Friday, October 31, 2008

Socialism and the Very Wealthy

Shannon over at Chicago Boyz has a great post about how socialism benefits the very wealthy. It is based on a revealing article by the Tax Foundation about how the United States already has the most progressive income tax system among the wealthiest nations. And it goes back to a fundamental truth about socialism and it's sloppier brother Progressivism: While Marx's ideals were about worker empowerment, every time a nation becomes more socialist, the only ones who benefit are those in government and those who can influence government. It is a shame that when the Progressives claim to be fighting for the working poor and middle class, Conservatives never hit back with truth. When government grows its income, it has to spend the money somewhere. Only 60-70% of that money makes it back to the people in most governments, and 80% in the most efficient governments. The remaining 30-40% either stays in government or goes to the most favored outside of government, whether they be Wall Street bankers or Stuttgart military contractors with no-bid contracts. The same favored class lean on governments to regulate their competitors into a non-threatening position. Finally, when taxes are increased, they never destroy those producers already in power. They destroy those on the margin, which are small competitors and start-ups. Progressivism and increased central planning tends to create a small permanent upper class, and a large, poorer, more equal lower class. The only thing that allows greater class mobility is removed barriers to market entry (real deregulation), greater opportunity, and removed disincentives for investment.

The incomparable Barry Goldwater had this to say about progressive income taxes in his classic The Conscience of a Conservative: "What is a 'fair share?' I believe that the requirements of justice are perfectly clear: government has a right to claim an equal percentage of each man's wealth, and no more.... The graduated tax is a confiscatory tax. Its effect, and to a large extent it's aim is to bring down all men to a common level. Many of the leading proponents of the graduated tax frankly admit that their purpose is to redistribute the nation's wealth. Their aim is an egalitarian society -- an objective that does violence both to the charter of the Republic and the laws of Nature. We are all equal in the eyes of God, but we are equal in no other respect."

Sunday, October 19, 2008

Palin, Obama, and the French Revolution

I've heard a disturbing saying a lot recently from my poor, misled Democratic friends: "I want my President to be elite, to be smarter than me." To be fair, I hope that our President is smarter than them, too, but that's not what they mean. The implication is that because Sarah Palin went to the University of Idaho, majored in journalism, comes from a small town in Alaska, and hasn't yet made any decisions about foreign policy, she's less qualified to be President than someone who went to Harvard or Yale, has been in Washington for years, and has made hundreds of bad decisions about foreign policy. It's a dangerous sentiment.

A huge part of the reason that the First Republic failed in France was because after tearing down the monarchy, the proletariat supported the sans-coulottes, who were the members of the bourgeoisie that promised the most to the proletariat, and they were elected to the Directory. As could have been predicted, the new bourgeoisie leaders promoted the bourgeoisie above other classes, just as the aristocracy before them had done for the aristocracy, and the proletariat was no better off. Had the French followed the example of the Americans and allowed most classes to be involved in government, the compromise of leaving each other alone would have been seen as viable, and it is possible that a republic would have worked.

Right now, we have three members of the American bourgeoisie running for President and Vice President: two long-time Senators, and one young Senator who has been brought along by those of the political establishment. Sarah Palin is different. She is a member of the proletariat who cared enough about her children to run for City Council to give them a better town. When she didn't have enough impact, she ran for mayor where she could do more. Then after she accepted a state appointment and saw how corrupt her state government was, she ran for governor to revolutionize it and make it work better and more honestly for all the citizens including the proletariat. And she's been incredibly popular, because she has done exactly what she promised to do.

In a rare trust in a member of the proletariat by a member of the bourgeoisie, John McCain chose Governor Palin to be his second-in-command. It is an opportunity that rarely occurs without revolution. We have been told by our leaders over and over again that we should trust them, and that they know best how to take care of us. Over and over again that when given the choice, they will tax the proletariat to pay for the excesses of the nobility and bourgeoisie. Hopefully, if we can elect a member of the proletariat to the executive, the bourgeoisie and nobility will start to let the proletariat decide some things for themselves.

Wednesday, October 1, 2008

The United States House of Lords are Traitors

Not two days after the House of Representatives made the boldest stand for the regular guy in decades, the United States Senate voted 74-25 to spend $700 Billion more wealth created by regular middle-class guys and gals buying up horrible investments made by the biggest banks in America. After having told Pitchfork and Musket Junta member Will that the bailout bill has been opposed by a 200-to-1 margin by his constituents, John Cornyn voted for it. Apparently the Senate no longer believes that they are responsible to the American people, and vote based on the assumption that have a lifetime appointment. They have become the House of Lords. They either think that they and the bankers that have been testifying to them all week are smarter than us and that they know better than the entire country what is good for entire country, or they don't care what's good for entire country.

I had a viscerally angry reaction when, after the bill passed, Chris Dodd said that he thought the bipartisanship was in the mold of our founders. A little education for you Mr. Dodd: When Alexander Hamilton set up a National Bank, the last thing James Madison did was show bipartisanship. But then, politicians believed they had an obligation to protect the Republic from the monied interests in New York. And to be fair, the First Bank wasn't supported by taxpayers, although it did have a competitive advantage. Our founders rightfully acknowledged that whenever there's agreement in government, it's only to grow their own power at the expense of the freedom of citizens.

All of the likely suspects voted for this bill (except for Socialist Bernie Sanders), but scarily, so did some of the ones that Conservatives have come to believe that they can count on. Bob Corker, John Sununu, and Tom Coburn all voted for the bill, with promises that it doesn't signal the end of their conservatism. After January, it might not matter much. Angering conservatives (and most of everyone else) in an election year where the Republican brand is already damaged doesn't bode well for preventing a Democrat supermajority.

We've got one chance left to save the American people from this bill. The House will vote on the bill once more on Friday. The House leadership is going to be threatening committee assignments and chairmanships. We must continue to flood our Representatives with phone calls and emails, and tell them that the smart stand is with their constituents and against their leadership. If you have a few bucks, donate to one of the brave Congressmen's reelection campaign today. And pray. We're going to need some help.

God Save the Republic!

Notions of liberty: my inaugural Junta post

"There is no question that if one were to ask whether we Americans are moving toward more liberty or more government control over our lives, the answer would unambiguously be the latter – more government control over our lives. We might have reached a point where the trend is irreversible, and that is a true tragedy for if liberty is lost in America, it will be lost for all times and all places." - Walter E. Williams

I have been reading lately about the history of the Republican Party and its players. The hijacking of the GOP is nearly complete, and completely obvious to anyone who dares investigate. People with conservative principles have been systematically weeded out, if not completely destroyed. Promoted within the GOP are those weak-starred boot-licking generals consumed by a lust for personal power at all costs. They are experts at kissing ass and standing up for nothing.

Most of the GOP Hijackers' supporting crew have never pondered the proper role of government or any truly conservative principle. They care not for matters of liberty. They fall in line with the head puppetmasters--folks like GW, Rove, McCain, and Cheney--and salivate eagerly for any scrap of perceived power, or even just an "atta boy" from someone higher up on the political ladder. These spineless sergeants of the New GOP hold office at all levels in every state. It wouldn't occur to them to oppose big government legislation or shifts away from liberty because they don't operate based on a set of well-defined positions. The only position they understand is their current standing in the hierarchy on the ladder of power, and their lust for altitude.

The result for rank and file American patriots? We will only ever have the choice of two positions: kneel or fight.