I start my mornings with the digital version of The Columbus Dispatch most every morning. It is generally an interesting and mostly pleasant read. Today is different. Maybe I got up on the wrong side of the bed or maybe it’s the grinding frustration of watching our culture drift.
Bernard, a resident, frustrated over Republican obstructionism, wrote an editorial in the Friday July 19th issue about taking health care from the poor, saying the party has no empathy for the poor. Next I read an editorial from Sharon Davies of the Kirwan Institute at The Ohio State University's Moritz College of Law, about how food stamps help lift people out of poverty. Her editorial starts, “It is almost impossible to fathom what constituents were being represented when the House voted to unhitch the nation’s food stamp program from the farm bill that has long ensured the passage of both pieces of legislation". Considering her hard working parents and the types of safety nets from which she and her family benefited as she grew up, it is hard to understand how her thinking has evolved to author such a position.
She and her siblings developed hard working ethics through her parent. The safety nets she observed as a child were largely from nonprofit organizations and good hearted people. Since, such citizen support for one another has mostly been transplanted by bloated, unsustainable, inefficient, and corrupt big government programs of forced wealth transfer. These programs do not resemble those she described in her premised observations growing up. Today’s big government programs are creating a culture of dependence, not the ethical culture of hard work and achievement.
Many good and tender hearts want better for everyone. I want better for everyone. Most everyone wants better for everyone. The difference between us is the path to take to reach that goal.
Every equation has to be balanced or it’s not an equation. Each side of the "=" sign has to be equal. If one side is empathy, the other side has to be funding. I saw no discussion in your editorial relative to practicality, funding, or any argument for volunteerism or charitable giving from which you and your family greatly benefited. You argued only one side of the equation and even that was completely loaded toward only big government programs.
Sharon, maybe the votes to separate food stamps from the farm bill are because combined state and federal food stamp spending in 2000 was about $20 billion and this year is projected to be over $90 billion. Maybe it’s because welfare spending is exploding far beyond what can be sustained. Maybe it is a bad idea to be like Greece, or Spain, or Italy, or Venezuela, or Cuba, or….. Maybe it is bad to think 7.5% unemployment is normal. Maybe it’s because at the same time our country’s debt will soon exceed $17 trillion….. I am saying just maybe!
As a young man my path began its development when I received assigned reading of William Bradford’s writings in a college history class. It was like a light came on for me. The pilgrims landed in 1620. They formed a system of communal land ownership. Together they were to work the land. As it turned out, many starved simply due to human nature. Many choose to let others work the fields but still reap the bounty. Unfortunately no bounty resulted. Within three years the Pilgrims scraped the communal system by instituting a system of private property with each family owning a plot to do with as they chose. Soon the bounty was so great the surplus provided goods for trade with the Indians.
William Bradford documented a tragic example of human nature, not necessarily the nature of every human, but of societal human nature. Many Pilgrims worked the fields hard that first year. But many also chose to let others do the work. Many like you embellish "Community". As a child you saw the good aspects. But, as for the Pilgrims, Community was crippling, and I argue big government welfare contributes a great crippling affect upon society.
Recently I tripped over another glaring example of the same human nature and the negative impact of “Community” in today’s world. Near my home in rural central Ohio is a mid-size company with a large product assembly floor. Business was growing and they were interviewing heavily to fill many open positions. Unfortunately 66% of applicant failed the drug screening test. How is this possible when the applicants know in advance they will face a drug screening test? Have you guessed yet? Regretfully, it goes back to human nature, why work when you do not have to. They failed the test intentionally so they could keep receiving government checks – Not Government's Money, Your Money & My Money!!!!! They take your money and my money. They are a drag on our community and on our country. This is just a small example of large government socialism filling the role of community, crippling individuals and dragging the real “Community” down.
The mess all comes back to human nature. Many citizens want free stuff from the government. Many tender hearts now seem to want government to take care of everyone. The politicians are seeking power and wealth so they give away free stuff to buy votes from the tender hearts and the lazy citizens and in doing so they create more lazy citizens. Plus, government welfare programs do not get fixed with logical solution because the politicians want votes or don't want to lose votes. There is little hope when government is running the show. On the other hand, there is great and joyous hope when the folks are running the show.
Yes we need manageable safety nets like those of your childhood. The trouble is when safety nets are provided by government they are run by politicians and bureaucrats, destined to be fraught with fraud, inefficiencies, extraordinary waste, corruption, bloating, and political bickering and gridlock. We have millions of wonderful tender hearts willing to help through charitable giving and hard work. I say turn the people loose, just like we saw from the wisdom of the Pilgrims at Plymouth!
Friday, July 19, 2013
Sunday, January 22, 2012
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
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
Sunday, December 11, 2011
Save Us from Congress!
