Marriage and the State
Proponents of gay marriage have allowed their liberal bias to blind them to the obvious, and most persuasive, argument for their cause. The problem with the current arguments for gay marriage, and indeed with the current state of marriages in general (increasing divorce rates, ect) lies with the misconception of a fundamental truth about marriage itself: that it is first and foremost a religious, not a civic, institution.
Had the gay marriage lobby begun with this premise I believe they would have had a better standing, and an unassailable Constitutional argument. The first amendment of the Constitution guarantees that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” If we take the stand that marriage is a religious institution, and that it is the right of any officer of a religion to impart the status of marriage upon a group of individuals, than it would be clear that it would be illegal to ban any marriage so founded. However, the liberal left has spent the better part of a century trying to abolish religion in all its forms, and as a consequence this argument is now denied it.
Politicians, on both the left and right, have worked so hard to distance the institution of marriage from its religious roots that this fundamental truth is often overlooked. Had marriage remained a wholly, or predominantly religious matter, the issue of allowing or disallowing gay marriage would not exist. Interested couples could simply find a church willing to perform the rite. The fact that Justices of the Peace, functionaries of the state, can now convey this status is a very direct reason why this issue must now be decided in the courts.
Time and again we have found that religion is an essential part of any culture, in fact most cultures are defined by their religions. Religion directs the moral behavior of a people and determines the paths on which a society evolves. Marriage, as a function of religion, is integral to that system. How many of the ailments of our society today can be traced back to the abolition of marriage as a sacred institution with all that that encompasses?
This is not an argument for gay marriage, nor is it an argument against it. Likewise it is neither an argument for or against organized religion. This is simply an attempt to examine the status of an institution that is integral to the very fabric of our society and the possible consequences of its disillusionment.
A Tale of Two Resignations
When Alaska Governor Sarah Palin announced on July 3, 2009 that she would step down from the Governors seat she was met with cat-calls and jeers by the Democratic Party. During the press conference to announce her resignation, Governor Palin said that she would relinquish her seat due to a rash of “frivolous” ethics complaints that were impeding her ability to govern. A Palin aide is quoted as saying that Palin was “no longer able to do the job she had been elected to do. Essentially, the taxpayers were paying for Sarah to go to work every day and defend herself.” Given the harsh, and often misogynistic attacks against her during her time as a vice-presidential candidate, this is quite easy to believe.
Democrats were quick to call her a quitter, and the consensus among them was that she was unfit for executive office, whether it be the Governorship of Alaska, or potentially, the Presidency.
On Friday, January 8, 2010, Congressman Neil Abercrombie (D-HI) announced that he would resign his seat representing Hawaii’s first congressional district to allow himself to go “all in” for his campaign for governor of that state. Despite that this will effectively cut the representation of America’s fiftieth state in half in the House, and Hawaii’s inability to run a special election to replace him due to cost, there has been no outcry over his resignation.
If, as Jean Aoki, legislative liaison for the Hawaii chapter of the League of Women Voters says, “Democracy depends on representation of the people,” why is there no outrage against Congressman Abercrombie’s resignation? Should we not expect the same vitriolic attacks directed at Governor Palin? Admittedly Mrs. Palin was more well-known that Congressman Abercrombie, but if the former governor is unfit for executive office because she quit for reasons that are understandable and could even be viewed as noble given her status as servant of the people, is not Congressman Abercrombie more unfit for leaving office simply because he wanted to change jobs?
Reliance on Green Jobs Running in the Red
When President Reagan spoke of re-igniting the innovative and entrepreneurial spirit of the American people he understood that for the market to work, the market must be free to work for itself. This is something President Obama has yet to understand.
In a speech on Friday, the President vowed to commit more money to the creation of Green and clean energy jobs. Here in Michigan, Governor Jennifer Granholm has made similar pledges, along with her commitment to promote the movie industry and other targeted markets. Both of these stances betray an ignorance of how jobs are created and the essence of entrepreneurial enterprise.
