What Politicians Fear Most

How can we dig ourselves out of the mess we’re in?

When you visit a restaurant, you may be hungry for something-in-particular but that’s not on the menu so you pick something else instead,

So it is with my choice of political party.

I much prefer being identified as a Republican than as anything else.  I think government should not take most of my earnings to redistribute; I believe in a strong military, the importance of family and in private enterprise to create wealth for everyone.  In regard to Capital Punishment and Abortion, I believe an argument Ad ignorantiam is actually appropriate. As with the medical doctor dictum of “first do no harm”, if you can’t know if what action you take does harm or not, then why not err on the side of caution?  If we killed one innocent man, that’s too many.  Can you guarantee we won’t? No? Then we can’t kill any on death row. Can you guarantee that fetus isn’t a conscious human? No? Then we can’t abort even one or we’re possibly guilty of murder.  Unless, somehow, we all agree that murder’s ok – contravening the Commandments – then we’re stuck living with the consequences of life.

Where I itch a bit as a Republican is in areas where even my own party wants to pass laws that reach into my home and dictate how I live. But then, it seems to me, that’s what all politicians want to do, in the end.  After all, you can’t get elected promising to keep things as they are, to not spend money.

We already have a body of law that governs formal collections of individuals (two or more) for determining the rights of property and liability.  Why layer on more in the name of marriage – heterosexual, gay or otherwise?  In this, I see politicians of both parties engaging in flawed deductive reasoning which persuade us all into a falsely framed box.  Government should have nothing to do with marriage, gay or otherwise.

And calling out our politicians on that matter is what scares each of them the most, save for the hoary prospect of not getting re-elected.

Look at how we’ve made the elections the biggest national topic.  Look at the words everyone uses to talk about government: they are “running the country.”  WHAT?

If that’s your frame of mind, then it makes sense to soak as many people as possible for as much as possible to aggregate power at the national level in order to dole out according to each person’s needs…wow, isn’t that what Karl Marx wanted to do?  How do you feel about Marxism? Does the old Soviet model of central planning and control in service to the Proletariat appeal to you?

Last night Michele Obama waxed poetic about how her husband wants to help all you poor working class out there: “I see the concern in his eyes … and I hear the determination in his voice as he tells me, “You won’t believe what these folks are going through, Michelle…it’s not right. We’ve got to keep working to fix this. We’ve got so much more to do.”

It doesn’t seem to occur to a man who has never held a private sector job, met a private sector payroll, generated wealth instead of reaching for donations and taxes, that it’s not the government’s job to help those people.  He firmly believes it is.  The question is – with what resources?

“Leading” does not mean using force to pry dollars out of one citizen’s hands to give to another.  It’s that simple.  If Barack’s ability to leverage his weak resume and teleprompter driven oratory and the emotions of the working class Democrats with the guilt-driven and power-focus of the ruling class Democrats to truly lead, I would vote for him.  But that would mean he’d have to promise to pass fewer – not more – laws; cut taxes on EVERYONE  and shrink the government back to requiring less than 40% of the GNP and truly lead.

Trouble is, that’s not how he wants to be President.  He wants to stand in front of a townsfolk where a factory is already closing and recruit their votes by creating an impression that Government can keep that factory open.  Geez, Obama, that’s not how it’s done!  A strong economy, unfettered by a government that sees taxing as a way to get to the tools to help people is how you keep factories open.  Private companies, risking private capital are the only ones who can do that.

46 million people on food stamps!  That’s 46 million votes for someone who promises more of that, promises to “help” you.  If you like buying your groceries that way, I guess you’ll want to make sure you can.  After all, you can’t turn around the economy yourself. Right?

Hey, Michele says Obama’s lived the American Dream.  Really?

Michele: “And I love that even in the toughest moments, when we’re all sweating it – when we’re worried that the bill won’t pass, and it seems like all is lost – Barack never lets himself get distracted by the chatter and the noise.”

And that’s the most important thing ever, right….pass another bill. Create another law that requires taxes to enforce.

A successful parasite infects its host and feeds from it but never kills it.  Our digestive tracts are full of bacteria living off of what we eat and aiding digestion in order to ensure that we keep eating.  The HIV virus is an unsuccessful parasite because, left to itself, it kills all of its hosts.

Toxoplasma is found in the gut of cats. The parasite sheds eggs, which are then picked up and eaten by rats. The rats remain perfectly healthy. However, it turns out that the rat brains are subtly altered. Instead of fearing places where cats hang out, the poor rats actually come to prefer places where cats spend a lot of time. These rats are more likely to be eaten by the cats, thereby completing the lifecycle of the Toxoplasma parasite.  It’s reported that nearly half of mankind has a Toxoplasma infection.

Government doesn’t generate anything: food, inventions, wealth.  It must feed on the dollars generated by its host to do anything.

From RealClearMarkets.com:

Research shows that from the founding of our nation, 1787-1849 (63 years) federal spending averaged 1.7% of GDP. For the next 51 years, 1850-1900 (including fighting the Civil War) spending averaged only 3.1%. From 1901 till 1930 (including fighting WWI) it never reached 8%, and averaged approximately 3.2%.  At the height of the progressive movement (including FDR’s New Deal) federal spending as a percentage of GDP never went above the 1934 level of 10.7%. Even after the historic 1944 (WWII) level of 43.6%, spending had fallen by 1948 to 11.6% of GDP.  In short, for the first 130 years of the U.S.’s 224 year existence, federal spending as a percentage of GDP averaged around 2.5%!

What is it today?  16%!

And that’s just what the Whitehouse reports.

The year I was born 1957, total government spending was 27% of what you and I produced (at that time, it was just you as my product was likely “gross” but not measured.)

  • Federal Gross Spending 18% GDP
  • Intergovernmental -1% GDP
  • State Direct Spending 4% GDP
  • Local Direct Spending 7% GDP
  • Total Spending 27% GDP
    * http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/total_1957USpt_13ps5n

What is it today? (First, meditate on life in the US in 1957 and how it is today…Korean War and Iraq; the 50’s recovering from WWII and 2012 in a deep recession; you probably lock all your doors now.

Ok, here it is:

  • Federal Gross Spending 24% GDP
  • Intergovernmental -4% GDP
  • State Direct Spending 9% GDP
  • Local Direct Spending 11% GDP
  • Total Spending 40% GDP
    **http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/total_2012USpt_13ps5n

Forty Percent??

Wow.  At what point, does that future number kill the host?  Will our politicians fear that more than not getting re-elected? Not so it’s noticeable.

How can we change the national conversation so that presidential elections matter less and releasing individuals to create wealth matters more?


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.