Are Senators and Congressmen dedicated to the work of the people or is their focus self preservation? Americans consistently rate the performance of Congress low, often in single digits. I argue it is because their performance is consistenly poor. If Congress continues to structurally function as it has, how can we expect different results. Is self preservation the source of gridlock, bad legislation, too much legislation, and masssive unsustainable debt? How can this structual flaw be resolved? Term limits will dramatically mitigate opportunity to pursue self preservation and thereby eliminate the possibility of life long legislators.
Much needs to change for Congress for it to routinely function in the best interest in the country. Unfortunately parties in the majority are not naturally motivated to give up power even when change is in the best interest of the country.
Many in Congress are truly trying to perform in the best interest of our country. But too many are not, their decisions and votes, corrupted for personal gain, including willful decisions draining the national treasury under the guise of caring for the citizens. The current structure enables and perpetuates such tactics for decades.
We all know power corrupts, self preservation is a corrupting temptation, and members perpetuate the problem for decades. It seems almost common sense that it is not a good idea for members to hold office for decades and in many cases nearly their entire adult life. Presidents, governors, in many states, legislators are limited in term length.. The House fo Representatives and the United States Senate do not operate under this safeguard.
Term limits create advantage for everyone but the limited politician. It prevents anyone from holding office indefinitely dispite the funding and power at their disposal. Term limits reduce temptation for self-serving governance, increase urgency to perform for the party in power, provide proper hope for the party not in power, and force the electorate from incumbent apathy.
Is there a valid reason not to pass a contritutional amendment for Congressional term limits. Why not 12 years maximum... not more than 6 two year terms for the House and 3 four year terms for the Senate. The only huddle to term limits for Congress is for Congress to limit itself, a large challenge.
Much needs to change for Congress for it to routinely function in the best interest in the country. Unfortunately parties in the majority are not naturally motivated to give up power even when change is in the best interest of the country.
Many in Congress are truly trying to perform in the best interest of our country. But too many are not, their decisions and votes, corrupted for personal gain, including willful decisions draining the national treasury under the guise of caring for the citizens. The current structure enables and perpetuates such tactics for decades.
We all know power corrupts, self preservation is a corrupting temptation, and members perpetuate the problem for decades. It seems almost common sense that it is not a good idea for members to hold office for decades and in many cases nearly their entire adult life. Presidents, governors, in many states, legislators are limited in term length.. The House fo Representatives and the United States Senate do not operate under this safeguard.
Term limits create advantage for everyone but the limited politician. It prevents anyone from holding office indefinitely dispite the funding and power at their disposal. Term limits reduce temptation for self-serving governance, increase urgency to perform for the party in power, provide proper hope for the party not in power, and force the electorate from incumbent apathy.
Is there a valid reason not to pass a contritutional amendment for Congressional term limits. Why not 12 years maximum... not more than 6 two year terms for the House and 3 four year terms for the Senate. The only huddle to term limits for Congress is for Congress to limit itself, a large challenge.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Frightened for the First Time..... Should I Be?
I am frightened of a President for the first time in my life. While fundamentally disagreeing with most of Johnson's, Carter's and Clinton's policies, they were still my President.
It's not a matter of what is said about Obama or what is said about those he has placed throughout our government. It is a matter of the words from their own mouths. Videos clips have left me speechless, shocked, astonished, astounded, bowled over, devastated, distraught, and angry. Should we be surprised considering what we know about his upbringing and associations throughout his life. No!
If you had any doubt about the intent to fundamentally change our country just view the links below. How is it possible that such people can be placed in positions of responsibility within the Executive Branch?
Is Obama the orator of orators able to manipulate, and distort in a way that is leading so many good but sadly uninformed citizens over a horrible financial and cultural cliff. Do the dots connect to validate such a charge. Let's consider a hypothesis. How could a radical, revolutionary, Communist, or Marxist possibly win the Presidency and fundamentally transform the United States. Could such a person accomplish this goal by honestly promoting those philosophies? Or would it take an orator of orators able to deceive, manipulate, trick, and distort?
Surely if you are pro Obama you do not pay much attention to his detractors; so, don't listen to detractors. Listen to Obama and some of those around him, then listen to your gut... the words are shocking!
What you are about to listen to is not an issue of party but I believe of country and family.
Van Jones, Green Jobs Czar, avowed Communist ("by August I was a Communist","the white polluters and the white environmentalists are essentially steering poisons into the people of color communities") and forced out without comment by the White House BUT replaced by Ron Bloom!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMa3l23-rRc
Ron Bloom, Manufacturing Czar - "we get the joke, we know that the free market is nonsense", "we kind of agree with Mao that political power largely comes for the barrel of a gun"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCvQ8BSUv-g
Mark Lloyd, FCC Diversity Officer - "in Venezuela, with Chavez, really an incredible revolution" he believes that Chavez enacted "Democratic" communication by nationalizing or shutting down media!!??
