The Metro

First of all, let me apologize for not posting anything this summer. This summer's job involves a lot of writing and staring at a compute screen and, quite frankly, when I get off I don't even want to see a computer for the rest of the day. However, tonight as I was riding back to my apartment on the metro I saw something that I felt I needed to share.

The metro is the lifeblood of D.C., taking people from home to work, back again, and to all points around the city. You quickly learn the system and become a pro at navigating the various lines to get from point A to point B in the shortest amount of time. You and the other riders become cogs in a giant machine. Nameless, faceless, lifeless.

Tonight, however, I was not caught up in the frantic commute and actually took the time to acknowledge that I was sharing a tiny metal car with countless other lives. It was at that moment that I saw them. A dad carrying his little girl on his back as we exited the car. They must have been in the car behind me because I did not notice them at all during the ride. What initially caught my eye about the pair was that the little girl, probably around 10 years old, was completely bald from chemo-treatments. As I watched the dad and his little girl walking through the station in front of me, I noticed that the dad, too, was bald. However, his baldness wasn't due to age or health. The top of his head was whiter than his face and neck, and bore the telltale razor bumps of a freshly shorn scalp. Immediately, it clicked - "he shaved his head for her."

This brief encounter was an amazing picture of love in the midst of a city that is all too often cynical and self-centered. As we go about our lives and daily commutes, we often lose sight of the fact that everyone around us has their own unique story and struggles. It's nice to take the time every once and a while to stop and think about the complete strangers that pass through our lives while waiting for the doors to open.

Social Security

Admittedly, I am not well-versed in the intricacies of Social Security policy. But an off-handed comment made by my Labor Law professor during a recent lecture got me thinking about the need for serious reform of the system.

"When you think about it, Social Security is really a giant Ponzi scheme."

The comment itself was one of those asides that could easily be missed or forgotten over the course of the hour and a half lecture. With the ongoing financial crisis and the oft-discussed Bernard Madoff Ponzi scheme, however, the comment became poignant. It struck me that the U.S. government, thorugh the Social Security system, is engaging in actions strikingly similar to those for which it is prosecuting Madoff.

Under his Ponzi scheme, which is worth about $50 billion, Madoff would pay investors not with profits made from the money they invested, but with the money paid by subsequent investors. When the financial markets started going under, Madoff's scheme collapsed and he was arrested for securities fraud. He now faces up to 20 years in prison and a $5 million fine if convicted.

Considering my professor's comment, an argument could be made that the U.S. government is operating a giant Ponzi scheme in the form of Social Security. The Social Security system operates (basically) in this manner: current employees pay into the system in the form of payroll taxes, which the government then distributes to retired individuals in the form of Social Security benefits. Thus, Social Security fits nicely into the definition of the Ponzi scheme: earlier investors (i.e. retirees who paid in while they were working) are receiving benefits out of the money that is being paid in by later investors (i.e. current members of the workforce).

My point is not to defend Madoff, who should certainly pay for his crime, but to point out the hypocrisy of the U.S. government prosecuting an individual for engaging in certain activities while the government itself could be said to be engaged in the same type of activity.

Environmentalists Are Funny

Penn & Teller go to an environmental rally to see if they can get some leftists to sign a petition to ban a dangerous chemical known as Di-hydrogen Monoxide (that's H20, or water, to those of us who went to high school). Hilarity ensues.

You Know, We Will Eventually Run Out of Money...

Another bailout is on the horizon. This time, we the people will be expected to foot the bill for the so-called "Big Three" automakers - Ford, GM, and Chrysler.

Frankly, I am so sick of these bailouts that I don't feel that it is necessary to take the time to outline all the reasons why these companies are in trouble (a perfect storm of failing to invest in a product that can compete and ruinous union contracts) and why the taxpayers should not be required to pay to keep them afloat.

Government bailouts for struggling companies are a recipe for economic disaster. Please contact your Representatives and encourage them to oppose the automaker bailout by clicking here.

A Conservative Without A Home

NOTE: The following post has been in the works for the past couple months as I have taken time to evaluate not only my own beliefs, but also where we stand as a nation. Over the past few days I have heard a wide range of reactions to the election of Sen. Obama. Some are jubilant, while others are angry and despondent. Personally, I allowed myself one day to "grieve" over the results, and then resolved to move forward. While we, as a conservative movement, may have lost the election, we have not lost our voice. The conservative movement must find itself once again and get back to the principles that we know will change this country for the better.