Economists and investors, people who devote their lives to predicting the changing course of a market, consider 50/50 good odds when trying to foresee coming trends, and more often than not, fail. The President’s (and Governor Granholm’s) insistence on targeted growth of a specific market for political gain is almost sure to fail. And may it well hurt us in the long run. By artificially propping up the clean energy industry they almost guarantee a growth bubble in it, and unless the market can catch up, once those supports are removed it will collapse.
To ensure job growth in the new year, it would be far better to reexamine these policies, and focus on broader incentives to support new industries which may not be predictable. Most of the technology we take for granted today was unimaginable twenty years ago, and now generates billions of dollars of revenue and employs millions of Americans. Instead of trying to impose growth in an industry that is still emerging and many are unsure of, why not open the floodgates with incentives for new business start-ups such as tax breaks or government backed small business loans? Had the billions of dollars wasted this year been directed toward existing and potential small business owners we could have already seen an emergence of those industries which could take the place of the ones now disappearing.
The President’s obsession with green jobs betrays not only an ignorance of economic principles, it demonstrates a lack of confidence in the will, drive and entrepreneurial genius of the American people.
Shall We Go A-Ramblin’?
Time for a little rambling, because there’s not nearly enough stream-of-consciousness blogging out there on the old interwebs . . .
I had a Freakanomics moment earlier in regards to a pencil and a house painter. In his wonderful series “Free to Choose,” the late Milton Friedman used a pencil to demonstrate the complexities of commerce. Holding his pencil to the camera (his was wooden, but it applies to mechanical too) he said that no one person could have created it. From the logging of the trees, the mining of the ores necessary to create the graphite and the bushing at the end, harvesting oil to create the eraser . . . you get the idea, a huge range of knowledge and skill were required to create a simple object we mostly take for granted. This is also a wonderful way to illustrate the much-touted “law of unintended consequences.”
Was reading an article over at the Economist and it mentioned the life of Korean-born immigrant Mr. Lee, who early in his stay here, painted houses for a living. This lead me to think of house-painters and their plight in our modern age. Aluminum or vinyl siding is quite standard these day, especially here in the wilds of not-quite-sub-urbia. This is of course a wonderful thing for homeowners; sturdy and long lasting, it is replaceable, but rarely needs to be painted. And thus, we come back to the pencil and the painter.
Think for a moment of all those whose lives are affected by the prevalence of vinyl siding; the loggers who’s trees are no longer needed, the miller and the carpenter no longer needed to shape that wood, and of course the poor painter no longer needed to beautify it. To employ another over-used metaphor, the intricacies of commerce are very much like the ripples of a pond, spreading ever-outward toward unseen shores. While it would be impossible to think of this web of connections ever time you make a purchase, perhaps we should spend some time while waiting in the check-out line to think of those effected by the purchases we are about to make, whether it be the tin-miner in South America who helped make the bushing for our pencil, or the political prisoner in China who helped make our Homer Simpson slippers.
So go on and break out your Christmas gift cards. Have a little commerce for the New Year. But why not spare a moment in thought for the wonder of everyday things. It might not make the new year better, but maybe . . .
Some Remarks on the Remarkable
An interesting confluence of events in recent days has lead me to a new appreciation of our modern comforts. On Saturday of last week, while playing football with some family, friends and their kids, my brother broke his leg. Nobody’s fault, just one of those things that happen. My mother and my cousin whisked him off to the hospital, and I stayed behind to keep an eye on the kids.
The break (several actually) turned out to be quite a bit more serious than we had expected, and on Tuesday he went into surgery. Four incisions, six pins and one titanium rod later he emerged, mostly, whole. He is currently at home recovering, doing relatively well, and driving his poor, long-suffering wife, up the walls.
What importance, you may be asking, does this have beyond being an fairly mundane family anecdote? A little patience, dear reader, and I will explain.
Today, Friday, I am chauffeuring him to the lab to have some blood tests done. One of the potential complications of such a break is the possibility for blood clots. These can lead to embolisms, infarctions, stroke and heart attacks. The doctors put him on a fairly strong blood thinner to prevent this, and of course it requires close monitoring. Hence our trip today.