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wF2C235fD7o
Anita Dunn, White House Communications Director - "two of my favorite political philosophers, Mao Tse Tung and Mother Teresa.... the two people I turn to most" Mao's political philosophy was to shot people in the back of the head... children, pregnant women, and men. Surely we all know that Mao was responsible for more deaths than Hitler or Stalin. Mao, our White House Communications Director's hero. No wonder she is complaining about Fox News.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiBDpL2dExY
John Holdren, Science Czar and proponent of Eugenics - He believes that adequate authority exists to mandate population control under the constitution... mandatory abortion, sterilization, etc. He also proposes that animals should be able to file suit against humans.
Google John!
Obama - Does he believe in redistribution of wealth. Yes, from out of his own mouth. What is he? Is he a Socialist, Communist, or a Marxist? He is working hard to redistribute great sums of wealth. He has formed a massive team of extremists to make it happen, whether it be through stimulus, health care reform, cap and trade, regulations, or global warming... Oh, it is now Global Weather Change since warming is now cooling.
There is growing evidence that all of this is not about saving our jobs, our health, or our planet, but about fundamental transformation.... or is it about revolution? We cannot possibly afford what is being spent, so why are we moving forward so fast? Anti-capitalist revolutionaries believe the route to "Social Justice" (Communism)is to bring down capitalism under its own weight of debt by spending. Humm.... & what are we doing at an unimaginable rate? Obama's own Manufacturing Czar doesn't even believe in capitalism, but does believe in the barrel of a gun.
Is anyone else beginning to become alarmed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck
It's not a matter of what is said about Obama or what is said about those he has placed throughout our government. It is a matter of the words from their own mouths. Videos clips have left me speechless, shocked, astonished, astounded, bowled over, devastated, distraught, and angry. Should we be surprised considering what we know about his upbringing and associations throughout his life. No!
If you had any doubt about the intent to fundamentally change our country just view the links below. How is it possible that such people can be placed in positions of responsibility within the Executive Branch?
Is Obama the orator of orators able to manipulate, and distort in a way that is leading so many good but sadly uninformed citizens over a horrible financial and cultural cliff. Do the dots connect to validate such a charge. Let's consider a hypothesis. How could a radical, revolutionary, Communist, or Marxist possibly win the Presidency and fundamentally transform the United States. Could such a person accomplish this goal by honestly promoting those philosophies? Or would it take an orator of orators able to deceive, manipulate, trick, and distort?
Surely if you are pro Obama you do not pay much attention to his detractors; so, don't listen to detractors. Listen to Obama and some of those around him, then listen to your gut... the words are shocking!
What you are about to listen to is not an issue of party but I believe of country and family.
Van Jones, Green Jobs Czar, avowed Communist ("by August I was a Communist","the white polluters and the white environmentalists are essentially steering poisons into the people of color communities") and forced out without comment by the White House BUT replaced by Ron Bloom!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMa3l23-rRc
Ron Bloom, Manufacturing Czar - "we get the joke, we know that the free market is nonsense", "we kind of agree with Mao that political power largely comes for the barrel of a gun"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCvQ8BSUv-g
Mark Lloyd, FCC Diversity Officer - "in Venezuela, with Chavez, really an incredible revolution" he believes that Chavez enacted "Democratic" communication by nationalizing or shutting down media!!??
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wF2C235fD7o
Anita Dunn, White House Communications Director - "two of my favorite political philosophers, Mao Tse Tung and Mother Teresa.... the two people I turn to most" Mao's political philosophy was to shot people in the back of the head... children, pregnant women, and men. Surely we all know that Mao was responsible for more deaths than Hitler or Stalin. Mao, our White House Communications Director's hero. No wonder she is complaining about Fox News.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiBDpL2dExY
John Holdren, Science Czar and proponent of Eugenics - He believes that adequate authority exists to mandate population control under the constitution... mandatory abortion, sterilization, etc. He also proposes that animals should be able to file suit against humans.
Google John!
Obama - Does he believe in redistribution of wealth. Yes, from out of his own mouth. What is he? Is he a Socialist, Communist, or a Marxist? He is working hard to redistribute great sums of wealth. He has formed a massive team of extremists to make it happen, whether it be through stimulus, health care reform, cap and trade, regulations, or global warming... Oh, it is now Global Weather Change since warming is now cooling.
There is growing evidence that all of this is not about saving our jobs, our health, or our planet, but about fundamental transformation.... or is it about revolution? We cannot possibly afford what is being spent, so why are we moving forward so fast? Anti-capitalist revolutionaries believe the route to "Social Justice" (Communism)is to bring down capitalism under its own weight of debt by spending. Humm.... & what are we doing at an unimaginable rate? Obama's own Manufacturing Czar doesn't even believe in capitalism, but does believe in the barrel of a gun.
Is anyone else beginning to become alarmed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