Over the past few years, I have begun to evaluate some of my long-standing political beliefs. A majority of this evaluation has come over the past year as I have had the opportunity to get more “hands-on” experience with policy-making. Although I still predominantly vote Republican, I find myself more disconnected with the hard “party-line” than in years past. As I have struggled with my evolving political identity, I have had the opportunity to have deep discussions of political philosophy with intelligent people of many different ideologies from mainstream conservatives to liberals, to libertarians, and even a “Christian anarchist” (a mixture of Christian theology with anarchist political philosophy that I still don’t quite understand).

Recently, a close friend and I were having a conversation about this subject and I mentioned to her that I often feel like a conservative without a home. I, like many other young conservatives, came to the party as a result of our upbringing and, as we were better able to understand the issues and develop our own opinions, a belief in free markets and limited government. For years, the Republican Party was the standard bearer for this philosophy under the leadership of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. However, as we have grown and become more engaged in the world, we have noticed that the party has substantially drifted from its roots. We now have a Republican Party that outspends than the Democrats and is increasingly aligned with evangelical “social conservatives” – a formula that yields anything but a commitment to free markets and limited government. Since the Republican Party continues to claim that it stands for these principles (indeed, many members of the party still do), it seems necessary to outline my understanding of them in order to better illustrate why I feel like a “conservative without a home.”

Free market conservatism is one area where I feel that the Republican Party has not drifted too far and stands a chance of rediscovering its principles. The best and most concise way that I have heard this principle explained is in the axiom, “the freer the markets, the freer the people.” As a free market conservative, I believe that there should be minimal government intervention in the economy. Anything beyond basic regulations to ensure the safety of consumers and prevent abuses of the market, I believe is beyond the scope of the government’s Constitutional authority. Now, I do not have any illusions that we will be able to reverse the effects of the New Deal and other government interventions that have essentially become entrenched into societal expectations. I do hold out hope, however, that we can scale back the scope of government intervention that has grown out of control in recent years. This out of control intervention is best illustrated by the massive and irresponsible transfers of wealth made through the Congressional practice of earmarking. Under this system, members of Congress are able to allocate funding for “pet projects” back in their home states with little to no oversight. Often, these earmarks have nothing to do with the overall goal of the bill that they are being attached to, and, I would argue, are an abuse (if not an outright violation) of Congress’ Constitutional authority to make the law. Government intervention, however, has not been confined to the area of funding abuses; it extends to nearly every aspect of the economy from taxes to over-regulation of the private sector. The laws of economics suggest that the best way to promote freedom and prosperity is to cut taxes to individuals and business and by scaling back regulations that have increased the cost of doing business. The Republican Party, to its credit, has remained true to the principle of cutting taxes. However, it has failed to cut spending and has increased, rather than decreased, regulations on business.

As opposed to economic freedom, I feel the most strain with the mainstream of the Republican Party on issues of individual liberty. Over the past two decades, the modern Republican Party has been taken over by the so-called “religious right,” which seeks to increase government regulation of the private lives of the citizenry. This has become apparent with the rise in power of evangelical political factions led by political/religious demigods such as Pat Robertson, Dr. James Dobson, and the late Rev. Jerry Falwell. At this point, I feel a brief clarification is in order. I am in no way questioning the faith of these men. Rather, my disagreement with them is in the way they have injected faith into government.

Our Declaration of Independence holds that all people have the right to “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” The social conservative movement, however, has endeavored to use their power in government to impose their own moral standards through the mechanisms of government. My personal belief is that the proper role of government is limited to those aspects outlined in the preamble of the Constitution: “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence [sic], promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” The brilliance of our Constitution is the same thing that leaves it open to abuse by those in power – its vagueness. The Founding Fathers laid out a foundation for a free society and a limited government with very few specifics. While this decision to leave out specifics underscores the decentralized nature of American democracy, it also allows those in power to read their own beliefs into the Constitution and dramatically distort its meaning. For example, the phrase, “promote the general Welfare,” is one of the most abused portions of the preamble of the Constitution. As the years have passed since the ratification of the Constitution, American policy has progressed further from the original intent of this clause. Especially during the 20th century, “promote the general Welfare” has been used to justify the massive expansion of government programs and social engineering. The left has used the clause to justify social welfare programs that result in massive redistributions of wealth. On the right, the clause has been used to justify government intervention in issues of personal morality such as prohibition and, more recently, the definition of marriage. The idea, from the social conservative movement, is that the government should regulate moral issues in order to protect the welfare of children and “traditional family values.” However, both sides have distorted the true intent of this clause. In Federalist 41, James Madison writes that the preamble of the Constitution was never intended to amount to “an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare.” Rather, the preamble of the Constitution, according to Madison, should be understood in the context of the entire document which stresses the limited and enumerated powers of government. Thus, the role of government is not to do whatever it finds necessary to promote the “general Welfare” of the country, but only that which it has been empowered to do. Currently, I can find no political party that fully aligns behind this ideal. The mainstream of the Republican Party (mostly social conservatives and neocons), as I have said, attempts to use the power of government to regulate many issues of personal liberty, and the left attempts to use the power of government to forcibly mold all aspects of society into what it views as a “fair” or “utopian” model.

