Pursuit of Happiness

Has there ever been a greater divergence of opinion over the proper role of our Federal Government? Is the core role to take care of the citizens? A growing proportion of the country identifies with this philosophy. The counter philosophy promotes a role of creating and maintaining an environment for the pursuit of happiness, not assurance of happiness.

Government funds came from us. They are our funds. When the Federal Government "takes care" of us it is simply taking money from some citizens and giving their money to other citizens. Actually our socialism has grown into a more concerning circumstance. 60 cents of each dollar of cost of socialism is paid by each tax payer, while 40 cents is funded by debt.... funded by China! Worse yet, prospects for every social entitlement program is to drive accelerating growth of unsustainable debt. Independent of whether socialism is ethically good or bad, our entitlements, our socialism is an unmitigated mismanaged financial disaster, creating a shameful burden for our children, their children, and their children. The virtues or evils of socialism are subjects for a separate post.

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." Thomas Jefferson with this quote expressed his fear of exactly what we have done to ourselves. Both sides can argue the role of the Federal Government, but the financial viability of our social welfare programs are clearly unsustainable and raining down damaging ramification upon every citizen.

Even the Pilgrims through their disastrous first winter quickly identified the natural flaws of the socialism/communism model. They nearly starved when all were dependent on a communal model. Once land was parceled to each family for them to fend for themselves more food was produced than could be themselves consumed. Said William Bradford, "This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious." Socialism saps initiative. Said Bradford, "For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labour and service, did repine..... Common sense and experience through the ages indicates lost productivity contributes greatly to costs over and above the direct cost of the entitlement programs.

Our form of socialism has proven not to be financially viable. Europe''s form is obviously unsustainable. The Soviet Union's form was not sustainable. These are a few of many examples of the impractical financial model of socialism. Thomas Jefferson feared our system would not protect our treasury from being raided by greed for power manifested by buying votes with give aways under the guise of "taking care" of the people. It has happened. Our country is in great financial danger. Washington is unable to even begin a solution oriented coherent dialog over arguably the greatest threat to our way of life. The way forward is filled with peril, begging for an uprising of patriotic citizens sending clear minded leaders to Washington with an unquestionable mandate to bring financial sanity back and to implement structural change to protect our treasury from the inevitable return of the raiders.

Two structural and permanent changes will greatly contribute to establishing the proper function of government and help protect the people from political corruption, greed and abuse of power:

Congressional Term Limits: Overwhelmingly, voters prefer term limits. It is arguably commonsense. Term limits reduce the impact a very few senior Congressmen or Senators can have over the country for decade as is now the case. Term limits will increase competition and encourage new challengers. It will Build a ‘citizen’ Congress by driving out career politicians breaking ties to special interests. Most importantly it will improve tendencies to vote on principal. It will by default create term limits on congressional staff and bureaucracy. Through elimination of career politicians the temptation to buy votes is reduced, creating a natural reduction in wasteful federal spending, encouraging lower taxes, and smaller government. Greater candidate competition will rejuvenate voter participation in elections and get reelection rates back to near 50%, versus the current 99%. Healthy rotation in office was envisioned by the founders.

Balanced Budget / Spending Limit: Overwhelmingly, voters prefer a balanced budget amendment (BBA). It is also arguably commonsense based upon the recent horrid escalation of national debt. 15 trillion and climbing! The only way to get Congress to balance the the budget is to give them no choice. The only way to keep the President's, the Senator's, and the Representative's hands out of OUR cookie jar is to give them no choice. To prevent congress from raising taxes to continue the reckless spending practices, BBA must include a limit on spending such as 20% of GDP. For national security carefully crafted exceptions should be triggered in times of declared war to solely support the declared war. An accompanying Presidential line item veto authorization will help limit ear mark (pork) spending. Ear marks are much worse than the cost of the actual ear marks. Ear marks are routinely and regretfully used as bribes to gain votes for congressional spending bills, which would otherwise fail under votes base solely on principal.

Limiting the size of the Federal Government and returning to the Federalist principal of State's rights will lead our country back to its foundation, reestablishing the environment for the pursuit of happiness.

Roger Marksberry r.marksberry@gmail.com