Well, this got me to thinking about the state of modern medicine, and all the remarkable advancements available to us today. I think those of us who grew up in the latter portion of the twentieth century often take for granted the miraculous achievements that are available to us. Think about this for a moment. For the whole of human existence, until just about a century ago, man lived his life in nearly constant pain. The everyday use of pain killers such as aspirin for common discomfort was almost unknown. Minor infections and broken bones were often a death sentence. In-Vitro fertilization, skin grafts, Magnetic Resonance Imaging and organ replacements were not only nonexistent, they were virtually unthinkable. Today such miraculous treatments are common-place, everyday occurrences. The same day my brother was undergoing surgery to place a metal rod in his leg to strengthen his mending bone, his mother-in-law was in another hospital having spinal surgery. Spinal surgery. She was home within a day.
Soap-box time.
A great portion of these incredible advancements have happened right here in America, the result of doctors and scientists who unleashed the limitless potential of human imagination and were able to pursue their ideas freely. Debate on a Senate Health Care bill could begin next week, and I don’t think the timeliness of that debate could be more appropriate. As our representatives argue over the strength and weaknesses of legislation that could fundamentally transform the nature of American Health Care I think we should all take a moment to give thanks for the advancements that have made our lives so much safer, healthier and freer of pain.
In closing I would like to offer a heart-felt thanks to the men and women at William Beaumont Hospital in Troy, MI for the wonderful care given to my brother. He’s an ornery cuss, but we love him, and we thank you for taking care of him.
And to the rest of you who may be reading this, I wish you all the best, and a very Happy Thanksgiving.
An Aside
Okay, so maybe this is three post Friday, but got a chuckle when I came across this. David Feherty, Irish golf impresario, and CBS golf reporter went to Iraq back in ‘07 to get “more than the official line.” After his visit he had some very kind things to say about us yanks, and our military organizations (to read some of them head here). He concluded that “The smartest people America has are in Iraq.” That explains quite a bit about the current state of American politics and culture.
Finally, a good reason to bring the boys (and girls) back home.
On Taxation
Taxes are a necessity. In order for a Government to operate, it is only fair that it draw revenue from those citizens who benefit directly, and indirectly, from those things which flow from government. For too long though, the tax code has been used to manipulate and influence the populace, and thereby delegitimize the seizure of incomes and the uses those incomes are put to.
The Progressive Tax
A system of taxation that is simple and just is essential for the maintenance of a Democratic Republic. In a society where the power of Governance flows from the will of the people, those who supply the monies through which the government implements its policies must be accessible, understandable and most importantly, unilateral.
The Progressive tax was implemented to ensure that those who make the most, contribute the most. A flat rate which taxes a percentage of wages would of course accomplish this; twenty percent of ten thousand is much less than twenty percent of two million. The tax system we currently struggle under is intentionally obtuse and labyrinthine. Only those who have a deep understanding of it, such as those who have crafted it or worked within the system itself, may navigate its tangled skeins. This creates a small body of individuals whose skills are desperately sought, allowing them to set almost any price for those services. Thus, those who make the most bear the brunt of the taxation, and at the same time have the best recourse to avoid those taxes. This limits the revenue that government can utilize.
At the same time, in order to curry favor with voters, legislators and governmental executives promise more and more relief to those at the bottom of the income spectrum, to the point where over half of all earners pay no taxes at all, putting a further strain of those who do.
All this leads to an obvious and detrimental cycle where the definition of “rich” gradually expands to cover those defined as “poor.” Eventually we must come to the point where our society is divided evenly in half, where an arbitrary income level determines whether or not you pay taxes. This would eliminate the so called “middle-class” and force upon Americans that which has never existed in our society, a strict system of social and economic classes which are perpetually at war with each other.
Punitive Taxation
The only legitimate purpose of taxation is to fund Government programs. When the tax system is used to encourage or punish certain behaviors it violates the trust which is at the heart of our system of government.