Now, because of these objections, many would suggest finding shelter under the tent of Libertarianism. While I do admit to possessing strong libertarian tendencies, I also possess disagreements with the mainstream libertarian positions towards issues of law and order (esp. as it relates to drug policy and enforcement) as well as the proper role and scope of powers possessed by the U.S. military and intelligence communities. I am also uncomfortable with libertarianism because of its recent public image as reflected in the attention given to the candidacy of Rep. Ron Paul this election cycle. Due to Rep. Paul’s success and his incessant (infuriating) claims that he was a “true Constitutionalist,” libertarian ideology has become increasingly attached to his beliefs, many of which I find to be antithetical to sound reason and good Constitutional scholarship. As an admitted Constitutional nerd, I have spent and continue to spend much of my time studying the founding period. Over the course of this study, it seems clear to me that it is a futile endeavor to attempt to narrowly define the beliefs of the Founding Fathers to a neat and tidy set of core principles. Yes, liberty is the cornerstone on which the nation was founded and the oracle to which we should look in all matters. However, this nation was also founded amidst both military and political conflict, which has established a tradition of debate and dissent in our policy making process. Indeed, much of the legacy of Washington’s administration was forged by the intense disagreement between Alexander Hamilton’s political ideology of “power and responsibility” (as I called it in my thesis on Hamilton’s democratic theory) and Thomas Jefferson’s more populist beliefs. For Rep. Paul to define himself as a “true Constitutionalist” and thus suggest that his personal ideology is in lockstep with that of the Founding Fathers, then, is both disingenuous and highly arrogant.

Admittedly, I am still in the process of learning about libertarian ideology and, thus, my beliefs on the matter are constantly evolving. It is also important to note that there is much less uniformity within the libertarian community as to specific beliefs than within the two major political parties. Libertarianism, then, seems to be a much more free-form species of political ideology, which is one of its major strengths.

While the development of my political beliefs has left me feeling like a conservative without a home, I feel that this may not be a bad thing. The pressure exerted on the American public by the major political parties and the media to “choose sides” in the battle for the future of American democracy is a false pretence based on a desire to simplify what should be a complex struggle. I am reminded of my time spent working for a local branch of the Republican Party during which we distributed bumper stickers that read: “A True Republican Votes Straight Republican.” The intent was to build the party by encouraging people to vote for every candidate that had an “R” next to his or her name. This slogan, while effective for party building, simply encouraged people to take the easy way out and not consider the beliefs of each individual candidate and how those beliefs aligned with their own opinions on the role of government. It’s time that the American people woke up and realized this simple truth: democracy is hard. Self-government is not something we can delegate to political parties and our elected officials. Rather, we must be ever vigilant in maintaining it. After the Constitutional Convention’s final day of deliberation in 1787, a woman approached Dr. Benjamin Franklin as he was leaving Independence Hall and asked, “Well, Doctor, what have we got – a Republic or a Monarchy?” Franklin responded simply, “A Republic, if you can keep it.”

On Notice: Thomas DiLorenzo

Earlier this evening I decided to pay a visit to a new independent bookstore that just opened near my house (for those of you in the Dallas area, go visit Legacy Books - great bookstore). As I was looking through the stacks I came across a book entitled, "Hamilton's Curse: How Jefferson's Arch Enemy Betrayed the American Revolution -- and What It Means for Americans Today," by Thomas DiLorenzo. The basic thesis of the book is that the Hamiltonian political legacy was a betrayal of the ideals of the American Revolution and that Alexander Hamilton is to blame for the problems facing the United States today.

