Monday Tidbit

“If the spirit of business adventure is dulled, this country will cease to hold the foremost position in the world” - Andrew Mellon

Merry Christmas

"I have always thought of Christmas time, when it has come round, as a good time; a kind, forgiving, charitable time; the only time I know of, in the long calendar of the year, when men and women seem by one consent to open their shut-up hearts freely, and to think of people below them as if they really were fellow passengers to the grave, and not another race of creatures bound on other journeys." ~Charles Dickens

Case of the Week: Kelo v. New London (2005)

Kelo v. New London
125 S. Ct. 2655 (2005)
U.S. Supreme Court affirmed decision of Connecticut Supreme Court, in favor of New London.
Case brief

Has the government changed "public use" to "public benefit" with regards to the use of eminent domain to seize property against the will of private citizens?

Eminent Domain has been used to justify acts of egregious violation of property rights in ever increasing quantities.  Government, on a local and national level, seems to think that if they think your property can be put to "better" use than your personal use, it is theirs to take without your permission.


In Kelo v. The City of New London, a municipality was allowed to take the property of a community of residents so a commercial area could be developed.  They wanted to take from free citizens and give to a private developer with the hopes that a large pharmaceutical company would be bringing more jobs and thus more business.  Years after the court ruled in favor of the city, the job source has left town and the land has remained undeveloped.

Those accused of a crime are required to be assumed innocent, with the prosecution bearing the burden to prove him or her guilty.  Likewise, the government should have to prove its use of eminent domain is completely justified, rather than requiring the citizen whose property is at risk to be in the weaker position.  This is yet another example of the "government knows best" attitude.  Laissez-faire is a far better option, unless a government can prove beyond a doubt that the property will be used for a bone fide and truly necessary purpose.

You can read a summary of the case here:
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/freetradeopenmarkets/p/kelovlondon.htm

Wall Street Journal Article

Monday Tidbit

"The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home."  - James Madison

Senators and the 17th Amendment

I'm sure the origin of direct election of Senators is not the sexiest topic to pick for discussion.  However, I believe it is an infinitely important example of the abuse of the national government's power and destruction of the Federalist system.*

Remember, in its infancy, this country created a government that could unite and provide specific, enumerated services to the States.  The Federal government did not create the States.  The States created the Federal government and granted it a portion of power.  Though a surprising and horrifying number of Americans are unaware of it, Senators were not meant to be elected by a popular vote of State's residents, but nominated and sent to Washington D.C. by the state legislators as true representatives of states' interests.

The 17th Amendment was adopted in 1913 and states "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote."

So, why is the direct election of Senators such a big deal?  It means the people are better represented right?  No!  It gave more power to the central government of the United States by removing the states' influence over national affairs.   Now, states basically just have to accept what the federal government tells them, rather than the other way around.  Senators elected by popular vote and guaranteed a job for six long years with no term limits have little incentive to truly serve state sovereignty.  It is the different choices provided by the diversity of the States that preserves freedom and makes our republic (not democracy) unique.   Senators, though they have a state attached to their names, are essentially tenured government cronies.  There are exceptional Senators who have truly fought for their states in the last hundred years.  However, since the 17th Amendment was passed, Senators seem to feel obligated to impose greater restrictions on freedom and the sovereignty of the States rather than championing and defending them.

*A federalist system requires power to be distributed between various levels of government (national, state, local) rather than centralized like most European countries.

Case of the Week: Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell (1934)

Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell 
290 U.S. 398 (1934)
U.S. Supreme Court, 14th Amendment - contracts clause
Case brief

In his dissent, Justice Sutherland noted "If the provisions of the Constitution be not upheld when they pinch as well as when they comfort, they may as well be abandoned."

The decision in this case was essentially an assault on Americans freedom to enter contracts with the trust that they would be enforced.

In the case, the court determined that Minnesota had the power to prevent banks from foreclosing on mortgages when the borrower defaulted. It is self-evident that the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision is highly relevant to the present foreclosure situation in the United States.  The court allowed clear infringement on the right to contract, a "natural right."  The mortgage holder was denied their proper remedy, as specified in the contract.  Since when is the comfort of the borrower trump the rights of the employees and investors of in the bank, when there was no deception or coercion involved.

