romney is a Joke

An interesting series of events took place this week.  Joe Biden forced Obama's hand to clarify his stance on gay marriage, voters overwhelmingly rejected gay marriage in the same state that is hosting the DNC convention later this summer, Obama "evolved" his position on gay marriage (a development that the creator of Will & Grace, stating the obvious, labeled as "choreographed"), his interviewer Robin Roberts got "the chills" a day later when remembering the historic moment with fellow Obama cheerleader George Stephanopolous, a 5,500 word Washington Post article was published online on Thursday reporting on things Romney allegedly did almost 50 years ago when he was a 17 year old high school kid to a "presumed" homosexual classmate, and by the end of the week Romney was polling ahead of Obama 50% to 43%.

There's a lot to talk about here, but I want to focus on the WashPo article.  It is obvious that it was conveniently shrink wrapped in a nice little package just waiting to drop at the perfect moment, right after Obama announces his latest stance on gay marriage, to contrast and paint Romney as a homophobic bigot who bullied his "presumed" homosexual high school classmate.

The WashPo piece struck me as incredibly juvenile and the mainstream media double standard could not have been more obvious.  First of all, the use of the phrase "presumed homosexual" was outrageous and unbelievable.  There was no evidence, no quotes from friends, nothing to suggest that this hair cut was motivated by the guy's sexual orientation.  How ridiculous and unprofessional, then, was it for the "reporter" to insert that phrase to construct that baseless, politically and conveniently timed inference?  Romney responded, and there is no reason to doubt this given that it happened in the early 1960's, that whether Lauber was gay or straight "was the furthest thing" from his mind.  Fellow WashPo blogger Jennifer Rubin correctly observed: "Frankly this seems that an incident was plucked out of a long story on Romney's teen years to make an inference, without factual support, that Romney harbored anti-gay animus."

I'd also like to know what 17 yr. old boy didn't do something he wasn't proud of in high school?  Is the preferred liberal presumption that one is doomed to live the rest of his life as he did in high school; that one cannot grow up and become more mature?  Indeed, Paul Begala thinks so: "Once a bully, always a bully."  What nonsensical BS.  By the same logic, Obama, the sitting President, should be busted for his continued illegal use of cocaine, which he admitted to as a youth.  After all, once a crackhead, always a crackhead, right?  Come on ... And we wonder why good, changed, and very capable people (e.g. Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels) don't want to throw their hat in the ring?  If immature actions from nearly 5 decades ago in high school are going to be put under the microscope like this, really?

Finally, I'm curious: where was the slanted 5,500 word vetting piece exploring Obama's admitted associations with Communist and Marxist professors and advisers to whom he was drawn, or the 20 years he spent as an adult sitting in the pews listening to Reverend Wright, or his Bill Ayers connections, or a host of other legitimate and relevant topics from Obama's past to report?

Nothing to see here, folks, move along ...

I wasn't surprised to learn that the WashPo piece imploded within a day.  Incredibly, the "reporter" either wildly inflated or flat out falsified important details.  For example, as reported by ABC, it turns out that one of Romney's friends, Stu White, who was first reported to have "long been bothered" about the hair cutting incident wasn't even there and didn't learn about it until he was contacted several weeks ago by the Washington Post!  The Post's subsequent airbrushing of the story has also been troubling. The bullied youth's family released a statement decrying the article as factually inaccurate and said that if Lauber were alive today, he would be furious about the story and that he was used to further a political agenda in this manner.

It's comforting to know that the mainstream media isn't in the tank for one candidate above another and that it holds "reporters" to such high and unbiased journalistic standards.  What a joke.