As many of you know, I wrote my senior thesis on Hamilton's democratic theory and am not shy about citing him as my favorite Founding Father. So, naturally, I was intrigued (and a little miffed) by DiLorenzo's thesis and decided to do a little research on DiLorenzo and the reasoning behind his claims. What I found was that DiLorenzo seems to be the kind of "historian" (and I use the term very loosely here) who prefers to manipulate history to fit within his own political biases than to report it accurately. For purposes of fairness it should be noted that DiLorenzo is a professor of economics and not history. However, this is no excuse for his distortions.

Since Hamiltonian scholarship is a bit of a passion of mine, I could go on at length on the subject. However, I will spare you all the boredom and simply attack a few of DiLorenzo's most egregious distortions.

First, DiLorenzo, in an column published on Lew Rockwell's website, claims that Hamilton "lied through his teeth in The Federalist Papers when he spoke favorably about states' rights and federalism," and thus betrayed the Revolution. The problem is that this is a hyperbolic statement based on quotes that DiLorenzo cherry picked to fit his particular ideology. DiLorenzo bases his assertion that Hamilton "lied through his teeth" on a speech given by Hamilton during the Constitutional Convention of 1787 in which he appears to advocate for what DiLorenzo calls a "dictatorial chief executive with king-like powers." In this speech, Hamilton stated that "the hereditary interest of the King was so interwoven with that of the nation, and his personal emolument so great, that he was placed above the danger of being corrupted from abroad; and at the same time was both sufficiently independent and sufficiently controlled, to answer the purpose of the institution at home." This particular speech had to do with Hamilton's belief in benefits of looking to the British Crown as a model on which to base the American executive. He was not, however, advocating an American monarchy. Rather, Hamilton was noting that even though the American Colonies had rebelled against the abuses of the British monarchy and Parliament, that some lessons could be learned from the model and modified to fit within the principles and ideals of the American Revolution. Specifically, Hamilton looked to the independence of the British monarch as a source of stability against the potential abuses of pure democracy. Hamilton, more than any other Founding Father, recognized the possibility that the colonies, having recently thrown off the yolk of a corrupt monarchy, would go too far with its brand of republicanism and establish a nearly anarchical state that would quickly become destabilized and destroy itself. DiLorenzo either did not do the necessary research or simply chose to ignore the context surrounding Hamilton's ideas for the American executive. If he had, he would have discovered another portion of Hamilton's 1787 address to the Constitutional Convention in which he states, "we ought to go as far, in order to attain stability and permanency, as republican principles will admit."

A second distortion is DiLorenzo's claim that Hamilton advocated "the creation of a large national debt for the sake of having a large national debt." Further, DiLorenzo claimed that the purpose of this debt was to tie the wealthy people to the national government so that they would "always support tax increases and bigger government." This is such an outright distortion (blatant lie) that I cannot even give DiLorenzo the benefit of the doubt. What DiLorenzo calls Hamilton's "creation of a large national debt" was not a creation of debt at all. Rather, it was a consolidation of the debts that the individual states incurred during the Revolution. The goal of this consolidation, as outlined in Hamilton's "First Report on Public Credit," was to allow the United States to quickly pay off the debts that it owed to other nations in order to establish good credit. Hamilton recognized that "states, like individuals, who observe their engagements are respected and trusted, while the reverse is the fate of those who pursue an opposite conduct." Thus, in order to gain the respect of the world, one of the first steps that the young nation had to take was the swift repayment of the debts it owed. In developing a policy for the repayment of public debts, Hamilton considered "whether such a provision cannot be more conveniently and effectually made by one general plan, issuing from one authority, than by different plans, originating from different authorities." To put it simply, would the Revolutionary War debts owed by the individual states be more efficiently paid off if left to the states to pay them or if they were assumed by the federal government and consolidated into a national debt? Since the states were no longer autonomous entities under the Union created by the Constitution, Hamilton believed that the best solution was to consolidate the debt in order to prevent the destabilization of the nation's credit that would occur if one or more of the states was unable (or unwilling) to pay off the debts that they owed. The assumption of the state war debts by the federal government also accomplished a secondary goal that Hamilton had: it created a sense of goodwill amongst the states to the federal government and further unified the nation. At that time, citizens of the United States felt more loyalty to their individual states than to the nation as a whole. This is understandable since prior to the Revolution each colony was autonomous, owing its only loyalty to the British monarchy. Once independence was declared, the colonies gained even more autonomy, creating only a loose confederation for the common purpose of throwing off the monarchy. The assumption of the state debts by the national government was one way that Hamilton believed a greater sense of unity could created amongst the individual states. This union, he rightly believed, was essential for the survival of the young republic.