Eighty years ago, this case eroded personal rights and furthered redistribution of wealth and an entitlement attitude.  Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell was clear instance of "the government knows best" attitude we see continue to be even more pervasive today.  When valid agreements between parties will not be defended, how can commerce in the U.S. survive?

You can read a summary of the case here:
http://orderinthecourt.org/Cases/Home-Building--Loan-Association-v-Blaisdell

Lockstep

"They are walking in lockstep."

I've heard pundits and politicians use the word "lockstep" countless times.  It's most common context seems to be contributing to accusations that the opponents do not think for themselves and are all just lemmings that do what their told. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Auburn_lockstep.gif

Having hear "lockstep" used so many times, I wondered what the original context for the word was, because clearly it is used in a metaphorical or idiomatic way by political pontificators.  Turns out, the word comes from the lives of American prisoners who were forced to walk in lockstep by guards.  "Lockstep" referred to the coordinated marching of prisoners, who were often chained together at the ankle.  They had to synchronize their steps because they were forced to walk extremely close to the prisoners in front and behind.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockstep

Do politicians really know what the implications of referring to people as in "lockstep"?  Are they intentionally comparing their opponents to prisoners forced to just fall in line?  I'm not sure they really care.  Attacking the character and independence of opponents is hypocritical and a reflection of the accuser's weakness.  Why can't more pundits have a discussion without the name calling and give the American population the pleasure of real, substantive debate? 

Lockstep?  If you're accusing the other party of lockstep, you might consider looking how you're own feet are tied to the hypocrites in front of and behind you.

Monday Tidbit

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson

TSA: Yet Another "Feel Good" Measure

Does TSA make us safer?  Probably not.

I agree with the notion that the hassles Americans have to put up with going through airport security lines in the United States is an imposition and creates less freedom with little results to show for it.  It may in some small way be a deterrent, but I think simply makes people "feel good" about the safety of our skies rather than actually being effective in the real world.  Besides, Americans are far more likely to be involved in a fatal car accident than be directly affected by an act of terrorism.  Why are we wasting the time and resources of both our government and the private citizens who must stand in line?  Aren't there better ways that those resources can be used?

If we continue to allow every failed terrorist's attempt to destroy our confidence and add an item to the TSA list of procedures and prohibited items, then we are allowing them to shackle all of us. The best response to terrorism is to continue the American way of life through commerce and freedom, not increasing the length of airport security lines.

It Adds to the Debt

I just have to say.... the "We can't afford tax cuts because it will add to the debt" argument drives me crazy.  Watch any news broadcast and you'll hear that argument used over and over again by pundits and politicians as a justification for raising taxes.

The first problem with the argument is the assumption of ceteris paribus, that all things (before and after any legislation is passed) will remain the same.  In other words, there will be no reaction (much less a large scale one) to changes in law, especially taxes.  They assume that the "Rich" will not change their behavior in any way, nor will the poor.  The same number of people will be in each tax bracket, with the same exact income as before.  How could some one possibly expect such an assumption to be reality?

Furthermore, tax raises, far from benefiting from ceteris paribus, often draw tax in less in revenue than predicted.  Tax cuts, however, don't see the taxed population remain the same either.  In fact, historically tax cuts have brought in more in revenues than was supposed to be "lost" through the static population assumption.

Check out this example:

"The Reagan tax cuts, like similar measures enacted in the 1920s and 1960s, showed that reducing excessive tax rates stimulates growth, reduces tax avoidance, and can increase the amount and share of tax payments generated by the rich. High top tax rates can induce counterproductive behavior and suppress revenues, factors that are usually missed or understated in government static revenue analysis. Furthermore, the key assumption of static revenue analysis that economic growth is not affected by tax changes is disproved by the experience of previous tax reduction programs. There is little reason to expect static revenue analysis to evaluate the economic or distributional effects of current tax reform proposals much better than it evaluated the Reagan tax program 15 years ago"
- Christopher Frenze, Chief Economist to the Vice-Chairman (Joint Economic Committee, 1996)
source

Please, please, stop using the tired old "tax cuts are costly" argument!  I'm very tired of hearing that nonsense.

What the Heck...?

The Heritage Foundation has made an interesting attempt to harness the power of viral internet phenomenons in the crusade to advance conservative thought.  Supposedly their new "What the Heck Have Conservatives Done?" page is a counter to the "WTF has Obama done so far?" propaganda posted by the Left.

http://www.whattheheckhaveconservativesdone.com/

I would guess that thus far most of the visitors to the site have been people who are already on the conservative bandwagon, so is it really doing any good? 