The idea of social-engineering is repulsive to the individual spirit of the American citizen, and antithetical to the concept of personal freedom. Those behaviors which are deemed to be a danger to an ordered society are rightly relegated to the institutions of law and the courts. However, when there is not sufficient support to ban or outlaw specific behaviors, we have increasingly turned to the tax system to curb or arrest entirely these behaviors. So called “sin-taxes” are an attempt by those who wish to control others participating in an activity which is perfectly legal, but which they happen to disapprove of. Our Federal system is structured such that regions and municipalities are able to create and enforce local and state law, and if the popular opinion is such that some acts be banned, then it is just and right that they should pass such laws, so long as they do not violate those inalienable rights guaranteed by our Constitution. Those who find they are inconvenienced or opposed are free to travel to those parts of the country where such behaviors are still legal. To punish people performing perfectly legal acts is paternalism at it’s most oppressive and perverse.
On the opposite end of the spectrum are those “tax breaks” or “tax credits” which are designed to encourage citizens to engage in actions which are considered right, or just, but are more often then not simply “popular.” This is no less perverse than punishing legal actions. At its core is the idea that the American people are incapable of choosing what is best for themselves or their families. It is beyond the reasonable scope of government to dictate to the public which lawful actions they should engage in, and it is depraved and immoral that they should use the monies seized from others to do so. If a cause is just, it should suffice that the appeal be made to reasonable people, and that they freely choose to support it. And if the collective will of the people is insufficient to maintain such a cause, than by what right do we take the property of those who object in order to sustain it?
Capital Gains and Inheritance Taxes
Man’s time on this planet is finite, and so too are his labors. Property, including wages, are the products of those labors. They are a physical representation of the value of a man’s work throughout all the years of his life; the choices made and the opportunities granted and seized. Money cannot measure the value of a man, but money is one of the ways we use to measure the value of his work. Throughout history man has deemed it just that a portion of those labors should be tithed to the state, to provide for those things which are beyond the ability of the individual, but are necessary for the preservation of his life, his liberty and his prosperity.
One must wonder then at the justification for taxing not only the products of labor, but the benefits gained from wise or shrewd use of those products which he retains. If the goal of man is to increase his fortune, and thereby increase security for himself and his family, it is nonsensical to punish him for doing so. But this is what we do. The capital gains tax says that if an investment made should gain in value (and what else is an investment for), than it is just and right that any gain made should be taxed. This not only limits any return made, it also devalues those labors already engaged in which provided the money for the investment in the first place. This is a subtle and insidious way to discourage men from trying to raise to meet those opportunities which present themselves, and limits what they can make of themselves.
And what of the man who does manage to succeed in raising himself above the circumstances of his birth, who spends his life’s work to increase his fortune? That fortune (of whatever size, for surely we all define a fortune differently) cannot be passed down to his children without again sacrificing some portion of it to the state.
Final Thoughts
If the people of America are ever to reassert their sovereignty, and regain control of our Government, which is our right and our duty as laid out in the Constitution, we must begin to reexamine our relationship with that government, and that must include how it is funded and to what purpose those funds are put.
All Debts Public and Private
The Government bought the debt of GM and Chrysler, so now they can tell GM and Chrysler what to do.
The Government bought up the Banks’ debt, so now they can tell the Banks what to do.
How much of our debt does China own?
Indoctra-what now?
Americans are civically ignorant. At least according to a series of studies by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute. The studies show some frightening trends, including: elected officials tend to have a lower understanding of American history and Government than your average citizen, and that some colleges produce seniors who know less about civics than they did as freshman.
Thankfully, Jeremy Zilber, has a solution to this problem. Dr. Zilber (PhD, Political Science, Ohio State. natch) has penned a series of books to help educate our children on civic virtue, the responsibility of the citizenry in a Democratic Republic and the American legislative process. His books are available over at littledemocrats.net, and include such gems as; “Why Daddy Voted Democrat,” “Why Mommy Voted Democrat,” and “Mama Voted for Obama.”
The art that accompanies these colossal works of toddlerite literature springs from the skilled brush of Greg Bonnell who tends to favor a Berenstain approach, over a more subtle and refined Sendak aesthetic.
Here are some samples from the site:
With such a foundation, truly we can look forward to the generation of proud citizen politicians to come.
(H/T to Jay Nordlinger over at National Review)