Finally, DiLorenzo claims that Hamilton "spent his entire adult life lobbying for 'excessive' government." As I have shown in the above discussion on Hamilton's framework for the executive, DiLorenzo's claim is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of Hamilton. Again, drawing from Hamilton's speeches at the Constitutional Convention of 1787, we see that "excessive" government was not part of Hamilton's vision. Rather, his speeches reveal a fundamental belief that power naturally begets tyranny whether it is concentrated in the hands of the few or the many. The solution advocated by Hamilton was that power "ought to be in the hands of both [i.e. the few and the many] and they should be separated." Power, then, "if separated [...would] need a mutual check." Thus, when we actually look to history and Hamilton's own words, we see a political philosophy that advocates the quintessentially American notion of separation of powers as opposed to "excessive" government.

Since he has either been a lazy historian (at best) or blatantly distorted history to fit within his own political biases (at worst), Thomas DiLorenzo is officially on notice.

Obama (finally) Tells the Truth About His Tax Plan

The following video is an exchange between Sen. Barack Obama and a plumber who asked him to explain his tax proposal during a meet and greet. The plumber is preparing to buy a plumbing company with an annual revenue above $250,000 and wanted to know if his taxes were going to go up. Obama is surprisingly honest with the man telling him that not only would his taxes would go up under an Obama administration, but also that he would be bearing a larger tax burden in order to better "spread the wealth around."



This is a blatant statement of socialism coming straight from Sen. Obama himself. Obama's tax increases aren't just aimed at the wealthiest of the wealthy, but will hurt blue collar and middle class business owners like the plumber in this video. When we hear Obama speaking about a "slight" tax increase on those making $250,000 or more, we immediately think that this will only affect wealthy CEOs - the people who have the money to throw around. The problem is that Obama neglects to inform us of the laws that govern business formation. Most small to medium sized businesses businesses, like the plumbing company that the man in the video is preparing to buy, are structured under the tax laws in such a way as to receive what is known as "pass through taxation." "Pass through taxation" essentially means that all the businesses' earnings are attributed to the owners of the business as income, which is taxed at whatever rate corresponds to the owner's tax bracket. This is a different structure than that which applies to corporate earnings. Under the corporate structure (did somebody say wealthy CEOs?), business earnings are subject to double taxation - once at the entity level and then when the earnings are distributed among the shareholders and employees (the individual level). It is likely that this plumber will be running his newly purchased company as a sole proprietorship and, as a result, will be shot into the highest income tax bracket.

While I am on the subject of income tax brackets, Sen. Obama also told the plumber that "the folks who make more than $250,000 will be taxed at a 39% instead of a 36% rate." Currently, the highest tax bracket in our code is 35%. Sen. Obama is not only proposing adding new small business owners to the highest tax bracket, but is also proposing increasing the percentage of the income that is taken from those who fall under this tax bracket. Under the current tax code, a single individual must make $357,000+ in order to fall into the highest (currently 35%) tax bracket. According to what Sen. Obama is saying in this video, the minimum amount of annual income required to be included in the highest tax bracket would decrease to $250,000 (a difference of $107,000), while the amount of tax liability of those in this bracket would increase to 39% (a 4% change).

One final juicy bit of information. The plumber asked Obama if he would be open to a flat tax, which Obama said that he would, but that it is not feasible. Sen. Obama stated that the government would have to impose a 40% sales tax in order to make up the revenue. Here's the problem - the plan that Obama described was the fair tax and not the flat tax. A fair tax would replace the current federal income tax system with a nationwide sales tax, which is regressive and generally not favored. Under a flat tax, however, all income would be taxed at a single, low rate. A flat tax system would also get rid of the various deductions and loopholes that have led to corruption in the administration of the income tax. The only exception would be a generous personal exemption that would be available to every American and would result in the first $40,000 of income for a family of four being exempt from any tax. The proposal is based on an economic model known as the Laffer Curve, which shows that when government enacts tax cuts, revenues to the government actually increase. Back in March of 2006, Dick Armey, the former House Majority Leader who also happens to hold a Ph.D. in economics, testified before Congress on the wisdom of the flat tax proposal. You can read the full text of Leader Armey's testimony here.

At a time of economic crisis brought on by government mismanagement of the economy, the last thing that we need is Sen. Obama's plan to increase government intervention and redistribute wealth.