I like the focus on specific cited examples that point to positive conservative actions that have clear results including a link to the information's source.  (The Obama site "facts" are a little less robust, with many of them making statements that don't point to results.)  Though there are shortcomings in using sound-bite style blurbs, the message gets across and hopefully will make people think a little harder about who has really accomplished what. This is a site that has a memorable URL, is adapted for short attention spans, and can be easily shared through social media and good old word-of-mouth.  However, I think the Heritage Foundation needs to make the sales pitch ("contribute to us!") a little more subtle, and expand the list of accomplishments significantly - clearly there's a very long list of things that great Conservatives have done right.  Then, they just have to figure out how to get Liberals to visit the site.  There is the real challenge.

Overall, I think the www.WhattheHeckHaveConservativesDone.com site has potential to reach a truly viral audience, but needs a little more tweaking to put it over the tipping point.

Obama = Keynesian?

Do you know what a Keynesian is?  Apparently many of the attendees of the Restoring Sanity/Fear rally are a little confused on the topic.  This video has been up (and down, and up again) for the last few weeks, but I still thought it was worth mentioning.



Granted, there are under-informed people on any side of an issue who tend to get shrill and defensive in any political discussion, thus preventing the possibility of any meaningful exchange.  However, the frequent tendency of those on the Left to make immediate and erroneous assumptions about the position of the Right is well demonstrated by this video.

I don't bother to even engage in "debate" with folks like these (except maybe the one guy who at least gets the context of the word correct).  Lesson learned?... Conservatives need to keep vigilantly holding on to the true and explicit meaning of the U.S. Constitution, all the while dealing with the shrill, bleeding-heart Left by ignoring them altogether or simply killing them with kindness.

Bush Tax Cuts or 2011 Tax Hikes?

A tax raise by any other name...

What You Ought To Know... about Racism

As someone who prides myself on my ability to weave words, I have always found that I stumble a bit when it comes to describing racism and my opinions about it.  So, I will defer to the video below, which I think addresses the matter in a well-rounded way.

However, he's a white guy... he can't really do a segment on racism, can he?



One of the many beautiful things about the United States is that we can celebrate what we have in common while also being individuals from very different backgrounds.  We are not united by a common background or ancestry, but by our ideas and our willingness to acknowledge the value and validity of others who view the world differently.  We can disagree and be different without letting that create rifts in our society.  Racism does exist here, but there can be genuine disagreement between people of different colors which has no basis in race at all.  As humans, we are all guilty of judging a book by it's cover in some form or another.  However, having awareness for that weakness allows us to reflect and realize that everyone has the same opportunity to move forward and great their fellow man with an open mind in the future.  I'll spare you a recitation of the golden rule, but I think it applies here.

(By the way, I suggest watching Mr. "What You Ought To Know" in his other videos.  The rest are more light-hearted and quite entertaining.)

The American Spirit

“The trials of adversity fell upon the fathers; the trials of prosperity are ours. It was theirs to lay the foundations of liberty under popular government; it is ours to preserve it under ever-changing conditions that confront the march of civilization.” - Oscar S. Straus The American Spirit, 1913

Though I am unsure the creators of this nation did not also enjoy some of the greatest prosperity in the world during their era, the above quote makes the point that our successes as a nation pose the greatest challenges.

Straus, in the introduction of his book, also astutely observes, “We are especially blessed in the fact that our entire history is an open and legible book, the records of which are not blurred by age or mystified by tradition. The lives of the fathers are set in frames of reality, and as long as we keep fresh their memories they will guide us in our patriotic efforts to steer the Ship of State by the light of their experience, their wisdom and their foresight.”

We can look to the history of this great country for guidance in modern times, but we must question the word of historians and look at as many facets of each obstacle and solution as possible. Uncomfortable truths should not be ignored. However, shining successes that maybe counter-intuitive to some cannot justly be forgotten as well.

Above all, Americans are human, with imperfections and flaws, but Americans are of a breed this world has seen in no other civilization. We are defined by our diversity and our acceptance, by our optimism and perseverance, by our honor, integrity and courage. We have a uniquely American spirit, which I believe can never be abated.